Welcome to the Suck, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise

March 26, 2010 Martha Thomases 15 Comments

In the past week, in the debates both immediately before and after the passage of the health care reform bill, opponents frequently described the bill’s supporters as people who “rammed the bill down the throat” of the American people.  The bill was allegedly negotiated in secret (although it seems to me I’ve seen it discussed endlessly for the last year, each new conversation examined more closely than an MRI).  People who defended Cheney’s secret meetings on energy policy suddenly wanted full disclosure.

Senators, members of Congress, protesters – they all used the same phrase.  I’m sure it tested well in focus groups.  I’m sure the people who are meant to receive this particular message are terrified that anything could be “rammed down” their throats.

All it told me was that, if that’s the way they think (and, probably, act), I don’t want to have sex with any of them.

I’ve written a lot over the past year or so about our stupid discourse.  This is hardly a unique situation.  However, since I’m visiting my Dad in Florida this week (he’s fine, thanks), I am waxing nostalgic for a time in my life when people could disagree on more high-falutin’ levels.

When I was a girl, there were a range of opinions within each of the two major political parties.  There were liberal, moderate and conservative Democrats and – believe it or not – liberal, moderate and conservative Republicans.  My own mother voted for Richard Nixon in 1960, when my father voted for JFK.

Some of this was the result of the civil rights movement.  Republicans, the Party of Lincoln, were not popular in the South.  That’s why, today, you have Democrat Robert Byrd, who was exceedingly pro-segregation early in his career.

More than that, it was about a different perspective on how to use government to solve problems, and at what level.  Republicans tended to favor local and state-level solutions.  Democrats tended to favor using the national government.

Most important, they tended to agree about what problems needed to be solved.  Both parties championed peace and prosperity.  They had different strategies about how to achieve these goals, but not different goals.  I mean, the Equal Rights Amendment was a Republican proposal.  How weird is that?

I don’t want to suggest that there weren’t emotionally charged arguments.  My colleague, Mr. Gold, and I were both in the streets (different streets), demonstrating against the status quo.  We disagreed profoundly and viscerally with what our government was doing and how it was doing it.

At the same time, our representatives in government, those that agreed with us, never called an opponent a “baby-killer on the floor of the House (and this was when actual babies were being killed).  Those who disagreed with us might have accused us of giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy, but they didn’t suggest that our representatives were the actual enemy.  At least not to our faces.

Look, I’m in favor of letting it all hang out, as we used to say.  As a member of the lunatic fringe, I appreciate extreme opinions, especially when they are expressed with wit and excellent graphics (thank you, ACT-UP).  That’s not what’s going on today.  We are so intent on vilifying our enemies that we’ve lost track of the argument.

On my flight to West Palm, I sat next to a very nice man who was watching the Fox News Network.  Because we were delayed (first by weather conditions, then by a man who refused to fasten his seatbelt and then threatened to kill the flight attendant, so he had to be removed by security), we started to talk.  I avoided politics as much as I could, but, when it arose, we had a very cordial conversation.  He talked about how he was raised to believe in freedom and independence, and I talked about how I was raised to be wary of those who would scapegoat outside groups (the German-American Bund used to goose-step through my mother’s neighborhood).  We agreed that Joe Lieberman was unforgivable for stopping the extension of Medicare to people over 55. We agreed that health care reform was a work in progress.  He used the word “repeal” and I used the term “more,” but we found a way to talk to each other without questioning each other’s moral centers.

Back in that youth for which I am so nostalgic, I persuaded a lot of George Wallace supporters to sign petitions to put George McGovern on the primary ballot.  I was able to use their mistrust of the status quo to talk about other strategies to achieve their goals.  We each wanted peace and prosperity.  And we wanted to find ways to achieve it together.

Media Goddess Martha Thomases wishes Boca Raton had better wi-fi.