The dialectic approach to health care is confusing at best. It is intended to be.

One definition of dialectics is the juxtaposition or interaction of conflicting ideas or forces. As applied to the health care debate, it is easier described than defined. It is taking three steps forward, turning and taking two steps back, and continuing the process. Two-thirds of the time it appears the movement is in reverse. However, the total always results in one step forward.

Health care reform advocates seem at times to be conciliatory or even losing the debate. They never seem discouraged. They know they are taking aggregate steps forward.

It is often said proponents aren't listening to the people or they don't care. They are listening and do care. That is the reason they are willing to take two steps back. They can afford to be flexible as long as they are progressing. If they get only a small part of their agenda, that will represent a step forward.

A commendable positive application of this technique enabled affirmative results in the civil rights movement. On Dec. 1, 1955 when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Ala., that did not end the inequality in America. It was a very significant step forward. It was followed by several forced steps backward. Not to be deterred subsequent steps forward were taken and eventually many basic objectives were met.

If the entire agenda of the movement had been demanded at once it would have been rebuffed. Patiently sequential steps were taken to bring us to where we are.

An egregious use of the technique was the spread of communism during the Soviet expansion. They often looked like peace-loving people open to reconciliation while all the time expanding across the globe. Their two-step-back technique made them appear less aggressive and took a bit of the focus off the giant steps forward.

Current advocates of the health care reform don't care polls indicate the majority of American don't want what is proposed. They have had several occasions when they gave the impression of compromise and reconciliation.

They don't mind this. Even if they get only part of what they advocate after taking two steps back, they will try again to take a step forward.

Time consumed and political losses don't matter to them as long as they eventually get what they want. If they get any of their agenda that is a step forward and an encouragement to take other steps.

The technique isn't a bad one when applied to admirable goals and virtuous ends. It is the means by which every achiever has been successful. Every person of accomplishment has on many occasions taken two steps back. Those who have proven to be productive winners haven't given up as a result of the two steps. They have pivoted and taken three meaningful steps forward for a gain of one step.

It is a good technique when used for an admirable purpose.

Our economy and national milieu has caused many to have to take two steps back. To those who have, a word of encouragement: pivot.

Take those next three steps.

The Rev. Dr. Nelson Price is pastor emeritus of Roswell Street Baptist Church. Contact Price at nlprice@aol.com.