ACROSS THE GREAT DIVIDE II

“The most practical kind of politics is the politics of decency.”
-Theodore Roosevelt
American 26th U.S. President 1901-09, &
advocate for government universal health insurance
1858-1919

“Do not overestimate the decency of the human race.”
(and)
“The fundamentalist mind, running in a single rut for fifty years, is now quite unable to comprehend dissent from its basic superstitions, or to grant any common honesty, or even any decency, to those who reject them.”
-Henry Louis Mencken
American humorous Journalist and Critic of American life
1880-1956


I have been reading on the right that the newly passed Health Care is terrible.

"Baby Killer", they claim, just like the Representative from Texas red neck Annoying-bugger yelled during the session of Congress on Sunday. Our own dear wacko Representative to Congress from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann (she's crazy, she's not stupid) is now reported to have assured Representative Neugenbauer's adult son that the outburst would get less attention than the equally wrong, inaccurate, and misleading "You Lie"outburst from Joe Wilson during the State of the Union address. "It WILL kill people", "Pelosi is a liar", "Obama is Un-American", "It is a government takeover", "they're going to insure illegals", "we've lost our freedoms", health care reform "comes between patients and their doctors", the legislation is "tyranny", "Armageddon", and on and on and on, the political right continues promulgating factually inaccurate statements about this legislation, about the Democratic members of the House and Senate, about the actions of the cabinet, advisers and White House staff.

Sadly, quite the opposite lack of concern has been evident from the right; while people really have been dying by the tens of thousands due to lack of health care, especially lack of health care relating directly to insurance company greed, there was not a comparable worry about any American citizens dying. We were told we have the best system in the world, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. This, despite the evidence of the numbers of people dying who could have been healthy. This, despite the evidence of the numbers of bankruptcies and other financial devastation directly related to the costs of illness and injury.

Those Republican claims about this legislation? NO. WRONG. NOT TRUE. http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/18/top-10-facts-know-about-health-care-reform/

There are absolutely, positively, categorically no language, no sections, no provisions anywhere of any kind to fund abortions, or death panels. There ARE provisions to extend health care to a large portion of our population that does not currently have insurance, and without insurance, does not have health care. There ARE provisions that will, if they function as they are intended, reduce the instances of bankruptcy due to medical bills, and will reduce the number of people who have to choose between paying for their housing, or life and death medical care. We currently have tens of thousands of people who die every year because they don't have insurance. This will change, people will not be let die who were vulnerable when government was dominated by the Right. People dying from a lack of care is not the same as people being killed, like those for example who are wrongly convicted and executed, and calling fewer people dying for lack of care "KILLING people" is adding insult to injury.

Deem and Pass, although ultimately not used in passing the legislation, was equally DEEMonized by the right. The best explanation for how the Democrats intended using this parliamentary procedure was clearly explained by politifact.com :
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/17/cliff-stearns/stearns-says-house-democrats-trample-procedures-he/

A friend, a dear friend who is a conservative, on his blog when I wrote something about Deem and Pass joined in deriding it with, commenters from the right. I was told that I was either lying - using the more polite term that I was 'disingenuous', OR that I apparently didn't KNOW what I was talking about in terms of the parliamentary procedures, and its historic use, OR that I was innocently simply parroting the left liberal talking points that I must have read on other lefty blogs - in other words, my friend ostensibly in sticking up for me asserted I was unable to think for myself. I was offended, heartily offended. I was just undecided what offended me the most.

As it happens, I do not routinely read very many other blogs, either of the left or right. The exceptions are the blogs for which I write, which would include the blog of our contributing author Apathy Boy, and routinely the blog of my friend and sometimes mentor on the right, Mitch Berg of Shot in the Dark.info. where I sometimes comment, as does Pen.

I certainly do not need other people to think for me, and I not only do not lie in what I write, I scrupulously try to fact check my information before I make statements. As my dear colleague and erstwhile 'boss' (a fond honorific that he emphatically denies) here on Penigma can attest, as he was the patient listener to my venting, I was unhappiest over assertions that I was uninformed on the parliamentary procedures and the history of their use specifically, but I was really furious that anyone would think I didn't do research. I take pride in reading original documents, be it court documents or legislation, or whole books rather than just trusting wikipedia. Part of this is, I will admit, vanity; I like knowing what there is to know, and where possible knowing more than other people. When I do the prep work, I feel more confident in writing. In researching more than minimally, I feel I have made a good faith effort to look at all the information, including what does not support the position with which I begin, in an attempt to offset bias - recognizing all of us have some bias - instead of cherry picking facts. I promised myself when I asked Pen to allow me to write on this blog that I would make this effort. It can be a dull slog. So I will readily admit - my vanity was sharply pricked, if not fully wounded.

When I was a second grader joining the more junior program of Girl Scouting known as the Brownies, we were introduced to Robert's Rules of Order. Later in Girl Scouting it was part of earning a badge. I have consulted professional Parliamentarians in the course of drafting revised constitutions and by-laws for organizations to which I belonged, and I have researched how these professionals become credentialed, and the two national organizations for the profession. I know individuals who have been past parliamentarians for our state legislature, and I was aware long before the health care reform brought it to public attention that the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives each have their own Parliamentarian. In fact, as an avowed parliamentarian 'geek' (or would that be nerd?) I was utterly delighted to see that those Parliamentarians were getting public recognition for their roll in the legislative process for a change.

Before I made my comment on my friend's conservative blog, I also fact checked it. I don't want to stick my neck out if I'm not confident about my information; I was brought up to believe that making a controversial or contradicting statement is something that should be done with care and consideration. Being accurate is, for me, part of treating the other person with respect, by making the effort to disagree only if you are very sure that you are doing so constructively, and courteously, attempting to minimize the inherent tension of disagreement.

I have believed for some while now that the "Great Divide" of polarized politics, as distinct from consensus and centrism and bi-partisanism, has two inherent parts. One is obviously the ideology of Right and Left - or as it sometimes seems, the Right, and anything not to the Right, encompassing Center moderates and the Left. But the other, which seems to me to offer the greatest potential for finding a way across the great divide is the issue of fact. In my experience, there seems to be far too often, avoidably often, differences in the facts which form the basis from which the sides proceed. Sometimes this is intentional cherry-picking, and sometimes it is less clear if that is the case.

So, given the rancor, the name calling and insults, the incivility and even threats that have characterized our political reality, the importance of fact checking, of researching more thoroughly than we might otherwise, including looking at the facts that are embraced by the other segments of the political spectrum is more important now than it ever has. Although I hear the memory of my old debate coach haunting me as I write this, whispering "when was this imaginary time of yours when research was not important, and absolutely essential?".

His ghost in my memory may not agree with my answer, but that answer is, it is even more important than during calmer times, when people are so angry that they are beginning to behave badly, threatening violence.

In reply, that ghost memory laughs, "or when someone makes you mad." Reminding me that being offended should prompt me to research even harder.