If you want to make enemies, try to change something — Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924)
The tinnitus pillow
current debate over the establishment of universal health care in the US conjures up many cases in recorded history of an almost pathological resistance to the very idea of change. One can almost imagine some Neolithic human scratching his head and saying "I don't know about these metal tools...if we stop using stone, the whole world might end." Fear of change seems to be ingrained into the human psyche. Those who resist it most fiercely often invoke the idea that change will result in social collapse, the anger of the gods, an overturning of a so-called "natural order", or some calamity that will sweep away whole nations.
We don't have to go far to find examples. Until comparatively recently, military commanders tried to keep women out of the armed forces on the premise that it would upset the natural order and have a negative impact on discipline (an excuse recycled later on to justify opposition to openly gay soldiers). Opponents claimed women were too frail, too valuable, or somehow unfit for combat. In at least one case authorities rationalized opposition by claiming women shouldn't be in combat units because being in the field during menstruation would be unhealthy!
In the 1940-1960 time frame, Southern conservatives invoked the image of social disorder in order to block passage of the Civil Rights Act. Likewise, military authorities used the "negative impact on discipline" excuse to rationalize opposition to integrated units. Not many people like to remember that US military units were strictly segregated, and blacks generally prohibited from serving in combat units (with some notable exceptions), until after the Korean War.
Moving backward, there was widespread opposition to women's suffrage from its inception in the 1850s until the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1920. Again, excuses varied. Some men claimed women would lose their "moral superiority" should they be dragged into the rough and tumble of male-dominated politics, while others insisted they were too frail or (far worse) too unintelligent to participate in intellectual exercises. Others resisted on the basis of Biblical teachings.
The reality is clear: humans love the status quo. They fear change, and will resort to any argument or rationalization in order to avoid confronting it. Fear takes many forms: fear of loss of control, fear of the unknown, or simple fear that a wrong decision will result in unspecified negative effects. Opponents of the current health care bill are no different. They invoke the classic American bogeyman of socialism, which many wrongly equate with communism (the two are radically different). They claim costs will spiral out of control, or simply fall back on the non sequitur that "the government shouldn't be trusted with anything important...they'll just mess it up." Worse, many simply claim a public health system is "un-American" -- a classic and meaningless charge designed to inflame passions.
Change is difficult. It's upsetting. People dislike it, even when it means nothing more than a one block detour from their daily route due to construction. We are creatures of habit, of custom, and of superstition. Yet without change, we'd still be banging rocks together in caves and wrestling with squirrels over hickory nuts.
It's time to grow up and stop hiding behind feeble excuses. Whether the debate is over health care, racial equality, or women's rights, reason and ethics should never take a back seat to fear-mongering.