Vitriol, passion and the raised voices of the extreme conservatives have dominated the recent health care debate and the headlines on America's (dwindling population of) print newspapers. Weeks of unsuccessful, verbally violent town hall meetings in which protesters defaced President Obama's likeness with crude Hitler mustaches and likened the proposed health care bill to a Soviet medical takeover have sparked discussions on the motives behind the actions of the so-called "Teabaggers", the psychology behind their organization and an examination of the fundamental inaccuracies of their arguments. The 46 million Americans without viable health care options find themselves at the center of a debate which, ironically, focuses not on the details of the proposed plan but whether or not President Obama could be most reasonably equated with Stalin or Hitler. The answer? Neither.
Some liberal pundits and politicians—most notably Barney Frank, a Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts who, in an act of sheer frustration, equated one heckler's intelligence with that of a dining room table—have fought back; Nancy Pelosi notoriously decried the behavior of these town hall protesters as "unpatriotic," while President Obama created a website debunking myths related to the health care debate in order to encourage more honest debate. A nice idea, perhaps, but distinctly unrealistic at this point in the debate, when emotions, rather than a respect for facts, dominate the debate and the myriad controversies surrounding it. The country is operating under a deficit of over $11 trillion, and theoretically President Obama's proposed bill would cost taxpayers at least another trillion over the next ten years. On the face of it, the figure is indeed shocking. Right now, Americans are concerned about any plans to add significantly to the nation's debt when the signs of an economic recession, such as the 9.7 percent unemployment rate, are still more than obvious in most places around the country. This is understandable. However, when the "debate" devolves from a discussion of these issues and concerns into cries of "Socialism!" and "Obama is a Nazi!" it becomes incomprehensible from any logical standpoint.
First, one must consider the fundamental inaccuracies of such statements. It is impossible, for instance, for one man to be both Fascist and Socialist. Simply put, it defies the laws of political physics. Fascism represents, by definition, the political far right, and while President Obama may not be the country's most liberal politician, he is at least to the left of Sarah Palin (and safely out of shooting distance). Goebbels, for instance—who was one of Hitler's closest advisors—praised Fascism for its ideological break with liberal democracy. Hardly a tenet of President Obama's platform. For some strange reason, the protestors have seized upon Hitler's social Darwinist desire to ration health care and applied it, erroneously, to President Obama's plan. Factually, nowhere in the proposed bill is rationed medical care mentioned, and under the plan such a system would be impossible. Secondly, if one had to pick the most lasting aspect of Hitler's legacy, would it really be his impact on Germany's medical system?
With regard to the shouts and claims of socialism, it needs to be said that many of this nation's most important institutions borrow from Socialist philosophy, including the U.S. National Park Service, the Post Office, the Armed Forces (which, it must be added, have certainly been heavily used by conservative politicians these past eight years), even the public school system. The hecklers at these town hall meetings claim that the bill, if passed, would increase the time it takes to see a doctor after a request is made for a medical appointment, even in the case of a life-threatening emergency, citing examples from the United Kingdom and Canada. In these two countries, a single-payer system in employed, in which the government completely covers the cost of medical treatment for every citizen. According to a new study by the Commonwealth Fund, the findings of which were recently published in Newsweek, patients in the United States wait longer to see their doctors than those in Britain, New Zealand, Germany and Australia. These countries are examples of those with public health care. Still more convincing is the fact that a single-payer system is not part of the proposed plan. If one were to pay attention solely to the "Teabaggers," it would seem as if Americans love their private insurance and the current health care system; paradoxically, nearly one-quarter of us wait six days or longer for an appointment.
Not all those against health care reform engage in this sort of lopsided excuse for discourse. I simply cannot believe that most conservatives would support the words of a recent town hall demonstrator who stated unequivocally that he would travel to the White House with a loaded gun if he could find enough followers. The most virulent of these protesters and their arguments are illogical on all fronts, really, and a refusal to engage in a discussion with Congressional representatives—preferring instead to shout them down and bellow death threats to the President and those who would support him—shows not only a deep disrespect for basic facts but also a certain cowardice and simple hatred. These hecklers operate under a very theoretical understanding of the letter of the First Amendment; certainly it encourages the right of the American citizens to discuss, opine, demonstrate, disagree and denounce the opposition. To use the spirit of the Constitution, on the other hand, to legitimize threats of physical violence and disrespect for fellow citizens and elected officials—not to mention the facts of the matter—is nothing short of appalling.
Caitlin Hurwit is a member of the Class of 2012.