No transaction in our modern society is completely free of government involvement. The food we eat costs less because of farm subsidies. Students attend private universities with the help of Pell Grants and Stafford loans. Our churches and temples can afford to operate in part because they are tax-exempt. And employers who offer health insurance do so because of tax incentives. Stupak’s reasoning, taken to its logical extreme, would mean that virtually every activity in which we engage is government funded, regardless of whether it is condoned or condemned.

As I see it, the extension of her argument is that in supporting, for example, transportation subsidies, a person makes a judgment that the good derived from the availability of public transportation outweighs the harm done by freeing up citizens’ personal money to be used for an abortion.  Thus, opposing insurance premium subsidies is a judgment that the benefits of providing people with health insurance are less important than preventing those people from having abortions.

Simultaneously opposing insurance premium subsidies on abortion grounds while also supporting other federal subsidies shows that you prioritize your own religious or social beliefs over someone else’s health.  While this isn’t a logical inconsistency, I’d say it demonstrates a severe lack of empathy and a healthy dose of self-righteousness.

But then, those are all in a day’s work for congressional opponents of health care reform.

Political realities are ultimately inseparable from the individual experiences that give rise to them.  We can make generalizations about societal states of understanding, political theories, and large social constructs, but these must ultimately be grounded in a deep understanding of the individual, human nature of the issue.

At its heart, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a failure of understanding.  Yes, we can and do identify policies, tactics, and manners of thought that continue it, but we cannot forget their inalienably human attributes.  Applying the analytical tools of anthropology and other social sciences can tell us much about why the conflict has evolved the way it has.  Why, for instance, does the Israeli government continue to lend tacit, if not explicit, support in most cases, to settlers who are actively violating international law and soiling Israel’s credibility?  Why have Palestinian civilians been so easily represented by the few who decide to blow themselves up?

These are questions of understanding.  I have strong disagreements with many people involved in the conflict, but there comes a time when I have to admit that I just don’t understand their point of view.  I haven’t been to Israel or Palestine, I haven’t sat down across the table with these people and tried to understand what makes them tick.

I don’t think this makes me less capable of making strong and accurate judgments on the issue, but it does impart on me a responsibility to seek out such stories and incorporate them into my thought.  In fact, I would argue that no one is exempt from this responsibility.  Divorced as I am from the on-the-ground realities of the conflict, it’s easy for me to say that my priority is understanding.  For an Israeli in Sderot who’s lived through rocket attacks and seen their children traumatized and suffering from PTSD, or for a Palestinian in Gaza who’s lived through massive Israeli air raids, destruction of vital infrastructure, and a continuing blockade, it must be incredibly hard to understand the other.

But there are those who do.  There are those who put aside their own experiences, and, given the opportunity to do so without sacrificing basic needs, seek out the other’s perspective.  And the fact that those people exist means that we should not just expect others to do the same, but we should strive for circumstances where they can.

Both in his attempts to understand and his attempts to empower others to do the same, Avi Schaefer was one of those people dedicated to understanding.  After graduating high school in Santa Barbara, he joined the IDF and spent several years as a counterterrorism instructor.  To a naive American Jewish boy like me who’s never held a gun, it’s hard to comprehend his motivations.  But it was crystal clear to me from the moment I met him up until the last conversation I had with him that he wanted me to, and he wanted to comprehend mine.  Avi was in many ways extremely oxymoronic; but then, he existed almost for the purpose of defying those same oxymorons.  Before I met him, I would never have guessed that an American Jew who became an Israeli citizen in order to join the IDF would be more dedicated to peace than arguably any other person I have ever met.  But what Avi has taught me was that that doesn’t have to be a contradiction.  That the only thing standing between us and a deeper personal understanding of the other is our assumptions.  If we come to a discussion with an open mind and no assumptions, we inevitably walk away stronger and smarter.

Avi Schaefer was killed in the early morning of February 12th by a drunk driver on the streets of Providence.  Who Avi was doesn’t make his death more tragic than if it had been someone else, but the people he touched, the good he did in his short time with us, and the taste that is left on our tongues, will linger.  In Avi, a man of incredible virtue and dignity walked among us.

“An enemy is someone whose story we have not yet heard.”  Avi attributed this quote to his father, Rabbi Arthur Gross-Schaefer.

Avi Schaefer, 1988-2010.  Z”L.  May his memory be for a blessing.

This is a particularly relevant question right now because of the mass political ignorance we see around issues like health care.  The BBC has a great article on this, explaining some of the psychological reasons that the Democratic strategy hasn’t worked:

If people vote against their own interests, it is not because they do not understand what is in their interest or have not yet had it properly explained to them.

They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best.

Of course, the current reform proposals do not presume to know what’s best for every individual person.  That’s why they leave open the option of choosing where you buy your insurance plan from, something that I believe to be ultimately wrong.  I see the purpose of health care reform to be laying the stage for an eventual progression towards single-payer.

But that’s neither here nor there.  Where I disagree with the article is in what the ultimate problem is.  It’s an uninformed electorate.  In a healthy, functioning democracy, people have every right to disagree with the government, and to vote it out of office.  In fact, that’s what we did in 2006 and 2008.  Overwhelmingly, voters in this country voted out the Republican ideas that had run the country straight downhill.  And if in 2010 they want to do the same thing for Democrats, they will.  That’s how democracy functions.

Of course, it becomes more complicated, when you have a GOP propaganda machine busy undeducating everyone as fast as possible.  The equation’s different when the minority party is deliberately lying to the public about what it is they’re opposing (and why they’re doing so).  Frankly, given the Democrat’s historical and current inability to accurately and clearly explain their stances to voters, it’s even more amazing that we won so decisively in the last two elections.  People must have been really fed up.

But go back a second.  What’s the real issue here?  I argue that it’s the nature of Democrats’ stances that they can’t be easily explained.  And I don’t think that’s a bad thing.  Yes, we’re losing the message war.  That’s because economic stimulus is complicated and “five-year across-the-board spending freeze” is easy.  ”Free market” is easy and the subtleties that make it inapplicable to health care are complicated.  “Soft on terror” is easy and criminal law is complicated.

So what do we do?  Do we dumb down to face the increasingly ignorant electorate?  No.  We pass something that has tangible, immediate benefits, and we campaign on it.  Because what does the country see right now?  They see Democrats with a giant majority still not getting anything done.  If we can break that view, we’re golden.  In the political free market, political capital is allocated to whoever shows than use it to get results.

And that’s as it should be.  We can decry public ignorance all we want, but ultimately, a voter shouldn’t have to have intimate knowledge of congressional politics in order to hold an opinion.  I’m not condoning total ignorance of the way the government functions, but if we apply some kind of moral standard for what constitutes “enough” knowledge to be involved in politics, we’re setting a risky precedent.  Remember poll taxes and literacy tests?  That’s what happens when the government makes a decision on who deserves to be involved in the democratic process.

Political ignorance is a constitutionally protected right.  But that doesn’t mean we have to assume it is a necessity of the political system.  We need to be fighting two battles at once.  One, to get our legislation passed, so we have something to campaign on.  Two, an agressive information campaign in the form of TV ads and public speaking engagements.  The fact that Democrats have been completely disconnected from voters has harmed us.  We’ve seemed like aloof liberals who know nothing about the plight of ordinary people.  We need to show the public that we are the party with their interests in mind.  In other words, show people why our proposals will help them.  ”Oh, you’re having trouble getting insurance because you have a pre-existing condition?  The legislation we’re passing will prohibit that.  And you know what?  The GOP used to agree with us, but they’re voting against it now to score political points.  You can’t afford your premiums?  Let me tell you about how our legislation will help you.  And you guessed it, Republicans are against that too.”

We’re losing the information war right now, but that doesn’t mean we should dumb down.  Yes, the bill is ridiculously long.  For crying out loud, it’s federal policy.  This is not simple stuff.  Let’s not capitulate to the GOP’s dumbed-down message.  We should be speaking to voters as equals, not pretending that we’re dumb and confused like congressional Republicans are doing.  It’s stupid, degrading, and ultimately unproductive.

If the GOP wants to win elections, they’re on the right track.  If Democrats want to, we need to change course.  And we can’t pass health care without winning elections.

More importantly, however, I don’t really care about Scott Brown.  Yes, he has a truck.  Yes, he doesn’t really seem to have any sort of useful policy ideas.  In other words, he’s not really that different than any other sitting GOP Senator.

I guess what makes it different (theoretically) is the fact that we no longer have our magical awesome super-great-majority.  But let’s face it, we couldn’t even get anything close to meaningful reform even with one.  This won’t be that different

If we want to avoid a filibuster, we can try to get the House to vote on the existing Senate health care bill.  The House Progressive Caucus is strong enough, however, that I doubt that would go through without a fuss, and right now, we need to just get it done so we can move on and have something to campaign on in 2010.

But after much thought, I’m not sure we want to avoid a filibuster.  Just the threat of one so far has been enough to swing the Senate negotiations dramatically in favor of the GOP.  What if we, as Obama promised during his campaign, televised every bit of what was going on on the Senate floor, and in fact forced the GOP to filibuster?  They could no longer claim that we were shoving it down America’s throat.  We’d stand up and say “Look, you’re the one who’s denying a straight vote and a real debate.  You want to have ‘em, let’s go, and then we’ll vote.  If not, we’ll show every single person in America exactly where your interest lies.”

We’ve been playing games to try to avoid a filibuster up until now.  We can’t avoid it any more unless we want to woo a Republican over, which is completely implausible.  For crying out loud, they’re already promising to repeal the thing when they take power.

Now that we can’t avoid it any more, it’s time to look a GOP filibuster square in the eye.  Give us your best shot.

I’m waiting and ready.  America’s watching.