An Argument for Civility

I receive a lot of email on a daily basis, and some of it is political in content. During the ’08 Presidential election I received quite a bit of email focusing on portraying the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, in the worst possible light. Most of it was off-the-wall kind of stuff, and not based on any actual facts or concrete information. Obama with horns, Obama in a Nazi uniform…that sort of thing.

Since the campaign run by the Republicans was not exactly clean and on the level anyway, I was not that surprised by these emails. However, I did believe in the back of my mind that after the election this kind of thing would tone down considerably.

Only it hasn’t.

This morning I received a video clip which talks about a “Capitol Hill Obama Card” that you can “customize by uploading your own personalized image.” Obviously intended to be humorous, the video clip goes on to show images of people living in tents (“your new neighborhood ever since you had to shut down your business and move from your old neighborhood with actual houses”), a frozen man, lines of people (waiting to see a doctor), a partially toothless mouth (“Obama’s nationalized dental plan”), Obama and Karl Marx with the hammer and sickle banner underneath them…the list goes on. Lastly, of course, a picture of Obama dressed as Jesus Christ, “now that the Chosen One’s in charge.”

It’s easier to see the humor in things like these when they make at least a lick of sense.

To be fair, this kind of thing is nothing new. At the height (or depth) of George W. Bush’s 8-year crusade, I saw plenty of images mixing and matching Bush, the Swastika, and Osama bin Laden. So in a sense the Obama-bashing is not a new phenomenon, but political backwash from the Bush days.

I am not clear, however, as to what this propaganda is supposed to accomplish.

A few people I have spoken with about Obama’s health care reform kept bringing up the word “socialist.” But when I asked them about the supposed connection between Barack Obama and socialism, the answers were unclear. “Because he’s a Communist and he wants to raise taxes.” Okay. Let’s take a look at this mental image.

For one thing, a lot of modern-day Americans seem to be confused as to the real definitions of Socialism and Communism. It is as if they were brought up with the extrinsic concept that Communism is inherently evil, anyone who is a Communist is by definition evil themselves, and that Socialism and Communism are the same thing. Joseph McCarthy would be proud.

Not only is Socialism not the same thing as Communism, but it is also not a political system;  it is simply about distribution of resources. In fact, at their most basic implementation, Socialism and Capitalism are identical; everyone will produce what is needed for who needs it. Neither Socialism or Capitalism, however, can withstand the perversity of human nature, which is the downfall of both systems when implemented on a larger – or global – scale. This is due to the fact that there is always someone who is not interested in playing by the same rules as everyone else.

Marx created the concept of Socialism in response to the worker system in England at the time. In merry old England, hundreds of workers were at the mercy of one or two bosses. Marx’s original idea was that there be more democracy in the work place; more decision-making among the workers. Translation: Socialism is liberal; more people have a say in how an economy operates. Now take the word “economy” and replace it with “government.” Sound familiar?

Communism, on the other hand, is a conservative political system. The masses produce, but the actual decisions and policies are made by a small number of individuals. Communists, much like radical conservatives, are attempting to enforce a set of ideals which they have no intention of actually following themselves.

It is estimated that Obama’s health care initiative could cost up to $1 trillion over the course of the next decade. Of course, according to the Congressional Research Service, that’s how much has already been spent on the War On Terror since 9/11.

I would not expect the idea of raised taxes to appeal to Republicans, at least not on a grassroots level. However, it is the designated responsibility of the government to set policy based on the needs of its people. There are an estimated 46 million Americans without health insurance. Many of those that do have health insurance cannot afford to make use of it due to high deductibles and lack of prescription coverage. Most people who need health insurance need it for common things, such as prescription medication, and not so much for when they get their leg cut off in a freak accident.

Certainly sounds like there is a large part of the population who are falling through the cracks of the current health care system. If the system is unable to correct itself, as it apparently is, then is it not the very job description of the government to step in and to make necessary changes?

Of course Obama is going to try and tackle health care reform. The last president to do so was Bill Clinton. Recent Republican presidents certainly have made no effort to accomplish this; even the mere thought of it no doubt smacked of political suicide among their own ranks.

The point I am trying to make is this: while I am certainly of the opinion that there needs to be a health care reform, I am undecided as to whether Obama’s plan is what we need. I would like to know more, and I would like to hear from both sides of the argument. However, at the end of the day, if your side of the argument consists mainly of delivering one-off shouts at “town hall meetings” or emailing imagery meant to ridicule the sitting President, then don’t expect your position to hold much water with me – or anyone with at least half a brain.