The New Republic

Yes, I find it very strange that very few of the accounts of the people berating and excoriating the health care reform -- and, in a twice-removed way, excoriating Obama himself -- in town meetings make the point that these folks are almost certainly those who rejected and even detested Obama anyway, back in 2008.

The way the reporting works seems to somehow invalidate politics.  If people don't vote for X, but vote for Y, and X wins the election, it's quite likely that those same people will have issues with X's policies as he tries to put them into a legislative program.  It's hardly a surprise.  What is very odd is the kind of commentary that ascribes a sort of virtuous neutrality to opponents of Obama, rather than identifying them as those who voted for McCain/Palin and disliked Obama for a number of surface and indeed subterranean motives.  The majority of the people who loudly oppose health care reform in this way -- shouting down any attempt to present the case and have a civilzed debate -- are not interested in resolving the issue, they are interested in damaging Obama and the administration no matter what that costs America in the longer run.

These are the folks who rumbled approval when Palin talked about "real Americans."  These are the people who got a thrill from Joe the Plumber's ventures into political theory.  These are active opponents, not "concerned citizens," and wussy Democrats who quake in front of this reactionary populism are once more proving that if you can't pick a side, they'll just build the barbed wire right through you.

- ironyroad

August 9, 2009 at 3:59pm

yeah irony, McCain got 45%, these were the people who showed up at McCain rallies, we know this so what makes this 45% more representative than Obama's 53%? Because they are louder? Loudness did not stop the Iraq war so why should it stop health care reform? The Dems have the numbers, the best in a generation, if they can't pass this than screw them, they don't deserve to be in power, at least Republicans pass their shit (provided it is in the first term), with far less Repubs in congress. I admire Repubs ability to marshall things through congress, unfortunately the policies are mostly for shit.

- blackton

August 9, 2009 at 5:57pm

Noonan needs to cut her Xanax tablets in half. Her ridiculous column reminded me of one Douthat wrote back when George Tiller was assassinated. He said, in 900 or so words, that pro-choice advocates should cede to the other side if they didn't want to be murdered by passionate folks on the other side. "If you don't want to upset the loons, don't do anything they disapprove of."

The last sentence of irony's post is the truest thing I've read on the series of tubes all weekend.

- WoodyBombay

August 9, 2009 at 6:08pm

blackie -- yes, one almost finds oneself nodding in approval of the GOP, as it manages to defend and even begin reversing an indefensible position while the Dems find themselves fumbling and stumbling with a perfectly defensible one.  What is it with these people!  The seem to have lost the notion that politics requires a little more than just finding out where everyone is at and then becoming their megaphone.

Woody -- thanks for the endorsement: no copyright, feel free to re-use as desired.  Honestly, at this point I don't quite understand the Blue Dogs.  What are they going to run on in 2010?  I'm a Democrat, I helped kill the president's and the party's reform plans.  Vote for me!

- ironyroad

August 9, 2009 at 6:45pm

Well, hell, rural conservatives also had passion and fear of loss on their side when they responded to a bitter presidential election defeat by attempting to overthrow the Constitution with armed rebellion. Does Noonan think that Lincoln should have given in to their passion by letting the Confederate treason win the Civil War?

These "mobs" are simply a more-overt-than-usual expression of the fundamentally authoritarian nature of American conservatism. These are people who honestly do not believe in democratic politics or republican government. If they can enforce their will on the majority of their fellow citizens by winning elections, then they will insist that elections be honored; if not, they will reach for intimidation, threats, and even violence to overturn the results of the ballot box. Conservatives have an ideology, however inchoate, and it is in the nature of holding an ideology that one offers one's first loyalty to that ideology, and not to other things such as one's country or its virtues or values. A that actively favors torture is not a party that is in any meaningful way loyal to the things that make the American republic either possible or desirable, and we see this fact expressed in the right's embrace of mob intimidation.

- rhubarbs

August 9, 2009 at 7:08pm

The tea party protests were more than just astro-turf turnouts. My libertarian columnist friend wrote a convincing piece to that effect at the time. I severely disagreed with these people but there was an upwelling of sentiment that manifested itself widely and was not simply directed from above. Ed repeats the Democratic line of Paul Krugman and others here. Now, those protesters were not representative of a wide swatch of public opinion but then neither are the views of liberal activists on health care, either. But these current zanies are a different matter, hanging congressmen in effigy and screaming and carrying on in the best-time honored juvenile matter.

- liberal reformer

August 9, 2009 at 7:08pm

irony, I want to second Woody, that is a great line, I kind of assumed it was a quotation I never heard of, but if you came up with it yourself, then kudos.

LR, orchestrated or not, rudeness is rudeness. I have zero problem with debate (obviously, we debate here all the time) but this disruption is horseshit.

- blackton

August 9, 2009 at 8:29pm

I believe you misunderstood me, blackton. I was saying that the tea party protests were in the main not organized but also, they weren't peopled by the crazies that we are currently seeing in the health care debates. So I entirely agree with your point,

- liberal reformer

August 9, 2009 at 8:46pm

No, Noonan is not that stupid.  She knows damned well she's a lying sack of...

- cspencef

August 9, 2009 at 8:46pm

blackie, woody -- for the record, it's not my line, but I've forgotten where I heard it.  I think a friend quoted it to me as something that the filmmaker John Huston once said to a politically indecisive colleague during the 1930s, but I may be mixing up a couple of different things.  In any case, I hadn't heard it in a long time and it seemed right for this moment.

- ironyroad

August 9, 2009 at 9:48pm

Too late, irony. You are our god and spiritual adviser now. I await your next pearl of wisdom as a baby bird awaits the worm clutched in his mother's beak.

Speak!

- WoodyBombay

August 9, 2009 at 10:52pm

Uh . . . ok.  So, um . . . the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.

- ironyroad

August 10, 2009 at 12:23am

What a farce this debate is.

The players all pretend it's a titantic clash over "principles". They all want what is best for "the American people". The other side is not only wrong, they are "evil".

And here is Ed Kilgore basically giving us more of the same "analysis" from the MSM.

If you were reading this as an introductory sojourn into healthcare in America, you would walk away thinking the conflicts basically revolve around a clash between disingenuous media personalities, between Liberal and Conservative pundits, between the Democrats and the Republicans, between "the public" and "the government".

What you would not be prompted to do is to explore more in depth the systemic nature of political and economic power in America.

To wit:

How is political and economic power intertwined in America? How do the relationshps unfold? What motivates the players?  How does the money and the legislation flow back and forth between election cycles?

Now, I am not trying to suggest that no one in the media probes these things. Of course they do. Over the past few months I have read articles in the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal etc. pointing their middle fingers precisely in this direction. But these are the exceptions; and even here the relationships are very fuzzy. They basically flesh out and shore up the age old narrative about "the rich" screwing "the poor"; how the big bad bankers on Wall Street are making out like bandits while the folks on Main Street are struggling mightily to keep their homes, their jobs, their healthcare, their peace of mind.

On the other hand, below is Keith Olbermann's account of healthcare in America. He cuts right to the chase in exposing a government "of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation".

Olbermann:

Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on Health Care  Reform in this country, and in particular, the "public insurance option." In March of 1911, after a wave of minor factory fires in New York City, the City's Fire Commissioner issued emergency rules about fire prevention, protection, escape, sprinklers. The City's Manufacturers Association in turn called an emergency meeting to attack the Fire Commissioner and his 'interference with commerce.'

The new rules were delayed. Just days later, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory. The door to the fire escape was bolted shut to keep the employees from leaving prematurely. One hundred and fifty of those employees died, many by jumping from the seventh floor windows to avoid the flames. Firefighters setting up their ladders literally had to dodge the falling, often burning, women. This was the spirit of the American corporation then. It is the spirit of the American corporation now. It is what the corporation will do, when it is left alone, for a week. You know the drill. We all know the drill.

You get something done, at a doctor's, at a dentist's, at an emergency room and the bills are in your hands before the pain medication wears off. And if you're one of the lucky ones, and you have insurance, you submit the endless paperwork and no matter whether it's insurance through your company, or your union, or your non-profit, or on your own dime, you then get your turn… at the roulette wheel.

How much of it is the insurance company  going to pay this time? How much of it is the insurance company — about which you have next to no choice, and against which you have virtually no appeal — how much is this giant corporation going to give you back? What small percentage of what they told you they were going to pay you, will they actually pay you?

You know the answer. And, you know the answer if you don't have insurance. But do you know why that's the answer?

Because the insurance industry owns the Republican Party. Not exclusively. Pharma owns part of it, too. Hospitals and HMO's, another part. Nursing homes — they have a share. You name a Republican, any Republican, and he is literally brought to you by... campaign donations from the Health Sector. Sen. John Thune  of South Dakota? You gave the Republican rebuttal to the President's weekly address day before yesterday. You said the Democrats' plan was for…

"…government run health care that would disrupt our current system, and force millions of Americans who currently enjoy their employer-based coverage into a new health care plan run by government bureaucrats."

That's a bald-faced lie, Senator. And you're a bald-faced liar, whose bald face is covered by…your own health care plan run by government bureaucrats. Nobody would be forced into anything; and the Public Insurance Option is no more a disruption than letting the government sell you water, and not just Poland Spring and Sparkletts. But, as corrupt hypocrites go, Senator, at least you're well paid. What was that one statement worth to you in contributions from the Health Sector, Sen. Thune?

Five thousand dollars? Ten? We know what you are, Sir, we're arguing about the price. What about your other quote? "We can accomplish health care reform while keeping patients and their doctors in charge, not bureaucrats and politicians." Wow, Senator — this illustrates how desperate you and the other Republicans are, right? Because Sen. Thune, if you really think "bureaucrats and politicians" need to get out of the way of "patients and their doctors," then you support a woman patient's right to get an abortion, and you supported Michael Schiavo's right to take his wife off life support, and you oppose "bureaucrats and politicians" getting in the way, and we'll just mark you down on the pro-choice list. That's a rare misstep for you Sen. Thune. No twelve-thousand dollar payoff for that statement! I am not being hyperbolic, am I, Senator? On the money?

Sen. Thune has thus far received from the Health Sector, campaign contributions — and all these numbers tonight are from "The Center For Responsive Politics" — campaign contributions amounting to one million, $206,176. So much for Sen. Thune. How about Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite? Good evening Ma'am. You are the Florida representative who claimed on the Floor that Democrats had…"…released a health care bill which essentially said to America's seniors: drop dead."

Now those are strong, terrorizing, words — that's exactly what your Insurance and Medical Overlords wanted to hear. But are you truly worth every dollar of the $369,000,255 of them you have received over the years from the Health Sector? I'd reed the rest of the operative part of your speech myself, but your rendition actually cannot be matched:

Listen up, America, seniors have special needs. This bill ignored the, ignores the needs of Florida's health care system. We should be fixing what is broke. Not disseminate, disseminating, decimating, the care of our senior population. -- July 21, 2009

You can always tell, can't you, Congresswoman, when the hostage is reading her own ransom note, and when she is reading one written for her? So much for Rep. Brown-Waite. There are so many other Republicans, bought and sold — like the unfortunate Congresswoman there —by the Health Sector. Minority Leader McConnell of the Senate?

Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee. Congressman? Undecided on the public option? At $1,173,000 in donations from the Health Sector, I'm surprised. You should have already said no — and loudly. The only thing you should be "undecided" about, is whether or not you're really a Democrat. So much for Rep. Gordon. Sen. Max Baucus  of Montana. Good evening, Senator.

So you're supposed to be negotiating all this out with the Republicans and hesitant Democrats? To gain bi-partisanship with a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Health Sector? Bi-partisanship that will get you, what? A total of no votes? And your price has been, let's see $414,000 in donations from Hospitals. About $667,000 from the insurance companies and just over a million from Big Pharma. There was a $1,300,000 from other health professional and $237,000 from Nursing Homes.

When you think of getting $237,000 in campaign contributions from nursing homes, Sen. Baucus, do you ever think about whether they subtract that amount of money evenly from all the patients suffering and dying in the lousy ones, or just from a few of the lousy ones? So much for Sen. Baucus. Sadly, this list could go on almost all night, too.

I could ask Blue Dog Congressman, Democrat John Tanner of Tennessee, if, since he's gotten $215,000 from hospitals over the years, if I and the appropriate number of my friends were willing to make it $216,000, if we could buy his vote — or would there have to be an auction?

We could bring up Senator Hagan , and Congressman Pomeroy, who, at 628-thousand, appears to represent the Insurance Industry and not North Dakota. I could bring up Sen. Carper, and Sen.Blanche Lincoln.

Senator Lincoln ? By the way, considering how you're obstructing health care reform, how do you feel... every time you actually see Sen. Kennedy? I could bring up all the other Democrats doing their masters' bidding in the House or the Senate, all the others who will get an extra thousand from somebody if they just postpone the vote another year, another month, another week, because right now without the competition of a government-funded insurance company, in one hour the health care industries can make so much money that they'd kill you for that extra hour of profit, I could call them all out by name.

But I think you get the point. We don't need to call the Democrats holding this up Blue Dogs. That one word "Dogs" is perfectly sufficient. But let me speak to them collectively, anyway.I warn you all. You were not elected to create a Democratic majority. You were elected to restore this country. You were not elected to serve the corporations and the trusts who the government has enabled for the last eight years.

You were elected to serve the people. And if you fail to pass or support this legislation, the full wrath of the progressive and the moderate movements in this country will come down on your heads. Explain yourselves not to me, but to them. They elected you, and in the blink of an eye, they will replace you.

If you will behave as if you are Republicans — as if you are the prostitutes of our system —you will be judged as such. And you will lose not merely our respect. You will lose your jobs!

Every poll, every analysis, every vote, every region of this country supports health care reform, and the essential great leveling agent of a government-funded alternative to the unchecked duopoly of profiteering private insurance corporations. Cross us all at your peril.

Because, Rep. Ross, you are not the Representative from Blue Cross.

And Mr. Baucus, you are not the Senator from Schering-Plough Global Health Care even if they have already given you $76,000 towards your re-election. And Ms. Lincoln, you are not the Senator from DaVita Dialysis.

Because, ladies and gentlemen, President Lincoln did not promise that this nation shall have a new death of freedom, and that government of the corporation, by the corporation, for the corporation, shall not perish from this earth.

- iambiguous

August 10, 2009 at 2:24am

If the protesters are not-representative of the electorate and their expressions of serious concern and anger are not genuine, what is everybody worried about. Congress can just ignore them and go ahead and vote. What's the big deal?

- dtohmatsu

August 10, 2009 at 3:54am

My favorite bit in the exceptionally disingenuous Peggy Noonan column Ed Kilgore cited earlier is this

- Anonymous

August 10, 2009 at 10:40am

"Peggy Noonan is not that stupid." Where does the writer get his information?  Peggy Noonan is a speech writer who talks with her eyes closed.  Her job is to use flowery language like "thousand points of light," not to understand what the language refers to. For Noonan, the facts of the U.S. torture policy should "remain a mystery," not be dealt with in reality or as a legal or moral issue.  The facts behind the mobs at the town hall meetings have nothing to do with anything Noonan wishes to convey. Her job is to hide the facts with flowery language.

The media might be a smarter place if it stopped publishing what Peggy Noonan says or writes.   There must be people who are opposed to Obama's health care plan who have actual issues with the plan, not with the party that has proposed it, and not because they work for the insurance industry.  It would be of great benefit to hear their side, but they've been drowned out by mobs and Peggy Noonans.

- jerrywander

August 10, 2009 at 11:58am

"Peggy Noonan is not that stupid." Where does the writer get his information?  Peggy Noonan is a speech writer who talks with her eyes closed.  Her job is to use flowery language like "thousand points of light," not to understand what the language refers to. For Noonan, the facts of the U.S. torture policy should "remain a mystery," not be dealt with in reality or as a legal or moral issue.  The facts behind the mobs at the town hall meetings have nothing to do with anything Noonan wishes to convey. Her job is to hide the facts with flowery language.

The media might be a smarter place if it stopped publishing what Peggy Noonan says or writes.   There must be people who are opposed to Obama's health care plan who have actual issues with the plan, not with the party that has proposed it, and not because they work for the insurance industry.  It would be of great benefit to hear their side, but they've been drowned out by mobs and Peggy Noonans.

- jerrywander

August 10, 2009 at 11:58am

"If the protesters are not-representative of the electorate and their expressions of serious concern and anger are not genuine, what is everybody worried about. Congress can just ignore them and go ahead and vote. What's the big deal?"

1. There are many proposals out there, and it would be nice if we could have a serious discussion about them without some yahoo grabbing the microphone, shouting "The Nazi death panel is hiding his birth certificate!" and then taking a dump on the floor. That is, after all, what town halls were for before they turned into theaters for extreme-right performance art.

2. They're now to the point where they're starting fights, and they are going to end up seriously hurting someone, soon.

3. No one has said that all demonstrators' anger is not genuine. Misguided and misplaced, of course, but sure some of it is genuine. Much of it is. Some are very angry at Democrats, period. Some are very angry at things they have been told about health care reform that they believe to be true, but in fact are not true, they are lies. Some people think it's a worthwhile proposition to inform these angry people of facts and truth. But then that puts us back there at No. 1, where it's hard to inform and educate when you've got a "Commies want to kill granny!" chant going on for an hour.

- WoodyBombay

August 10, 2009 at 1:01pm

I was angry myself at times during the previous eight years, dtoh, and that involved some death too, for example the deaths of thousands our troops and Iraqi civilians over several years in a war we started based upon -- to put it mildly -- wrongly evaluated intelligence.  I was angry at an adminisration who had played with this country's military, diplomatic, and strategic assets like a drunken tourist in a Las Vegas casino.

But my anger was not acceptable.  It was unpatriotic liberal subversion, apparently --- according to the very people who are now busily defending the "anger" of the loudmouthed bullies at the town meetings as a kind of sacred wrath.

I also listened to people who supported the war and tried to grasp their arguments.  I was wrathful at times, but didn't think the discussion should be closed down.

So, don't come here with the disingenuous "expressions of serious concern" business unless you are willing to explain why people are angry about fantasy-type policies that have not been proposed and speculative orwellian nonsense that isn't going to happen.

- ironyroad

August 10, 2009 at 1:22pm

Oh, look -- someone dropped a gun at a (Red State) Dem congresswoman's town hall:

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../gabrielle-giffords-town-h_n_255656.html

- WoodyBombay

August 10, 2009 at 2:03pm

The GOP won't stop driving this thing to a higher and higher pitch of hatred until someone is murdered.  Then, in the aftermath, they'll accuse the Democrats of trying to smear them with the act of a deranged loner.

- ironyroad

August 10, 2009 at 3:08pm

When it is liberals who show up at town hall meetings it is "community organizing".  When it is conservatives it is a mob not to be listened to.

- McDuffy

August 10, 2009 at 6:12pm

When anyone, left or right, shows up specifically to close down all discussion, it's intimidation and bullying, and has nothing to do with public debate.

- ironyroad

August 10, 2009 at 7:04pm