I was referring to tone, attitude. You can do something or try to do it with or without class.
But you didn't say "low class", "classless", or "without class", you said "obstructionist". I don't get how "obstructionist" means "without class". I'm not sure what an obstructionist tone would be, but I don't see how it would be wrong. "Without class" on the other hand, might reasonably be considered negative.
Trying to stop progress was the objective. Tone is the way you comport yourself
But obstructionist means trying to stop progress. An obstructionist tone might be a tone selected to try to stop progress, if so that selected tone could be a negative thing but not because its obstructionist. Or do you have another meaning for "obstructionist tone". I realize I'm probably making too much over one word, it wasn't the heart of your point. But the term really strikes me as odd.
Moving aside from that word, the complaint would then seem to be about invective. Well I think having less invective in politics would probably be good all around, and I do see it as rising in recent years or perhaps recent decades, but I also think its to be expected when something this big and radical is pushed through on a straight party line vote. Never before has a major entitlement passed without some significant degree of support from both parties, and this one is more constitutionally dubious than previous entitlements. Its really been rammed down the countries throat which reasonably inspires some anger. Anger doesn't have to necessarily lead to insults, and I do think the Republican's would have been better off with less insults, so in that sense we might not be quite as far apart on this as it would at first seem. But then I don't think there where more insults here than there have been in numerous other recent political controversies from both sides, despite the high stakes here.
And while there was a lot of anger. And some insults. I don't think there where a lot of insults. I don't think the response was really full of invective. Calling the plan socialist isn't insulting a person. Calling a person socialist might be but its an expression of an opinion of someone's political beliefs, not insulting their personal qualities. The Republican's where attacked as racists, for opposing the bill, but I don't see too much equivalent to that from the Republican side (I'm sure I could find examples, but I'm talking about either very popular themes from broad sections of the opposition, or ideas from very prominent members of the opposition that where then supported and seconded by more people in the party than the number that attacked or at least stated disagreement with, the statements.
The response was far from ideal. It could have been handled better, but it was handled fairly normally for a big controversial debate in recent years, it doesn't stand out as a "screw you", and esp. not as a "screw you" to anyone but the senior Democratic politicians pushing the bill in to law.
As for lack of action being a "screw you", we just seem to disagree. I'm not one to recognize that disagreement is going to continue, cause me to stop talking about the issue. Examining disagreements can be useful or interesting, but I don't really have anything new to say on it, and see no point in continuing around the same circle. |
