Peace Process

But with the country almost evenly divided and equally committed to their beliefs, we dismiss our popposition at the risk of civil war.

So what gives?  How are we to make sense out of a seemingly nonsensical debate?  Here’s an effort to apply the rules of conflict analysis that I developed in Sri Lanka:

1. It’s Never About What They Say It’s About.  This debate isn’t about health care at all– it’s about the role of government.  Simply put, Liberals believe we need government to make things better.  Conservatives believe government rarely makes things better. 

We already have a government that provides a lot of services and intervenes in a lot of markets.  Few people would argue that government shouldn’t provide police, security (military), and banking regulation.  But many (Liberals and Conservatives alike) would argue that market intervention, such as farm and oil subsidies, actually does more harm than good.  And whether through corruption or incompetence, banking regulation has been an abject failure in the past two decades, and it’s still not fixed. 

Still, Liberals believe that government can be made trustworthy, and that a trustworthy government is an essential partner in creating better lives.  The role of government should be expanded.  Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that government is by nature untrustworthy, and that it already has too big a role in our lives.  They don’t argue for no government, but they do argue for less of it.

These two views are largely irreconcilable, since they favor moving in opposite directions.

2. Someone Always Benefits from Increasing Conflict.  Usually it’s a segment of the ruling class, and this conflict is no exception.  By exacerbating conflict, legislators and political leaders and commentators both sides guarantee continued publicity and support from their constituencies.  In short, they gain power.  And while they bicker, we the people gain nothing.  Thus, the conflict in this case benefits politicians on both sides.

3. Identifying an outside enemy gives leaders the ability to control inside events.  There’s growing dissatisfaction with government in all quarters.  Both the preceding and current Presidents gave hundreds of billions of dollars to rich folks who hadn’t earned it.  The wars overseas go on.  And the biggest fear of both political parties is that people will turn away from them and support a third party.  Because as long as there are only two parties, they get to set the agenda.

Enter the health care debate.  By exploiting one of the few ideas that divide us, politicians get to paint “them” as the enemy.  They’re crazy.  They want to destroy our way of life.  They’re unAmerican.  Politicians on both sides are doing this as I write this.

By doing so, politicians control the national dialogue.  They turn it away from the widespread sentiment that they– the politicians– have failed us, and refocus it on divisions between us, the people.

4. The goal of conflict is not to win, but to control.  Conflict is a tool to control the national dialogue: in this case to divert our attention from our dissatisfaction with our leaders.  So expect the debate to drag on as long as possible, because while we’re focused on that we’re not focused on our leaders’ shortcomings.  Our leaders have already told us to expect the debate to continue through the end of the year.  My bet is, it’ll continue next year as well.

5. The effect of these efforts by leaders at control is a fundamental shift in national thinking and the acceptance of ”the other” as enemy.  The damage caused is permanent.  We don’t move on from here and say, “Hey buddy, well fought.  Let’s go have a beer,” because the other side remains “the enemy.”  In part this is because our leaders will continue to exploit our growing hatred for their own ends: few leaders ever give up power voluntarily.  And in part, it continues because hatred is a potent emotion that is difficult to extinguish.

In short, we’re being manipulated for short-term gain by our political leaders.  But the cost of that manipulation will outlast any gains.

So which of these conflicting effigies is the President?  Probably D: None of the above.  What these marchers are likely saying is that Obama is unAmerican.  More to the point, they see his health care reform proposals as violating what they see as deep-seated American values: free enterprise and fiscal responsibility. 

Liberals will no doubt counter that government already gives people a lot of support.  And they’re right.  Factional politics requires that we seek a middle ground.  But many conservatives believe we’re already at the middle ground.  Moving government into the realm of private enterprise is unacceptable.  Spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don’t have (on top of an already-staggering national debt) is unacceptable short of a national emergency.  And even reform proponents have bemoaned that there is no emergency– just an opportunity.

On the other hand, it is an American value that our elderly, our working poor, and even much of our middle class be without health insurance?  Surely not.  Yet, ironically enough, those who once decried “trillion dollar wars” on the grounds that we couldn’t afford them, now insist that Obama’s $900 billion price tag (his opponents put it far higher) is not only acceptable, but essential.

It is these two conflicting views of America– these two views of which is the higher priority– that may bring us to blows.

As a person who has lived in both urban and rural places, who has friends from across the political spectrum, and whose political views align with no party I have yet encountered, I’m appalled at the caricaturization taking place on both sides.  What each side says about themselves is disonformative; what they say about each other demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what makes the other side tick.  Worse, neither side seems to care much about understanding the other.

That leaves us with limited choices.  At some point, we will have to moderate our speech and begin to try to understand why the other side says what it does.  Or we disengage, divide the country, and agree to disagree.  Or we start backing up our passionate (but illogical) arguments with violence.