Politics Eclipse Policy, Part II

So, having criticized the MSM for focusing on politics over policy in the current health care debate, why have I written only on the politics and not made a single post on substantive healthcare policy? For two reasons. First of all, I consider Republican conduct here to be sufficiently disturbing that for me the politics of the issue really do eclipse the policy.

The second reason is that ultimately, healthcare reform is not my biggest issue. I didn't vote for Obama to pass universal healthcare. Yes, it is an important issue, and one that I favor. But it wasn't the reason for my vote.

I voted for Obama in hopes that he would clean up the mess Bush left. He hasn't done it. Given the choice between Bush with universal healthcare and Bush without universal healthcare, I will take the healthcare. But I was hoping for a President who wasn't George Bush and am now despairing of getting one.

Consider the Bush policies I saw as important and how Obama has responded so far.

Get out of Iraq. Check. Granted, he is following the timetable negotiated by Bush, but he is following in, not trying to subvert it as some hawks have desired.

Develop a rational policy in Afghanistan. None in sight.

Stop relying on defense contractors. We are, if anything, relying on them more than ever.

Practice diplomacy. Okay, we are making at least some progress there.

Close Guantanamo. A stated goal with approximately zero chance of happening. Granted, Congress has a large hand in that.

End torture. Well, the Obama Administration has formally committed itself not to torture and has closed down CIA "black sites" that weren't being used anyhow. But torture continued unabated at Guantanamo with no attempt to stop it, and who knows what is going on at Bangram.

End warrantles wiretaps. The Obama Administration seems quite content continuing the mysterious "basket warrants" allowed under the Protect America Act and sweeping the entire issue under the rug. Is the program appropriate? Is it entirely out of control? Just how much of our foreign communications are being surveilled? Who knows?

Stop the abusive use of National Security Letters. Who knows? I'm guessing not; they are just too convenient.

Stop infiltrating and surveilling innocent organizations. Who knows?

Stop heavy-handed PATRIOT Act investigations of innocent dissent. Who knows?

Put the No-Fly List on a rational basis. Not a sign of it.

Either abolish our color-coded system of alerts, or put them on a rational basis. No. In fact, orange appears to be the new norm.

Stop using the federal government (including the Justice Department) as a system of partisan patronage. Who knows?

Stop interfering with the independent judgment of government scientists. Who knows?

Stop the heavy-handed immigration raids that give the country a police state feel. It is my understanding there has been progress here, and the emphasis has shifted to deporting criminals and cracking down on employers.

Stop heavy-handed treatment of foreign tourists for small technical violations. Who knows?

Lighten up on the war on drugs. Once again, it is my understanding the feds have stopped raiding medical marijuana facilities. Otherwise things remain heavy-handed, but at least be are back to pre-Bush.

Allow unfriendly demonstrators in your vicinity and critics into town hall meetings. Yes, give Obama credit, he has done this. In fact, he was disappointed how few showed up on the health care tour.

Introduce accountability into the bank bailout and stop treating it as a handout. For the most part, no. As funds began to run low and everyone knew Congress would not approve any more, the Administration had started being more parsimonious, which is all to the good, but even the Bush Administration would presumably have done the same. Maybe Obama will offer a reasonable set of banking regulations and somewhat redeem himself on this one, but I am not holding my breath.

Run a more open Administration. Despite a few encouraging signs, the overall record is most unimpressive.

Expose what the Bush Administration was up to. This was the critical one for me. Only by revealing what they were up to can we really get a handle on what (if anything) was justified and how to reform it. Unlike, say, Glenn Greenwald, I can understand why prosecution is politically impossible, but exposure it essential. And, while there have been a few forced disclosures so far, on the whole this Administration has been fighting tooth and claw to keep its predecessor's actions secret. What are we to conclude but that it wants to reserve authority to continue them?

Polarization: It's Not Just Fox's Fault

Let's face it. Although I continue to be disturbed at the degree of polarization we are experiencing, when our own side starts shouting down speakers at town halls, biting off fingers and killing abortion protesters, it is time to realize that we are not blameless. Yes, the other side started it with their talk of "death panels" and other such lies, but we, quite simply, are taking the bait and allowing ourselves to be provoked. This has two dangerous effects -- it encourages the right wing's martyr complex, and it escalates the polarization further, and from both sides. This is what we must not do.

I blame the media. For the polarization on both sides. Two excellent Washington Post columns explain the twin problems at work.

One problem is that the public is poorly informed. Obviously Fox News and talk radio tell a lot of lies. That's what Fox News and talk radio do. Nothing we can do about it. But mainstream news outlets have been falling down on the job of explaining what is really going on. By that I mean not just explaining that there are no death panels being proposed (they have at least made the attempt there), but a failure to explain what is being proposed. Andrew Alexander, Washington Post ombudsman, reports that 72% of all the Post's front page articles since the beginning of July have been about the politics, rather than the policy of health care reform. Policy-oriented articles are often too wonky for most readers to follow. Authors tend to assume that readers know what terms like "single payer" or "public option" mean. Alexander proposes that newspapers make policy issues accessible to non-wonks by features like "glossaries explaining basic terms, easily digestible Q&As, short sidebars that summarize complex concepts and graphics that decipher complicated data." He also proposes more stories on what reform means to the average citizen.

Of course, none of this will sway people who automatically discount everything in the "liberal media" and believe only Fox News. But it is a mistake to exaggerate their numbers, and therein lies the other problem. Alexander reports that an article about healthcare systems in other countries was among the most popular items published by the Post. The hardcore Fox crowd would never link to such an article. Columnist E.J. Dionne reports the constant bias toward sensationalism. In fact the angry crowds shouting speakers down, the Obama as Hitler signs, the talk of "death panels," and other such hysteria made up only a small fraction of all such meetings. We should have suspected as much when Obama went looking for such a crowd to work and couldn't find one. Dionne even quotes a network reporter as telling one Congressman, "Your meeting won't get covered unless it blows up."

The result is obvious. While Fox News stokes right wing paranoia with reports of "death panels," mainstream outlets stoke liberal paranoia with tales hysterical mobs shouting down speakers and comparing Obama to Hitler. Liberals denounced such things, in turn feeding the anger and fear of more reasonable protesters who then felt unfairly demonized. And so the polarization grows and the health of democracy suffers.

No one will hear me writing on this obscure blog, but if they did, I would not waste time trying to convince Fox News, talk radio or Republican leaders to be more reasonable. It is obviously not in their nature. But to the mainstream media, I would say, follow Andrew Alexander's advice. Write more about policy, geared to the non-wonk, so that the general public will understand what is being debated. This is not to suggest that everyone who understands the proposed reforms will favor them, only that there will be more room for rational debate. And when debate becomes irrational, follow Dionne's advice. Yes, irrationality is news and deserves to be reported. But give us some perspective. If the vast majority of meetings are not blowing up, show some of them, too, and give us relative numbers. Your bias toward sensationalism is contributing to the polarization that is most deadly to democracy.

And to Democratic leaders. Barney Frank's approach can be tempting. Yes, when people are being irrational, it can be tempting just to mock them. But it will just be met with either counter-mockery or a sense of martyrdom. Al Franken has it right. Rationally engage whoever is engageable, be wonky but not patronizing, treat your constituents like adults. Be Franken, not Frank. And we may cool things off yet.