"Of the people, by the people, for the people. . ."
I am not a "protester." I generally don't go to rallies, I've not been to a tea party, BUT when I read about elected representatives deciding to scale back town hall meetings because of protests over a massive government expansion, I am reminded of the need for protest. It is no fun to have people challenge you from an audience. I have been the target of a roomful of ire before. However, as long as there is no violence and public officials are given the opportunity to answer questions (not filibuster, but answer) then these forums are a useful and necessary part of our Representative Democracy. Take this exchange:
What did the man in the audience do to get such a reaction? He was polite, he asked a question that can be answered and he allowed the question to be answered.
After all, these people did not hold banners in front of the speaker (as leftist protesters do), they threw no pies (as leftist protesters do), and they have asked questions that can actually be answered. I have seen some raucous meetings as well, but nothing that comes close to eclipsing the opposition rallies of the left.
The New York Times has a surprising take on the protests (sarcasm added):
"Not only are anti-reformists showing up, they’re terrorizinglegislators with their tomfoolery when they do. Blinded by fear andpassion, armed with misinformation and misplaced anger, they descend onthese meetings and hoot and holler in an attempt to shut down thedebate rather than add to it."
This is not "terrorizing," this is dissent. It is critical to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Thanks, Hot Air.
Update: Peggy Noonan on the issue at The Wall Street Journal:
"What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen’s surprise but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss—loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t."
Update II: After 45 years of protest songs, sit ins, "hey, hos" and shout downs from the left, a few pissed off elderly and well-dressed people at town hall meetings means that we need to "do something" about the anger directed toward public officials.
What did the man in the audience do to get such a reaction? He was polite, he asked a question that can be answered and he allowed the question to be answered.
After all, these people did not hold banners in front of the speaker (as leftist protesters do), they threw no pies (as leftist protesters do), and they have asked questions that can actually be answered. I have seen some raucous meetings as well, but nothing that comes close to eclipsing the opposition rallies of the left.
The New York Times has a surprising take on the protests (sarcasm added):
"Not only are anti-reformists showing up, they’re terrorizinglegislators with their tomfoolery when they do. Blinded by fear andpassion, armed with misinformation and misplaced anger, they descend onthese meetings and hoot and holler in an attempt to shut down thedebate rather than add to it."
This is not "terrorizing," this is dissent. It is critical to a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Thanks, Hot Air.
Update: Peggy Noonan on the issue at The Wall Street Journal:
"What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen’s surprise but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss—loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t."
Update II: After 45 years of protest songs, sit ins, "hey, hos" and shout downs from the left, a few pissed off elderly and well-dressed people at town hall meetings means that we need to "do something" about the anger directed toward public officials.
I swore off commentary when the campaign was over last November - but I do admit my attention has been drawn to the protests about health care. And with the understanding that the media can manipulate perception thru omission of some facts and repetitive transmission of others - the physical nature of some of these protests, the signs with Obama in a Hitler moustache, the hanging in effigy of legislators or photos of them with red targets over their faces, disinformation such as "euthanasia boards", etc leaves me with the feeling that this is more than just democratic discourse or polite discussion.
Rather than policy discussions, it's simply politics. The need to bring health care costs and insurance under control is not the goal. Ideology is.
Without honest discussion, sans histrionics, millions of people will suffer and continue to suffer.
I believe that there are people who are simpy there to disrupt, to score political points. And we should admit that. Because we need to hear from the people who are genuinely concerned about their care and the costs of insurance for that care. It's not only the politicians that are being shouted down and out - but also those are deeply affected by a system that is run by insurance providers rather than the caregivers.
Passion is one thing. Theatre is another.
Reply to this
With all due respect, Jeff, where were you when Ronald Reagan was hung in effigy (I was on a campus watching it)? When Bush had the Hitler mustache (I haven't seen the Obama one)? So long as you are as you expressed similar concerns and are as concerned with Nancy Pelosi's comments, I stand with you because I believe a debate on the issues is important. But the physician who asked a legitimate question, deserved an answer not an attack.
You are almost right. It isn't about health care; it is about power. Understanding something about our health care system, I don't see a single thing in the proposed plan that will control costs. The access is a false access. A huge part of the problem that we face today stems from the fact that the government fixes pricing for Medicare and Medicaid, leaving the rest of the world to cover the cost-shifting. That leaves me with the question of "what is the goal of this plan?"
Reply to this
Where I was or what I was with respect to Reagan and Bush is just a distraction - bringing up these spectres, I think, reinforces the point that this is about payback and politics and not about policy.
Yes, I think that any legitimate question should be answered and addressed. Dissent, and even partisanship, have their places in genuine discussion. But if the strategy is to "kill the bill" then the tactics have become downright frightening. This isn't folkie protest - there is a world of difference between Phil Ochs and Rush Limbaugh.
You know my history. As a cancer survivor, I saw the insurance industry at their worst while they tried to choose my doctors, my treatments, the medications I needed including their dosages and course. But at least I had insurance - I would have been financially ruined if I didn't.
This system is broken and doesn't serve the population its meant to serve - the patients and potential patients. And if the volume - and violence - is being turned up for political ends, then these are the people who won't be heard from. Fear and paranoia should not be part of this process.
This is a highly complex system and collapsing for everyone on both sides of the medical system. I agree it can't be rushed. But we need some common ground for discussion.
Reply to this
Jeff - I don't believe that the Reagan and Bush "spectres" are distractions at all. They demonstrate a predictable one-sidedness to the media and left's tolerance for dissent (yes, dissent as expressed by citizens who have learned that government programs: a) are never enacted as they are intended; and as a result b) often end up making the problem that they target worse).
The protests have seemed tame to me until the union thugs came in and started roughing people up.
As for the system. It has huge problems that would not be fixed by government intervention - especially the kind outlined in this bill. So killing the bill is a great strategy. If something doesn't do what we want it to, killing it is not a bad thing at all.
You and I both know that "folkie" protest is not all that went on in the 60's, 70's and 80's. The history of organized leftist protest is far more sinister than what these voting citizens were doing.
We will not be agreeing on this subject, but I respect your opinions.
Reply to this
The "honest discussion" Jeff wants to see would require good faith on both sides. The protesters are protesting being lied to as much as they're protesting the bill's many defects.
The politicians won't listen to "ordinary citizens" trying to explain pending legislation. They don't put on these dog-and-pony shows to learn about pending legislation. They do it to get re-elected.
What motivates them is fear. You can't reason with them in these town-hall meetings. The best you can hope for is to convince them that if they vote for the bill, then they'll lose the next election.
As a lawyer, I can tell you with absolute certainty that being right doesn't win arguments. Or as Aristotle put it more elegantly, Λόγοσ ούδέν κινεί (Reason moves nothing.)
Reply to this
Andrew McCarthy agrees with me (and, not surprisingly, puts it better than I did). http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Zjk3NmY0MjQyMzVjOGIyOTYyMWY5NmRlYzgxOTJjMGM=
Reply to this
The older I get, the more I'm reminded of some obscure quote. This thread reminds me of one of Nero Wolfe's quips:
"I am sorry, Mrs. Laszio, if I seem rude, but the fact is that I hate being taken for an idiot." --Rex Stout, Too Many Cooks (Nero Wolfe speaking)
Reply to this