THE PLANK AUGUST 11, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Ed Kilgore is managing editor of The Democratic Strategist, a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, and a frequent contributor to a variety of political journals.
The continuing arguments over congressional "town hall meetings" and protests against health reform have largely focused on the relative authenticity of the protests. Are the people chanting against Obama and health reform at these events motivated by spontaneous civic-minded feelings, or were they rounded up and deployed by "astroturfing" p.r. outfits paid by health industry lobbyists? This post by James Vega goes into the questions of authenticity in some detail.
But I have a different question: authentic or phony, should these protests matter to Congress? We are talking, after all, about relatively small groups of people vociferously expressing a point of view (yes, some ask "questions" of their representatives, but generally of the loaded and rhetorical sort). Should these expressions be given disproportionate weight, perhaps more than, say, the party or ideology of Members of Congress, their understanding of their districts' needs, or surveys of public opinion?
The question pretty much answers itself if you don't start with vague notions, as many conservative commentators have been offering lately, that the protesters somehow represent the heart and soul of America, or Concerned Citizenry, or the Middle Class, or some such other abstraction. It's particularly amusing to hear those who doubt the significance of the protests being denounced as "elitists." What could be more "elitist" than the belief that democratic procedures should be trumped by the appearance of a few hundred highly opinionated people at a public event?
I dunno--maybe my jaundiced attitude on this subject was developed when I worked for a United States Senator back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Yes, my boss held public forums pretty regularly, and yes, we carefully toted up calls and cards and letters sent from constituents on various issues of the day. But we were under zero illusion that these expressions of public opinion were necessarily representative of public opinion itself. At public events, the bane of every Member of Congress' existence in those days were the so-called "Notch Babies," a cohort of people born between 1917 and 1921 who were convinced they had been denied Social Security benefits that people born just before or after received. "Notch Babies" showed up at every available forum demanding financial reparations. Members and staff patiently listened to, and tried to reason with, these disgruntled citizens, with limited success. But you know what? Legislation to "fix" the "notch" was never enacted.
Elected representatives do have a responsibility to give constituents opportunities to ask them questions and express their own views, as a simple matter of accountability. But those voices should not be confused with the "voice of the people," measured a bit more scientifically by elections, in which, as you may recall, the candidates clearly preferred by most if not all of the health reform protesters lost. This probably made them feel "disempowered" and perhaps even angry and inclined to answer that email and go out to shake fists at the Democrat Socialist representing them so badly in Congress. That's all well and good, and any Member of Congress who can't take heckling now and then is probably in the wrong line of work. But the idea that the chants and signs and head-counts at these highly selective events ought to sway votes on real issues is just wrong.
[Cross-posted from The Democratic Strategist.]
--Ed Kilgore
10 comments
Congressmen and Senators need to be reminded, if they don't understand already, that they are Burkean trustees, endowed with their constituents' trust to best represent those constituents' popular will as expressed every two or six years. That means that they should follow through on voting for legislation that they supported as candidates for office (or else candidly explain why they cannot do so due to changed circumstances) and otherwise exercise their best judgment in voting on all other legislation. The Congressmen and Senators are NOT simple delegates of those voters who yell the loudest or send them the most graphic and colorful e-mails. Therefore, if a Democratic congressman or Senator supports any version of the current health care legislation in the House then he or she should be candid with any protesting voters and explain to them why they have made the decision to do so. My sense is that all the vast majority of those Democrates who truly believe that such legislation is really against their constituents' best interests are already opposed to the legislation. For those who are inclined to waiver because of irate people at a town hall meeting, it is the duty of all supporters of health care legislation who live in their districts or states to urge them, in the strongest possible terms, not to be indimidated. Our intelligent votes can more than cancel out the ignorant votes of bellicose opponents.
- wildboy
August 11, 2009 at 7:46pm
I have no problem with constituents expressing their views at town hall meetings, but when you drown out the voices of those who want a real exchange of ideas, that crosses the line. After all, many of those legitimate constituents have a right to an honest debate without the insults, disruptions and intimidation.
The true gauge of public opinion was lawfully expressed last November. Both candidates were more than candid about their plans for health care in the U.S.
- desertdog
August 11, 2009 at 8:01pm
The leftists, who pioneered in-your-face protests in post-war America, are now giving tutorials on protest etiquette to the conservatives. The conservatives were wrong to call sincere, though perhaps misguided, leftist idealists "commies", but it is altogether appropriate to call sincere, though perhaps misguided, rightist idealists "brownshirts"? An ignoramous is an ignoramus, whether he or she comes from the left or the right; same applies to a lout or a bully.
It appears that Ed Kilgore equates opponents of Democratic health care "reform" with notch babies. Really Ed? How about those who want expanded coverage but are worried about paying for it? Are they notch babies? How about people who want their family's health care coverage left as-is? Are they notch babies? How about people who would simply like to see an administration bill --that they could oppose or support-- instead of a plethora of bills left to and authored by safe-seat congressional hacks, none of which have the votes? Are they notch babies?
- lsernoff
August 11, 2009 at 9:43pm
I don't know about "notch babies," lsernoff, but I'd say the following:
1. Those who want expanded coverage but are worried about how we pay for it are unlikely to discover ways of doing that if they shout down everyone who tries to answer their queries.
2. People who want their family's health coverage left as-is have nothing to worry about as any prospective legislation on the table will protect those options.
3. People who would like to see one bill (and perhaps at one time we might even have gotten a bipartisan bill) should perhaps exercise a little bit of patience and wait until the various political dynamics have cooled and legislation crystallizes in the Fall -- and btw if their input as citizens is limited to jeering and screaming, it's unlikely to bear much of their imprint. This is a major national reform effort and we'd like to get it right.
4. Those who sneer about "safe-seat congressional hacks" should check back to when Bush had a roll-over-paws-in-the-air Congress -- did they protest the GOP hacks then?
- ironyroad
August 11, 2009 at 10:07pm
wildboy, great post.
lsernoff, don't forget, anyone who protested against Bush and the Iraq war were labelled traitors, and the lefts protests at least made some sense, disagree or not, but I am simply not seeing any sense from any quarter on the right as to this issue. What are the Republicans proposals? 8 years they had the chance to make honest, good faith efforts for health care reform, if they could pass that drug boondoggle they could have passed anything if it would have lessened the number of uninsured, but outside of schip you had nothing. The few plans I have seen from the Republicans are abortions which would benefit only the insurance companies and the well to do. Where are the health care vouchers? They support them for private schools but not for insurance? And these schmucks at these town hall meetings, lets face it, there are a lot of really stupid people in America. It is a shame they don't have the questions written down by the people in advance with a Rep. and Dem. pulling questions out with the asinine ones chucked. I would have no problem with having my question read by an organizer. I guarantee you a lot more questions would get asked without these egomaniacs wasting time on senseless rants.
- blackton
August 11, 2009 at 11:02pm
As to these notch babies, I had forgotten all about them. Funny how mortality solves some problems. even non existent ones.
- blackton
August 11, 2009 at 11:06pm
What Ed focuses on here is the inherent ambiguity marbled through and through our perception of politics and politicians.
We elect folks to Congress because we want them to "represent" us in Washington. And by "representation" we mean backing legislation that favors or facilitates what we construe to be "in our own best interests". Or, with respect to age old moral issues like abortion, capital punishment, human sexuality etc., we want them to "do the right thing" by God...or in The Public Good.
At the same time, however, we elect men and women to be our leaders. And leaders throughout human history have often been recognized as leaders precisely because they broke new ground and yanked the both the government and the citizenry in new directions.
What is crucial then in melding these two perceptions into more productive leaders, is the acknowledgement that what we perceive to be the right course of action will not be seen by others in the same way. And this, of course, is why we have town hall meetings in the first place: To gather together men and women who view things in different ways and allow them to communicate this to those they elected.
So, what makes the current round of protests disturbing is:
1]
Democracy itself is ripped out of the exchange. You have people in the audience intent only on shouting down and then shutting down the communication if it does overlap precisely with their own point of view. That's the kind of "democracy" the fascists, the communists and the ayatollahs find most effective.
2]
Much of it seems linked to the scripted right wing demagoguery of archconservative wingnuts at Fox News and talk radio. And they are dangerous because they use this authoritarian "dittohead" mentality not only as a means to disrupt democratic exchanges at town halls but as a tool to make money. And in America when someone finds something they can make lots and lots of money doing, no holds are barred.
3]
There are also sources in the media that suggest the healthcare industry...those that make a ton of money if things stay just the way they are...are backing these "spontaneous" demonstrations across the nation. And this is especially dangerous because, linked to the money these corporations already spend to bribe federal government officials, shoveling the money directly to the "voters" can generate a plutocracy that assures a virtual lock on any and all policies pursued in the future. This is democracy bought and paid for on a whole other level.
george walton
[dan/ann]
- iambiguous
August 12, 2009 at 7:59am
Isernoff....
George Bush never publicly declared he was going to lie about WMD, invade Iraq, subvert basic constitutional rights and destroy the career of a civil servant's spouse for daring to challenge his war on terror propaganda as a candidate in 2000.
Barack Obama made his views on reforming health care insurance (please folks, let's start calling it INSURANCE reform) more than clear during the campaign. He also inherited the worst financial meltdown in history short of the Great Depression and simply continued the financial rescue policies of his predecessor. Those policies as well as basic budgetary honesty (finally!) concerning the true costs of the war is what led to the large deficit. An election was held in November of last year and the people spoke. They spoke loudly and with overwhelming support for change in the staus quo. It is the only public opinion poll that counts.
I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for these so-called grass roots protestors. People have a right to be concerned about the size of the deficit, but they need to remember how we got here. They are simply being played for fools and being manipulated by the likes of Bristol-Meyers-Squibb and the Hospital Corp. of America and numerous other medical and big pharma puppet masters.
- desertdog
August 12, 2009 at 9:44am
I agree with Isneroff - Kilgore's post is excellent. More to the point, I agree with what Isneroff would have said if he had actually read what Kilgore wrote and made even a minimal effort to understand it. Kilgore does not say that all opposition to the Dems' plans is illegitimate - no other prominent Dem is saying that either. Instead, Kilgore is calling out the people who show up to vent unfocused rage and disrupt the meetings, impervious to reason, and indeed fearful of reasonable debate. Does Isneroff think these foamers are performing a valuable service? He doesn't say, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt (as a liberal, giving the benefit of the doubt is one my best things) and presume that he probably doesn't.
How benefits from thuggery? Let's imagine two different town halls, one where bullies and louts shout down all attempts to carry on a civil discussion and one where sincerely concerned people ask about community rating, comparative effectiveness review, the level of subsidies for low income people, coverage for pre-existing illness, mandates, drugs, capitation vs. fee-for-service, insurance exchanges and all the other complex moving parts of health reform. In the first town hall, no one is enlightened, and the end result of the forum is that the participants hate each other a little more than they did when they came in. But, insurance reform is killed, the status quo prevails and President is handed a big, fat defeat that conservatives hope will derail the rest of his presidency. They have destroyed health reform to save America, any resulting collateral damage is worth the price.
Who benefits from a substantive town hall? The Dems, of course, because the substantive issues all cut in our favor. (That's why the opponents have to make up things to attack.) Simply agreeing there's a problem and that the wise application of public policy might ameliorate it puts the Dems in the catbird seat. We can argue about the details (in fact, there are plenty of arguments among supporters of reform about the details, as there should be), but the point of the argument is to find the best answers to complex problems, not to simply create distrust and confusion in order to make people throw up their hands and say "This is just too damn hard." It's like I'm arguing with my wife over whether we should purchase an HD TV - as long as the arguments against are "you'll only use it to watch porn and sports and you'll never mow the yard again" we're not getting a TV. (If my wife used conservative tactics to argue against me, she'd say that I really didn't care about TV at all, but instead want to buy a new one because I'm having an affair with the girl [or boy] at the electronics store.) If the argument shifts to picture quality and how much better our Netflix DVDs will look, we're getting a TV. It may not be exactly the one I want or the one my wife wants, but it will be better than what we've got now (and in a few years, my wife will think buying the TV was her idea).
Modern conservatives can only play a zero sum game. They do not spend near as much time attacking liberal policies as they do liberals in general. Thus, the Base hates liberals, but has no clue about what policies we're actually proposing. All they need to know about a policy is that it's "liberal" in order to know it's bad. They hate us so bad that they actually think we want to kill grannies and kids. You cannot have a debate with people who want to crush you instead of trying to find a win-win solution.
- Geoff G
August 12, 2009 at 10:55am
Did anybody read the last sentence of my first paragraph? I am as opposed to shout-outs and ignorance as anybody else. I just don't like the criticism of such behavior to be politically one-sided.
Also, let's not dump all "conservatives" in one basket. There are some thoughtful conservative ideas out there on health reform. See, for example, the piece by Yuval Levin at weeklystandard.com and the editorial on health care in today's WSJ. Many of you may not agree with these approaches, but they are not mindless.
- lsernoff
August 12, 2009 at 12:26pm