"Over the next few months, the editors of Parents.com will report on hot-button election issues that American families face today, from healthcare to education. In the spirit of offering diverse perspectives on the election, we’ve chosen three moms from across the political spectrum to be guest bloggers on Parents News Now. Each one of them will offer a unique take on the topics that they–and you!–are most passionate about."
Last week, three bloggers--a conservative, a liberal, and a moderate--gave their responses to the Supreme Court's decision on the Affordable Health Care Act. They offer up no surprises. Sharon Lerner, the liberal blogger, rejoices in the SCOTUS decision. She thinks that offering universal health care is a "no brainer," and she can't fathom how or why anyone could possibly be opposed in principle to it. She believes that "Republican health care haters" are basing their ideas on a misunderstanding of freedom; they expect to have freedom of purchasing power and freedom from the responsibility of caring for other citizens. So, apparently, if you want the freedom to spend your money as you choose, and you expect to be free from paying the medical bills of a stranger whose other bills you are not expected to pay, you are a health care hater. As we would expect, Ms. Lerner has no thought for paying for this monstrosity.
The moderate blogger (who really in the end is also a liberal), Amy Julia Becker, argues from compassion and pragmatism. She is happy that the law has been upheld. She acknowledges that she has enjoyed the privileges of health care because she grew up in an affluent family (someone at some point worked hard to create the affluency) and because she and her husband have always worked hard. She cites a study from Oregon (no liberal bias there) that shows that when everybody has access to health care, it has a positive impact on society. She takes issue with some of the finer points of the law that do not consider personal responsibility (does any of it?) and looks forward to the day when everyone will enjoy the same privileges of health care that she has always enjoyed.
The conservative writer, Suzanne Venker, raises the issue of fairness (is every American truly entitled to health care?) and wonders what the ramifications will be for the quality of health care that people will receive. Nothing particularly new here, but what she does point out that is interesting is this:
It gets even more interesting when you consider the number and nature of responses from the commenters, who, in this admittedly very small context, prove Ms. Venker's point."The Left is motivated largely by emotion. If something sounds good or just, it should be embraced–regardless of its feasibility. Conservatives (and independents, for that matter) know better. Leftists can also be elitist. If someone doesn’t agree with their position, he must be educated so he can see things more clearly. Obama is famous for that attitude. When The People reject his policies, he insists he just hasn’t explained himself well. The condescension is so palpable I almost feel sorry for him. Almost."
There were eight responses to the liberal's post. Two conservative commenters (one is a business owner) disagree politely with the blogger and ask how the Affordable Health Care Act will be paid for. Their tone is respectful, they don't call Lerner names, they don't call the president names. When a liberal supporter of the post politely reminds the business owner that this will all be paid for with taxes on the wealthy and budget cuts and also explains that unless she has fifty employees or more she will not be required to offer them health care benefits, the business owner comes back, again, respectfully, with hard numbers and statistics from the Congressional Budget Office. She responds civilly, intelligently, and obviously with a clearer grasp of the issues than the liberal commenter.
There are six responses to the moderate post. Because the moderate's arguments are a bit muddled, a couple of the commenters' responses are as well. Again, there are those who question how all of this will be paid for, one who says she is optimistic and one who says he is not. But the tone here is civil, respectful, and reasonable. There is no name calling, no calling into question the blogger's intelligence (although one commenter rightly questions some of the author's assumptions).
And then we come to the conservative blogger, who accuses the left of being emotional and elitist. It makes me wonder if she didn't provide the comments herself to prove her point, because prove her point they do. There are twenty-three comments to her post--a much higher response rate than the other two bloggers got. While the first commenter chimes in with her support of Venker's arguments regarding fairness, others accuse her of being ignorant and selfish. A couple of these angry commenters say that they are shocked that Parents would publish such offensive stuff and claim that they will cancel their subscriptions. Never mind that the magazine also provided posts from two liberal perspectives. Those who seem most offended by Venker's viewpoint argue from personal, anecdotal experience, i.e., emotion. They take an elitist position and consider Venker ignorant and selfish because . . . well, because they disagree with her.
I'm happy to report that most of the commenters wrote in support of Venker, and one commenter (who might have been me) offered up this: "This is the problem with liberals: no compromise, and no exchange of ideas. 'If you disagree with me, I'll shut you down.'"
The word liberal suggests generosity and broad-mindedness, and it's interesting that the people who would claim this quality for themselves often have the least generosity and broad-mindedness for anyone with whom they happen to disagree. "Moms Decide 2012" is a case in point.
