I was reading an article over dinner tonight about people working in the Organizing for America movement, which is the follow-on organization to Obama for America. They're trying to generate grass-roots support for the changes in health care that Obama is advocating. The article says that it's tough going, partially because these people worked hard for a long time for the Obama campaign, and so they're tired, even a year later, and partially it's because they're facing a lot of vocal -- very vocal -- opposition from people who would rather not see change occur. I've seen this before, and thought 'yeah, I hope they're successful, god knows we need it', but one line caught my attention.
The article was talking about the intensity of some of the opposition, and that some of the workers are beginning to feel physically threatened. One said that he was told 'Why should I be afraid of a liberal when I have a .357?' That sort of response brings to mind the proud boast of Charlton Heston, when he was leader of the NRA, to the effect that he knew they'd be successful because 'they had the guns'. Quiet lawyers would likely demur, but to me that message is 'If you oppose us, you're opposing angry people with guns..... how lucky do you feel?' My first reaction is to retort angrily, and to go find a reason to disarm such a person -- after all, they're threatening me. Which, in a way, is an indication of why armed angry people isn't a good idea. But after a moment, I think No, you need to separate the concepts. Though I don't support the idea of being able to go armed to public events, others do, and part of the game plan for this country is that we go by what the majority wants. I can work to change that, but until it's changed, I have to play by those rules. The question of whether they should be allowed to be armed is settled. For the moment, anyway.
What's not settled is whether we are willing to let the loud-shouters have their way based purely on the volume of their arguments. That there are people with legitimate reasons not to like what they're hearing -- reasons that I would regard as legitimate, I suppose I should say -- I don't doubt. But even they are being drowned out by the drumbeat of the people who prefer to have things stay the same, not willing to even look to see if things could be better. Better the evil you know...is their motto. That's not good enough, anymore. There may well be legitimate rage on that side of the argument -- it's gone beyond a debate -- but there damned well ought to be some fire and rage on our side, too. This side is normally quiet, peaceful, and conciliatory, but when facing all-or-nothing types, I think we do ourselves a disservice.
In other words, I'll listen, and gladly, to those who can make coherent arguments. But the shouters, the gun-packers, the placard-toters?
Screw 'em. Soft enough, do you think?
6 comments:
Standing ovation in this corner, BIll. :-)
Carolyn Ann
I just read an article in Newsweek where the director Quinton Tarentino said the even if a 12-year-old entered his house he would shot them. Nice people these hard right-wingers.
I try to understand the reasoning of people on the other side. (This is a genetic failing of mine, like being a diabetic.) I have gotten to the point of understanding why people feel the need for personal protection, and I understand that that feeling extends to wanting some fairly heavy weaponry to protect the homestead. A shotgun, say.
I draw the line at multishot fast firing weapons, though, and the NRA does not. I saw an ad for, I think, a gun store in Wyoming, and they almost had me nodding -- young woman, alone in the house, tormenter lurking outside, she calls 911 and gets told 'help will be there in a minute'; she replies 'I don't have a minute' as the guy breaks in. She shoots him. Well, okay. But she shoots him with an automatic weapon, and its like Rambo in the upstairs hallway, shattering the window, pocking the walls with bullets. The guy is not only shot, he's virtually eviscerated. Nope, can't see that. Cops get held to 'reasonable force' standards; why not civilians?
Gee,and Tarantino is so often the voice of reason and moderation, too.
As for health care, I am trying hard not to equate the motives and motivation of people who want no changes to those who want to be able to pack heat on the playground. Truth to tell, I don't think that the private option is absolutely necessary; what makes it needed is the actions of the insurance companies with their dropping of ill people and their 'pre-existing' condition bigotry. I'm not sure that the private option will eliminate that. Perhaps brighter people than I can see a way to make it work through the insurance companies instead of supplanting them -- ie, when the agency would have dropped/refused, the public option gets invoked as a way for the insurance company to sell the insurance, with the backing of the feds. That essentially makes the PO the insurer of last resort, which is what I think (this is just a guess) the PO is intended to be. Baracks's folks are doing a lousy job selling it, though. I gather they're trying to gin up OFA as an effective countervoice to the shouters, but man, that's a hard sell.
So I think: Well, WWGD? And what I think George and the Republicans would have done is: they'd have said Screw 'em, we have the majority, we're passing it.
I agree with you. They are much more frightened than we are at everything and that is why they don't trust us. They think we will give away the store because we are so trusting.
You cant negotiate with terrorists.
shot is way safer.
Actually, you can negotiate with terrorists. You can negotiate with anyone who thinks they have something to gain from a negotiation.
Not sure what your second comment means, though.
Post a Comment