Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Search for Civility - Identity and a Dream

I had a dream last night.

I am starting at a new university and a group of us are at a little get together. We're all a bit nervous, just trying to get to know everyone and find our way in the new environment. It's hard not to be a bit nervous at times like this, you want to get a feel for everyone else and you also want to give a good impression. Then a beautiful blond girl walks in and all the oxygen is sucked out of the room. She tries to casually join the crowd, but it's hard not to stretch out your ears for what she's saying. In her own good time, she comes to chat with our small group. She's German with an alluring accent. We aren't talking with great earnest, just a few pleasant nothings about the economy or politics. As hard as it is not to stare, I have to admit that her comments are funny - she's impressive. Then she adds, "But I guess that's all academic. The Rothschilds and the rest of the Jewish moneychangers will still call all the shots no matter what minor changes we make..."

A nazi? WTF?

And that's where things went wrong...

Now, considering things had taken such a drastic turn, you might expect that I woke right up, but the dream went on just a bit further. Being Jewish, my first reaction wasn't even disbelief, but seething anger. Rage started to rush through my chest screaming for any outlet. But I held my smile on my face. As I've discussed in these recent diaries, I've been trying to find ways to connect with people despite any disagreement. I genuinely tried to search myself for a way that I could engage this girl in a positive way, something substantive or even just inane. It was a moment of total failure - I just couldn't do it. I woke up feeling relieved the dream was over, but also feeling very anxious.

Everyone's had nightmares where they are frozen, unable to move in the face of an obvious threat - it's terrifying. But I've never had a dream where the danger was social, not physical. When I woke up I didn't feel scared; I felt deeply uncomfortable. Was this dream a sign that my search for civility was wrongheaded? Am I committing myself to leave unchallenged people and beliefs that I consider truly evil?

On reflection, I know that in real life I'd feel no urge to find common ground with a nazi. I think it comes down to issues of "tribe" and identity. Being set against the "Jewish Plot for Global Control"™ was a huge part of who this girl was, like the Birther in this Oliphant cartoon. Attempts to reason with her were likely to be met with "devil's greatest trick" kind of responses that discredit the source of an argument rather than confront the substance. If she hates Jews and I'm Jewish, how can I hope to find common ground with her in order to reach a common understanding?

But tossing our the issues of "tribe" and identity leaves this discussion incomplete. In a previous diary I conveyed a discussion I had with a co-worker about healthcare.

One exchange I had with a co-worker I'm not particularly proud of. To briefly introduce him, he's from upstate Wisconsin and concerned with securing the Mexican border. He doesn't support healthcare reform. Having just read the KFF summary I mentioned above, I felt well armed with details to explain away any concerns he might level against the reform plans being debated.

He complained about all the poor people who get emergency room care and then walk away unable to pay their hospital bill. I pointed out that substantial savings could be found on this issue by helping expand preventative care. Fundamentally, he didn't want to be forced to pay for the health expenses of others, especially as a result of their poor choices. I suggested that we need consider bending that ideology in order to save some money. I quoted standard statistics about US health expenditures compared to other countries. I was friendly, sharp, and clear...I'm pretty sure he was unmoved.


My dad commented, "he isn't really arguing an issue, he is defending his 'tribe'. We are born with an instinct to fear and dominate those outside of our tribe." "When your colleague fulminates against immigrants, he is defending and asserting his membership in a tribe that he defines himself as a member of. You do the same for your tribe if you look down on him for his failure to appreciate your logic."

The version of "tribe", or identity, in use in the above stories is too complete, too all-encompassing. In reality we all hold a variety of identities and norms about how we should act and what we believe. Sometimes these notions compete, I am a proud American and I feel very uneasy about many things done in America's name. Many times these notions complement and reinforce each other, I am reasonable and I support the Democratic party. [/snark]

In reality that basket of identities that we carry around interact in complex, even mysterious ways that are difficult to predict. But they determine who we can and who we cannot work with in society. I could never be on the same team as that nazi.

I believe that the case with my anti-immigration, anti-healthcare reform co-worker is much different. I can work with him because even though some facets of our identities clash, others match up very well. We're both Americans living abroad in the same country. We both teach English at the same school. That's a lot to work with. If I can emphasize those common aspects I believe we can build a rapport, a sociability between us. Hopefully, that will bring us both to be more flexible about the areas we don't agree upon. It's one thing to fight and argue with a stranger, it's very different to do it with a friend.

I can't be friends with just anyone, but I can try to make friends with nearly everyone.

Cross-posted at DailyKos

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Search for Civility - Challenge of a Calm Response

I've written two other diaries about my search for civility and the surprising position it has brought me to consider. I strongly believe that trying to shout louder than healthcare reform opponents, overpower them with raw political strength is a foolish plan that is doubtful to succeed. Even if we win this battle of wills, we'll do much greater harm to ourselves and our country. We should strive for civility. We should work to build a country where we can live side by side with others, without malice or ill will.

In this diary I discuss the successes and failures I've had in my efforts to talk with friends, family, and co-workers about healthcare reform. I want to highlight the impossibility of constructing a useful discourse with heated interaction despite the challenge of a calm response.

Also, I'd like to thank Clem Yeobright for a link to this Kaiser Family Foundation .pdf comparing and contrasting the different reform bills in play. Most of my current understanding of healthcare reform is based on that document.

In previous diaries I've called for more leadership from our elected officials and the heads of our communities. I've written to my representatives in Congress about my disappointment, but I've received no replies. It's made me wonder about who the real leaders are and how socially distant I am from them, but I'll set this issue aside for the rest of this diary.

I've had a number of discussions and interactions over healthcare reform since I wrote my last diary. I want to focus in on responses I gave that now seem especially weak or especially strong. A number of my weak responses came from my inability to calmly react with measured tone and force. My effective responses were not my wittiest or wonkiest quips, they were effective because they helped me convey a desire to build an open-minded dialogue. A discussion should not be fencing with swords, it should be a meeting of minds, a courtship of lovers. Seek embrace, not victory.

One exchange I had with a co-worker I'm not particularly proud of. To briefly introduce him, he's from upstate Wisconsin and concerned with securing the Mexican border. He doesn't support healthcare reform. Having just read the KFF summary I mentioned above, I felt well armed with details to explain away any concerns he might level against the reform plans being debated.

He complained about all the poor people who get emergency room care and then walk away unable to pay their hospital bill. I pointed out that substantial savings could be found on this issue by helping expand preventative care. Fundamentally, he didn't want to be forced to pay for the health expenses of others, especially as a result of their poor choices. I suggested that we need consider bending that ideology in order to save some money. I quoted standard statistics about US health expenditures compared to other countries. I was friendly, sharp, and clear...I'm pretty sure he was unmoved.

Looking at it now, I don't think he was ready to be convinced. As soon as I heard him go against reform, I automatically set myself up to oppose him. He put up his defenses. I should have had more self-control. I should have more carefully listened to his concerns to let him know that I wanted to discuss this with him. I didn't just want an opportunity to spout my talking points.

This Pat Oliphant political cartoon makes fun of Birthers and the like who will find ways to deny the strongest evidence in order maintain their view. I argue that this bullheaded opposition isn't intrinsic, rather I believe it's based on the players involved. No statistics or pleas were going to persuade my co-worker in that situation because we weren't close enough yet. It's not that he cannot be convinced, he just needs someone closer to try and convince him. If that is a general truth, then we shouldn't be polishing our debating skills, we should be trying to better understand and grow closer to non-supporters.

If I didn't do a particularly good job there, I believe that some of my comment responses from my last diary, Search for Civility - Against Public Option, were much more effective. Some of the questions I asked elicited substantial and well-considered responses. I believe the most effective ones showed that I was open-minded.
Do we misunderstand the proposed public option?

Are our concerns about the future and private insurance unrealistic?

I want to hear more about the third one.
Third, the thing that she is afraid of is not going to happen under any bill under consideration right now.

If you can tell me more about that, it might completely assuage our concerns...we could go home happy. Do the bills have measures that prevent larger employers from dropping private coverage? What if it turns out that the companies with employees on the public option are more fiscally competitive than employers that provide private insurance? If that were the case, over time, the companies providing private coverage would need to adapt or go out of business, right?


In the above questions I tried to lay out a path for my opposition, a standard of contradiction. That path, or standard, can be constructed in a reasonable or an unreasonable manner. The more specific you make your questions, the more reachable success will seem for anyone that might oppose you. The discussion should then be more inviting. The difference between a reasonable standard, an unreasonable standard, and an impossible standard is difficult to enunciate, but usually pretty easy to see when you encounter it.

To wrap things up I have a few suggestions for anyone else who thinks a search for civility makes sense. If you feel yourself getting fired up and passionate, try to rein yourself in. When things are heated you're more likely to think of what you want to hear than what your opponent needs to hear. Don't get sarcastic and snippy, that betrays a closed mind. When talking with someone, if your minds are closed, you aren't having a discussion, you're just measuring your dicks.

Cross-posted at DailyKos.

Search for Civility - Against Public Option

A wrote a diary titled Search for Civility about the deplorable state of our social discourse, especially surrounding healthcare reform. I'm advocating that we reject calls to fight fire with fire at townhall meetings. Instead we should be trying to bring dissenters back into a responsible dialogue built upon mutual respect. If we let the discussion devolve into a shouting match, a raw political battle without reasoned debate, we'll cause much greater damage than we seek to gain with HCR. "He who troubleth his own house, shall inherit the wind." I've suggested two practical courses of action. First, we need to call for better leadership from officials and other important people in our communities. Second, we need to reach out with polite manners and open minds to our friends and family to open this discussion. Hopefully this might lead to some social flexibility. At least, it should help us better understand one another.

In this diary I want to give an update on what I've done. Surprisingly, it has made me seriously question if I am in favor of a public option.

On the first issue, I've written to my Congressman and Senators. I explained that I was very disappointed in the lack of responsible leadership. I challenged them to step up and shoulder some responsibility for bring the healthcare discussion back down to Earth. I have no idea if anyone in their offices will even read over my concerns, but it seemed like a good start. Maybe I'll make phone calls next.

On the second issue, reaching out to friends and family, I've had more success. It has made me give some serious thought to whether or not I support a strong public option.

Someone I love very much has been in the hospital for more than a month. She has had a very complicated pregnancy and today I talked with her about the care she's received and whether she supports reform.

Without going into too much detail, I can explain that this woman is due to deliver twins at the end of October. Before the end of the first trimester, problems came to light. She's had consultations with experts in three different cities, prenatal surgery, a month living in the hospital and countless tests every week, several each day.

While it's very unfortunate that the pregnancy didn't go smoothly, there's little question in her mind or in mine that she has received the best care available. Moreover, I asked her if her insurance company has given her any trouble and she explained she was very happy with them. They've paid for all the hospital time, the consultations, the surgery, everything but the plane tickets. There have been no delays, no hassles. She has been able to devote her concern to her own care, not to her insurance policy's fine print.

We also talked about HCR and a public option. Her concern, and now mine as well, is that a public option might financially out compete the private insurance she has now. We both know that the public option is just that, an option. She wouldn't be forced to switch over to it. But we can both imagine the situation where the government establishes a public option that becomes more and more attractive to businesses. There may come a day five, ten, fifteen years from now when a company offering private insurance can't compete with those whose employees rely on the public option.

She's concerned that if, because of this turn of events, she were compelled to switch to the public option, she might not be guaranteed such a high standard of care. It's not that she is certain it would be worse. Rather, right now she has a great deal of confidence in her private insurance, why should she have similar confidence in a public option plan?

Now I share her concerns. My place in life should make me strongly favor a public option, but I still find my support wavering in the face of this woman's story and my concern for her.

Do we misunderstand the proposed public option?

Are our concerns about the future and private insurance unrealistic?

What do you guys think?

UPDATE: In the comments Clem Yeobright gave a really good link from the Kaiser Family Foundation comparing and contrasting some of the different reform plans bouncing around. Looks like it could help us all.

Cross-posted at DailyKos.

Search for Civility

I'm sure that a lot of other people out there have seen the videos from Tampa and from St. Louis. I saw them, both groups looked like a bunch of wild animals - gorillas gone wild. There are some Post-Dispatch photos from St. Louis that look worse, if that's possible. Add to that today's commentary from Charles Blow and Gail Collins and things seem to be getting out of hand in the US. That I can agree with. But these "fire-with-fire" responses are wrong-headed. We're suffering from the destruction of our social discourse and poor leadership. Pointing fingers has been done to death - "It's [O'Reilly, Beck, The Blogs, Libural Media, Corporate Media]!" That hasn't solved the problem yet. We need to reengage with our wider communities and we need to challenge our leadership to regain some national unity.





The videos above from Tampa and St. Louis opened my eyes to just how bad things have gotten. I never dreamed that even simple discussion, townhall meetings would be impossible because of the risk of mobs and violence. That mob mentality was especially obvious in the Tampa scene. The way they were chanting and banging on the door was scary. One person finds the courage to start behaving badly and others find it much easier to follow. Not only will this kind of behavior shut down the process, it doesn't just poison the well, this is scorched-earth political warfare.

But that analysis alone was obvious enough to Blow and Collins. But neither of them, nor anyone else I've come across, has even identified the deeper problem that plagues us, the destruction of our social discourse. Our social discourse is our ability to work together and to communicate with the people around us. It is our ability to have cooperative relationships that are built upon respect and mutual consideration. It's our ability to have a community. And it has been completely degraded. We've known that this has been happening for a while, and we've done a thorough job of pointing fingers at some of the parties responsible. But this hasn't stopped the process and now we are seeing some of the consequences of our neglect.

We let ourselves slip into the mindset that every issue, especially healthcare reform, is a matter of life and death, therefore we must do anything we can to achieve it. But we've forgotten that if we lose the basic ability to work together with others, we've lost something far greater than anything else we could hope to achieve. If we lose our greater sense of community, we've truly lost everything. That's why the people in those videos look like animals. We must work towards our goals while maintaining a level of decency, respect, and cooperation that will sustain our national community.

Moving forward with this kind of cooperative mindset might seem like it will lead to negotiating with right-wingers and rewarding them for their silly behavior. That of course would only encourage them - that would be foolish. No, I'm afraid my advice, while specific, isn't going to solve the national political stalemate.

I'm going to direct my efforts in two directions. First, I'm going to reach out to my own personal community. As much as I enjoy Dailykos, from the front page, to the diaries and comments, I'm talking about my friends and family. Dailykos has an echo chamber effect and I want to reach outside. I'm going to write e-mails and make phone calls. I'm going to try and talk with people about healthcare reform and I'm never going to say anything that could even be mistaken as a talking point. As soon as people think I'm not talking from my heart, they'll stop listening, they'll ignore me. Additionally, I'm going to try and keep a very open mind. I think I've got the right idea on HCR, but if I'm not open going into these discussions, the people I talk with won't be either. That mental calcification is one of the biggest problems with our debased social discourse. I'm going to talk with anybody. I have a brother-in-law who listens to right-wing radio and loves to repeat some of what he hears. We don't see eye-to-eye. He will not be the first person I try to engage with, but he's definitely on my mental list.

The second place I will direct my efforts is my elected officials and community leaders. They have failed and they need to be challenged to do a better job in their role as leaders. They need to look for ways to engage with the groups that are dissenting to try and bring them back into the discussion process. They need to show these groups, even the "keep government out of medicare!" groups, that we respect them and we want to hear what they have to say. Have a public meeting and keep the whole show running as long as is needed - all night. Give the shouters some microphones, give them a platform. If we show them every courtesy possible and they still behave like animals, their support will crater. This is something I can't do, but I can tell our elected leaders to step up and fulfill their responsibilities to us as a community.

If we allow our country's politics to continue to devolve into a war of might we will surely fail to achieve even the most modest goals.

Instead, we will have destroyed something much more important.

Cross-posted at DailyKos.