On Health Care, It’s “E Pluribus” Without the “Unum”

Senator Arlen Specter listened to a critic of the healthcare proposal yesterday at a forum in Lebanon, Pa. One shouting participant left the room after security guards approached him. (Bradley C Bower/Associated Press)

Senator Arlen Specter listened to a critic of the healthcare proposal at a forum in Lebanon, Pa. One shouting participant left the room after security guards approached him. (Bradley C Bower/Associated Press)

In the sluggish news month of August we’ve been bombarded with endless tape loops of indistinguishable white men and women yelling at the top of their lungs, red faced and panting, at Democratic town halls across the country. The corporate media gobble up the spectacle because they love atmospherics and dumbed-down political food fights. But the Tea Baggers and other right-wingers who have descended upon these gatherings, denouncing the President and attempting to drown out debate, signify something far deeper than their own misinformed fears about the direction of national health care policy.

The election of the first U.S. president of African descent has challenged a lot of people’s self-identity and “self-presence.” The often loud, vicious, and unruly behavior we’ve seen is a collective expression of white trepidation. The hyperventilating about defending “the Constitution,” like that guy screaming at Arlen Specter on the front page of yesterday’s New York Times, has nothing to do with public policy and everything to do with defending white male privilege. Why else would there be the whitest man on Earth, Glen Beck, leading the charge?

What has really gotten under their skins is their sense of the slight diminution in the dominant position of white people in American society, what the much-maligned French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, called “decentering.” For Derrida, decentering is “the stated abandonment of all reference to a center, to a subject, to a privileged reference, to an origin.” Since their own identity depends on knowing what they are not, there is a “play of differences.” And these “differences” scare the hell out of them. This idea, along with deep-seated American racism, explains why the Far Right can so effortlessly cast Obama as “the Other.”


These people will never accept Obama as their president. They will oppose whatever he tries to do based on emotions and misinformation. They cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that their own destinies and the destiny of their country are intrinsically linked to the well-being of people on the margins of American society. People who they believe are not like them.

joseph-palmero.gifThe fact that nearly 50 million American citizens have no access to health care and when they get sick or injured they are either driven into bankruptcy or suffer from being denied care does not seem to register with these people. On that point they represent “E Pluribus” without the “Unum.”

Joseph Palermo

Originally published by The Huffington Post. Reprinted with permission from the author


  1. says

    At this point, although the debate and spin continue, this bill is essentially dead from an emotional and mandate perspective, even if some version gets passed. Whether it ultimately proves to be of any benefit to society, or a detriment, will take years, if not decades, to appreciate.

    This bill, and virtually anything that might be done to improve our healthcare system, involves too much complexity with which we are emotionally motivated to deal. In addition, there are too many factions with entrenched economic and/or financial interests to permit it to become a true health initiative.

    There’s been too much arguing about the details. People can not describe in 2 or 3 sentences the conceptual parameters of the effort and what it is supposed to accomplish. Unfortunately, people can describe how they feel about it in 1 or 2 words, and that’s not good. And that’s not to mention the elements which have whipped up hysteria by suggesting, with certainty, what will occur once the final product (which does not yet exist) emerges.

    If either side of the debate has to work this hard arguing about something which theoretically should improve the lives of the masses of people, there’s a big problem.

    Even more so than how something is done, people are interested in results, not the details. And once again, as is frequently the case with much of human processing, the facts don’t really matter. How people view the world, what they value, and what they want, matters.

    And there is nothing collaborative in nature about that. Factor in the strong individualistic American DNA, and this effort is emotionally toast.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *