Our Words Are Dividing Our Nation

Much of the opposition to the new national health insurance law is related to the words used to describe it.

It’s been called “Obamacare” (with all the inferences to the Armageddon, the Anti-Christ and Death Panels) and a “Redistribution of Wealth” by those with political motives to undermine it—or to gain political advantage for the next election.

But, it is important to look closely at the words that are used daily in our political discourse. We need to look a lot deeper for some substance and to see if we can find some areas of agreement for a change.

Let’s start with the phrase “Redistribution of Wealth.” Conservatives like to say that the new health care plan is a Redistribution of Wealth, designed to transform the United States health care system into a socialistic system like they have in European countries.

Isn't every provision in the tax code (including deductions and tax credits) a "re-distribution?"

Words are important in framing opinions. In recent years, words have been carefully phrased as “talking points” to make us more divided, and in some instances more callous.

"Socialism" includes the public library, public schools, police force, military spending, Social Security, Medicare, and other "entitlement programs"--another carefully-crafted phrase.

"Welfare" is always a derogatory term attached to poor people, but not to corporations like AIG. Isn't it "socialism" to give "corporate welfare" to AIG or to Citibank? And, is it "Corporate Welfare" or "Economic Development Incentives" when State and local governments give exemptions from property tax to Walmart to open a new store, but don't give the same incentives to the small business owner who owns the local hardware store?

"Redistribution of wealth" is a think tank talking-point phrase carefully designed to convey the political message that your money is wrongfully being taken away from you (without consideration of the fact that you wouldn't be who you are or that you wouldn't have gotten where you are today without the "socialistic" things mentioned above).

Warren Buffett has said that he is willing to pay taxes on his enormous wealth because he recognizes that he would never have been able to accumulate his wealth anywhere else but in this country that provided all of the things that he couldn't ever provide for himself.

In the context of "redistribution of wealth," the question to be asked philosophically as a country and as a society is--are we going to have any government programs to assist disadvantaged people who are our fellow citizens--even those who are very different than us? (E.g. the elderly, the disabled, and those who may need a safety net.)

We seem to forget history. Before Medicare, the elderly were the largest segment of people in poverty in the country. Do we want to have no health care system available for people who are too old to work?

So, if we agree that is important in our society, let's figure out how to fund it and how to fix the parts that are broken. If we called these "Charitable Programs" instead of "Entitlement Programs" would people start to discuss them differently?

And, are we going to have any programs (like unemployment compensation) that assist people who are hard-working and pay taxes, but get laid off because of a downturn in the business cycle?

And what about the children born to an unwed teenager? As the corollary to the right to life movement, should we provide prenatal care and proper nutrition (for proper brain development) and quality health care as a basic human right until the poor child is old enough to pull herself up by her bootstraps and fend for herself (or join the military to go fight for us--which we never seem to have any objections to paying for)?

Is spending money on foreign military bases and nation building wars more important than spending it back home on the families of our wounded soldier who suffered a debilitating brain injury in Iraq and his wife has to quit her job to take care of him and their 3 kids?

And if we want to end the cycle of welfare dependency, how are we going to create enough jobs here to enable everyone who wants to work to be able to work? Are we going to enact laws that make it "advantageous" for corporations to stop sending jobs overseas? (because it is clear that corporations won't regulate themselves).

There needs to be more of a focus on reinvestment in manufacturing here--for the long term, without the focus on whether or not the company hits their quarterly earnings projections and disappoints Wall Street talking heads and pundits. There needs to be a plan to create employment for the middle class.

I was hopeful that we'd start that process by having something similar to the Apollo Project to pursue alternative forms of energy-- making solar panels and windmills, developing biofuels, (and ending Ethanol subsidies) for starters, but apparently, those are all non-starters because the oil companies control our politicians and we can't seem to agree on what day it is much less anything so bold.

Talk about real trickle-down economics, middle class factory workers spend money on haircuts at the corner barber shop and get pizza and beer at the corner restaurant, and they all spend money at the local stores, and all pay taxes, etc.).

To me, this type of investment in our future is more important than getting a cheaper shirt at Walmart that is made in China, or is more important than eliminating capital gains taxes for personal wealth building as Newt Gingrich proposed this week when I heard him speak in St. Petersburg. (How is the elimination of the capital gains tax going to make the deficit disappear or pay down the national debt?)

I increasingly see more divisiveness and less willingness to discuss these societal questions—because of the words we use.

We are close to the tipping point thanks to: "Think tanks" created only to advance the careers of politicians interested in their own personal political power (who, with more and more frequency seem to pass laws to benefit large corporations); cleaver slogans and divisive language; citizens that seem to be more interested in pop culture than our future; and 24-hour Cable TV shows and talk radio.

It's hard to choose which of these may be the death knell for our cohesiveness as a country. All I know is that it seems to get worse every day.

We need to stop talking in sound bites and need to begin to discuss what we agree upon as core values.

We need to decide soon what kind of country we will have, or whether we will have one at all.