Ann Davidow

It was only a matter of time until violence erupted as it did recently when the referenda-by-shouting crowd attempted to overrun a health-care town-hall meeting in Florida. Prevented from entering they blamed security measures for the confrontations that ensued. At other locations belligerents distort the basic freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly with staccato shouts of "lies" and "liar" even before meetings can be effectively convened. And a thinly-veiled racial undercurrent animates the agenda of these throngs as it does much of what passes for acceptable discourse by those who inflame the less stable members of an unfailingly unenlightened electorate.

Instead of speaking to actual issues, waves of unruly crowds swarm scheduled events for the express purpose of preventing civilized, informative discourse from occurring. The most peculiar feature of this obstructionist conduct is that participants seem to lack any real understanding of what health-care reform would involve. "It's not my America anymore", one tearful attendee exclaimed. Oddly, many of the protesters are elderly, no doubt already receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits. By some contorted mental process, encouraged by unprincipled pundits and organizers, these folks seem not to grasp that the programs in which they are enrolled are in fact government-run.

And in what has become standard operating procedure among right wingers, crude methods are passed off as acceptable expressions of dissent. Tim Phillips, one of the primary organizers of the boisterous hordes that have fanned out across the nation, appeared on Thursday's Rachel Maddow Show, and tried to make the case that liberals promote their causes similarly. However, most observers of the recent disturbances say they have never seen anything quite like the operations orchestrated by Phillips and celebrated by the ravings of people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

The country is awash in lies, double speak and a failure to exercise common sense. Politicians lie to everyone including supporters. Banks and insurance companies cheat customers without an ounce of shame. Opponents of health-care reform lie about what proposals really say. And Republicans equivocate about whether President Obama is actually American-born instead of saying 'there are some nuts in our party; we call them "birthers", just ignore them.' House Whip, Eric Cantor blames flak about the birther thing on the media that, admittedly, recognizes a juicy item when it falls into their lap.

Democrats Max Baucus, Alaska's Begich and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, not to be outdone by the fatuous stands of their counterparts, have been holding off committing to confirm Judge Sotomayor. Baucus, busy working on health care, said he hadn't given much thought to the nominee - - talk about not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Since that comment, however, he seems to have taken a moment to educate himself and is coming around. Nelson and Begich are said to be influenced by NRA disapproval of Sotomayor, as if making points with the NRA were their most pressing concern.

We may have reached the pinnacle of life in the slow-witted lane - - a condition arrived at when fringe elements in Congress and the media are mainstreamed, blurring the distinction between truth and propaganda. Put lipstick on a pig and it still ruts in the mud. And a clean shirt, nice tie, pretty dress or other trappings associated with regular folks can't disguise the true nature of the race-baiting, trash-talking tyrants of the airwaves and our legislative bodies who blur the distinction between humanity and depraved indifference to honorable, fact-based discourse and the needs of the American people.

On the simplest level, as former President Bush said and Grover Norquist repeated the other day, no-one in this country is denied health care because they must be served in hospital emergency rooms. But emergency-room treatment can hardly be defined as real health care. Besides, that kind of 'care' is expensed either by charging more to paying 'customers' or by finding ways to tap into government-subsidized plans already in place.

The American people are buffeted by political forces too often driven by narrow partisan goals that focus on irrelevant side issues calculated to delay and disrupt any serious reform or far-reaching legislation. You do, however, have to hand it to the Conservative wing of the Republican Party; they are masters at disseminating fear and misinformation, and their supporters eagerly spread the word.

One of their most deplorable gambits is the use of racial innuendo many Republicans still seem to find useful in pursuing their larger objectives. The "birther" issue is a not-so-subtle attempt to use Obama's African heritage to undermine his presidency. By refusing to accept publication of his birth certificate stating he was born in Hawaii they question the legitimacy of our first black president - - although that exceedingly strange black man, Alan Keyes, is working feverishly to keep the "birther" thing alive.

There is a poisonous atmosphere across the land these days, animated and perpetuated not only by people who are obviously biased but also by people who ought to know better and should show some restraint in their public behavior and comments. Just when it seemed as if the country had moved past its habit of racial posturing one has only to refer to the recent comments of Pat Buchanan and reflect on the Cambridge MA incident in which Harvard Professor Gates was arrested out of his home for "disturbing the peace."

With respect to Buchanan, there is something almost surreal about his overwrought rants regarding notions of the beleaguered white man. His assertion that, because white men wrote the nation's founding documents, they are somehow forever to be considered more important than anyone else requires a total rejection of the contributions made by people of color from the first moments of our history - - in every war, as an industrial  workforce, as builders of infrastructure and our capitol city. His irresponsible, albeit heartfelt, fulminations serve to provide the rabid right with an excuse to engage in the worst kind of race baiting as well as an unwarranted sense of privilege.

Most people are not health care experts, but then neither are they financially tied to the insurance industry or pharmaceutical manufacturers except in so far as their medical premiums help pay executive salaries, increase the bottom line of those business interests and nourish the stockholders invested in them. But is the business of providing medical coverage the same kind of venture as, say, banking? What are acceptable profit margins when addressing the health care of human beings? Should absolutely all things function under a capitalistic umbrella driven by concerns about how the Stock Market responds?

In the discussions now taking place in Congress and throughout the country the word "competition" often drives the debate, but it has different meanings depending on who uses it. To industry hawks it means a system that rewards the stewards of medical practice who represent insurance companies focused on turning huge profits which in turn help fund congressional war chests or enhance personal investment properties. When reformers use it the word means a new approach that would create a government option to compete with private plans in a way that would cut administrative costs, lower salaries to more reasonable levels and remove the profit motive from the conduct of health care. For many self-interested parties, that isn't the kind of competition they had in mind.

My goodness, the subject of free speech elicits a lot of strong feelings. It is of course absolutely vital for different points of view to find their way to the public forum. But this bedrock freedom should be used judiciously - - not to inflame passions with half-truths and emotional hot-button propaganda. The obscenities and sheer lunacy that surfaced during the presidential campaign and later at Tea-Bag events, as well as shouts of "terrorist" when Obama's name was mentioned at some Palin events were shameful utterances easily dismissed as the rants of the knuckle-dragging crowd.

But those who deny the existence of race-based anti-Obama rhetoric during the last campaign should refer back to some of the not-so-subtle innuendoes that became more strident as the campaign wound down. One needn't be a racist to resort to defamatory language when the going gets tough; still it seems unfortunate that such tactics continue to be just part of that thing we call politics. The "race card" as some call it, wasn't part of the Obama game plan; he'd wanted other factors to define him as a candidate. Rather it was dealt from the deck others chose to stack.  And if there were incidents demeaning Hillary Clinton or women in general, they weren't coming from Obama backers. It was, after all, a John McCain supporter who asked him at a rally how he was going to beat "that bitch", the assumption being that Clinton would be the Democratic candidate.

Something very unpleasant is happening in this country.  Many of us were lulled into believing that race and gender were no longer subjects for political vitriol.  But the Sotomayor hearings and a black family in the White House have shown that was an overly optimistic assessment. People with loud voices and daily access to microphones, cameras and blogs have made ugly forms of expression seemingly acceptable.

Pundits of dubious intellect regale listeners with lame attempts at humor, and a host of anchors and political hacks try to convince us their observations are based on a careful distillation of facts. Pat Buchanan, still drooling over Sarah Palin, sent colleagues at MSNBC into fits of laughter when he suggested that "first dude" Todd Palin should take Levi Johnston (father of daughter Bristol's child) down to a creek and hold his head under water "until the thrashing stops." That's funny? And in a telling moment Senator Grassley on Wednesday's Morning Joe said his side was more interested in Sotomayor's speeches than her actual record. These are very troubled people.

Religious zealotry tends to cloud rational thought and defy standards of science and logic, not only as it is expressed in repressive regimes around the world but as a political force here at home. The sense of self-righteousness that conflates religious belief with politics defines positions and creates a bond among political allies. And it partners with wild notions of Socialism and fears that the country will suddenly turn "European."

Bill O'Reilly says President Obama lacks religion and wants to remove it from the public forum. That's nothing new coming from O'Reilly. After all, he started a campaign to save Christmas from Grinch-inspired Liberals. But using religion as the lynchpin of a partisan agenda often seems more political than devotional. Opposition to gay marriage, abortion, same-sex relationships and various other narrow mindsets are hardly the focus of biblical writings. Neither do free markets, corporate dominance and disdain for the poor and ethnically suspect inform core Christian doctrine. Yet many prominent Christian politicians embrace just such arrogant, exclusionary 'values.'

The country's dire straits could present the Obama administration with an opportunity to achieve much needed reforms of health care, financial markets and the environment. At the same time the Republican spin machine is busy spitting out alternative do-nothing proposals disguised as actual ideas. In the face of unusual economic stress conservatives have been pitching the old familiar refrains about tax-and-spend Democrats, the need to assert budgetary controls, cut the deficit and ensure our national security.

Unusually virulent partisan rhetoric accuses President Obama of everything from the development of fascist-socialist programs to pursuit of a hidden traitorous agenda in support of 'the other side' whoever that might be. The farcical approach of right-wing media pundits isn't all that unusual; what is passing strange, however, is the willingness of party regulars to accept dangerous nonsense as if it were part of a serious debate. Apparently their idea of a big tent is a mixture of traditional ideology and gibberish.