I don't think this is about health care...

The anger seems way out of proportion.

To every person I have had an argument with that has calmly present balanced, and well supported reasons and facts against the health care bill... this is not directed at you. But if you showed up at an Obama speech with an automatic rifle, or if you are in league with the birthers, or if you cannot talk about health care without passing out in fear from anxiety over death panels... you are it.

If this was really about where to put the tax dollars, then I would expect the debate to be far more reasoned. People may demonstrate some passion, and some excitement, but the anger seems far beyond just discussing budget allocations.

The debate seems to be about something far deeper. This debate is, I believe, showing something about our inner personality as a nation that we don't even consciously realize ourselves.

I believe that what is happening is that this debate is actually destabilizing things people very closely associate with their personal identity. I believe that people create a set of rules about how the world ought to be and look, and tie that in to their identity. To challenge the veracity of those rules is to invite an irrational debate, because they rules are not defended as a matter of a series of points and counter points to be considered, but instead are defended as a personal matter, because giving up on those rules means giving up on yourself - you have to become a different person to accept the challenge, and human beings do not like to give up on their definition of self.

I don't believe, however, that we clearly understand the rules we entangle with identity. I believe the rules are expressed at a subconscious level and that we post-hoc rationalize them with more palatable explanations.

Case in point - a couple of the individuals in my church that I attended as a child were racist. They would have never considered themselves racist, but just the fact that they tried to teach the kids in our Sunday school class that interracial couples should not marry was pretty solid proof to me. Their justification - "There are enough challenges keeping a marriage together and raising children without adding the extra burden that mixing the races will introduce" My suspicion of their inner reason that they wouldn't admit to was likely "Mixing white and black people is wrong because the one group is better than the other". Of course I don't know that, but come on. I am asserting, though, that for these specific people, they proposed a really weak argument against interracial marriage because they needed to supply something that sounded rational to explain a highly irrational position that their personal identity had been attached to a long time ago. It was part of their world order that white and black were different classes of species and they could not stand to see their world tossed out and redefined.

Back to health care... I completely respect the suggestion that a publicly provided health care option might not fix the problem. I completely respect the suggestion that there are better ways to use the money. I disagree, and in my disagreement admit that this is too complex for anybody to really be certain about - but still respect the opposing opinion when it is clear that the person is really just offering the counter proposal.

But there appears to be something else here. Shouting out town hall meetings? Death panel suggestions? Making up falsehoods about what the proposal suggests? No, there is more baggage here, and it is being driven by a highly irrational need to preserve personal identity.

I have my suspicions. I actually don't believe racism is the dominant motivation (although when I see more violent expression... like guns, Nazi references, etc. I start to suspect a deeper hatred because of race). My bigger suspicion is in an innate American hatred for poor people.

American tradition, American work ethic, as good as it is, is based largely on Calvinist doctrine. One of the aspects of Calvanism is the basic assertion that rich people are rich because they are good and industrious (hence God rewarded them) and poor people are poor because they are bad and lazy (hence God punishes). This definitely has some positive impact on society - it creates a culture that respects hard work, self-sufficiency, cleverness, etc. But it also releases people, and society at large, from an obligation to do anything about people that need help. It removes, completely, the possibility that people are victims of circumstances. It re-inforces the "this is mine, and you cannot have it!" not as selfishness, but as a virtue to be exalted and rewarded. This philosophy is wired deeply into the American ethic such that it defines a piece of personal identity for many people in America.

To admit that this view is wrong would mean admitting that you really ought not to get every last stitch of value from your hard work. It means that having more is not as good as giving more. It means admitting that you are no better than someone who is unable to pay for their home, their food, their health care. If you grew up believing to the contrary, then changing this means literally replacing your entire self-image with another. The walls will come up.

I believe there are other forces at work. Humans generally have a need to identify themselves as part of a group. Makes sense. Gorillas do it to, and we have continued it all the way through our evolution. Most of our existence was spent in village culture. It is only a small sliver of human existence where we have to exist in a non-village lifestyle, and it is no surprise that some part of ourselves has not really adapted to it.

I believe the same part of the brain that makes us need family, clan, village, etc. also makes us seek out other groupings of identity. Church. Club. Social peers. Work. Political party. Mobs. Protest rallies. Street gangs.

Once a person strongly ties themself to a group, it gets wired into personal identity. At that point, our protection of that association supercedes rationality. We almost don't care why, anymore, we are associated with a particular group - we just preserve that association.

This leads to actions in bulk. Democrats opposed Bush (1 & 2) for being Republican. Republicans opposed Clinton, and Obama for being Democrat. Most members of society even really understand the issues the different parties stand for, cannot articulate the goals or agenda of a given politician. People are really voting for the club. Why do they do that? They do it because the club they belong to is part of them.

It is the people who are very strongly tied to their party that will go nuts. Death panels freaks. Birthers. Swift boaters. People who assert the Pentagon wasn't struck by a plane.

There are other deeply rooted ethics. There is an American ethic of suppressed pride replaced with outer humility. Sounding "high and mighty" is frowned on in older, traditional American ethics. In the Puritan ethic, people were respected more for keeping their mouth shut than for speaking out. "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and prove the point." I love that quote, and probably should pay more attention to its advice, but in this case it leads a prejudice.

The prejudice is basically to distrust anybody who sounds smart. Use big words? You are an elitist. Use subtle arguments? You are shifty. You have an ivy league education with outstanding grades and a stellar reputation as a scholar? You are too big for your britches. Have a "C" in college, booze it up, speak with a limited vocabulary and make references that indicate you really don't understand anything about other nations and cultures - you are a "regular guy". People trust you.

This prejudice likewise ties in with identity. For one thing, it excuses the regular person for not being that very smart person. It provides justification for their envy and allows them to ignore their own feelings of insecurity. So what if they didn't get good grades, go to college? The guys that did - they cannot be trusted. They are unethical. There is something suspicious about them. This type of support and defense against personal insecurity is all wired in with who a person believes they are. The wiring is subconscious, because to be consciously aware of it would necessitate admitting that the person is really just covering up a sense of self doubt.

And, again, this sort of thing is defended with weak, strange, non-sequitir positions because the person cannot connect with their real reason. So many people say they don't trust Obama because he comes off as smug, too smart, elitist. What is wrong with elitist? We are talking running the most powerful country in the world! Heck yes, we need an elite leadership - so long as that elitism is based on intelligence, which is precisely the type of elitism that people seem to be complaining about. The fact is the only thing wrong with elitism is that it forces people to recognize that they are not that elite person, and that they feel inadequate about it.

I am offering my specific suspicions here - and I may be way off on the details. However, I am absolutely convinced that the notion of supporting inner subconscious motives that are intertwined with personal identity are really what is going on. All my examples have been about the current right wing attack on the health care proposal - but I believe that we have seen lots the same thing in the left movement as well. I believe the WTO riots (not necessarily the protests... the labor folks, for example, I think had a sensible statement to make) were really because there were people who had an inner need to throw rocks at the establishment because that was how they had identified themselves. This is a human phenomenon that hits us on all sides.

So, what to do? Will the problem ever go away? Can one propose controversial change without a public freakshow on the other side.

I am very skeptical and cynical about this. I had a discussion with someone once about gay rights. I suggested that the opposition was not going to come around with discussion. I suggested that what really needed to happen was for the opposition to get old and die. I personally believe that this is the heart of social change. New generations come about and their personal identity is molded based on the times that surround them. You don't get change by changing people's minds. You get change because the population supporting the previous opinion diminishes in size and is replaced by a population that supports the change. Young people are the only true hope of social change. Those in the generation ahead of them will always fight an uphill battle with their predecessors and peers. It is the young people, watching that battle, that eventually embrace the change and make it happen.

This means that the battle must always be waged. One must likely still strive for the dialogs as if minds would be changed, but this is for sake of showing the example to minds still forming. Racial acceptance, acceptance of gay lifestyle - to previous generations this was not just odd, it was morally wrong. To the young that are growing up today, most of them cannot even comprehend racial inequality (as opposed to my peers when I was young - I still remember the kids on my block telling me you had to hide whenever a car full of black people drove by - they used the N word, of course), and a growing number of them now and in the future will not understand inequality against gay people. This is in spite of a population of adults now who still do not see it this way.