Chicago Rules
"When you got an all-out prizefight, you wait until the fight is over, one guy is left standing. 'N' that's how you know who won"
Remember, Rotwang is always inside the tent, pissing out. Never outside . . . As bad as the impending health care reform might be -- and it might not be bad at all -- I would not hesitate to take to these Town Hall meetings to defend it. I think the reaction to the mobilization on the Right has been a little panicked. I see opportunity.
When I look at what they are doing, I think about what I did in my misspent youth, which included disrupting meetings (and worse). Of course, we thought we had a good reason. Ha! Now a Member of Congress has been hung in effigy. Oh dear. Someone suggested Chris Dodd commit suicide, oh my. I shudder to recall the rhetoric aimed at the Bushists. This wounded reaction signals weakness, a disinclination to fight fire with fire. Whatever happened to the golden rule, do unto others what they have done unto you, and then some?
I'm not impressed by all the talk of manipulation, lobbyists, etc. The teabaggers (TBs) are a genuine, organic movement of disturbed whitefolks. The facts of sponsorship and coordination, astroturf etc., are relevant but not central. If some analagous movement on the left was made an offer of outside resources, there should be no doubt it would be accepted. Most of the folks turning out are not being paid. The more salient point is that the progressive side is bigger and has a better case. Now is the time to make this clear. The teabagger mobilization was provoked by the larger one that elected president an African-American with a Muslim middle name.
The numbing details of health care reform are important and worth discussing, but the argument against the TBs is pretty simple. If you hate socialized medicine, do you want to abolish Medicare? Why not? If not, why not have more Medicare, rather than less? Why not have wider access to health insurance that resembles what Members of Congress have? Medicare is their soft underbelly. It's socialized medicine that people already have, are used to, and support. More, not less. Once that is established, you can have a civil discussion about all the details.
It would be unfortunate to uphold rules of behavior for the Right that stifle useful agitation from the Left. Kind of like speech codes. The cure for rotten speech is good speech. The response to right-wing agitation is progressive mobilization, not whining about mobs. Oh for more progressive mobs.
Asking disrespectful questions of one's representative cannot be out of bounds. Constant yelling and interruptions that make a meeting impossible to conduct are. People have a right to run their own demonstrations or meetings and expel any who try to prevent them. The Right certainly does. Anybody who is unwilling to throw people out of their meetings should not be organizing them.
So let the games begin.
Brilliant suggestion. Fight fire with fire extinguishers and not more flames.
I am utterly baffled why more progressives on the left haven't made this argument with regards to Medicare and the many other government run or sponsored health plans. I have no idea why Medicare wasn't positioned as the public option with some serious overhaul rather than trying to use it to kill the private insurance companies which was never going to be accepted by enough Americans to be viable.
Medicare-for-All was never going to fly and is a shitty slogan besides. It should have been positioned as Medicare-for-Some-Portion-of-the-Population-as-yet-Undetermined, leaving massive reform of the health insurance industry as the place where left and right came together and fix what truly ails the system moving forward.
August 6, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who already qualifies for medicare and will hop on board as soon as he retires, I heartily agree. However, MSPPU isn't a very poetic acronym. We need DickDay to massage it.
August 6, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, mike. MSPPU is a little clunky and non specific. It could certainly use some more pizazz.
If the democratic party had asked, I would have suggested Americare as the public option pitch, folding in every government plan, combing all those populations and lessening the impact of an aging Medicare population.
No offense. :O)
August 6, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the key to the argument is that if you expand Medicare you can save Medicare.
If you allow people in their 50s, for example, to opt into Medicare early, they will be (on average) healthier and cheaper to insure (assuming they pay some premium to get coverage before the normal age of 65), and can therefore make the Medicare system solvent.
So I think the goal initially should be expanded Medicare (rather than Medicare for All). Maybe call it Medicare Max. We can say, "Medicare works; so let's expand it." It could be done incrementally.
Confront those who chant "What's wrong with profit?" by asking, "What's wrong with Medicare?"
-- ARG
August 6, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I have selfish reasons for being for this type of expansion of Medicare.
I'm 47 now. I can see a time when I may have enough money to retire, but will have to continue working because I won't have any access to health insurance if I don't.
I'd like to at least have the option of retiring before age 65, without going naked.
-- ARG
August 6, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree with all of the above. Americans love Medicare AND they love capitalism. By pitting them against each other, the single payer crowd was destined to fail. A better strategy would have been stealth and a longer view on the problem.
Even if a single payer system is our final destiny as a nation, there was no way it was going to happen out of the gates no matter who went to bat for it, which almost no one did. A smart advocate for progress, in my opinion, stakes out a position that seems harmless but could be supported by most Americans and will lead to the outcomes I desire.
Holding my breath until I turn blue or Congress passes HR 676 sounds suicidal to me if the goal is to begin transforming health care into something that stops killing us.
August 6, 2009 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about we label it ME and FU
Medical Entitlement , For U
Then we go to the town Hall meetings proclaiming it’s all about ME and F (for) U
August 6, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points.
(I'm going to take one more stab at this, probably my last. I realize as much as anyone that it gets tedious and a bit insulting to keep making the same point over and over - I fully understand that I'm not talking to slow children, but there's so much activity in here on this subject that it's easy to get lost in the shuffle. What I'm about to say here is a basic summary of points I've made in here recently already, so if you've already seen it somewhere, feel free to move on).
I think it's very important for supporters of Health Care reform to develop an active, coherent, intelligent strategy for dealing with these deliberately disruptive 'protesters'. What they are doing (somewhat successfully, so far) is
not "expressing" democracy, but attempting to thwart and subvert it.
I don't claim to know precisely WHY each and every one of them is doing what they're doing, but it's clear to any impartial observer that there is a degree of coordinated planning behind it - everyday Americans don't typically just surge up out of their living rooms to go badger the local Congressman with obstructive chants and appropriate hand-lettered signs. I agree with Mr. Rotwang that that is only a secondary issue anyway - that's politics of a certain type, and one must resist it whatever its source.
It's comforting to have the truth on your side as you see it, but that isn't enough by itself. It's equally (and equally FALSELY) comforting to think these faux confrontations will either go away by themselves if we just ignore them, or that these demonstrations are inherently sort of self-defeating.
There may be a bit of truth in all those assumptions, but they obscure the LARGER truth, in my opinion: People want supporters of ANY program to FIGHT for it when confronted by opposition, regardless of the nature of that opposition. The STRENTGH of a conviction matters just as much as the logical CORRECTNESS of it - perhaps more. When we lay down, and stammer, and make these ludicrous appeals to 'reason', and 'honest discussion', and such to people who transparently have no interest in any of those exalted concepts, we look weak, uncertain, and clueless. Remember the old Western movie cliche' when the uncomprehending preacher would run out to confront the rampaging Indians, waving a bible, and be (naturally) killed for his trouble? That's us, if we don't respond realistically to this challenge.
What to do? Either PLAN and PREPARE the groundwork for these town meetings, or just don't hold them. We all have enemies, but it's plain stupid to HAND them a club to hit you with, and then just passively stand back and let them do it. If you determine it's still best to go thru with it, make CERTAIN you have enough committed, aggressive supporters there to hold their own against any disruptions. No one is LOOKING for trouble, but it might not be the worst thing that ever happened if one of these hecklers was seen on national TV getting his head handed to him by an irate citizen who just wants to be able to hear what's going on.
And one thing I'll say in all honesty to Mr. and Ms. Congressman: If you can't find a strong group of supporters like that, or if you just don't have the moral stomach for it, it might be better for you to think long and hard about your position. It may have the angels on its side, but it's starting to look like a loser from where you're sitting. Are you willing to risk the possibilty of getting BEAT over it? If you think it's important enough, I hope you are. SOME things are certainly that important, and I'll leave it to you to decide if this is one of them.
August 6, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This might help you understand why the wingnut protester mobs are doing what they are doing:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oleeb/2009/08/combating-and-neutralizing-rep.php?ref=reccafe
August 6, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shudder to recall the rhetoric aimed at the Bushists
You do? From who? Members of Congress? Did you shudder when the Iraqi threw his shoes at him too?
Bush spread lies to the American people, and started an unnecessary war that has ended or ruined millions of lives and you 'shudder' that rhetoric was aimed at him? Get a grip Rotwang.
Benedict Arnold did less damage to this country, and he at least put his own ass on the line as an officer in combat with the Continental Army before committing treason, for which he was executed.
August 6, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I shudder to recall the rhetoric aimed at the Bushists
You do? From who? Members of Congress? Did you shudder when the Iraqi threw his shoes at him too?
FROM ME! Been doin' it since Nixon.
And I'd do it again. So I don't think I can fault similar screeds from the Right on grounds of tone.
August 6, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
When people are being sent to their deaths by a President spreading false rumors and lies, outrage in the 'tone' is justified. The problem during the Bush years was there wasn't enough of it in the media or Congress.
The attacks of the right today on Obama are coming from the same fantasy land of fear and disinformation in the Republican Party that engendered visions of mushroom clouds, drones of death and WMD in Iraq, while questioning the patriotism and sanity of anyone who disagreed.
I do not see how you cannot tell the difference.
August 6, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
One man's patriotic triumph is another's moral debacle.
August 6, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "misspent youth" . . . "disrupting meetings (and worse)."
Hey, hey, LBJ
How much sausage
Must we eat today?
August 6, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not quite that old. Close.
August 6, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Xpost
Sargent reports that OFA for the first time is notifying members and requesting attendance at Town Halls
Not a minute too soon either
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/obamas-political-operation-calls-on-supporters-to-get-dems-backs-at-town-halls/
August 6, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck with that.
The problem for progressives is two fold.
First, the Republican base is very fired up right now, and they sense blood in the water. In other words, they're winning this fight and they know it.
Second, the Democrats and their progressive allies are not fired up, and most likely won't be by this issue. The majority of people (including most progressives) already have insurance coverage they're mostly satisfied with, and thus any personal benefit is theoretical.
Worse, as far as this fight goes, organized labor is sitting this one out (most likely because they're afraid of losing their gold-plated health plans and being tossed into a public system).
Has anyone heard anything from the unions that didn't fall into the category of empty rhetoric? Without the unions on board progressives don't win populist fights, which is what this is turning into.
Of course, all of this talk about astroturfing and shadowy Dick Armey groups is bullshit.
The fact is, Democrats have a substantial majority in the house, a filibuster proof Senate, and a moderately popular president.
Quit bitching about the opposition and pass the bill already.
August 6, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Boston Globe: Labor weighs in on healthcare
HCAN Coalition includes
National Organizations
AFL-CIO*
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees*
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
Committee of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare
Communications Workers of America (CWA)*
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)*
PHI/Health Care for Health Care Workers
Service Employees International Union*
United Food and Commercial Workers*
August 6, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish people would quit repeating the unsupportable idea that most people who have health insurance are satisfied with or like it. That is utterly preposterous!
Few people, and certainly none that I know "like" the health insurance coverage they have or are "satisfied" with it. If that were the case there would not be a huge majority in favor of healthcare reform. What might be true is that most of those with health insurance are glad they have what they have as opposed to nothing, but they would take a better deal in a heartbeat if one were available but very few of those with health insurance have any choice in the matter to begin with. They can use what the employer offers or go without. Not exactly what I'd call a choice. Nor is the current situation one that most people----even including those who have insurance----like or are satisfied with.
August 6, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish people would quit repeating the unsupportable idea that most people who have health insurance are satisfied with or like it. That is utterly preposterous!
That's not what the Washington Post and ABC said...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701372.html
Now you can pretend (using anecdotal evidence) that people who have insurance aren't generally satisfied with their health care, but you're doing yourself and your cause a disservice if you do so.
August 6, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are misleading answers because they are generic questions that do not address the concerns and complaints people have that are nearly universal such as that insurance costs way too much, deductibles are way too high, the percentages paid after deductibles are met are too low and so forth. Those kinds of questions would demonstrate how people feel about the actual insurance they have unlike the broad questions asked and thus have no real validity at all. A majority of Americans support a single payer approach to healthcare in the US. How does that support the notion most people are satisfied? It contradicts it. Most people would rather cling to what they have than lose it and that is a concern, but it isn't because they like what they've got or are satisfied that they are getting their money's worth.
August 6, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you're doing yourself and your cause a disservice by failing to own up to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are satisfied with their insurance company.
For whatever reason, you prefer your head-in-the-sand magic-fairy-world view of reality, in which Americans will suddenly give up the well-known, well-understood (if somewhat flawed) health care system they have, for a completely unknown, pig-in-a-poke, government run single payer system.
This is why there's such fierce push back against Obama Care.
But, like I said, you go on deluding yourself about reality. But don't come crying to me when you can't figure out why Obama Care couldn't make it through a congress with an overwhelming Democratic majority.
August 6, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
troll
August 7, 2009 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You: "I don't believe that most people are satisfied with their Health Care Insurance."
Me: Fact --WaPo-ABC poll says 81% of Americans are satisfied.
End of argument.
Oleeb, this is TPM not dKos. Here they're interested in vigorous debate from all points of views. Not in protecting your preciously fragile world view.
August 7, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
no. the question wasn't 'are you satisfied with your insurance' or 'are you satsified with your insurance company'.
the question you are refering to in the poll was 'are satisfied with your insurance coverage'.
and that question was asked after a question about satisfication with costs, so it was very specifically about what is or is not covered by their insurance.
presenting this number as if it represented individuals' satisfaction with their health insurance in general is a gross misrepresentation.
August 9, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Happy days.
August 7, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
the problem with this premise that you are borrowing from wapo is that the tea shirts and wingnuts aren't out there disrupting these town halls because they like their health insurance. it isn't about personal benefit and whether or not people are at least 'somewhat satisfied' with their 'health insurance coverage' (and it should be emphasized here that the numbers you are quoting are about satisfaction with 'coverage' and don't include concerns about costs or other factors).
the tea shirts and wingnuts are riled up based on ideology and politics. the protesters are out there based on their ideological and political affinity for the health care system (and how they imagine it to work). and on that question the very same poll you are citing shows them to be in the minority. 57% of respondents said they are either somewhat or very dissatisfied with 'the overall health care system in this country'. and among those in the dissatisfied column, the majority, 31%, indicated they were 'very dissatisfied'. compare that to the 10% who answered that they were 'very satisfied' with the overall health care system in this country.
that is what the reform debate is about.
that is what the disrupting the town halls is about.
and that is what the progressive counter protests would be about.
August 9, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
HELLO!
HCAN
http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/who_we_are/
August 6, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this HCAN statement is two fold.
First. Most union members aren't stupid. They know that any public option will eventually result in the demise of their gold-plated health plans. (Trust me, UAW members don't want to be tossed into the Medicare system.) Which, despite Sweeny's blowhard statement, is why you're likely to get only the most tepid of support from union members (except of course, from the corrupt professional agitators and thugs, a minority of union members).
The second problem, is that the Congressional pressure points are the Blue Dogs, who like those two schmoes in Arkansas, are located in states which have very low numbers of union members. Good luck getting a big union turn out in a right-to-work state.
So, both of my original theses are still valid.
First, Republicans are fired up, and Democrats aren't. Fired up people tend to win political fights. The unions won't be fired up, and if they are, they not a significant presence in Blue Dog territory.
Secondly, and most importantly, Democrats control the legislature by a sizable majority. They don't need Republican support to pass health care.Thus complaining about Republican opposition is utter bullshit, as it's Democrats who are really obstructing the passage of the bill.
August 6, 2009 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post as usual Rotwang!
One problem though is when you say the following:
"Once that is established, you can have a civil discussion about all the details."
The problem is that you will never establish that point. It is a lost cause.
The mobsters could not care less about anything remotely resembling rational discourse. It isn't part of the plan for them. They have their twisted and distorted beliefs and no matter how many facts or how many useful examples you bring along their beliefs will not be altered or swayed because they are authoritarian followers. For more on authoritarians and the way they think, see John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" or my post at:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oleeb/2009/08/combating-and-neutralizing-rep.php?ref=reccafe
August 6, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don’t think that the rage in these crowds really has much to do with healthcare anymore.
The right has been called out for organizing their wacko wing into angry mobs. Their response today; get angrier and call Dems Nazis. I don’t think this is just gutter Chicago politics.
So extrapolate where this leads. Can we assume that the next violent outburst that results will shock everyone on the right into shame and humility? Didn’t happen with the murder of the abortion doctor. The incoherent rage ratchets up and the denial ratchets up with it. Is there anything that Obama or Democrats could do to defuse this dynamic? Is there anything that the media could do to defuse this dynamic? Is there anything that the republican leadership could do to defuse this dynamic?
The only thing that is going to stop these mobs at this point is capitulation on the part of Democrats and Obama. Not gonna happen.
The media could help defuse it but that would hurt their bottom line so that’s not gonna happen.
And the Republican leadership could stop the organizing the madness and stop validating every wacko impulse but even if they did, which they won’t, I don’t think they could stop the mobs at this point.
So where is this headed?
August 6, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats aren't such cowards, you know. I fully expect that the vast majority of our Congressional Democrats will hold their scheduled meetings and perhaps add some.
I sometimes go to these meetings and was planning to skip these. The disruptions changed my mind. Now I'm going as a witness and perhaps as someone who can get the local news mike stuck in her face to register disdain at folks who won't have a reasonable, fair discussion.
Americans do not like bullying--and that is exactly what this is.
August 6, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats aren't such cowards, you know.
Really?
Then why can't they pass health care with an overwhelming majority in the House and filibuster proof majority in the Senate?
Republicans can't stop them, right? They can't muster enough votes to prevent passage.
Unfortunately, the truth is, the Democrats are scared shitless of their own constituents. Not in the town halls, but in the next elections.
Of course, the real problem is that Obama has bungled what should have been an easy ride to victory. It was up to him to get enough support for passage, and he blew it. So much for his vaunted communication skills.
August 6, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do democracy much? Only tyrants and dictators are able to enforce one single "right way". We're going to make deals and enact legislation that takes us well on the way.
And then we'll turn our folks out in 2010 to keep the Dems in office and get even more of the radical nuts in the current Republican Party out on their a$$es.
The real delay has been working on fixing Bush's messes--like the economy and wars and even getting journalists released from North Korea. Now we're on healthcare and it will be done...by the Dems. And then the current Republican Party can take a sabbatical for the rest of this century.
August 6, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't have said it better myself. Really, I couldn't!
August 7, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The numbing details of health care reform are important and worth discussing, but the argument against the TBs is pretty simple. If you hate socialized medicine, do you want to abolish Medicare? Why not? If not, why not have more Medicare, rather than less? Why not have wider access to health insurance that resembles what Members of Congress have? Medicare is their soft underbelly. It's socialized medicine that people already have, are used to, and support. More, not less. Once that is established, you can have a civil discussion about all the details.
we have a winner!
August 9, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink