Defining the "radical" element.

There are always outliers. These outliers are usually termed "radicals" for political purposes. Frequently, however, the number of outliers or "radicals" depends on how you define "normal".

Speaker Pelosi is afraid that people's anger Obama's healthcare proposal might turn into violence. Really? The 9/12 TEA Party in Washington DC was among the most tame crowds that anyone has ever seen. Is this among the scare tactics about healthcare that President Obama said he wouldn't tolerate? Sounds an awful lot to me like someone is trying to define common protest as a burgeoning "radical" movement.

Former President Carter suggested earlier this week that opposition to President Obama is primarily motivated by racism. The reasoning here is something akin to the following:

1. People are extremely upset over this reckless deficit spending.
2. People couldn't possibly be impassioned about money.
3. We have a African-American President.
4. Back in my day (1970's), the only thing people were passionate about was race.
5. Therefore, this impassioned protest can only be about racist hatred for an African-American President.

This is a textbook attempt to define reasonable protest against foolhardy policy as "radical".

Finally, Gov. Pawlenty of Minnesota said this yesterday:

This is my message: Stop spending the country back to bankruptcy... and maybe the next time you talk to a group of young people you should apologize for the debt you are putting on their shoulders...

(Tim Pawlenty pictured at left).

A spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee replied:

It looks like Tim Pawlenty isn't even going to offer the pretense of being anything but an extreme right wing radical anymore...

Radical? Really? Calling for responsible spending is now a radical proposition!?!

President Obama is failing to convince people that condensing Federal control over healthcare is a good thing. When you cannot win the debate, it is common to attack the people who oppose you. You attempt to define the opposition and try to frame them as unreasonable. You define "normal" as the people who agree with you. You call anyone who disagrees with you "violent", "racist" and "radical".

It may not be a co-ordinated effort. It may not be obvious to many. However, the Democrats are desperate. They control the House and Senate. They control the White House. They cannot, however, control what everyday people think about spending $900,000,000,000.00 when the country is flat broke. This frustration that we are not all buying into a utopia where money is irrelevant and common sense is non-existent has led to this desperation. This desperation has fermented into an attempt to define who and what people are.

How did the party of hope and change become demeaning and accusatory?

Of course, the real shame goes beyond Democrats calling people names on the political playground. The real consequence of these efforts is that they lessen peoples awareness of what "violence" really is. Falsely pulling the race card lessens peoples perception of actual racism. Arrogantly demeaning the opposition as "radical" makes people ambivalent to what normalcy might be.

The danger, for everyone, is that this political "wolf calling" will disguise the true wolves in our society.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we just stuck to the facts and had a discussion based on policy rather than name calling?