In eight years of writing about politics, nothing gets people angrier than when I try to make the case that most activists and most journalists practice politics differently, have different worldviews, and are both forces for good in the democracy. 3....2....
It is easy and comfortable to assume that because you've discovered the presence of Astroturf activism, there is no there there, or there is nothing that sustains or nourishes the Astroturfing. The point is not to question whether conservatives are artificially magnifying their voices -- yes of course they are, predictably and not in secret -- it's that real anxiety and real enthusiasm provide a catalyst for the Astroturfing to work -- and the Astroturfing provides a catalyst for the anxiety and enthusiasm to manifest.
Peter Daou makes some provocative arguments here -- the liberal base is a bit disillusioned with Obama, Republicans sense opportunity, etc, and I think he is right. And I think that other liberals who assume that somehow because they associate THEIR side with reasoned argument and the OTHER side with blatant demagoguery, the argument ought to be closed -- well, they're replicating the mistake that disillusioned partisans tend to make: if it ain't going right, it MUST be because some outside factor -- usually the media -- is screwing up. Sometimes the media does screw it up. Sometimes, it's just screwed up.
Democrats were able to defeat President Bush on Social Security because they found a way to capitalize on inherent skepticism about forcing that cherished institution to change. Make no mistake, the effort to defeat Social Security reform won because of a mix of organic anxiety, inorganic organizing, focus grouped-messaging and wealthy people and interests writing large checks. Today, we're at a similar juncture, except for the fact that the wealthy, organized/organic/inorganic protesters are on the other side of an issue. Democrats may have used different tactics -- protesting outside of places as opposed to inside of them -- but that's not terribly germane. It's true that health care reform in general is more popular than Social Security reform was, but that fact is not mutually exclusive with the fact that, because Democrats have to get to 60 votes in the Senate, there are meaningful and relevant anxieties too. The point is that, in terms of enthusiasm, on health care the right is capitalizing on a weak "pro" side and actual anxiety in the same way that the left capitalized on an weak "pro" side and actual anxiety on Social Security. Even if you think that the Dems have the right policy on both issues, the strategic analogy is, I think, valid. Social Security privatization failed because it was not popular, because Democrats out-gamed Republicans, and the because the Bush administration failed to find an effective argument that outgamed the gamers. And for a few other reasons too.
Astroturfing strikes us -- and me -- as dishonest because it masks real motivations, like the desire of industries to maintain the status quo. It allows powerful interests to magnify their voices at the expense of those without a megaphone. Be skeptical of Astrotufing. Totally. But technological change has very quickly shrunk the blade of grass, because it's much less expensive and much easier to start and sustain a movement. Sometimes, as in the case of health care, both sides Astroturf. What begats success? The Astroturfing? Or the underlying anxieties? I'll posit that Astroturfing tends to fail when there is nothing to sustain it, and it has a better chance of succeeding when the opposition can't figure out how to Astroturf their way into the same enthusiasm channel.
It is just not easy to figure out the absolute truth of every value-laden political claim that one associates with the health care debate.
Take, for example, the question of whether people would have to change their policies or their doctors as the result of a robust public plan. Obama says no -- and he makes a credible argument for it. Many real people -- regardless of their motives -- have legitimate and credible reasons to believe that the answer is yes. In cases like this, maybe there is no middle ground -- ya just believe it or you don't. But empirical data-gathering and analysis isn't set up to answer questions like these, because they derive their power from emotion and gut feelings. Will the iMAC proposal lead to reduced health care costs over the long-term? Anyone who says they KNOW it will cannot possibly be telling the truth: there is no way to know whether lobbyists will be successful in getting the 50 members of the Senate, say, to overturn a particular provision. We can make a reasonable guess that by changing the context and forcing Congress to vote "no" on something billed as a cost-cutting measure, it'll be tougher for lobbyists to work their charms. But we don't know.
Where do you draw the line? It depends on the issue and the context. For example: evolution is true and supported by evidence, and enough evidence so as to overwhelm whatever value-laden arguments its opponents muster. I think journalists can call evolution "true" without compromising their duty; indeed, I think that our duty demands it. But that question is categorically different than asking journalists to come down on the side of a policy option where the truth cannot be known until the experiments are run. Taking the truth seriously means, I think, being able to know when and where the truth can be discerned. Sometimes, journalists do this better than activists; sometimes, activists do this better than journalists.
It is not intellectually dishonest for conservatives to contend that Obama's health care principles would increase the government's involvement in their health care decisions. It IS intellectually dishonest -- and completely witless -- to believe that the birthers have a reasonable case. They don't. Even if you can't precisely locate the line that separates truth from doubt, you've got a reasonable idea where it ought to lie.
There is a logical error in assuming that because a line of argument is associated with something you don't like -- like, say, conservative activists, --that anyone who uses that line of argument has less pure motives than you do, or is a yahoo, or is being bamboozled. Sometimes, this is the case. Sometimes it isn't. Association itself is not proof of the absence of anything real.
In accusing me of giving credence to the town-hall meeting Astroturf and treating it as if it represented legitimate anxiety, some liberals are making a second logical mistake they assume I am committing: they are conflating the video evidence of all the "Republican mob rule" with everyone who goes to the town hall meetings.
They -- not me -- are hearing the loudest voices and imputing to an entire town hall meeting the motivations of the sponsors of the loud voices.
When you find Astroturfing, the next question ought to be: but does it reflect anything real? If it does, then you've got work to do.
Interesting how the whole post on Astroturfing doesnt even mention the names of the Astroturfing organizations - FreedomWorks and CPR.
"but does it reflect anything real?"
What the hell does that mean? In a country with 300 million people obviously all people will not agree on any issue. Each and every possible nutty view will have some support behind it. If a Corporate funded organization pays people to start protesting by pouring oil on their nutty fears, does that mean it reflects something real?
It's "real," but is it substantial? The people screaming "socialism" and "liar" at these townhalls are the TEA party fringe element. I have no problem with inflating your numbers. The problem is their goal is to shut down the meetings and prevent others with legitimate concerns from learning more from their elected representatives. They can wave all the signs they want, but don't shut down the meeting. It's a really important distinction.
Marc, dismantling Social Security failed because Social Security is a fantastically effective government program. That's why it's popular. Because it works.
As to your discussion of truth, I think it's interesting that you don't examine the specific claims made by these activists/astroturfers. Marc where do you come down on their end of life claims? Curious.
In addition, when, aside from very gimmicky programs--Cash for Clunkers, limiting CEO pay--can one find programs that have broad popular support that pushes them through in spite of lobbyist opposition?
I'm having trouble thinking of any recent examples. Instead, it seems that it takes overwhelming grassroots effort to kill complex policies that have the support of lobbyists and key politicians.
Health care, because of the way Obama has structured the process, is in the latter category. All of the major industry players and lobby groups are on board. Almost all of the necessary politicians are on board as well.
Absent a Republican party that has decided, rightly or wrongly, that opposition to almost anything Obama proposes, health care would already be passed by the House and Senate by now.
The bar for Obama is extremely low, as he just has to get a few people (really, just a few Democratic Senators) on board, and he's set. It's low because he has lobbyist support. The political price of that support (complex systems, etc.) is worth it, if the goal is the pass a bill.
While Dems are right to be panicked, their goal is just to cast doubt on the naysayers, as no amount of grassroots lobbying will stop the bill from happening.
On the one hand, it speaks very highly of you that you care enough about your readers to respond to our (and some of your peers') comments about this issue.
On the other hand, you're making it worse. This post is a blizzard of hand-waving, concern-trolling and goalpost-moving.
Here's some advice: stop digging, the hole is deep enough.
This post is nothing but a straw man. The point is not that the teabaggers have valid concerns, it is that they are undermining a democratic process by trying to shut down reasoned debate with yelling and intimidation. I don't care how anxious they are, they have no right to keep others from speaking and being heard. The distinction between Democratic protesters outside the town hall and those inside disrupting it is a salient difference, which Ambinder dishonestly downplays.
The distinction between Democratic protesters outside the town hall and those inside disrupting it is a salient difference, which Ambinder dishonestly downplays.
"Don't tase me, bro!"
"I don't care how anxious they are, they have no right to keep others from speaking and being heard."
How do you know that others were kept from speaking? Just because cable news showed a ten second clip of vociferous crowd?
Sorry Marc, this was an unconvincing post. The frustration of those supporting Democratic reform initiatives stems not only from the numbers of the opposition being inflated but the categorically false claims being used to do this. The right construe optional counseling sessions as government encouraged eutanasia or say the bill will cover illegal immigrants when it states explicitly otherwise is not meaningful anxiety but fear mongering.
That being said I look foward to another semantic astroturfing article
if only we had some journalists of some kind to investigate the claims and the policies and find out which is true.
instead, we get "journalists" who just state both side's claim, as if each were equally true even though its impossible for two contradictory claims to both be true, and so the FACTS get buried under a heap of disinformation and propaganda because our corporate media no longer has the guts to call a fact a fact and a lie a lie.
empirical data and analysis is set up PRECISELY to answer questions like these. these questions have answers and it should be the job of a journalist to find the answers and get them to the public so we can be informed.
health care reform is too important to leave up to people's "gut feelings". a job of a journalist is to ferret out the truth, regardless if it contradicts what someone feels in their guts.
I do kinda feel bad for Marc for having to babysit the commentariat, including myself, like this.
Although, here's the thing: I've watched some of the townhalls, I've watched the press conferences, I've read the articles, and nowhere can I find out what exactly makes people think they're going to have to change their doctors as a direct result of a public plan, specifically. I mean, are the chances of that happening really any greater with a public plan than without? Are the chances of that happening necessarily greater with health insurance reform than without? Have I ever worried about having more organizations compete for my business in the past?
Nothing I've read or heard about the health insurance reform itself would in any way cause me to come to the conclusion that its implementation (with or without a public plan) would make it any more likely that I would have to give up my current coverage. Which compels me to wonder: Why would someone even come up with this concern in the first place? That, to me, is where Astroturfing comes in. Astroturf orgs force that multi-step logical leap, which isn't a natural one, and then continue to up the fear factor until normally sensible people start complaining that the government needs to stay out of their Medicare. They do this by playing on the same old narratives and stereotypes that fit comfortably within the MEDIA's (Yes, I said it) pre-formed framework. And they're marginally successful whether or not those narratives and stereotypes at all match up with current realities.
I actually don't think this is a "gut feeling" kind of question. I would argue that the preponderance of the evidence--circumstantial and otherwise--would suggest that health insurance reform, as it is currently expressed, is no more likely to force you to change your current coverage than no health insurance reform. If someone has evidence to the contrary, then they should present it. All this yelling about socialism and euthanasia of old people (not just from the teabaggers but on the house and senate floors, no less!) is really just fear-mongering. And personally, if I were an older person and a target of this kind of manipulation, I would resent it.
As for this argument:
It's effectiveness depends on whether or not people fully realize that insurers are currently involved in their healthcare decisions. As it's being framed (again, by Republican members of both houses), you'd think that insurers have no say in a person's healthcare decisions already. That these decisions are right now "between you and your doctor". That is deeply intellectually dishonest. And somebody should say so.I actually agree with this post. Still, I think it's pretty clear that it's a response to Josh Marshall and that as a matter of courtesy both to Marshall and, more importantly, to readers, the post ought to link to the argument you're responding to.
I have went to a couple health care forums/town halls/snow jobs, and the majority of questions were asking about, and the passion was always for a single payer system.
According to your thesis (of which I might not be clear on given all the nonsense you've piled on top of it), which seems to be that the media like Katie Couric and Marc Ambinder are required to report on the teabaggers and give them credibility because they are passionate, it seems a requirement that single payer should have had story after story and article after article about how powerful a force it is.
Instead you all conspired to bury it as the fevered dreams of some dirty hippies.
The government-run plan, aka, "public option," is the precursor to the single-payer system which President Obama has repeatedly indicated he wants.
Stop telling us the "public option" has no relationship to the single-payer plan. The government plan writes the rules, has unlimited capital, and pays no taxes. In short order, other plans will be driven out of business.
Contrary to the cherished beliefs of many liberals, we're not stupid. I'm a CPA with a masters degree.
ObamaCare lovers should really question whether you, or anyone for that matter, are smart enough to completely take over one-sixth of the economy. You're guilty of wishful thinking if you can't see there will be a lot of unintended and unanticipated consequences to your "reforms."
Is there any other area where a public option has driven the private options out of business? We have public schools and private schools, the post office and FedEx, the police and private security guards. Most tellingly we have well-subsidized public transport which one can ride dirt cheap and yet most of us still spend thousands of dollars to own and maintain our own autos. Before I can begin to take your concern seriously you need to explain, convincingly, why healthcare would be different: why would a public-private mix not survive (especially if the public option turns out as crappy as you fear) when such a mix has survived everywhere else that the government offers an alternative to the private market?
Jon, Thanks for your comment. I have run out of time to fully discuss this. [Yes, I have honey-do's.] Suffice it to say, the government-run plan will take over the private plans, if only because that's what President Obama and Senator Kennedy have said they want.
And I still come back to the arrogance issue. What makes these guys think they can efficiently operate one-sixth of the nation's economy? And we've yet to see any reasonable way to pay for all this. [CBO] Soaking the rich isn't enough.
Here's a thought. When it comes time for Congress to vote on single-payer, you can then claim that the government wants to take over the health insurance industry. In the meantime, why don't you make meaningful objections to the plans on the table rather than drumming up a slippery slope argument that is easily controverted by both logic and evidence? Either the magical market is strong enough to absorb a public plan or it isn't. If not, you should ask yourself why the market is so darned weak that our vaunted captains of industry can't even compete with lowly government bureaucrats.
Please point to a section of any of the proposed reform package that indicates it would put the government in charge of every aspect of our current healthcare system. Even single-payer proponents only want the government to take over our health insurance industry, and that, I'm sure, comprises far less than one-sixth of our economy.I'm sad that your master's degree didn't include a component on critical thinking. It cheapens them all. But, for what it's worth, I don't put a ton of stock in college degrees, and I won't hold yours against you.
I'm with you, and it's symptomatic of the Democrats' arrogance for someone here to insult your intelligence.
The plan will cost too much, and people who already have insurance get NOTHING out of it.
There is no reason to think that this health care plan will reduce health care costs over time. In fact, based on the other government health care plans like Medicare and Medicaid, the opposite will happen, and health care costs will continue to rise and eat up more and more of taxpayer money.
Reform is needed, but not the expensive reform that the Obama people are proposing. How do you reduce costs by raising them???
(replying to Jon @8:48 here as comments only nest finitely)
Well, first off, the USPS hasn't so much driven FedEx out of it's primary business but had the benefit of an exclusive government grant of monopoly over it, which is a potential concern with health care.
But the health care specific reason for concern about a federal government operation out-competing private concerns, leaving aside the government's immense capital acquisition advantages (i.e.: taxation/seizure/robbery) and ability to lose money on a project nigh-indefinitely, is that the federal government can essentially tell state regulators to go screw themselves. So, while some parts of the country might continue to have a private health care sector for as long as Congress deems to allow it, other areas may find that private firms wither under burdensome regulations that their public competitor is allowed to ignore, in much the same way as Medicare, operating as a federal tax and payment system that nonetheless acts much like a health insurance system, is not subject to state regulation that covers private health insurance firms. This can happen even if the public plan is run quite poorly and the private firms run quite well if the burden of regulation is heavy enough, and given that some states have already regulated themselves into a health insurance oligopoly there is every reason to believe that the burden can be quite high indeed.
(replying to slag @9:15 here as comments on nest finitely)
While the market, like Ludacris's hat, is large and full of magic, it's powers are indeed finite. So while I would not be concerned if Obama, or others of such ilk, were in their private capacity to create a public health insurance organization (such as a 501(c)(15) non-profit organization) chartered to provide affordable health care to all residents of the United States that choose to associate with it (in fact, I would applaud such an endeavor, perhaps even contribute to it), that is not what they mean by a public plan. The public plan, or more precisely government plan, will have advantages that a 501(c)(15), and it's for-profit brethren, will not; that is in fact the entire point of having the government create the thing, else Obama (or others of such ilk) would simply create it in their private capacity. So the playing field is not level, it is not even intended to be level, and so it is not unreasonable for me to worry that the captains of industry will be unable to beat the government bureaucrats in this competition any more so that it would be unreasonable for me to worry that they would be unable to beat the g-men in a basketball game while wearing lead chains onto which the relevant state insurance statutes had been etched.
I, nor Ambinder from what I can discern, are separating what is "feasible" from what derives credibility. That is a strawman.
And you know what isn't feasible? Teabagger demands that government get their paws out of of their Medicare! Ambinder is saying that simply because some teabagger got up and yelled this real loud one time, the person is therefore a passionate Everyman that deserves an un-ironic airing on National TV.
P.S. I am not talking about health care forums this year. Single payer has had a huge groundswell for many years, and it was ignored more completely than even the Iraq War protests. Some might say that the media blackout on single payer is partly to blame for the multitude of people now claiming it is not feasible.
Apparently Washpost blogger Ezra Klein concurs:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/a_word_on_demonstrators.html
" But one thing is perfectly predictable: The Q&A session will be dominated by single-payer activists asking about HR 676. There's not a mystery as to why this happens: Single-payer activists are very well organized, and they make a point to dispatch their people to these events and get their members to the microphone and ensure that their perspective is heard. But as the bills under consideration suggest, politicians have had no problem ignoring the single-payer grassroots. Max Baucus ruled out their participation on day one. The media hasn't shown the slightest inclination to cover their presence at event after event after event.
That's worth keeping in mind as people begin to focus on the anti-health-care tea parties. The political system does not have some sort of consistent reaction to grassroots pressure. Rather, it picks and chooses when it wants to listen to the views of the very, very non-representative groups of people who sit through at town halls and panel discussions. "
What now? What next?
Activate the astroturf eating microbes developed by the Batparty Robin!
Is "astoturfing" the same as astroturfing, except you've been knocked on your ass?
Marc:
Just to show you how absurd you are. Do you support the lynching(in effigy) the "Tea-Baggers" did? Yeah, yeah, I know, I shouldn't care because the lynched a Blue Dog(kinda funny in a sad way), but it just goes to show you these people are serious as a heart attack in a bad sort of way. Are you all for giving the birthers prime air time? Answer me one other thing. How come Democratic groups like MoveOn don't get the good press that the Republicans do?
What now? What next?
Activate the astroturf eating microbes developed by the Batparty Robin!
Marc:
I also suggest you read this:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/k-street-lynch-mobs-by-dday-jane-has.html
From Digby. As usual she is spot on.
Marc. Marc. Marc. It's not that astroturfing exists, it's that you conveniently ignore it until you are challenged over your poor journalism. You have a slant, and I do not deny your right-leaning views, but you cover them up with a pretension to a level playing field. You do not get there is a difference between confronting a politician and discussing and just yelling over the politician and everyone else around. Please, no more pretension to fair play, Mare. You have a point of view that lords over your judgment. Admit it and move on.
Marc:
Try and explain away this:
http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/04/teabaggers-mock-dodds-cancer-tell-him-to-kill-himself-video/
And you believe the "Tea-baggers" still deserve a fair shake after that?
This post was probably excessively condescending and snarky, but it was in response to a pretty direct hit from TPM. But, I do think there's a huge assumption here that is unjustified.
No one is actually ignoring the fact that there is a large group of right wing Americans who are really upset and angry about the country's direction. The worry that people have about these events is that (1) they are publicizing myths and distortions about the reform plan, with journalists who just let them pass by, and (2) there is a fear that without adequate pushback stories about these activists will lead to a general shift of opinion within Americans that are skeptical about health care reform, but not generally just pissed off at everything. Also, this is an opportunity for pro-reform forces to point out that corporate interests are behind these protests, which is totally fine.
I'm not really sure why Ambinder thinks that the left believes that all opposition from the right to Obama and health care is "not real" or "Astroturfed". Leftists can read polls too.
But, in general, none of this commentary from Ambinder is particularly surprising. If you watched his election coverage, you'll notice that he very early on expressed interest in the "Palin phenomenon". He believed that it represented a genuine political phenomenon, potentially of the same order of Obama's movement. That got derailed in Palin's case because of all the other stuff that happened. Still, it's pretty clear that Ambinder is specifically interested in the potential phenomenon of a right wing populist movement developing with the United States. Thus, it should be no surprise that he's both fascinated by the town hall activism, and that he is seeing it as a genuine manifestation of this movement he believes is emerging.
That's his thing, and to be fair, no one's really covering it particularly well except him. I do think it's worth reading about. However, it leads him to have a certain amount of selection bias, and in this case it makes him look sympathetic to the right wing on this issue when he almost certainly isn't.
One thing I am curious about is how Ambinder sees the co-opting of the (possibly) emerging right wing populist movement by corporate interests that are fundamentally antipopulist, at least in terms of economics. For years, the right has gotten by on an anti-tax platform as its only nod to economic populism, but that message doesn't seem to resonate anymore - and it won't unless there are substantial tax increases on the middle class, which are unlikely unless some external crisis makes it politically feasible, even if the Obama administration wanted to do it. The same goes for government takeover of health care - it's what the town hall people are supposed to be protesting, but in the real world, that's not even close to being on the table.
Fascist movements obviously involved populism tied to corporate interests, but they do include a large degree of the kind of economic populism - state involvement in industry, social safety nets, etc. So, given that the right wing movement doesn't really have much to offer it's electorate other than the rejection of policies that currently exist only in CAP policy papers and will likely never see the inside of a Senate committee room, what exactly will give them momentum?
It isn't just a few right wing fanatics. It is a huge majority of the class of americans who are in plain language in the bill having their health plan cut. 500 million cut from an already meager medicare system. The shouters at the meetings seem organized. More power to them, but they should be more polite. They sound like left wing Bush haters. Good thing they are not as undeveloped in their frontal lobes and physically vigorous as the anarchists that burn cars and smash shop windows.
You can start by answering the question posed by the lady who asked Senator Specter how are we suppose to trust the projected budgets when we couldn't even get the Cash-for-Clunkers Program correct? How do we know this won't turn into the Big Dig II? Where is the revenue stream coming from if the middle class is off limits?
From what I can tell, Cash for Clunkers accomplished its goal. If you have another measure by which to judge it, you should state it.
Medicare and Medicaid and the VA.
The revenue stream is a legitimate question and one I've been back and forth on myself. But usually, I don't go into angry mob mode until my questions have been asked and answered. Why is that lady so angry if she's just there to have her questions answered?
Cash for Clunkers budgeted a billion dollars that was suppose to have lasted until November. Instead, it ran out after a month. That really doesn't give me a warm, fuzzy feeling of confidence about the OMB projections for the Obama health plan. Massachusett's health reform was suppose to lower costs, instead it's created huge state deficits. And the liberals want us to swallow their pill coming down the pike?
"The revenue stream is a legitimate question...Why is that lady so angry if she's just there to have her questions answered?"
I don't care if she's happy, mad, focussed, or despondent, she asked a question that I have yet to hear an answer to. Stop whining about ettiquitte and tell us your response.
1. Here what Sully wrote on Ambers's posting yesterday. It says it all:
"A must-read by Ambers. This sentence is beautifully under-written:
On some level, this isn't really about health care: it's about anxiety and anger at government, and at the Obama administration."
Unfortunately what Ambers wrote above contradicts this elementary truth he so beautifully stated yesterday.
2. The difference between manifesting outside and inside the meetings:
In the former case an intelligent discussion might still take place inside.
3. Pushing Marc's argument to the extreme: The more complex is the subject, the more superficial the pundits and reporters are entitled to be.
4. Of course no one knows exactly the future. But all media outlets could seriously analyze the past and, e.g., show how instrumental the insurance companies have been in raising prices, dropping patients, etc. Or they could deeply analyze the US health care system as compared to those in other countries. Or look at the experimentation within the USA to change the fee for service system at the Cleveland and Mayo clinics, etc. But they wouldn't, since such reports will not get the same ratings as the coverage of noisy demonstrations. Is it too much to expect from the media to elevate the debate rather than to debase it?
This analysis doesn't hold water for 2 reasons: 1. There is an active disinformation campaign in the right-wing opposition to healthcare reform that simply didn't exist when it came to social security 2. If this is simply the press honestly reporting on the full spectrum of American political life, then why hasn't the press has covered left-wing healthcare preferences the way they have covered right-wing preferences?
1. The Right is making things up about healthcare in a way that the Left didn't about social security.
Betsy McCoughey is writing provably false things in Bloomberg news about the healthcare provisions of the stimulus bill, and then she's on TV making the same false assertions even after a CNN reporter has proven the citations she makes don't support these crazed allegations. There are many other right-wingers like her, on TV saying things that are wildly factually inaccurate. There exist a huge number of right-wing emails (eerily similiar to the "Obama's birth certificate emails") which simply lie about what this bill will do, and why you should be terrified of it. Members of the Republican party are going on the Senate floor and talking about euthanasia. People at tea parties are quoting the same text of the healthcare bill to support false statements about reform (such as no one over the age of 59 will be able to get care).
While it's certainly a mainstream sentiment for people to fear change, it's another thing entirely for people to run around afraid after hearing that "Obama's government-run healthcare" will mean euthanasia for seniors.
This isn't euthanasia. Heck, one of the biggest critiques of this plan by policy wonks of ALL sides is that because nobody wants to upset the majority of voters who are insured and like what they have, it reforms TOO LITTLE, and it leaves the healthcare system fundamentally intact, which is why they worry it won't do enough to bend the cost curve!
In contrast, left wing critiques around social security reform were fundamentally reality-based. The central arguments were variations on the point that that retirement funds under Bush's plan would be risky. If your investments did well, you'd make more, but if they did poorly, you'd make less. And frankly, they also argued that Bush was not trustworthy and that he would take away social security for the people who needed it most.
While this appealed to fear in the same way that the Republican argument about euthanasia appeals to fear, the difference was that putting your money in the stock market is actually risky in reality, whereas in reality nobody is proposing euthanasia! And, uh, Bush really WAS a terrible liar about his policies, which is why his approval rating cratered even BEFORE the recession started! It's kind of like the difference between how FDR led us into war and how Bush led us into war! One had a real enemy who posed a genuine threat to us and our way of life. The other war had ginned-up WMDs as an excuse.
I mean, yes, it is natural for sane people to be worried about euthanasia the same way it's natural for sane people to be worried about WMDs in the hands of dictators. But, uh, that doesn't mean you as a reporter should report on things which are not true as though they are true! Even if another network and an organized coalition has drummed up these fears by recklessly publishing allegations that are false. Since when is it good reporting to say "well, people are worried about euthanasia, so they don't like Obama's plan." It's kind of like saying "Well, people are worried about WMDs, so they support the invasion of Iraq." And it's even more inexcusable in this case, because it's not like the provisions of this bill are classified.
On Point 2, there press is not reporting this as part of an attempt to give a fair and balanced representation of the full spectrum of American opinion.
It's indisputable that there is a large and well-organized constituency for single payer that is out there, that has been out there, and that has received little coverage for an insanely long time. Reporters justify this by saying "well, we're not going to pass single payer healthcare or socialized medicine, so people's protests and events in support of this issue doesn't matter." But rather bizarrely, they don't turn around and say about right-wing opposition to reform: "well, we're not going to pass socialized medicine, so people's protests and events in opposition to this issue don't matter."
Sorry, but these protests aren't being covered because there is a good faith effort by the press to represent the fringes of American political life, even if some of us find that unsettling. Because, sorry, you're not reporting on the left fringe's substantive concerns with our nation's policies the way you are on the right fringe's worries.
In this case, you're covering these events because they are un-civil. And so the journalistic question is why they're un-civil. And I think the answer is clear.
Because a lot of these people just hate Obama (the birther contingent). Because a lot of them have been lied to about what is in this bill. And because their concerns and hatreds are being actively channelled by people who want to see ANY kind of reform fail, and who are also telling lies about what is in this bill.
"But will I have to change my doctor because he doesn't take the insurance my employer switched to this year?"
"Sure, it happens all the time. Or if he takes it but isn't a PPO, you can pay a lot more to keep him."
"I'll posit that Astroturfing tends to fail when there is nothing to sustain it, and it has a better chance of succeeding when the opposition can't figure out how to Astroturf their way into the same enthusiasm channel."
=========
Ah yes, the knowledgeable cynic comes to say his tut-tuts. Oh, how the Atlantic Monthly has fallen. Maybe that's why I threw away the renewal notice today?
Mark,
You said, "Democrats may have used different tactics -- protesting outside of places as opposed to inside of them -- but that's not terribly germane."
The problem is, Mark, that it's entirely germane, and I'm shocked that you could possibly find a way to view it otherwise. There's a mammoth difference between working within a democracy -- mobilizing protestors, etc. -- and working to circumvent it. In this case, Republican operatives are fighting to shut down Democrats' right to free political speach.
My objections to this extraordinary practice do not stem from disagreement with the Republicans' message, but from the jackbooted tactic they have adopted of not allowing others to put forth their competing message.
If these fascist brownshirts are allowed to succeed, we will have crazies on one side shouting that Obama wants to euthanize senior citizens, and absolutely no audible reply from the other side because they've been effectively and chillingly muzzled.
That can't possibly be good for our representative form of government, as it totally shuts down the marketplace of ideas and replaces it with blaring sirens. And let us be clear: If the Right shows this tactic can succeed, it will only be a matter of time before the Left must adopt it as well, at which point the vast majority of Americans will never hear cogent arguments on either side of any issue -- just bullies from both sides shouting vitriol at their opponents.
Mark, I can't imagine how a thinker of your usual acuity can fail to see the deeply disturbing danger that the forces of anti-speach, anti-knowledge and anti-thought represent to the very idea of an informed citizenry. Instead, you are now the master of false equivalencies.
You see a ten second clip from cable news showing an animated crowd and you are somehow able to glean from it the imminent arrival of the Fourth Reich? And you call the them nuts?
You see a ten second clip from cable news showing an animated crowd and you are somehow able to glean from it the imminent arrival of the Fourth Reich? And you call the them nuts?
Nope. I don't see the Fourth Reich coming here any time soon. You'll note that, instead, I predict a future in which there's still a Right and a Left, however instead of trying to win people over with ideas they simply try to outshout each other. That being said, the similarities between what the Republicans are doing now and what the Nazis did during the Weimar period are quite striking, hence my "brown shirt" reference.
And yes, I do call anyone who claims that Obama wants to euthanize seniors nuts. I personally find impugning their sanity to be more charitable than presuming that they're evil enough to say it without any actual belief. Don't get me wrong: I'm not a mind reader, so I don't know for sure that they're honest whackos instead of dishonest devils, but those are, indeed, the choices we have in front of us, so I figure I'll be nice and presume they're merely insane.
Hmmm. The Atlantic's own Megan McCardle's fiance, Peter Suderman, used to work for Freedom Works. Wonder if that's why Ambinder is acting as an apologist for their tactics? I'm not saying he is, I'm just saying: "It's out there!"
http://www.freedomworks.org/2008/03/17/who-will-be-the-cfo-in-chief
The Elements of a Right-Wing Attack:
1) Set up a straw man. In this case, Tommer states that I "glean[ed] the immanent arrival of the Fourth Reich." Of course, I said no such thing, but it helps him and his compatriots feel that I'm a bad person, so it's good.
2) Ignore all substantial points. Tommer can't dispute the facts on the ground, so he simply ignores them. Often, right-jobs will simply lie about the facts instead, inventing things like "Obama's a socialist" or "Obama wants to euthanize seniors" or "Obama's not a (real) American," but Tommer apparently got dissimulation out of his system by setting up his Fourth Reich straw man. (See above.)
3) Unleash the ad hominem hounds! The complete list of smears is: I'm a nut who thinks the Fourth Reich is nigh. I made a complete judgment of the situation based only on a 10-second video clip and thus have an uninformed opinion. I'm a hypocrite, the veritable pot calling the kettle black. That's three smears in two sentences, which I guess is admirably efficient if nothing else, and sadly common amongst right-wingers these days.
Marc, does it set off any red flags in your mind that these are the kind of people defending this column?
It appears to me that you used the same methods that you attributed to Tommer.
Okay, Carl:
1) Where's my straw man?
2) What substantial points did Tommer make that I'm ignoring?
3) Where's the smear? I don't believe I said anything negative that I didn't logically back up, but if I missed detailing something, I'll be glad to unpack it.
Mark -
A good post, and I must say that I agree with most of what you say. However, I think you're also choosing to focus on the point that makes the anti-Obama crowd look good (top down movements aren't by definition bad) and choosing to ignore what seems the more serious issue: a large-scale campaign to not allow discussion and the exchange of ideas at public forums.
For what its worth, I am not in favor of any of the options that the D's are putting on the table; I'm not in fact a fan of any kind of nationalized healthcare. But I recognize that the current system isn't perfect, and that there's a tremendous number of people who believe that its actually broke. Under these circumstances, how cynical do you have to be to not condemn a movement to stir up existing fear and anger for no other reason than to make sure thoughtful discussion and exchange of data & opinions does not happen?
Its hard for me to believe that if this were a Republican administration being shouted down by liberal cranks (regardless of top- or bottom-down origins) that you'd be so supportive. Isn't this the kind of thinking that makes it so impossible for us to seriously address our most urgent problems in any kind of meaningful way?
R'Tod: Your assumption that opposition to ObamaCare is top-down is wrong. It's simply dawned on a great many people that, while "health care" can certainly use some "reform," the Democrats' command-and-control solution is far worse than the current system, many of whose problems are attributable to previous Democratic Party ministrations.
So, if you are "not in favor of any of the options that the D's are putting on the table [and are] not in fact a fan of any kind of nationalized healthcare," then you need to attend your congressman's next townhall meeting and tell him what bothers you about ObamaCare. I intend to do the same, politely.
When you attend that meeting and politely state your opinion, many of the above commenters will accuse you of astroturfing and being a stooge of the insurance companies.
"Who started this idiot Internet meme that if you write about something, then it means you're 'shocked' by it?" - Glenn Greenwald, 8/4/09
(He was writing about another issue, but I still think it's relevant)
Stop questioning! Just accept what we say!
Seriously, Marc, what is the fucking deal?
As Media Matters has pointed out, Marc is clearly saying here that private health insurance companies are a "cherished institution" (that way, he can compare them directly to Social Security when Bush was trying to dismantle it). I think that bears repeating. His argument depends upon an assertion that private insurance companies are regarded by the public as a "cherished institution."
Has anyone figured out the precise date when poor Mr. Ambinder went completely insane?
Mr. Ambinder: Boy, have you hit a nerve! You've challenged one of the more annoying tropes of many liberals: "Liberals are smart, caring people; conservatives are stupid, vicious people who can't possibly have an opinion of any value."
Astroturf is plastic, artificial grass; a petroleum product that requires no nurturing and nothing to sustain it. Once Astroturf is unrolled and installed, it needs no upkeep. It is expensive and environmentally toxic to make, causes and exacerbates injuries and mishaps far more than natural grass, and is preferred by almost no one who has a choice.
I leave the completion of the analogy as an exercise for the student.
I'm shocked that President Obama is the chief astroturfer!
President Barack Obama
reply-to info@barackobama.com
to John McCormack
date Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:19 PM
subject This is the moment
John --
This is the moment our movement was built for.
For one month, the fight for health insurance reform leaves the backrooms of Washington, D.C., and returns to communities across America. Throughout August, members of Congress are back home, where the hands they shake and the voices they hear will not belong to lobbyists, but to people like you.
Home is where we're strongest. We didn't win last year's election together at a committee hearing in D.C. We won it on the doorsteps and the phone lines, at the softball games and the town meetings, and in every part of this great country where people gather to talk about what matters most. And if you're willing to step up once again, that's exactly where we're going to win this historic campaign for the guaranteed, affordable health insurance that every American deserves.
There are those who profit from the status quo, or see this debate as a political game, and they will stop at nothing to block reform. They are filling the airwaves and the internet with outrageous falsehoods to scare people into opposing change. And some people, not surprisingly, are getting pretty nervous. So we've got to get out there, fight lies with truth, and set the record straight.
That's why Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act.
But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support. So here's what I need from you:
Can you sign up to attend an event near you?
In politics, there's a rule that says when you ask people to get involved, always tell them it'll be easy. Well, let's be honest here: Passing comprehensive health insurance reform will not be easy. Every President since Harry Truman has talked about it, and the most powerful and experienced lobbyists in Washington stand in the way.
But every day we don't act, Americans watch their premiums rise three times faster than wages, small businesses and families are pushed towards bankruptcy, and 14,000 people lose their coverage entirely. The cost of inaction is simply too much for the people of this nation to bear.
So yes, fixing this crisis will not be easy. Our opponents will attack us every day for daring to try. It will require time, and hard work, and there will be days when we don't know if we have anything more to give. But there comes a moment when we all have to choose between doing what's easy, and doing what's right.
This is one of those times. And moments like this are what this movement was built for. So, are you ready?
Please RSVP for an event in your community to build support for health insurance reform:
http://my.barackobama.com/AugustAttend
Let's seize this moment and win this historic victory for our economy, our health and our families.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama