National politics are important, and I have only become politically aware within the past few years. Having grown up in Seattle, national politics has always seemed very distant and obtuse. Knowing this, I paid especially close attention in my high school US Government and American History classes. I consider myself fairly familiar with the general structure and function of the Federal Government, and I have both the grades and AP test scores to support that conclusion. However, objective knowledge garnered from textbooks and the basic source texts and documents which form the basis of government are not sufficient to understand the culture of politics that have developed in this country over the past 233, almost 234 years.

Living in and around Washington for the past year and a half or so, I think I’ve figured out the basic structure: people either believe in government and its ability to affect and promote change to solve societal problems for the greater good, or they don’t. Most everyone I know considers themselves to be either a Democrat or a Republican, liberal or conservative, pro-choice or pro-life, or whatever. Those labels involve arguments over the details of government, and not the fundamental question of whether or not government actually has the ability to work. The idea of productive and civil debate in government assumes that all of the parties involve believe in the power and rule of law at least as far as it is able to induce change and resolve conflicts.

I consider myself to be solidly among those who believe in government, and in this nation’s federal government in particular. It may not be perfect, but the tools are there in order to improve it, provided enough people have the courage and conviction to help.

None of the anti-Health Reform/Tea Party protesters I saw this weekend share that basic idea, or even have faith in the government, let alone any kind of fundamental understanding of its structure or history. Many among them claimed to be patriots, and yet proudly bore some of the most politically sickening and disheartening signs I have ever seen. Furthermore, the behavior I later heard that some of the protesters had engaged in was even worse.

This is perfectly acceptable, and it is expression that should be brought forth; however, it is necessary for this kind of rhetoric to be accompanied by a willingness to debate and discuss real and relevant facts pertaining to the issues at hand. This was and has been largely absent for at least the past year, and I am truly sad for its loss, because I only truly came to appreciate it two years ago.

If stimulus funds are used for the extension of unemployment benefits, then they’ll be unavailable for additional stimulus programs down the line. So far, the fiscal stimulus from the bank bailout is being replenished over time by repayments from banks, and this will be repeated if the jobs bill passes and low-interest loans are made to small businesses. If we use this money to pay out unemployment benefits, they’re not coming back.

For all the crying being done by conservatives declaring the Obama Administration anything other than democratic, they’re engaging in some really un-democratic tactics.

Lately, the issue being discussed in the political world that has piqued my interest has been healthcare reform. What boggles my mind is how long healthcare reform has been an active issue in Congress. It’s not a few months or even a few years. Try a few decades.

Last night’s Maddow show had a segment with video clips of recorded political speeches made by Bill Clinton in 1993, Ted Kennedy in 1978, and President Truman in 1948. That’s at least 61 years that this has been an issue in this country, and currently, certain members of Congress are arguing that healthcare reform legislation is being rushed through Congress.

It’s absurd that healthcare is considered anything less than a right in this country, given the vast material and human resources available. It’s unconscionable that we would deny healthcare to people simply for being poor, unemployed, or just too sick. These are exactly the people we should be providing healthcare to, and in the same manner that the government became the employer of last resort during the Great Depression and then later a primary employer in the nation, the government should formally become the insurer of last resort now, with the aim of also becoming a competitor in the insurance industry.

It’s naive to think that the government isn’t already the insurer of last resort for a significant number of people — the government already supports millions of people through Medicare and Medicaid, as well as through payments to hospitals that treat people who are uninsured. It’s an incidental and informal insurance arrangement, and it is inefficient and expensive for a number of reasons. To believe that it is fine and does not need to change, or that it should only be changed more slowly than it already has is foolish at best.