Political hyperbole misleads, polarizes our representation

Political conversations have a measure of emotion behind them. While anyone is entitled to their convictions, the diversion from fact into feeling can cause a virulent inflation of facts, blatant misrepresentation and hyperbole. If the Health Insurance Reform debate has taught us anything, it’s this: hyperbole (extravagant exaggeration) not only misleads the American people, it polarizes politics and prevents our representatives from representing us.

While some of the hyperbole used in the recent debate possesses applications in proper context, the question is whether or not that “proper context” includes the current political situation. In the debate over HR 3200, “tyranny,” “takeover” and “socialism” are just three of the hyperbolic terms used to describe reform efforts. Now, in the face of such criticism, any rational citizen should ask, “is this bill making legal any measures that might compromise my liberty as an American citizen?” This addresses the question of whether or not “tyranny,” “takeover” and “socialism” are appropriate in the reform bill context.

If you break it down term-by-term, the answer is simple: No, they are not.

According to Medterms.com, socialized medicine is a “system of health care in which all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals, work for the government and draw salaries from the government,” such as the one present in Great Britain. While a social insurance program was considered early in the debate, the concept of undoing the private industry to replace it with a social insurance program is quickly squashed when one considers the provisions in the bill that are directed at keeping individuals in the private system; for example, the inclusion of subsidies designed to get low-income Americans into a private policy under section 1201.

The concept of tyranny, according to Princeton’s WordNet, is “absolutism: Dominance through threat of punishment and violence,” which the policies of the bill do not even begin to approach. All Americans still possess the freedom to choose their insurance company, and in fact possess even greater freedom of choice without any language of retribution for doing so. This, simply by definition, is not “tyranny.”

The third term, “takeover,” is generally directed at the insurance mandate and usually refers to the constitutionality of the bill. While leveraging fines against those who refuse to purchase insurance could be considered unconstitutional- as South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster believes- one needs to examine context if one is to accept this language.

Under the Bush administration and the Patriot Act, we saw violations of the first, fourth and sixteenth amendments alongside the invasion of right to privacy provisions implied in the legal language of the Constitution. Judicial rulings, such as those of Judge Audrey Collins in 2004 and Judge Ann Aiken in 2007, have already surfaced finding provisions of the act unconstitutional. John Boehner (R-OH), who referred to the Health Insurance Reform bill as unconstitutional multiple times, voted yes to make the Patriot Act permanent according to OnTheIssues.org.

I will not disagree that the insurance mandate may violate the constitution, but if one is to examine the language, one needs to examine the context. Multiple violations of the Constitution may not even be reasonably referred to as a “takeover” of our liberties, therefore how can HR 3200? This does not excuse the possible violation of the Constitution of course, however, it highlights the disparity between articulated reality through hyperbole and actual reality through detail. A more appropriate word for the insurance mandate may be “controversial.” Some legal minds, such as Henry McMaster believe it is unconstitutional, while some, such as William Treanor, the dean of Fordham University’s law school, believe it falls in line with Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.

Why is the language used in our political dialogue so important? Because our language conveys the specifics, scale and scope of our ideas, and when voters are misled on all three of these, they are not getting the message. They are being lied to. Newsweek demonstrated this disparity between fact and attack rhetoric when they conducted a study showing that while Americans initially disapprove of the bill, they agree with most of its provisions and then approve of it after being read the details.

Furthermore, the more a candidate like John Boehner trumpets such purist language, the less mobility he has in a political situation. Consider this: If John Boehner votes for health insurance reform that includes any of the provisions he fought, he will immediately appear to be contradicting himself. Any bill that approves subsidies for health insurance or imposes some kind of legislative mandate on consumers- regardless of the potential benefit for his constituents- cannot be signed due to the political backlash he would incur. For this reason, he has no option but to stick to this purist view and vote as such, drawing those who agree with him into a more polarized and ideological camp. This could potentially prohibit his future opportunities to make decisions that- while prudent and potentially beneficial to his constituents- may appear to contradict his rhetoric from the recent debate.

Ultimately, his language has done him in. He and his numerous Republican colleagues have inflated the language of the debate in such a manner that they have effectively, for all intents and purposes, lied to their constituents. Furthermore, they have managed to paint themselves into a corner, limiting their political mobility for times when they may need to make a decision that, while benefiting their constituents, contradicts their apparent beliefs.

At the end of the day, however, the bill has passed. The future will soon bear out whether the American people have checked the facts, or whether we are as susceptible to the hype as John Boehner believes we are.

Ian Barker is a senior in chemical engineering from Des Moines.