The Need for Civility in an Age of Polarized Politics

Civility in political debate has been eroding in the US ever since the brief period of widespread common grief and overwhelming feeling of patriotism ended after the terrible attacks of 9/11/2001. Opposition to President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 began the erosion of a common sense of purpose among Americans widely sharing the outrage at Islamic extremists who carried out unprovoked attacks on civilians in New York City, the Pentagon and four airliners hijacked for use as weapons against our homeland. The opposition to war in Iraq was generally expressed by choosing political sides during the 2004 Presidential election season and thereafter through demonstrations and protests that are not unusual in our open society with First Amendment protections of free speech.

However, the level of insults, and even threats, to those with opposing political views has been growing ever more heated and offensive over the past year, especially when the subject of health care reform is the topic of debate.

The verbal attacks on Democrats now in control of the federal government began early last year when the massive stimulus bill was passed with very little debate or time for members of Congress to read the 1,000 plus page bill. Protesters showed up in large numbers at town hall meetings with members of Congress over the summer, generally expressing disagreement with the growth of federal government spending as a result of the stimulus bill and the pending legislation to reform health care with even more federal spending. This show of dissent with the direction of the Democrat-controlled Congress, faithfully following the President's lead, led to the creation of the Tea Party movement sweeping the country over the past year.

This expression of opposition has grown more angry in recent months because a sizable proportion of the country is seeing their views ignored by their elected government officials. Republicans in Congress, who are outnumbered by the Democrats, have added to the growing incivility in political debate.

Calling out "You Lie" during a Presidential Address to a joint session of Congress is an act of incivility that no one should condone. Similarly, yelling "Baby Killer" during a speech by a political opponent on the House floor is inexcusable. But so is the all too common accusations of "racism" made by Democrats and their supporters whenever someone expresses disagreement with our first African-American President. The extent of threats and outrageous statements made against conservatives in recent months can be found in Michelle Malkin's blog at http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/26/how-the-left-fakes-the-hate-a-primer/

Now the heated rhetoric has led to increasing threats of violence against Congressional members of both parties. In addition, arrests this past weekend of members of an extreme Christian militia group in Michigan that planned to attack police officers has resulted in the disclosure that extreme right-wing militias have been growing in number over the past year or so. These developments are much more dangerous to our society than peaceful demonstrations by Tea Party activists exercising their rights of free speech to express opposition to the direction of the federal government.

The question is what is leading political debate toward more dangerous expressions of violent threats against public officials and conspiracies against law enforcement officers? One way to look at this is that the public is more evenly split than usual between opposing political views of the role of government in the US. This split is demonstrated in the USA Today/Gallup poll released this week of the public's views of the health care reform legislation just signed into law by President Obama.

"In a poll released yesterday, Gallup saw the bump [of support first found shortly after the Congress passed the law] disappear: 47% said Congress had done a "good thing" by passing health care, while 50% said it had done a "bad thing." That poll was conducted March 26-28, beginning five days after the House voted. Democrats (81% "good thing"/15% "bad thing") and Republicans (11% "good thing"/86% "bad thing") are nearly mirror opposites in their leanings. Independents broke 54% to 43% against the bill." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/03/more-health-care-polling-gallup-sees-the-bump-disappear/38212/

As these poll results show, the two political parties' followers have directly opposing views of the health care law. There are no real shades of grey. The major source of disagreement goes back to the core of the parties' differing political philosophies, which are that Republicans are for less government control and that Democrats favor increasing the role of the federal government. This difference in philosophy is being demonstrated in real time in the programs and actions of the Obama Administration and the Democrats now in control of Congress.

But a difference in philosophy is not reason enough to explain the rise in the incivility of debate and the growing threats of violence. This must be the result of extreme frustration being felt by many Americans, which has been largely caused by the seeming tone-deafness of the party in power in Washington to the views of about half of the public, including an increasing number of independents.

This difference of opinion with the Democratic agenda is not only seen in Gallup poll results, but it was clearly expressed in the voting booths of Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts since the summer of heated town hall meetings last year when Republicans defeated the incumbent Democratic party for Governor in the first two states and for US Senator in the overwhelmingly Democratic Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Even with this tide of political opposition being expressed in public opinion polls and voting booths over the past year, those who oppose the direction in Washington are watching political backroom deals, procedural tricks and one party control of Congress being used with a heavy hand to enact massive new federal programs that are adding unprecedented spending and debt loads that will continue to burden the country for many years to come.

It is this arrogant use of political power in direct opposition to the views of a sizable segment of the American public that seems to be at the center of the recent trends of incivility and inexcusable threats of violence. This arrogance not only could fuel the ire of opponents to the direction in Washington, but could also embolden those in control to express their sense of outrage at those they perceive as sore losers, who made their political victories so difficult to achieve.

Can this course be corrected? Maybe; if President Obama could learn to act more like a President of all Americans and not just a perpetual campaigner appealing to the more extreme left-leaning members of the Democratic party. Sphere: Related Content

"Deem and Pass" Procedure has been "Slaughtered" by Pelosi

Just before President Obama arrived at Capitol Hill Saturday to rally the Democratic troops for the historic vote on health care reform legislation scheduled for Sunday, Speaker Pelosi and House Rules Chairwoman Slaughter announced that the "deem and pass" procedure would NOT be used on Sunday to act on the legislation. As a result, the House will now actually have a separate vote on the Christmas Eve Senate bill with the Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, Florida Aid and all the other backroom deals that even Obama called "stray cats and dogs" a while ago.

After voting (or before, who knows how this will change again in the next 24 hours) on the Senate bill, the House will vote separately on the "Reconciliation" bill that amends the Senate bill. However, the Senate bill, if passed by the House, will be delivered to the White House for the President's signature tomorrow and the Cornhusker Kickback and other backroom deals BECOME LAW!

Only after the House passes the amendments will the Senate get the "Reconciliation" bill to act on the Democrats' changes in order to eliminate some of the backroom deals. Unfortunately, some of the deals are still in the "Reconciliation" bill, including funds for a hospital in Connecticut, special treatment for sufferers of a specific work-related disease in one town in Montana and a few more that will probably be revealed in the days to come.....

Check out the latest information at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/20/house-opts-deeming-health-care-passed/. Sphere: Related Content

Do We Have "Government of the People, by the People, for the People"?

In November 1863 in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, President Lincoln expressed his goal in leading the nation through a very dangerous time in our history; namely, that the "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Today, however, President Obama is pursuing his major goal by urging the Congress of the United States to pass landmark legislation, which will transform 17% of the nation's economy, without any input from House members representing the American people who live in 182 Congressional districts.

The major legislation now under consideration will significantly reform the country's health care system and, in so doing, establish a massive expansion of federal entitlement programs that provide medical coverage for low to moderate income children and adults, the unemployed, the disabled and the elderly. To pay for this expansion of government programs, the bills being considered will impose additional taxes and fees on certain segments of our society, such as insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, tanning salon users, higher income taxpayers and those Americans who choose not to buy health insurance. The bills also include significant cuts in spending for Medicare.

I used the term "bills" under consideration because the procedure to be employed in the House of Representatives will be essentially to vote on two bills at once: the bill that passed the US Senate on Christmas Eve and a "reconciliation" bill that includes amendments to the Senate bill. This procedure is known as the "Self Executing Rule", "Deem and Pass" or the "Slaughter Procedure". The last description comes from the name of the Chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, Louise Slaughter.

The amendments to the Senate bill came, for the most part, from the White House in order to scrub out many of the special deals handed out to certain Senators in order to assure passage of the Senate bill before the end of last year. These "high-minded deals" have been described as the "Louisiana Purchase", the "Cornhusker Kickback", "Gator Aid" and other glowing terms that express the very special focus given to certain states represented by Senators who seemed to hold out long enough to get the best they could for their constituents before agreeing to vote for the President's signature legislative objective.

Unfortunately, in order to bypass the Republicans in the Senate, the House must now pass the Christmas Eve Senate bill in addition to the White House amendments.... not as one amended bill, but as two separate bills, even though the special Slaughter House rules will allow this to occur with only ONE VOTE. This means that the President will be able to sign the Senate bill into law (with all those special unsavory deals) before the Senate takes up the amendments.

Since many members of the voting public have made known their objections to the backroom deals included in the Senate bill, as well as other objections to the legislation, many members of the House are not sure they want to vote on the Senate bill that has acquired such a tainted image. It was partly to reassure these uncertain House members that President Obama arranged for the White House to work with Congressional leaders to write the amendments that would result in a cleaner bill that could attract a majority of votes in both houses of Congress.

Of course, there are also many House Democrats who intend to vote against the amended bill due to other objections, such as pro-life Democrats who do not believe that the restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortions is sufficient in the amended bill; fiscally conservative Democrats who oppose the size of this new entitlement program, and very liberal Dems who do not like the absence of a public option in the amended bill.

Furthermore, Senate procedures are also being contorted to assure passage of the amendments to its Christmas Eve bill without the need for any Republican votes. Passing a new amended bill in the Senate normally requires 60 votes to overcome potential filibusters by the minority, but the voters of Massachusetts wiped out the 60 Democratic votes in the Senate in January when they elected Republican Scott Brown to replace the Democratic placeholder appointed after the death of the long-time Democratic "Lion of the Senate" Ted Kennedy. This unforeseen event required the President and the Congressional Democrats to devise a strategy that would allow them to pass the major overhaul of the nation's health care system without any Republican votes in either house of Congress!

This reality has now led to pursuit of the "reconciliation" process that is about to begin in the House over the weekend and then move up Pennsylvania Avenue for the President's signature on the backroom-deal filled Senate bill. As noted above, it is only after the Christmas Tree Senate bill actually becomes law that the Senate will consider the amendments passed by the House under its special Slaughter House rules

By eliminating Republicans from the process and rushing through this major legislation with the votes of only one political party, Americans in 182 Congressional districts have no voice in this historic legislative process. The 182 districts include the 178 districts represented by Republican House members and four districts that currently have vacancies (three due to resignations of their Democratic Representatives and one vacancy due to the death of John Murtha).

President Obama is so intent on making his mark on history with this health care legislation that he is willing to do whatever it takes to get it passed, even without Congressional input from the full range of representatives that would assure that the government continues to be "of, by and for the people". Instead, we have one party rule. That type of government is usually called something else.......

Sphere: Related Content

The Reconciliation Shell Game

In the continuing debate over the health care reform legislation in Congress, the President and the media keep focusing on the reconciliation process in the Senate. The only reason that reconciliation became relevant to this process was because Republican Scott Brown won the open Senate seat from Massachusetts once held by the late Ted Kennedy. Since now Senator Brown said that he would be the 41st Senate vote against health care, if he won, the Democrats knew that they could not pass a final bill in the Senate with a filibuster-proof 60 votes after conferencing with House leaders to resolve differences between the bills passed by each house of Congress before Christmas.

Finding a way to pass a bill in the Senate with 51 votes then became the focus of Democratic strategists. The reconciliation process allows that, if any changes to the previously passed Senate bill are only budgetary amendments within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee.

In order to sell this procedural sleight of hand to defeat the clear message sent by the voters of Massachusetts, the President began saying that health care has been debated long enough, and it is now time for an "up or down" vote. The reference to an "up or down" vote is apparently his way of saying only a majority (51 votes) should be needed in the Senate to pass the bill.

In other words, the new Republican Senator from Massachusetts, just as all other Republicans in Congress, are not to be considered as part of the process. According to the Democrats in Washington, this legislation is too historic to let Republicans do anything to block it, let alone have any influence over the bill's contents.

So the President, Democratic Congressional leaders and the mainstream media have been focused on Republican efforts to find ways to slow or block the Senate's use of the reconciliation process. This way, they all keep the discussion of the prospects for passage of the health care legislation directed on the "obstructionists" in the Republican Party who are trying to stop the bill.

This approach to the press coverage of the Congressional action underway keeps the unknowing members of the public focused on the Senate shell in their little shell game. However, the real reason that the bill might be derailed is that, in order to use the reconciliation process in the Senate, the House must first pass the exact bill already passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve.

That Senate bill includes the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the union deal to delay new taxes on "Cadillac" health plans and other backroom deals that Harry Reid had to use to get 60 votes in the Senate at the end of last year. Even the President has agreed that these "stray cats and dogs" that got into the Senate bill are unsavory and should be eliminated.

In addition, many pro-life Democratic members of the House do not like the abortion language incorporated into the Senate bill. This means that the House is going to be asked to pass a Senate bill that even many Democrats agree is not very good legislation... before any amendments to eliminate the unsavory "cats and dogs" and to resolve differences between the two bills passed in each house of Congress last year can be offered for a vote.

Now here's the real rub: the Parliamentarian in Congress has ruled that as soon as the House passes the previously passed unsavory Senate bill, it must be taken to the White House for the President's signature before any amendments can be considered.

But once the President signs the bill, it becomes LAW! Historic health care reform will be accomplished! So what incentive will Congress have to adopt amendments that everyone, even most Democrats, agree are needed to resolve a multitude of problems in the Senate bill?

All of the above scenario can be achieved without any Republican votes. If the House fails to pass the previously passed Senate bill as the first step in the process, it will be because Nancy Pelosi is not able to get enough Democratic members to vote for it. If that happens, health care legislation will probably be dead. But not at the hands of Republicans. It will be Democrats who kill it.

So why is the media buying into the President's shell game of watching the Republicans? Sphere: Related Content