Through the Looking Glass

We all have our own particular views and they are certainly not going to be in step with everyone else's. However, there is a point where a viewpoint departs so far from reality that it does no one any good. Case in point is a recent post on the American Thinker blog titled, 'Fluke and Liberals' Bodyguard of Lies'. It touches on the uproar over the contraceptives debate (it is 2012, right?) and the Congressional testimony of Sandra Fluke. As you probably know by now, she's the Georgetown law student that Rush Limbaugh raked over the coals, on-air, for three straight days a few weeks ago. Picking and choosing his words in such a way as to belittle and insult her in every way he could, including referring to her as a 'slut' and a 'prostitute', among others. I had some warning of the kind of piece it was, but wanted to read it anyway. Either I have an insatiable curiosity for the views of others or I'm a glutton for punishment. Probably a little of both. The American Thinker article was indeed pretty eye opening and my amazement, and irritation if I'm to be honest, began with the second sentence, which summed up the author's bias, misinterpretations and a complete misunderstanding of what a Liberal actually is.

"Because liberals are at war with American society and their true beliefs are repugnant to most Americans, liberals constantly conceal the truth of their beliefs with sweet-sounding lies."

I don't know about you, but my first thought was, "Wow!" There is so much wrong with that one sentence that it's difficult to even know where to start. Most surprising to me is that the author obviously, truly believes this. But it's just so . . . out there. When I look for an example of a fringy, right wing, through the looking glass mind set, this would be exhibit 'A'. I give him credit for stepping off with vim and vigor. None whatsoever for accuracy or critical thinking, but boy does he have the unwavering, absolutist swagger down to a 'T'!

I won't play point, counterpoint with the entire post, though believe me I would dearly love to. To be fair to the author, I give him props for imaginative use of rarely utilized metaphors and historical personalities. I mean, really, when was the last time you read something that called out Nietzsche, Caligula or Quetzalcoatl, much less all of them?! Though, to be a bit critical, these and other historical references felt rather forced. More a way to show how well read he was than to actually illustrate or illuminate his point. As such, you will also find references to Communism, Nazis, Roman Emperors, 'true evil' and other pointless and silly hyperbolic statements.

One of the points that the author harps on incessantly, in his aforementioned wild and historically mismatched way, is that it's wrong to require religiously associated, public institutions to offer insurance coverage to their employees that goes against a religious belief of the institution. Specifically that Catholic hospitals and universities shouldn't have to offer contraception coverage for their employees. This is utter, one dimensional nonsense! It only makes any sense at all if these are closed institutions that hire ONLY devout Catholics. Otherwise it is the employees who are having their rights infringed based on a theological tenant that they may not agree with! Does the author think that every employee of these institutions is required to convert to Catholicism as a requirement for employment? If not, then what gives the employer the right to restrict employee insurance options based on their own moral views? By that logic everyone would be beholden to their employer's moral judgements for their medical coverage.

As far as I'm concerned, and I think this fits with the general Liberal viewpoint, I think everyone should be able to practice their faith and live their lives as they see fit. But your right to do that ends when it infringes on my rights. That's what living together in a democracy is all about. We are all different, with different moral foundations and considerations, but we have to live together. The only way that works in a free society is to set the limit of your faith and moral views at the point where my rights begin. I respect Catholics right to practice their faith and live life based on their beliefs, but that doesn't mean they can enforce those beliefs on anyone else, especially non-Catholics.

Contrary to the authors bizarrely distorted theory about Liberals, they aren't trying to force anyone to sell their soul. They just want to limit your ability to force your morals onto someone else in the guise of religious or personal freedom. And that is what this is all about. The author has made the classic mistake of getting so worked up about what he sees as wrong that he's neglected to step back and consider it objectively. He fails to even glance at the other side of the argument. It's so much easier for him to mount his high horse and whine about how horrible Liberals are for saying a religious organization can't force its secular employees to live by its moral code. Boohoo! I'm afraid he has it backwards. But seeing both sides takes so much more energy and is nowhere near as satisfying as a good, full throated pity party!

The author's whole post, while well written and, forgive the pun, liberally seeded with historic markers, is 180 degrees out of line. To claim Liberals are secret totalitarian monsters at a time when the State and Federal government are replete with conservatives attempting to legislate morality is mind blowing. That's why this post was so tough to read. It was like reading an article from an alternate universe, where everything is reversed. And just like Limbaugh, the author seems to have no idea what Ms. Fluke was even testifying about. She spent the majority of her testimony speaking specifically about the use of birth control pills, not for contraception, but as a medical treatment. Even I know that birth control pills are often prescribed for non-sexual reasons! So this is indeed a women's health issue and not, as some brainless prats have claimed, a matter of too much casual sex. As Ms. Fluke stated in her full testimony:

"This is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends. A woman’s reproductive healthcare isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority. These are not feelings that male fellow students experience. And they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder."

Despite using Ms. Fluke's name in just about every paragraph, in the end, the author's post is less about the Fluke/Limbaugh controversy than it is a letter of condemnation, denouncing anyone with the slightest progressive leaning. His accusations of intolerance and "liberal faith" are made up out of his fevered imagination. The piece is muddled even more by his obvious confusion between Liberals and the small group of activist Atheists when he starts blathering about such things as opposition to nativity scenes on public land. Something that only a minority of Liberals give any thought to. Then there is the Sharia law nonsense that only reinforces the author's warped thinking. Yes, there are Liberals who are a little 'out there'. Yes there are Liberals who will fight to stop nativity scenes from going up in front of the county courthouse. But the majority of Liberals are happy to let others live their lives as they wish, unless it infringes on someone else's rights. As I've stated, the author's thinking is way out of whack when compared to reality, but I wouldn't go out on a limb and declare that ALL Conservatives are this, or ALL Conservatives are that. There's a great line from the movie Gettysburg that I've always liked and it seems to fit well here. "Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." I'm afraid that's exactly what the author of the American Thinker post is doing, judging 'Liberals', as a group, based on his own highly skewed caricature. Reality, you see, is a bit more complex.

Partisan

Over the years, as I've posted opinion pieces and commented on various online articles, I have often been chided for being 'partisan'. That got me thinking about what it really means to be 'partisan'. Well, the best place to start when debating terminology is, of course, a dictionary. This is the primary definition of 'Partisan', according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

"a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance."

Now the first part of that is pretty light-weight and would apply to any political preference. So I'm assuming that we're more focused on the second part. That's the real issue. Not that you have an opinion, but whether that opinion is supported and rational. Do you consider other views or do you cleve to your own despite all evidence?

By that reasoning, which you are free to dispute, I don't believe I am partisan, as a general rule. Sure I rail against conservative policies and Republicans, but I do so because I disagree with the point in question, not simply because they are conservatives and Republicans. It doesn't mean I mindlessly support Democrats and liberals on all issues. The truth is, the reason I'm usually in opposition to conservative positions is simple; they don't make sense. It's not that I dream Democratic dreams, or that I have a man-crush on President Obama. It's that conservative policies are so often focused on effect instead of effectiveness.

For example, I do not support gay rights because I'm in thrall to the Gay Liberation Front! I support it because it is right and just to do so. Because, while I respect anyone's right to be personally grossed out by the idea of homosexuality, I will never accept the view that a gay individual is any less of a person or citizen than anyone else simply because of who they are attracted to.

I don't support every Democratic or liberal idea, but I do find myself on that side of more arguments than not. Doesn't make me partisan, just means I have opinions that are more liberal than conservative. But the important distinction is that I take each issue as it comes and then make a decision based on the information and what makes sense to me. I don't do it because Rachel Maddow tells me to, though I will value the insight I get from her opinion because she has earned my trust and respect. Others have not. Yes I have a lot to say about certain people and the noxious drivel they produce, but that's not because they are the 'other side', it's because they are wrong. Or at least they continually champion ideas that don't make sense to me.

What inspires my most frustrated rants are ideas or policies that do not seem to follow any logical thread. Or put another way, it's like someone declaring triumphantly that their equation equals 100, yet no matter how many times I look at the numbers, they only add up to 83. A great example is the financial collapse. I am amazed when I stumble upon people who will declare with absolute sincerity that the root of the problem was government interference and how the banks were forced to give out mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. Huh? Sure it fits a certain preconceived notion about 'big government', but it makes no sense! There were no Congressional or Presidential orders issued to the banks demanding they grant $500K mortgages to couples earning $20K a year. It never happened. It's a figment of their imaginations. Not to mention that the financial industry has tremendous lobbying power, and they would never let something like that pass in the first place. No matter how often or loudly some individuals proclaim it to be true, it just doesn't add up. Unfortunately that won't stop them from continuing to declare it as fact.

This, to me, is what being partisan is all about. Standing by a notion despite all evidence against it. Championing a theory that is unsupported by the facts. In short, someone "exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance" to a political party or popular theory simply because it fits the narrative you are comfortable with. Look, sometimes the facts are just against you. Sometimes no matter how much you wish they proved your side right, they just don't. When that happens, you step back and re-evaluate.

Privilege or Right?

If there's one thing that everyone can agree on it's that healthcare is expensive. Unfortunately that's about all we can agree on. As I listened to the 2009 - 2010 health reform 'debate' and the many ripples that it spawned I kept coming back to the same question: Is healthcare a right or a privilege? This seems to be the real heart of the matter, at least for those not associated with an insurance or pharmaceutical company. That's really what we're debating isn't it?

On the liberal/progressive side are those who see this as a basic rights issue. They believe that access to medical care should be something all Americans can count on, no matter their financial status. On the conservative end of the spectrum it seems to be viewed as more of a luxury and that access should be something you must work for and earn. Now conservatives won't put it that way exactly, but that's really the unspoken truth behind all the careful prose. They want to sound like they care, but in the end they always seem to rely on going to the Emergency Room as the fallback position. As if that's some sort of cost cutting measure, which it most certainly is not. That just pushes the cost around, out of sight, till it's paid for by all of us in one shape or form.

I'm sure it's obvious where I stand in this debate. For me it comes down to a simple question of whether a person's lifespan and basic health should rest solely on the size of their paycheck. Is a subcontracting carpenter less worthy of a long, healthy life simply because his job doesn't afford him health insurance and he may or may not be able to afford a policy on his own? Is a network administrator's life more important because his job usually provides health insurance? And even if you remove the employer subsidized insurance from the equation, a net admin makes more than most carpenters, so he would be much more likely to be able to afford insurance on his own. Put it this way, the CEO of Goldman Sachs will never want for medical care, no matter what ailment he may suffer from. However a single mom working multiple part time jobs to make ends meet will have difficulty paying for treatment of a simple broken bone, much less something like cancer. So is the CEO more deserving of life than the single mom because he has a high paying job with top of the line health insurance?

We in America like to think we have the best medical care the world has to offer. And, in part, that may be true, based on how many of the world's great and powerful come here for treatment. But it's important to remember that medical care and health care are two completely different things. Medical care is the actual skill of the medical staff, the technology they wield and their ability to apply both to cure a condition or manage it for the best quality of life. Medical care is not concerned with cost, only results. Health care on the other hand is all about cost. Health care is exclusively focused on how much medical care you are allowed by your insurance and/or your personal finances. So America may indeed have stellar medical care, but that doesn't mean all Americans are in a position to actually benefit from it.

And that's where the rubber meets the road on this issue, isn't it? Stop blathering about 'death panels' and socialism. Strip away the histrionics, the hyperbole and the euphemisms and admit what this is really all about! Is a person's life only as valuable as his paycheck?

Policy and Impatience

I just read a very interesting and thoughtful article in the online edition of Foreign Policy magazine. The article, titled 'The Carter Syndrome', focuses on how US Presidents often approach policy through four schools of thought:

"In general, U.S. presidents see the world through the eyes of four giants: Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Hamiltonians share the first Treasury secretary's belief that a strong national government and a strong military should pursue a realist global policy and that the government can and should promote economic development and the interests of American business at home and abroad. Wilsonians agree with Hamiltonians on the need for a global foreign policy, but see the promotion of democracy and human rights as the core elements of American grand strategy. Jeffersonians dissent from this globalist consensus; they want the United States to minimize its commitments and, as much as possible, dismantle the national-security state. Jacksonians are today's Fox News watchers. They are populists suspicious of Hamiltonian business links, Wilsonian do-gooding, and Jeffersonian weakness."


Full article available Here.

I think this article only underscores the need for a balanced, common sense approach to American policy. None of these schools of thought are workable alone. All suffer from, at their most pure level, an idealism that is unworkable in the real world. Certainly the Bush years, where Jacksonian absolutism held sway, did not solve much yet cost greatly. What is needed, in my opinion, is a core of the Jeffersonian but infused with elements of the others. After all, it's pure common sense that America cannot stop all evil or decree democracy to all the nations of the world. We can't force our ideals on those who resist without becoming that which we have always claimed that we stand against.

Obama is in an extremely difficult situation, as often happens when there is a major change in leadership after 8 years. Part of the challenge is the American people themselves. Conservatives want only a continuation, at least for the most part, of the policies of the Bush years. Liberals want a complete reversal of those policies. Both sides expect everything they ask for, now, or they are furious. As with most things, the truth is in the middle somewhere. The Liberals must accept that Obama cannot simply sign a stack of Executive Orders and whisk away all signs of the Bush years. And Conservatives must accept that the Bush doctrine is inherently flawed and did little in eight years to solve our problems. But none of this is going to happen quickly. America needs to be the one thing it's always been very bad at; we need to be patient.

I do believe that Obama is trying very hard to find that common sense path out of the forest. But since he can't just wrench it all into line with his preferences in one fell swoop, he has to make changes here and there with an eye to the long term rather than tomorrow's headlines. And every policy initiative carries a political cost that he cannot ignore, any more than any other President in our history. And it's these political costs that I believe are the most damaging. Or more accurately, it's the need to weigh them so carefully. I suspect that there are many policies that, given free reign, Obama would change tomorrow. But for every Presidential action, there is an amplified political reaction. Just look at the healthcare reform agenda. It has taken the better part of a year just to get disparate House and Senate bills passed. It still remains to be seen if these two, very different bills can be merged into anything useable. This single agenda item has cost Obama huge amounts of time, energy and intense negotiation and it's not over yet. And just as striking, it may not end up very close to what he actually wanted in the first place. And we still have, in no particular order, the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, 'Don't Ask Don't Tell', security threats, Iran, North Korea, the list goes on. And these are all issues that seem to have few moderates. We seem to be in an era when everything is a partisan war. Obama has to step carefully and pick his fights. He cannot risk too many battles at once without the risk of losing them all.

The irony to it all is that no matter what he does, the Right will scream in horror that he's moving too fast and the Left will roar in frustration that he's moving too slow. Americans, in my opinion, need to step back and take a few breaths before agonizing over what Obama has or has not done. In many cases it's obvious why he's made the decisions he has. Doesn't mean I agree with them all, but I can at least see why he has made them. Americans have to control this emotional knee-jerk reactionist tendency. We must all use our brains and see that there is more to policy issues than simple slogans and sound bites. I think what many just don't understand, is that being President is much more about doing what you Can do rather than what you Want to do.

Terminology

For the love of [insert appropriate deity here]! I am so sick of hearing the word Liberal used as a synonym for Lunatic or Idiot! Have we really gotten to the point where we are redefining legitimate terms simply to insult each other?  This is one of those things that seems to be far more of a Conservative thing, I've noticed. Every time a Conservative politician or pundit uses the word Liberal, it's spit out as a slur. Often phrased with disgust or contempt. As if the target of the remark were some raving luntic. The term 'Liberal' has been slowly hammered into purely a negative. Why?

Liberal:  (From the New Oxford American Dictionary)
• Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values
• Favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
• (in a political context) Favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform

This is the definition of Liberal. Sounds positively evil, doesn't it? Practically Communist, right? Sure, some people take it to the extreme, but no more so than Conservative extremists.

Lets be honest here, without Liberals, America would be a much more backward place. Whether they used the term to describe themselves at the time or not, who do you think spearheaded the abolition of Slavery? Liberals. Women's right to vote? Liberals. Civil Rights? Liberals. It's the progressives among us who push beyond tradition and what's considered 'natural' to do what is right. I'm sure some will try and pull out the nugget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and therefore a conservative. But the various political parties have changed a lot over America's history, so you can't say that Republicans of the 1860s had the same party philosophy as those today. Conservatives by their very nature, support the status quo. They support tradition. Don't rock the boat.

I'm not saying that every Liberal idea or movement is great. Like all philosophies, you can take it too far.  You can get too lost in ideals and lose touch with the realities of life and human behavior. And that is the whole point. Both Conservatives and Liberals need each other! The Liberals push us to step outside our little, safe boxes and reach for more. Conservatives are the sea anchor that keeps the dreamers from racing off into a philosophical fog. Yet the current Conservative movement, in particular, seems determined to demonize anything with even a whiff of Liberalism about it. As if anyone who is not a Republican is, by definition, an ultra left-wing wackjob. Believe me, if the hard core Conservatives ever got what they keep screaming about, the majority of them would regret it soon after. As the wise saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!

Middle Ground

Those who know me and have had any kind of political or social discussion with me will attest to the fact that I consider myself a Centrist. If you really want to put a party name to it, I'd say I'm a Conservative Democrat. But as is usually the case with political views, the more you try to align someone under a standard party label, the less accurate it is. I tend to see some good ideas from most of the various points on the political spectrum. From Republican to Libertarian, Green and Democrat.

This is what frustrates me so much. Every one of these factions, which is of course splintered into moderates and extremists among its own members, claims to know the truth. They boldly state that they have the answers to all the country's woes. But every one of them is wrong. The answers to most issues are not contained within a single ideology. Especially the really contentious ones. This is something few seem willing to understand. Partly it's a human tendency to look for absolutes. And partly it's an underlying need to compete with another group to see who's better or smarter. And since humans generally want to belong to a group of like minded individuals, we end up with these clots of people, each person reinforcing the other's feelings of absolute certainty. I can tell you, there are few things more detrimental to intelligent, reasoned problem solving than a sense of 'absolute certainty'.

In fact, that sense of certainty is the antithesis of reason. There are rarely absolutes in this world, aside from some basic moral codes of conduct. Even some of those are less absolute than we like to think. We all agree that killing another human being is wrong. Yet we do it all the time, institutionally, in wars and capital punishment. So even that's not entirely black and white. So why do we seem to think that one, ironclad political philosophy will serve to solve all of our problems? Socrates is quoted as saying, "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." I would modify it slightly and say that true knowledge is when you realize that you don't have all the answers. I truly believe that the most important skill anyone can learn in life is to be able to step outside yourself, intellectually, and look at things from another point of view. Call it a reality check, if you like.

Without this kind of reality check, it's very easy to become so entombed in our own opinions that we just assume that every other viewpoint is wrong. Once you've walled yourself so deeply in this certainty, you become intellectually dead. All you end up doing is spinning around in tighter and tighter circles, blocking out more and more of the outside world.  Then add to that the effects of listening to pundits and assorted personalities who mirror your own opinions. It becomes harder and harder to even consider other ideas. This is how a society stagnates.

If America is going to find the answers to healthcare reform, financial policy and the myriad of other problems we are now facing we all have to venture out of our personal bunkers and talk to each other!  Then we work together and not against each other. Everyone, from every extreme, has to stop assuming that their 'side' is the answer. Because I'm telling you, not one of these political parties or social movements hold all the answers. Not one. We like to talk about America as a 'melting pot', but someone must have turned the heat down, because we have started to congeal into large, disparate clots. We are at our best when we work together, when all these diverse viewpoints come together for a common goal. It's only then that we benefit from ideas that we, ourselves, would never have thought of. Conversely we are at our worst when we pull back into like minded enclaves, each claiming a monopoly on good ideas. I'm sick to death of this 'I'm right, everyone else is wrong' blather from the politicians to the cashier at the local Target. None of us is right about everything! And even those who are wrong about one issue, aren't necessarily wrong about everything else!

Take a moment and really, honestly listen to those you disagree with sometimes. Most  Liberals are NOT neo-socialist nut jobs! Step back from your own opinion occasionally and think about it from the other side to see if it really makes sense or if you're riding a wave of pure, knuckle-headed emotion. Because sometimes you'll be surprised to find that you're spewing cross-eyed-badger-spit rather than the insightful political commentary you thought. Don't assume someone is an idiot just because they are a Democrat or a Republican. I guarantee you that there are nut-jobs in every group! Stop using labels like 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' like insults.They denote a political viewpoint, not an indication of intelligence. Once you start hurling insults and derogatory comments, everyone goes on the defensive. When that happens, all meaningful discourse stops and any chance of actually learning anything ends. There are a lot of really smart people out there and not all of them occupy your political orbit. Doesn't make their ideas any less valid or any less likely to be right.