What to do: Rally against rallies?

There are tea-parties wherein critics of the Democratic healthcare plan demonstrate, like liberals like to do — but also like liberals get upset over when anyone who is not a liberal does it.  (Wew!)  Then there are ill-informed rallies composed of people stepping like sheep because some pundit who fosters their fears told them a bunch of lies that these pundits are certainly not foolish enough to believe on their own (say what you want about Rush and Glenn; they’re not unintelligent men).

Now, as Harrison Price reports from the Washington Post, liberals are stepping down into the mire and using the same fear tactics, the same “with us or against us” tactics, the same logical fallacies employed by the Bush administration that run something like, “If you’re not with us, you think puppies are evil and should be fed to Nazis in the their soup!”

So, regardless on where you stand on healthcare reform, the situation is that the Right is holding rallies, and the Left wants to respond with rallies, all the while urging a civil conversation, or debate at best.

What do we do?

One could argue that our goal is healthcare reform, not to try to bridge the chasm between the parties.  That we should pull out all the stops like “they” do.  That, frankly, a lot of the people (certainly not all of them) at these rallies are acting on fear and anger and prejudice and a number of other factors that not reasoned thought.  That there’s no use in trying to talk to or reason with such people.  That we should harness their rage and turn it against our enemies.  That “they” started it.  That we can do a lot without stooping below “them”. (Not to mention some increasingly typical elitist liberal bullshit that makes me ashamed of my frequently Leftish leanings when I hear it.)

Would escalating the situation fix it?  Because, you know.  History shows us.  This.  When people are angry, if you make them more angry, the situation never gets worse, never explodes, always gets better.  Wait….

But would a rational conversation (insofar as anyone can have a rational conversation about healthcare anymore) work on anyone who is driven by fear and Limbaugh/Beck or by anger against the Left?  I mean, if you bracket moral/ethical concerns or even rhetorical devices like not stooping quite as lowly as your opponent does (yes, I think it can be a rhetorical device, and I’m guilty of using it), should the Left be more concerned with what works and what gets their position into minds and hearts and less about taking whatever moral highground they’re supposed to occupy if they’re civil?  I’ve chided Mr. Obama in private for being so danged concerned with not making enemies and getting everyone to agree that nothing is happening after eight months in office.  Is being civil worth it? When yelling and manipulation get the job done, should the Left do as the Right has occasionally done (and as the Left has occasionally done, too; make no mistake) and just go all out?

Or is being civil and rational and trying to get “both sides” to work together and probably not really getting anything done right away the way to go?  Sure, we might not pass any healthcare reform this year.  But if we stay civil, might we evolve a little and work together more and start getting at the fundamental problems with our government?  Besides, nothing’s exactly getting done in the currect agitated state of affairs, is it?

Here’s a question for the folks who are frequently on the same side as I am: Do ya’ll really think that fostering anger and fear just because the Right is doing it is going to fix the situation and not just make it a million times worse?