Health Care Bill: Looking Back with Anger
Many Americans, but certainly not all, are angry about the passage of the health care bill. Some snippets from a NYTimes article about this anger:
At least two Congressional district offices were vandalized and Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a senior Democrat from New York, received a phone message threatening sniper attacks against lawmakers and their families.
Ms. Slaughter also reported that a brick was thrown through a window of her office in Niagara Falls, and Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, said Monday that her Tucson office was vandalized after the vote.
Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan and a central figure in the measure’s abortion provisions, reported receiving threatening phone calls.Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking black lawmaker in the House, said he received an anonymous fax showing the image of a noose.
John Boehner likes the anger, but not the way it has manifested:
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, spoke out against violence but encouraged Americans to continue to find ways to counter the legislation. “I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill, and that Washington Democrats just aren’t listening,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. “But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way. We need to take that anger and channel it into positive change.”
Who is responsible for the anger? Well, there is no one answer. Some folks hate the bill, some folks hate all American politicians, and some folks hate just the Democrats. Some Democrats are charging that the Republican leadership is to blame, in part, for violence:
Democrats also raised questions about some of the imagery and phrases being employed by Republicans against the Democratic architects and backers of the measure, noting that a Republican National Committee Web site urging supporters to fire Ms. Pelosi has her surrounded by flames. A Facebook page of Sarah Palin singling out Democratic members for defeat because of their votes defines their districts by the crosshairs of a weapon’s sight.
Republicans dismissed objections to the imagery. “The message of our Web site is clear, it is time to put Nancy Pelosi out of a job,” said Katie Wright, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.
Some Democrats are complaining that Republicans are unable to focus on other parts of their jobs, like showing up to committee meetings:
Senate Democrats accused Republicans of delay tactics and of forcing the cancellation of unrelated committee sessions over anger about the health measure. Senators Carl Levin of Michigan and Claire McCaskill of Missouri were furious that Republican objections prevented hearings Wednesday on the Pentagon budget and the training of Afghan police officers.
“The obstruction has become mindless, it’s become purposeless,” Mr. Levin said.
Anger, and hate. Campaign literature and other political advertisements often have images of flames and weapons. I got many of these in the 2004 and 2006 elections delivered to my door (I kept them; they’re fascinating in their depiction of guns and violence to make political points). I think such imagery has no place in peaceable democratic politics, as purportedly what we have in America. I am not convinced that such imagery creates violent actions; nor do I think it facilitates violence; the folks who threaten lawmakers with violence would do so without prompting from the political leadership. They do it because they lack a sound moral center. I do see such imagery as a reflection of American society’s violence fetish. (It is not just America, of course; Avatar would not have made 2 billion dollars if it was just America who liked shoot-’em-ups). I argue that American politicians should recognize this, and strive to be above such imagery.
What place does anger have in American democracy? Apparently, now, an exalted place. Boehner likes the anger. Dems liked the anger over Bush’s policies; it helped them win the House and Senate. Anger is useful for politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike. Everyday Americans get angry when the policies and politics don’t swing their way. But democracy is supposedly a long-term process. Eventually, the Dems will lose power and the Repubs will be back. Dems will get angry over whatever happens then. It is vital that the anger, which is always there, passed like a medicine ball from one side to the other, does not become the violence portrayed in political leaders’ campaign advertisements, or the violence the morally-bereft advocate for.

