One thing is clear about the town hall meeting hecklers dominating coverage of the health reform debate. They make for delicious satire.
But today’s town hall shouters are far from unique. For years, interest groups on the left have recruited their own screecher creatures, which makes it a bit embarrassing hearing the left whine about the right, gasp, recruiting and orchestrating.
The only real difference is that the left’s screamers have seemed to be younger and more of the lone wolf variety than the right’s current pack of Old Yellers. The right’s geriatric jihadists remind me of the neighbors who used to scream at me when my basketball or dog turds accidentally landed in their yard.
But whether on the right or left, I wonder whether those tapping into their inner Ralph Kramden are more effective than those using their inside voice. Many feel that the screamers are ineffective, because they make the viewpoint seem extreme, fringy, grating and irrational. That’s how I’ve felt when screamers have appeared in meetings supporting my point-of-view.
But then again, the defeat ‘em with decibels strategy does have undeniable advantages. The screamers on the right and left are extremely effective in grabbing the news media limelight, sometimes where the issue would have otherwise gone uncovered, and sometimes to the near exclusion of their opponents’ viewpoints. And they can discourage the participation of others who have a distaste for melodrama and flying spittle, so they have the stage to themselves.
Moreover, the strategic shriekers make the issue at hand seem to the politician to be controversial and “too hot to handle,” even when the screamers are actually in a distinct minority. That heat can make skiddish politicians run for the hills. While the pro wrestler act may be distasteful to many of us, it has proven effective in the political arena.
Questions abound. Will the current crop of town hall hecklers help or hurt their cause? Is this phenomenon a symptom of a healthy democracy or an ailing democracy? Is the tactic going to grow into a constant staple of political debate? If it does, will that make the citizenry more engaged in public issues, or more withdrawn? Is the inability to have a real two-way dialogue going to cause the demise of the town hall meeting format? Most importantly, will the constant use of CAPS soon become the most certain way to prevail in blog discussions?
– LOVELAND
The Same Rowdy Crowd 
joe, good question(s). for my money, it’s a frantic attempt by special interests who have armed the “screamers” with scripts. i buy into the conspiracy about dick armey and his ilk — financed by special interests — who are desperately trying to kill obamacare because of of what it implies about the future of american capitalism. “first the toe, and then the foot!” “let the camel put its head in the tent, and pretty soon the camel is in the tent” sort of thing.
to justify this argument would take a great deal of evidence, something i am no longer skilled in marshalling.
my main information comes a recall of the effort bill kristol and others put into their opposition ot hillarycare in the ’90s, when conservationism was a more potent force. now, though, these same intersts are reduced to what we see today. distributing scripts for rowdies to use to obstruct.
ok. simplistic perhaps, but much of this evidence is pretty plain to see
Despite allegations to the contrary, the Obamacare protestors are authentic, real-life people, genuinely upset by government’s rapid intrusion into their lives (as opposed to ACT UP and Pink theatrical operatives who are underwritten by Soros and ACORN). We’re talking about grannies in wheelchairs and retirees.
But a lot of what they say isn’t consistent–for example, the elderly (on Medicare) who don’t want to be part of a government funded health care system–and yet, they already are (and happily so).
These inconsistencies would seem to imply that they are misinformed (deliberately?) or that there is something else that they are upset with.
Maybe their protests have little to do with the specific proposals that are being debated (the “death panels” are another example), and more to do with anger over what they believe to be the direction the country is headed in.
And they certainly have every right to be upset about that, but they also need to recognize that simply yelling louder won’t give them any more votes. This is a democracy, and we all voted just a few months ago–being a sore loser isn’t a good strategy towards winning the next election.
A better strategy would be to try the “loyal opposition” approach–civilly state your points, wait for the party in power to over-reach (as will inevitably happen), then present a clear alternative and organize to win the next time.
sadly, what is happening now seems to me to be extremely counterproductive. As, frankly, JK, some of your rants would also appear.
“But a lot of what they say isn’t consistent–for example, the elderly (on Medicare) who don’t want to be part of a government funded health care system–and yet, they already are (and happily so).”
I’m upset about the existence of Social Security, but as long as that program exists, I’ll gladly gobble up any bit of SS money that might come my way. It’s my money, damn it!
Jk, i’m a grandpa, i’m a retiree, but am not in a wheel-chair. i have no problem with obamacare.
my problem is that this so-called un-organized uprising in opposition is “organized”, its scripted and the funding is documented.
each of us claims to have a “proof” that the other won’t admit to
we’re talking “at” one another, not “with” one another. “he said/she said”.
When I watch those clips, I see genuine anger, not manufactured anger. These people may have been told when and where the meeting was, and handed some talking points to consider. They were very likely nudged. But a) nudging is something that liberal and conservative groups both do all the time, b) there is nothing wrong with nudging fellow citizens to participate in democracy, and c) the nudging doesn’t explain the rage.
The rage may be a product of misinformation or misunderstanding. But you can’t orchestrate or manufacture rage like that. If someone called you tonight and told you to go to a meeting and scream down the speaker, you couldn’t and wouldn’t do it unless you a) were a talented and unethical actor or b) had genuine rage inside of you.
These folks are legitimately scared and angry. It’s absolutely fair to counter their arguments and their means of conveying them. But I don’t think it is fair to dismiss their emotions as being false.
So? being legitimately scared and angry is not necessarily a good thing. It is easy to manufacture anger and rage and hate–Hitler was a master of this, after all. Every single one of us has had the experience of getting angry only to discover that the basis for our anger is a false assumption that we made, or some mistake due to our own actions. Managing ones emotions responsibly is something that every citizen needs to be able to do. Learning about this is part of growing up.
The fact that people really are angry does not mean that they have a legitimate reason for their anger, much less that they have a right to act on that anger. Their anger should lead us to ask why–and when we discover that the basis for that anger is misinformation or deliberate distortion (think “death panels”, for example), then we are correct to dismiss their concerns. And they need to be grown up enough to acknowledge that themselves. This is simply one more aspect of the moral virtues that people like William Bennett have so correctly pointed out that we as a society need to work on.
And, Joe, you are right, emotions are neither right nor wrong, neither true nor false. But they can be manufactured. They can be illegitmate. they can be baseless. they can be manipulated.
Obviously a lot of these folks are wildly inaccurate (e.g. death panels), illogical (e.g. against government-run health but protective of Medicare) and rude (e.g. screaming, threatening, cutting off others), and they shouldn’t be forgiven for any of those things. I’m totally with you there.
At the same time, I think it is awfully arrogant for supporters like me to say that their emotions are faked or somehow hypnotized into them by the special interest groups. They’re pissed for some really misguided reasons, but I see no evidence that their anger is contrived.
To win this debate, supporters are going to have to acknowledge the anger and disarm the roots of it (i.e. misinformation and logical disconnects). Supporters are never going to persuade angry and fearful people if they”re just lecturing them about their feelings being faked or controlled by others. The hecklers aren’t persuadable, but other people feeling a lesser degree of the same emotions are.
joe, yes they are “legitimately” scared and angered. but these folks are exemplary of a group or group of “crazies” that have prevailed throughout american history. richard hofstadter’s anti-intellectualism in america most famouly has captured this phenomenon, but there are many others that could be cited
It is ultimately good that Washington and liberal elites allege – or at least presume – that the protesters are inauthentic or crazy.
And for that reason, I will not contest your allegations. Instead, I will reap the political rewards of an arrogant and condescending mindset that characterizes legitimate objections to government overreach as “anti-intellectualism.”
Sit back in your silk robe and ascot, take a long draw from your pipe, and pity the poor wretched masses who will never be quite as smart or enlightened as the Messianic One and his followers.
Hey, who told you about my ascot?? But get your facts straight. It’s actually only a silk blend.
Thanks for stopping by JK. Appreciate the food for thought.
JK-You’re in rare poetic form. I love it. Please, you have an opportunity here to inform and educate. I know it’s quite a burden but maybe dump the pre-digested phrasing and try to make some sense. By the way, you kind of took off and hid on the last post concerning the safe return of the journalists. You get tired?
It’s as plain as the nose on Raymond’s face: Congress and Obama are pissing off the masses and they don’t see it! Nor do a couple of the myopics in this thread.
I got a kick out of reporting from correspondent Andrea Mitchell who recently described the participants at an Obama speech as “voluntary attendees.”
Wonder what prompted that qualifier from Mrs. Greenspan?
Saying these protesters are authentic, real-life people (as opposed to what? Teddy bears?) is not quite true. Any quick check of Google takes you to thousands of references for “town hall meetings,” including sites on what to say when you’re there, placards and signs to download, scripts in case you’re lucky enough to end up being interviewed by a reporter, video of successful shout-downs, ads for FOX network and Michelle Milkin’s latest book.
THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS (just for you, j.l.) sites, however, are those Christian and family-first sites that are arguing — I kid you not — God is against Obamacare. See this post in the Minnesota Independent: http://tinyurl.com/nud98q
Olive Tree Ministries, for one, wants its members to “read the riot act” to members of Congress — but with Christian love. However, Michele Bachmann — “who is doing a great job” — is to be spared.
Q: Why are these churches tax-exempt again? Oh yeah. Because of the separation of church and state.
Excellent use of CAPS. You may lead the news tonight!
Beyond the question of whether the emotions real is a more fundamental question: Are the angry hecklers representative of an angry majority, as the media often implies.
To that point, a June 2009 NYT/CBS poll found that 72 percent supported a government-administered plan competing with private insurers. Nearly 60% said they would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance. All of this willingness to change and pay is pretty remarkable considering that 77% reported that they were satisfied with their own care.
I would imagine those numbers have slipped by now, driven in part by endless coverage painting a picture — “The masses are fighting mad about government-run health care proposals” — that is the polar opposite of the public sentiment documented in this poll.
The King of Conservative Voice, Rush Limbaugh, is whipping his listeners up by comparing the Obama health care plan logo to the Nazi swaztika. This quote is taken from Rush’s own website along with visual “proof” of the similarity.
“Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light heard my reaction to the Obama health care logo the other day. I mentioned something about it reminded me of Germany in 1942, the shape of the logo, the people. I said, “I haven’t seen this in many, many years.” And if you go and take a look at this, you will find that the Obama health care logo is damn close to a Nazi swastika logo. I’m going to show you people watching on the Dittocam this, and there you are. The middle frame is the Obama health care logo. At the bottom is an official Nazi logo, eagle and everything, spread wings, or bird with spread wings.”
Please go to the site and look at the two logos. This guy is dipping into those pills again… http://tinyurl.com/ksrhhx
It feels a little silly to even rebut something this outlandish, but does Mr. Limbaugh realize that the winged thingy Obama is using is the medical symbol?
Whether the heckling caused it or is reflective of it, Obama’s approval ratings are really dropping. Rasmussen has his disapproval higher than his approval.
We have problems that will need to be addressed soon with other major programs such as Social Security, Medicare. Can’t we stop shouting at each other long enough to work toward compromise/solutions? Obviously not. We live in a climate of hate not cooperation.
On this clip, I don’t find Rep. Barney Frank’s response to his constituent any more civil than the constituent’s questioning. Cathartic for a liberal like me, but it doesn’t improve the environment.
But how can you intelligently converse with this particular constituent or with anyone whose viewpoint is grossly misguided and irrational?
Probably can’t intelligenty converse. But rather than end the exchange by going eye-for-eye, why not role model the behavior you want questioners to have.
“Ma am, thank you for your comments. You’re as frustrated with the proposal as I am about the status quo, so I can relate to your frustration. Seeing America pay twice as much as the rest of the world and be much less healthy and secure frustrates me too. So believe me, I understand frustration. Thanks for sharing yours.
But I have to disagree strongly with your linking this President and this health reform proposal to a Nazi regime that systematically slaughtered 6 million innocent civilians. As a Jewish man who is not unfamiliar with Nazi attrocities, I cannot disagree more strongly with you on that point. We may have to agree to disagree about this particular issue, but I hope in your calmer moments you will reflect on how the use of the Nazi analogy cheapens our great American democratic tradition of civil debate. Thanks for your participation.”
Just make the rebuttal about the argument rather than the person. “What planet are you from” is just such a personal attack.
Yup, that does the trick. Nice.
between rachel maddow last night and the nyt this morning, evidently the attempt to engage the gop in a “bi-partisan” effort for health care reform is ended, and now the dems are beginning a vigorous pushback.
jane hamsher (fire-dog-lake on maddow) has mounted a “real” grass-roots effort — ala the internet — to both raise money and to activate liberals on a local level to lobby their reps about the need to embrace the “public option” when passing health reform in sept.
will it work? is it too late? my gut tells me that we are in for some surprises come the end of sept.
joe, i didn’t listen to the clip until after uploading my post, and i agree with you about barney’s response to the constituent.
maybe frank was physically weary, and not able to command his thoughts as well as usual.
judging from the response of the assembled constituents, there wasn’t any support for the constituent’s claims.
maddow uploaded on the screen all the poll results, showing how many gop believe the four basic lies of anti-health care reform campaign.
for what i am about to say i am probably going to provoke responses from some of your conservative readers, but what the hell, i’m going to say it anyway.
as a transplanted canadian, i am constantly surprised at the insularity of americans — primarily that they are uninterested in anything beyond america’s borders — and how this translates in a lack of knowledge of the rest of the world that becomes something that makes it easy for the gop to mount campaigns based on misinformation/disinformation. how can you object to misinformation if you don’t know the facts?
the famous map that shows the new yorker’s view of america comes to mind as an example of what i mean
i know though that its dangerous to generalize this way, because — thank god — i am sometimes pleasantly surprised with evidence to the contrary, but not often enough
I can’t disagree with you Raymond. Too often, we Americans not only can’t see beyond our borders, but we also can’t see beyond our own households. American exceptionalism and rugged individualism can be blinding.
joe, i finally heard the entire exchange (on olbermann last night) between barney frank and the woman at his town hall the other day. if i heard her correctly she was herself spewing supremacist hate speech, the type that hitler and his minions uttered, about the “dirt” (ie, people) in society not good enough or worthwhile expending money on, so why cover them in a health insurance scheme?
unfortunately i can’t find the exact clip, and since that had the actual text captioned on the screen, you would need it for smoking gun evidence
And then there was comic relief:
“…sucks dick!” 🙂
Maybe we won’t die.