The New Civil War

Lately, I've become somewhat addicted to reading the online comments attached to editorials in the News-Leader. I have the feeling it's bad for me, like crossing the road without looking, or watching The Bachelor Pad.

A number of those participating in the comment boards often seem to look for any excuse to pick a fight. In an 8-27 op-ed written by the Pulitzer-winning Kathleen Parker titled, "American Principles Lost in Mean-Spirited Rhetoric", the author's pleas for common courtesy were tossed aside immediately. From the word go, comments begin with the how-can-I-remain-calm-when-the-other-side-are-such-jerks game. The rules of the game, ironically, include a license to spew mean-spirited rhetoric.

And as much as I would like to see our local civic discourse not be bitter, hateful and polarizing, I just can't stop reading this stuff.

Look at the major issues of our day: Health care reform, gay marriage, the Gulf oil spill, government bailouts, new energy development, and on it goes. All of it the perfect battlefield for those with entrenched ideologies to throw grenades.

Mostly, it's the same crowd that shows up from day to day. Waving their banner in their enemies faces regardless of issue. And sometimes the fights go off into deep space where an onlooker like me can get lost in the reply to the reply to the sixth power.

I almost never leave a comment myself. It somehow seems more dignified to be a voyeur.

While the issues most often battled in the comment world are different enough to be kept separate, I'd like to point out that I think some similarities exist. Each fight, it its own way, can be boiled down to an argument between those who say they want to defend individual rights versus those who say they want to use government to promote what's best for society.

Healthcare: no individual mandates or gov't intrusion v. all pick a plan, and hold companies accountable to reduce prices.
Gov't bailouts: survival of the fittest v. save jobs and stop a tail-spinning economy.
New energy: let the market dictate prices v. subsidized renewable energy and penalties on others.

It's freedom and responsibility against safety nets and equality.

And many may not agree with how I have framed these arguments. But, talking objectively about such a polarized world isn't easy.

In an essay titled "The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States" written by Nolan McCarty, Academic Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, McCarty says America's political divide has widened over the last 25 years.

In the essay he argues that the effects of this growing divide include:

(paraphrased)
1. Polarization causes legislative gridlock.
2. Polarization is not ideologically neutral; it leans conservative with regard to economic and social policy.
3. Polarization alters the balance of power in favor of the executive and legislative branches of government.

In short, political polarization makes Congress more ineffective and gives the President and federal judges more power.

I wonder if any of this would influence the boys and girls of the opinion comment-land to play fair in discussions of policy matters. Doubtful.

And like the onlookers at Fort Sumter, I'll be there to watch.

The Dope Party

For awhile now, I've been wanting to do a story on what people who are opposed to "Obamacare" think about the war on drugs.

In my mind, it follows that those who complain about the federal government overreaching it's authority when it comes to health care might also have a problem with Big Brother throwing people in jail for what they choose to do with their own bodies.

But, I need to talk to those people. And I need to do research. But with my pizza and donut gigs in full swing, I can't invest the amount of time I need to without some media organization funding the venture. I need to know, at least, that they may purchase my brilliant story if I write it. So, this morning I e-mailed one of the editors at the News-Leader with my idea. Here's my pitch:

Hello, this is Brian Brown. I'm the former associate editor of the Community Free Press, and the local freelance writer that recently penned the Shootout for Autism piece published in the N-L's Christian County editions.

I've got a question that only a journalist can answer: What do members of the Tea Party movement think about the nation's war on drugs?

With all the talk about enumerated powers in the run-up to the vote on Prop C, I began to wonder what strict Constitutionalists thought about the "war" that is costing the government -- according the director of Harvard's undergraduate studies -- $70 billion a year.

The prohibition of alcohol required Congress to amend the Constitution. Why didn't the prohibition of marijuana or other recreational drugs have to take a similar path?

It's no secret that Libertarians generally favor ending the war on drugs, but what do Tea Partiers think? It's a question I'd love to explore. Please let me know if you are interested; all I need is one week to put together a fantastic piece. Thanks for your time.

--Brian

Wish me luck.