Our Point counter Point President

President Obama spoke at the University of Michigan commencement exercises this year.  The question he posed and provided an answer to the expectant graduating class is this:  how will we keep our democracy going?

Now, ignoring the fact that we don't have a direct democracy - and offering the benefit of the doubt that the "representative" portion of our form of government was omitted out of rhetorical expediency and not as a means to imply we are a direct democracy, President Obama attempts to answer the question.  He gives us 2 things to consider: 
 
"First, American democracy has thrived because we have recognized the need for a government that, while limited, can still help us adapt to a changing world."

"The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate.
 As I've found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of slash and burn politics isn't easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect."

The President postulates that the reason our representative democracy has thrived is because we recognize the "need for a government that, while limited, can help us adapt to a changing world."  I don't know if that is true - much less if it is the reason democracy has thrived.  We do have a people that recognizes we must adapt to a changing world.  We also recognize that our institutions must adapt to a changing world - as he alludes to Thomas Jefferson's quote on the 4th panel of the Jefferson memorial.  "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but...with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times."  Where does it say that government must adapt or that the government should "help" us do this?  This sounds like a representative tyranny to me, not representative democracy.  Now, I would agree that there are certain things that the people must do, and if they do not, the government must step in.  The people must remain moral.  Where the people do not remain moral, the government must punish evil.  There are many reasons that our form of government has thrived, but an understanding about the efficacy of government is not one of them.  Even Jefferson in his quote - between Obama's ellipses of the Jefferson quote - speaks of the individual, and the accompanying change of government.  Not government, to change the individual.

The President then goes on to explain that our second method of maintaining our democracy is to maintain civility in our debate and beyond that to listen to all sides.  On this point I agree with the President.  But I wonder, does he agree with himself?  We should remain civil in our debate - but under what circumstances is calling a form of government health care "socialist" not civil - if in fact we discuss socialized medicine?  The President points out the hypocrisy of a (tea party) sign that reads - "Keep government out of my Medicare!"  The President rightly (is this civil?), mocks, "...this is like saying 'Keep government out of my Government-run Healthcare...".  On the other hand, he also allows his party leaders to call their opponents names ( Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi) and himself and his executive branch staff to attack the private sector for political purposes.  (news, banks, insurance, citizens)  I agree civility is important in debate, but the commentary - even the harshest commentary - is part of the debate.  It shouldn't scare us away or prevent engagement.  It should spur us on to understand the real issues.  Obviously, harsh commentary is something that flows freely from both sides - let it.  Ignore it, process it, add to it.  The Presidents best advice comes next:  "...if you're someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile. If you're a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website..."  Diversity of opinion and thought is a good thing, it allows us the choice as God intended.     

To eliminate these forums would go directly against the effort the President then goes on to encourage in the UM commencement address:     

" The point is, when we don't pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders; when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day; when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that's when democracy breaks down. That's when power is abused. That's when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave. That's when powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of Washington - because none of us are there to speak up and stop them." 

Frederick Douglass once said, "Those who profess to favor freedom, yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground.  They want rain without thunder and lightning.  They want the ocean without the awesome roar of its many waters.  This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.  Power concedes nothing without demand.  It never did and it never will."  

Well, Mr. President, if we don't pay attention, and fail to educate ourselves, and choose to be silent - in short if we are not there - shame on us.