What did I want to hear from President Obama’s speech to the joint session of Congress?
So much attention is focused on the public option; I wanted substantive details about that part of the health reform plan, and strong arguments in support of it. But most of all, and most importantly, I wanted to hear strong, stark language. I wanted lines to be drawn in the sand, forcing the opposition to scramble in defending themselves. Language like “by opposing the creation of a public option which would reduce the monopoly of insurance companies, you are an advocate of increasing the amount of unnecessary deaths in this country. You are complicit in the continued and increasing denials of coverage that kill hard working Americans.”
The President needed to demand that a public option be included in health care reform. Now is the time to haul out the rhetorical steamroller, and flatten the Republicans. The President and the Democratic Party mostly take the high road in response to challenges or outright lies that are aimed to inject fear and confusion into public discourse. The Democrats need to strategically take the low road to sweep the Republicans off their feet. If we do not stoop to their level of borderline invective language, we cannot effectively influence discourse. As much as it is ugly, it works, and the right-wing pests will continue to gnaw at our knees; soon we won’t have any legs to stand on. Damage based on their lies has already been done in the public’s opinions and attitudes towards health care reform. In our counter-arguments we must use words that create stark black-and-white consequences of believing their lines of attack.
Now is when using strong language, and using it like a drumbeat everyday, is going to help the proponents of the public option. Did I hear strong language from the President during his speech? Yes, but not enough. He did use the word “lies” when confronting the “death panel” nonsense. This was a good start, and an entry level use of the force of language that we need! Throughout his speech he had several missed opportunities to ratchet up his rhetoric. For example, when he outlined one of his goals as slowing the increasing cost of health insurance, he needed to use “STOP the increase” and “begin to lower costs immediately”, and add that doing so is “a moral obligation.”
Did I hear the details about the reform that I wanted to hear? Yes. The President did well to offer the public specific information that was broad enough to beneficially influence the way this entire debate is framed.
The President said he will be “naming names” when addressing factually incorrect information (let’s start calling them lies) coming from the opposition. The time has past to begin hearing strong language from him, our Democratic leadership, and the people who frame debates (that includes us, and all supporters of the public option). If we earnestly use strong language, starting today and everyday that this debate continues, we can win back any rhetorical ground lost in the formation of monumental health care legislation.