The gradual dissolution of democratic discourse, and health-care reform

The August town hall meetings regarding health care reform are already infamous for their unruliness, with people resorting to shouting others down in order to deny them their freedom of expression. A town hall meeting in Illinois, where a woman is heckled while trying to relate her story of the death of her daughter-in-law, is just the most recent example.

Firstly, the same as I was in the summer, I am astonished by the lack of empathy. Furthermore, even ignoring the crassness of the hecklers, the obvious attempt to prevent democratic discourse is evident. Ideas cannot be discussed. This is just a tiny step above silencing dissenters with force.

The leader of the hecklers (colloquially referred to as "teabaggers") claimed that the woman's story was simply derailing debate about the actual health care bill. However, when consistent with the larger body of evidence, anecdotes give a human face to a problem, and this is the case here. There is no denying that 47 million people have no health care coverage in the United States due to their low income.

Finally, why the heck was it necessary for the teabaggers to be hurtful to another human being? Just let her finish, and then continue with the debate (if that was what they were truly interested in). Sheesh.

The public option is far from perfect. It will offer coverage to only 31 million of those 47 million uninsured. It acts only as an alternative to other health care insurance plans and doesn't enable universal health care. There is also that silly amendment that denies coverage to low-income women who require abortions.

There is plenty to debate. Unfortunately, instead of debating the actual pros and cons of the bill, though, too often it is the misinformation that gets tossed about. (The hysteria is unbelievable when the solution is so simple. Don't like the public option and can afford a better plan? Then buy a better plan from an insurance company! Heck, you can do that in Canada!)

-----------------------------------------

I have no idea on how to restore the democratic discourse to a useful level. As such, I turn to Star Trek.

In the Star Trek episode "Miri", Kirk has to negotiate with nearly-ageless children for the communicators that they stole from him. As he tries to talk, they keep chanting "blah blah blah" loudly to drown him out (sound familiar?), until Kirk snaps and yells "No blah blah blah!" (hence my username). Eventually, after beating Kirk for a bit with clubs, they listen to him. Why?

In the episode, the reason was due to contrition and the realization that they were being as brutal as the "grups" (grown-ups) that had terrorized them before the grups died from disease... plus the episode was coming to an end, and two-parters were not common in the 1960's... but what if all the ageless children did was shout down Kirk? Would they have ever become contrite and listened?

As far as I can tell, as long as the hecklers aren't violent, they will see themselves as being correct in their actions (despite their obvious crassness and lack of empathy). All the while, they will be eroding the democratic discourse... and eventually end up being the poorer for it.

Peace and long life.