Man, what a day, part one: Dances with Conservatives

[usernamenumber]

Woke up and ate breakfast as I drove to Chelmsford. Rep Nikki Tsongas was speaking on healthcare. As I mentioned yesterday, I'd heard about some really nasty tactics that opponents of reform were taking and I wanted to see for myself. The meeting was originally going to be at a grocery store, but when I got there I was directed instead to city hall "because of the number of people who have expressed interest in attending". When I arrived there were maybe a hundred people outside, and I later learned that that was the overflow, the actual meeting having already been filled to capacity. One thing I have to hand the conservatives, they are really organized around this issue. Seriously, if you support Obama's health care reforms, you need get out there an start representing, because the great majority of the people there did seem to be against it, and those I spoke to were indeed locals.

I didn't get to see Tsongas, so I don't know if there were attempts to chant her down or not, but there was indeed some seriously offensive stuff from representatives of Lyndon LaRouche's PAC outside: pictures of Obama with a Hitler moustache, a giant banner that read "Obama's Nazi Death Plan", complete with swastikas and gory imagery, and booklets with a smiling Obama photoshopped into a meeting with... Hitler. No, I am totally not making this up.

...and yet, that's not really what I want to write about. The event actually turned out, on the whole, to be uplifting in one way, and deeply frustrating in another (aside from the Hitler stuff).

The uplifting part was that despite not getting into the event I ended up spending about two hours engaged with some of the anti-reform activists there... in a civil and reasonable discussion. Said discussion was, shall we say, animated at times, but particularly the three guys I talked to the most, were nonetheless at least respectful enough for my standards, and listened in turn when I was speaking. Interestingly, they all seemed to lean more toward libertarianism than typical republican conservatism. They all sincerely feared that the proposed health care reforms were designed to put private insurance options out of business, and that the resulting single-option system would lower the quality of care, put too much power in the hands of the government and remove the incentive for innovation from the medical industry. They were obviously well-practiced in their arguments, which they made passionately but, for lack of a better term, with a minimum of wingnuttery and a willingness to hear out, if not accept, other opinions.

I call the experience uplifting partly because, hey, I love a good argument so long as it doesn't get personal. It's nice feeling to be able to disagree with someone, even loudly, and still have everyone leave with a sense that they contributed something to and got something from the exchange. Heck, by the time we'd been at it for an hour or so, when someone did try to jump in in an overly confrontational way, they told him to back off.

But it was also uplifting, or perhaps 'enriching' would be a better term, because I got to interact with a part of the political spectrum that I don't get to interact with often (except perhaps for my dad), and the people I talked to were in a lot of ways not what I expected. For example, one was an Indian immigrant who had made it big here, doing the American Dream thing (surprisingly it was him who trotted out the old "white, Christian males are the most oppressed group in this country" line). Another worked at a VA hospital, and it was his experiences and frustrations with working at that hospital that convinced him that government having a hand in civilian health care was a bad idea. He actually gave me his name and that of his hospital and said he'd give me a tour any time-- I'm tempted, to be honest, particularly if anyone else wants to come along. In any case, I try very hard not to fall into the "us and them" trap, but when you don't actually get out there and talk to "them" like real people, it can be hard. Likewise, it was also good to represent their "them" and be reasonable and respectful in return.

But then we get to the way in which the encounter was deeply frustrating. Basically, I was not prepared for the discussion.

I'd gone there partly to see for myself whether the reports of bullying were true and to help raise a voice for civility if they were, but partly to try and learn more about this issue because, frankly, I feel swamped. If forced to pick a side, I support Obama's plan because the system is broken and for all their bright ideas now the conservatives had a long time to fix it and didn't, but that's far from an actual understanding of the issue. So I tried to hold my ground with these guys, and while there were things points I could contend with confidence, and even a few they even conceded to me, I ended up doing a lot of "Well, I can't speak to that...", and "I'll have to take your word for that", and "That makes sense, but if it's as cut-and-dry as you say, why do so many others see it differently?", which of course played right into their hands, as they always had a ready, if cynical, response. In fact, the cynical side of me wonders whether the reason they were so friendly was at least in part that they saw me as a starry-eyed liberal who was finally being confronted with Facts for the first time and was thus on the virge of "coming around". There were several good-natured but patronizing comments along the lines of "Oh, I can't wait to see what you're like in 10 years", and of course that one Winston Churchill quote (...which turns out to possibly be a misquote?) came up.

And really, I worried that maybe they were right. Being relatively ill-versed in law, history, and sometimes it seems every subject but gaming and Linux, I had to admit that I found many of the cases they made compelling, if un-palatable. Then again, this is something I've noticed about myself a lot: If someone says something authoritatively about a subject of which I am ignorant, I tend to find that argument persuasive. I have gained enough wisdom to question the impulse and not buy into things as a knee-jerk reaction, but all that awareness does is cause me to pull my hair and be unwilling to accept any authority without gobs and gobs of research. Indeed, when I got home and talked to Josh, whom I generally regard as a reliable source for a well-informed liberal point of view on political issues, his counter-arguments to some of the points I relayed were similarly compelling, swinging me back to his side. Eventually I'll probably talk to my dad about this, and he'll make good, reasonable-sounding arguments to sway me back in the conservative direction.

It's maddening! I feel like my choices are to either quit my job and take up research full-time (because let's face it, real, primary-source research take craptons of time, dedication and subject-matter expertise), or pick an authority to take largely at his or her word, or just give up on the whole damn thing and be a typical ignorant, apathetic quasi-citizen (fun fact: the term "idiot" comes from the word the Greeks used to deride people who didn't participate in politics-- it shares a common root with "idle").

So yeah, frustrating.

The day wasn't over, though. Apparently today was to be my big "up with people what I'm not usually up with" day.

Decided to split this into two posts, because some of the other things that happened that day involve possibly-flock-worthy content, so, "Continued in Part Two", as they say.

Comments

[sharkpoof.livejournal.com]

I strongly disagree with obama's healthcare plan. I'm not a nutbag though I am pretty conservative in many respects. Would you like a friendly debate on the issue?? I voted for Obama and this is on of the many ways he's disappointed me though my qualms are more with representatives and senators.

[usernamenumber.livejournal.com]

I would love to hear what and why your position is. It would not really deal with the more fundamental problem, as without going out and researching this mammoth subject on my own I fear I'll still feel like you're yet another opinionated person whose opinion I must accept, reject or withhold judgement upon based on... I don't know what. Sometimes it seems as simple as which position has been presented to me most recently.

That said, yes, I would be happy to hear what you have to say.

[sharkpoof.livejournal.com]

My major qualms deal with comparisons to medicare. Medicare is the single largest entitlement spend the country faces today. The cbo is warning us that this along with obama's spending plans are going to double the debt in 10 years and I just don't think it's sustainable unless you find a tax source more dependable than rich people or consumer spending.

[lmpshd.livejournal.com]

Obviously I haven't heard the actual arguments they gave you, but I do want to say a few things based on my own experiences talking to libertarians. First, the complaints of the guy working at the VA hospital were surely justified -- from everything I've heard, the system is notoriously neglected and underfunded. I would counter to this and many other arguments that the solution is not to scrap the system (and replace it with WHAT?) but to fix it. We have a pervasive problem in the US that while most average people are (often justifiably) suspicious of government programs, there are powerful people with strong ideological opposition to such things (and much to gain from their elimination) who have been, for decades, feeding that suspicion by making sure these programs are chronically underfunded and therefore function BADLY. So of course, if the only government programs you've seen in action are the ones that are denied the resources they need to work properly, you might get frustrated enough to think we'd be better off without them.

I would however submit, that many other developed countries manage to make such programs work -- never perfectly, but certainly better than the VA hospitals.

One more point: libertarians tend to argue from the perspective that freedom is the most sacred value in society, that any program that curtails it unnecessarily must be fought. That sounds good so far as it goes, but it simplifies many realities of the world in which we live -- I'd even agree with them if I thought that the world were a fundamentally just place and people by and large are given the resources they need and paid what they deserve for the work they do. But in the absence of a more obviously interventionist and just God than the one we may or may not have, this simply doesn't work -- the free market certainly has no will to do good or evil for anyone, it simply does what it does, and I personally wouldn't like to be at its mercy all the time. In this sense, Libertarianism is a rather absolutist point of view, as is Communism on the other side, where instead of ensuring maximal freedom, the system actively tries to enforce justice (with often unforeseeable consequences, even if you don't assume the leaders are corrupt).

I happen to think freedom and justice are both sacred, and I acknowledge that they sometimes conflict with each other, but I also think that freedom isn't possible without justice: my freedom does me very little good if I lack the resources to take advantage of it. In short, we need to find a middle ground between the two absolutes. We can then debate what the optimal compromise might look like. (Seriously though, those who think that Obama's proposals have anything seriously to do with Communism need to go and do some reading up on Communism.)

[truthspeaker.livejournal.com]

I think I agree with most of this. A couple of points I would like to add to the above, which you may or may not agree with:

1) I think part of the health care issue is whether or not you think the rich should help fund health care for the poor.

2) I am personally in favor of this (point 1), but I'm not certain Obama's plan is the best way to accomplish this. I personally advocate free universal *preventative* care -- the type of care that if given now for a small cost can detect and prevent huge costs later on. This frees up a lot of health care resources that could be used to raise the overall quality of care.

3) The free market can cause people who did no wrong to suffer. (There are many examples, but consider a worker laid off because technology made him obsolete or because nobody buys wigits anymore.) It makes sense for the government to provide a cushion to those who meet with ill fortune through changing economic climates.

4) The less unreasonable claims being made are more that Obama is Socialist than Communist (I agree anyone claiming he is a Communist really doesn't understand the definition of Communism), and I've argued about the definitions of Socialist before -- classical "government ownership of everything" Socialism versus modern Swedish-style Social Democracy. No, he doesn't want to eliminate private ownership, but he does advocate a strong government and having the rich pay for the poor. Then again, I think these are fine things to advocate, though Republicans and Libertarians might disagree.

4) Health care is expensive. It is so expensive that we do not have the resources to provide the best possible health care for everyone. Limits have to come from somewhere. Either it comes from ability to pay or from a government-mediated compromise.

5) Most people view health insurance not as a prepayment system for a possibly large cost in the future (such as having your home burn down) but as a pass for unlimited health care. This is problematic because of point #4.

[lmpshd.livejournal.com]

No argument from me on any of this. I am particularly in agreement about preventative care.

I do think it's important to make a distinction between Socialism and Social Democracy... it's made more difficult by the fact that while the latter is a commonplace, well understood and relatively uncontroversial concept throughout Western Europe, Americans typically have no idea what it is or that such a thing is possible.

[ryca.livejournal.com]

1. I don't know "enough" about the proposed plan and I admit that freely. I'm working on it.

2. I know that it frustrates me when people claim that Obama is trying to "take away" their healthcare, because he's not (although the "it might weaken private healthcare to the point of extinction" argument interests me because it somehow implies that government healthcare would be really good...).

3. I have lived in France, my sister lives (and has twice given birth) in the Netherlands, my friend lives in Denmark, and I'm dating/living with a Canadian. I do know that compared to all of those systems, our current heahthcare system is a joke at best and borderline criminal at worst, and what I've heard of Obama's plan is at least far better, although I doubt anything could be "ideal". No time or brainpower right now to go into detail or give examples about why my experiences with healthcare in other countries give me such a positive view, but I'll gladly share more later if you like.

4. I try to pick 3 or 4 "trusted sources" (one or two public figures and one or two Really Smart Friends/Family) to carry the weight of most of my researching for me, and then I supplement it with my own. On a good day, I feel like I can trust people who's views differ markedly from my own, which helps me feel like I'm not just getting some party line.

5. Good on you for not being an idiot. ;)

[tiurin.livejournal.com]

My usual response to that stupid Winston Churchill quote comes from a friend of mine- "Even assuming that such a gross overgeneralization has any basis in reality, why do you think you're getting the better end of the deal? I'd rather be Forrest Gump than Emperor Palpatine." Of course, I often get here after some conservative or libertarian has completely misread Adam Smith, so...

Personally, I have nitpicks w/Obama's health plan, I think it's still far better than our current state of dysfunctionality.