|
|
|
Call it a literary experiment, if you want.
My column last week on health care, titled "Opponents of liberal reform are definitely not my comrades," drew the kinds of responses I had anticipated. A few readers agreed with my views, but many more expressed alarm with my extremist tone.
Admittedly, the column was crafted to elicit such reactions. I employed as many politically charged buzzwords as possible. Terms like “liberal” and “progressive” have definite ideological connotations, yet their literal definitions bear little resemblance to how they’re commonly used.
“Liberal” means free, not restricted. “Progressive” means to advance forward, as opposed to going backward.
Critics of my columns from all political stripes often read ideas into them that are not in keeping with the topics at hand. These readers form an opinion quickly based on their preconceived notions, and no amount of persuading will convince them otherwise.
Many people are similarly ill-informed when debating public policies. They make gross generalizations about certain ideas and dismiss them as unsuitable.
The problem with this approach is there is scant consideration of the potential merits of these ideas. Sometimes, the people yelling the loudest about a plan know virtually nothing about it. How can we have an honest, healthy debate about proposed policies if we’re so woefully misguided about them?
Much of the rhetoric over health care reform was a good example. Labeling it pure socialism, some people cannot accept the concept as legally sound.
But the first paragraph of Article I Section 8 in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the government to provide for the “general welfare” of the country. Although this doesn’t necessarily make universal health care ideal, it opens the door for the argument that it’s constitutional.
By stripping the buzzwords I used of all political connotations, my column last week can be read as conveying one message even as many readers interpreted another. I wanted to demonstrate the risk we take in jumping to erroneous conclusions about important issues.
For a more detailed analysis of how I parse each section of my column of last week, a posting on the matter can be found at blogs.mysuburbanlife.com. I also respond in another blog posting to particular comments people left online and via e-mail.
The lesson is, don’t take everything so figuratively! When we infer things that don’t exist, we close ourselves to the truth.
Jerry Moore is the opinions editor for Suburban Life Publications. Contact him at (630) 368-8930 or jmoore@mysuburbanlife.com. His blog, Suburban Shoutout, can be found at blogs.mysuburbanlife.com/jerry-moore.
Call it a literary experiment, if you want.
My column last week on health care, titled "Opponents of liberal reform are definitely not my comrades," drew the kinds of responses I had anticipated. A few readers agreed with my views, but many more expressed alarm with my extremist tone.
Admittedly, the column was crafted to elicit such reactions. I employed as many politically charged buzzwords as possible. Terms like “liberal” and “progressive” have definite ideological connotations, yet their literal definitions bear little resemblance to how they’re commonly used.
“Liberal” means free, not restricted. “Progressive” means to advance forward, as opposed to going backward.
Critics of my columns from all political stripes often read ideas into them that are not in keeping with the topics at hand. These readers form an opinion quickly based on their preconceived notions, and no amount of persuading will convince them otherwise.
Many people are similarly ill-informed when debating public policies. They make gross generalizations about certain ideas and dismiss them as unsuitable.
The problem with this approach is there is scant consideration of the potential merits of these ideas. Sometimes, the people yelling the loudest about a plan know virtually nothing about it. How can we have an honest, healthy debate about proposed policies if we’re so woefully misguided about them?
Much of the rhetoric over health care reform was a good example. Labeling it pure socialism, some people cannot accept the concept as legally sound.
But the first paragraph of Article I Section 8 in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the government to provide for the “general welfare” of the country. Although this doesn’t necessarily make universal health care ideal, it opens the door for the argument that it’s constitutional.
By stripping the buzzwords I used of all political connotations, my column last week can be read as conveying one message even as many readers interpreted another. I wanted to demonstrate the risk we take in jumping to erroneous conclusions about important issues.
For a more detailed analysis of how I parse each section of my column of last week, a posting on the matter can be found at blogs.mysuburbanlife.com. I also respond in another blog posting to particular comments people left online and via e-mail.
The lesson is, don’t take everything so figuratively! When we infer things that don’t exist, we close ourselves to the truth.
Jerry Moore is the opinions editor for Suburban Life Publications. Contact him at (630) 368-8930 or jmoore@mysuburbanlife.com. His blog, Suburban Shoutout, can be found at blogs.mysuburbanlife.com/jerry-moore.
