I can't seem to get off the topic of the health care debate, perhaps because it's brought larger issues to the fore. I'm bothered by those who have become whipped into a frenzy, admonishing elected officials to read the Constitution, as though it contained a bright-line prohibition against health care reform. These people are apparently operating on the premise that the federal government is forbidden to do anything not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. This must also mean that spending taxpayer money on microphones for the House and Senate chambers, or on coffee for cabinet meetings is unconstitutional since the Constitution is silent on both electronic sound reinforcement and hot beverage service.
As I have said in earlier posts, people may very well have a legitimate beef with what's being proposed, and those who are capable of understanding complex issues should by all means bring their objections to light. However, 220 years of history and common sense suggest that the Constitution contains certain broad principles and not just an exhaustive list of precisely what the government can do. This makes our democracy great, but also challenging. Since it's also true that broad language is not a blank check for unlimited federal power, we have to exercise judgment, and a quick glance at the inside of the box top won't always reveal the clear and indisputable answer. Sadly, this is lost on some people just as the difference between periwinkle and teal is lost on Stevie Wonder.
Pop quiz: Which state did Thomas Jefferson represent at the Constitutional Convention? For those of you who said Virginia, thanks for playing our game; we have some lovely gifts for you backstage. It's a trick question. Jefferson wasn't there; he was in France. That hasn't stopped people from quoting him as a framer of the Constitution, and worse, the definitive word on exactly what the framers meant. Jefferson was an ardent supporter of strong states and a weak central government, while others, such as Alexander Hamilton, were believers in a strong federal government. Jefferson was brilliant, but very much a partisan regarding the power of the central government and his strong opinions are certainly not the final word on contentious issues ultimately resolved by compromise.
Apart from being endlessly quoted by those who are against the proposed health care reform, Jefferson is relevant to this discussion for a couple of reasons. First, there was a protester in New Hampshire outside President Obama's town hall meeting. He had a gun strapped to his leg and a sign saying it was time to water the tree of liberty. This is a reference to Jefferson's quote that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That is a chilling image when you consider how feverishly the right wing media have worked to terrify the simple minded and inflame the passions of the already angry and frustrated. I see this as the most monumentally irresponsible smear campaign since the Red Scare of McCarthyism.
While I understand how easy it is to foment irrational thought and behavior during trying and uncertain times, I'm still perplexed by some things I've seen. For instance, most or all of us have seen footage of the man warning Senator Specter that God is "Gonna judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill -- and then you will get your just desserts." I don't know what Arlen Specter has done in his life, but I know that if my immortal soul were imperiled, it wouldn't be because I wanted all citizens of the richest country on earth to have appropriate access to health care. My search for the New Testament passage in which Jesus commands us to be greedy and selfish or face eternal damnation has thus far been in vain.
Getting back to Jefferson, when he was President and actually had to govern, he was faced with a quandary. To make a long story short, there were great concerns about Napoleon controlling the Port of New Orleans. Jefferson wanted that land or at least a guaranteed right to freely navigate the Mississippi. He wound up buying land from France for $15 million, doubling the size of the country at the time. The Louisiana Purchase gave us what is essentially the middle third of the current United States. Here's Jefferson's problem: He knew it was a no-brainer since he was prepared to go as high as $10 million for a relatively tiny piece of land, and for only $5 million more he could make the deal of the century. However, he had always railed against the central government overstepping its expressly granted authority, and here was the mother of all examples in the young country's history.
This provides us with the object lesson that the game is easy from the cheap seats. Waxing philosophical is easy; governing a democracy is hard. Jefferson swallowed his pride and made the deal. Now I'm neither advocating doing something wrong because there is a potential payoff, nor suggesting that inviolable principles should be sacrificed on the altar of expediency, but sometimes when tough choices have to be made, careful inspection reveals shades of gray that appear as only black and white to casual observers.
