The New Prejudice

There is a growing movement in society. It is one of rejecting long-held traditions; of saying what used to be unacceptable should now be acceptable. Every generation wants to make a name for itself. Many new generations reject their parents' belief systems in a misguided attempt to show they are independent, smarter, or more progressive than those who have gone before. Unfortunately this can, and does, lead to new prejudices.

What is a prejudice? The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition gives this etymology: "Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment." In other words, prejudice is a preconceived judgment or opinion. The same source continues: "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge" and "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics."

This week Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Republican United States Representative for Florida's 18th congressional district, who is currently the most senior Republican woman in the U.S. House, reportedly made this statement: "The [enter any opposing stance] bigotry spewed by this ... shill demonstrates once again that [there are] advocates of hate and intolerance."

Bigotry? Shill? Hate? Intolerance? Sounds like we already meet the criteria for "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics." "Well, maybe it was deserved," you may think. What did the individual/group in question state that showed such bigotry, hate, and intolerance? Here's the statement I found by doing an Internet search, "That matter is very sensitive, very touchy. As a Muslim, I am not in favour of it . . . it is not accepted by the majority of countries. My opinion is not in favour of this matter at all. I think it's not really acceptable by our religion, our tradition."

Did you catch any hate speech at all? Just the opposite. He said it was a sensitive matter and seemed to treat it with respect. Intolerant? He said he was not in favor of it, but later recognized that "there are some countries that allow that". Does this mean that any time we are not in favor of something, that automatically makes us a bigot? It automatically makes us a hateful person because we don't accept all ideas, or at least the politically correct ones? What kind of logic is this?

This is the new prejudice: To prejudge someone with a differing viewpoint, call them names, and label them hateful and intolerant (which is exactly how the accuser is usually acting). It is being prejudice against anyone who doesn't agree with us and label them the "bad guy" in an effort to get people to accept our views and reject theirs. This new prejudice is running rampant in our society. In every news story that deals with opposing opinions/positions see if you can't recognize it. I see it all the time in the media. I see political figures use it regularly as a weapon against the other party. It's easy to call other people names, to make a straw man argument, and to throw out unsubstantiated accusations. Usually those who resort to such things do so because they don't have a leg to stand on themselves.

So, what was this differing opinion about that resulted in such irrational hostility? Does it matter? If you really want to know, go ahead and do an Internet search based on the direct quotes I used above. You may be surprised. You may even change your mind about who you think the "bad guy" is. If you do, you just might prove my point.

Health Care Agreement

Last Wednesday President Barack Obama addressed Congress. In his address he spoke of those who oppose his health care plan and say it contains death panels. He called them liars. When Pres. Obama said his plan wouldn't offer free care to illegal immigrants, South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouted "You lie!" There was a big uproar over stating that the President lied. No uproar over the President saying anyone else lied. There were many calls to show the President respect. But shouldn't the President show respect to others as well? There shouldn't be a double standard. I'm not saying President Obama lied, but is saying someone lies disrespectful if they are lying? History has shown that past presidents have lied. Wouldn't this country be better off if we were allowed our free speech and called politicians (respectfully, of course) on their false statements? Isn't that one of the main reasons our founding fathers felt it was so necessary for us to have free speech?

There was a news report this week that stated the Democrats and Republicans agree on 80% of health care reform. It didn't seem like a scientific 80%, but just a way of saying both sides agree much more than they disagree. According to reports the biggest disagreement is over having government-run health care. News flash: we already have two government-run health care programs. Ever heard of Medicaid and Medicare? Reports are constantly being aired that both programs will run out of money because spending practices are unsustainable. What makes us think a third government-run program will magically be any different?

Let's go back to the 80% agreement issue and for the sake of argument accept that 80% figure. In other words, our legislature has the opportunity to pass legislation to allegedly improve health care in this country, but because they're not getting 100% of their way 100% of the time, they want to throw out 80% of what they can improve? Doesn't that seem petty? That depends.

Successful legislators are grand negotiators. One of the greatest tools in negotiating is leverage. So they are all trying to leverage their agreement on the 80% in order to get more of what they want. After all, why settle for 80% when you can have 90% or even 99.44%? But the best negotiators know how far their leverage will take them and they don't hope for the impossible. As a servant of the people, which is what a legislator should be, you don't make the people suffer by getting nothing just because you want to look good by getting a few more tenths of a percentage in your favor.

So is there any valid reason to hold out for 100%? If it's for ethical, moral or legal grounds, then yes. Would it be illegal to have government-run health care? Apparently not since we already have it. Though many would argue it shouldn't be legal based upon our capitalist society versus one that is socialist or communist.

Many find it hard to define the difference between moral and ethical. They are typically used synonymously and will not be differentiated in this composition. They will encompass that which is considered right and wrong as well as refer to fair and/or acceptable treatment. Would it be immoral/unethical for the government not to offer health care? In other words, is it somehow morally wrong / ethically ignoble for the government if they don't run a health care system? If so, then our founding fathers established an immoral/unethical government. Remember, the Declaration of Independence does not declare that the unalienable rights are: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of health care." It may be argued that a government is ethically reprehensible if it doesn't at least try to make health care available to all citizens, but how can it be argued that government must run it or it's immoral? For example, the government has established law that all drivers must have car insurance, but the government didn't start their own car insurance company. Why must they do it for health care?

80%, 65%, or whatever amount of agreement there may be. How moral and/or ethical is it for our legislators to continue to quibble amongst themselves rather than to make at least a minor advancement, a small step in the right direction, to improve the health care system in this country? In the aforementioned speech President Obama stated, "Well, the time for bickering is over." Indeed.