Remembering when dissent was patriotic:
On March 16, USA Today reported that Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum “was among dozens of members of Congress who ran gantlets of demonstrators and shouted over hecklers at Social Security events last month. Many who showed up to protest were alerted by e-mails and bused in by anti-Bush organizations such as MoveOn.org and USAction, a liberal advocacy group. They came with prepared questions and instructions on how to confront lawmakers.”
This was just good, boisterous politics: “Robust, wide-open debate.” But when it happens to Democrats, it’s something different: A threat to democracy, a sign of incipient fascism, and an opportunity to set up a (possibly illegal) White House “snitch line” where people are encouraged to report “fishy” statements to the authorities.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the “Tea Party” protesters Nazis, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman –forgetting the events above — claims that left-leaning groups never engaged in disruptive tactics against Social Security reform, and various other administration-supporting pundits are trying to spin the whole thing as a deadly move toward “mob rule” and – somewhat contradictorily — as a phony “astroturf” movement.
Remember: When lefties do it, it’s called “community organizing.” When conservatives and libertarians do it, it’s “astroturf.”
But some people are noticing the truth. As Mickey Kaus notes, “If an ‘astroturfing’ campaign gets real people to show up at events stating their real views, isn’t it … community organizing?” Why yes, yes it is.
As someone who’s been following the Tea Party campaign since the beginning, it seems to me to be the most genuine outbreak of grassroots popular involvement in my lifetime. People have been turning out, in the tens of thousands at times, because they feel that Obama pulled a bait-and-switch and is moving the country much farther to the left than he promised during the campaign.
I don’t know whether Paul Krugman (and some of my commenters) suffers from amnesia and false memories, or is simply lying for his political cause. And I’m not sure which is worse.
[Update a couple minutes later]
These posts on the subject of dissent seem to be missing a key distinction. In my mind, there are two kinds of behavior at protests: civil disagreement (in which both sides are given an opportunity to talk) and loud obnoxious protest (in which one side tries to drown out the other side and doesn’t give them an opportunity to present their case). As a Democrat, I must admit I expect the latter kind of behavior from the left wing, perhaps because it tends to skew younger, or because they tend to be less formal (and formality leads to politeness and giving both sides a turn). But it is deplorable regardless of the source. Prepared questions are fine, heckling is not. All sides, whether they are protesting or commenting on the protests, should remember the distinction between these two kinds of behavior.
Rand, this posting looks fishy. Email sent.
Bob, when people seeing changes being made that touch them intimately and are pushed to the point where they feel the other side is not listening it is human nature to become rude, loud and disruptive. Americans seeing an attempt by Dems to rewrite health care in this country in a 3 to 4 week time span could plainly that their concerns and input were not only immaterial to the process, but there was an attempt to purposely lock them out.
I have to turn the tables here. If the congress members constituents are showing such behavior it is probably more of a reflection of the process the congress is using to write law than it is of their constituents lack of manners. Remember, the Dems goal was to have written the legislation and have it passed before August. You don’t think that there is any justifiable reason for anger and frustration on behalf of the constituency?
The marketplace of ideas should be allowed to function. Protests are more convincing when people are articulate and polite (you can express your anger and frustration while remaining polite). Beyond that, the American system of democracy allows many avenues for people who are angry and frustrated to right wrongs – the ballot box, and the court system being the most prominent. You do agree that democracy and rule of law is superior to an angry mob, right?
Not to knock mobs and mass protests — they can be useful in extreme situations – but a polite mob can be pretty convincing! Note that the Velvet Revolution is called “the Gentle Revolution” in Slovakia…
I wasn’t arguing what is a more effective form of protest. Just that the ham handed tactics used by the Dems to re-invent health care in this country couldn’t help but provoke an angry backlash from the constituents.
The people showing up at the town hall meetings are not attempting to rule by mob. They have no power and they weren’t attempting to seize power or rule. That’s pretty absurd accusation. Their purpose was simply to express anger and vent. There was no rational behind it other than to demonstrate to their representatives the depth of their anger and that when the next chance come, they will next demonstrate their anger at the ballot box.
If the Dems thought the marketplace of ideas should be allowed to function, the process of getting health care reform to pass in the country would be radically different than the course they decided to follow. Their attempts to marginalize their own constituents only shows they still don’t get it.
Mike, I didn’t mean to suggest that the people are attempting to seize power – you’re quite right to point that out.
Let me reboot: I think the issue here is that when people are yelling at a politician to the point where he or she can’t get a word in, they are precluding the possibility that they might be wrong about what the politician thinks, and they are preventing other people from hearing what the politician has to say. That kind of certainty, coupled with that level of rudeness, is the problem. Dissent isn’t the problem, and I think Rand and the people he is linking to should make that distinction.
I think the issue here is that when people are yelling at a politician to the point where he or she can’t get a word in, they are precluding the possibility that they might be wrong about what the politician thinks, and they are preventing other people from hearing what the politician has to say.
When what the politician has to say is literally laughable, he should expect to get laughed (or shouted) off the stage.
Dissent isn’t the problem, and I think Rand and the people he is linking to should make that distinction.
Yes, dissent is so much not the problem that the White House wants loyal citizens to report dissenters.
I haven’t been following this whole flag@whitehouse.gov issue very closely, but it sounds like it was an effort to find out what the opposition was saying so that the administration would have an opportunity to refute it. Is there any reason at all to think it was anything other than that?
“I don’t know whether Paul Krugman (and some of my commenters) suffers from amnesia and false memories, or is simply lying for his political cause. And I’m not sure which is worse.”
It ain’t amnesia, Rand. >:-(
Is there any reason at all to think it was anything other than that?
Yes, Bob. It’s an enemies list. People send in an email with 20 or thirty addresses on it and all of sudden the White House has the email address and possiibly the names of thousands of dissenters. If you don’t think that won’t leak to the DNC or ACORN, you’re nuts.
I haven’t been following this whole flag@whitehouse.gov issue very closely, but it sounds like it was an effort to find out what the opposition was saying so that the administration would have an opportunity to refute it. Is there any reason at all to think it was anything other than that?
Only all of the other things that the administration and Democrats are doing and saying (e.g., lies or fantasies about astroturfing, sending union thugs out to beat up protesters), and the fact that we are being run by an extension of the Chicago machine.
Bob-1,
Why does your default assessment skew towards an innocent explanation behind the actions of the MOST POWERFUL SINGLE POLITICAL OFFICE IN THE COUNTRY!
Do you have such intimate understanding of our President that you can trust he would never, ever allow his minions to use the data to harm those who dissent?
I don’t. Neither should you. No matter WHO is in the White House.
I have a question that is in Rand’s moderation queue, but I’ll post it again this way: Is the following website the only reference by the administration to flag@whitehouse.gov?
“www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/”
If so, I see a request for content rather than email addresses or specific websites. The White House could have handled it better by making that clear. It might be hoped that people forwarding content will follow netiquette convetions by not including private email or web addresses. However, people who post such content to accessible websites or who send out mass email are doing something in public. If they are concerned about their identities (as I am), they should use pseudonyms (as I do).
I see this as yet another adjustment to email and the web — without those tools, discourse would take place in the op-ed and letters-to-the-editor section of the newspaper — identities would be out in the open, and yet there would be no talk of an “enemies list”.
When what the politician has to say is literally laughable, he should expect to get laughed (or shouted) off the stage.
They are fortunate indeed that tar and feathers are in short supplies these days, but laughter is still readily available.
If so, I see a request for content rather than email addresses or specific websites. The White House could have handled it better by making that clear.
Bob, what do you expect the “content” to have if it doesn’t contain “email addresses” or “specific websites”? I can’t believe I even need to ask this question.
The White House could have handled it better by making that clear.
Yes, the White House could have chosen to handle this differently, but the fact they chose not to is most revealing.
It might be hoped that people forwarding content will follow netiquette convetions by not including private email or web addresses.
[Putting my hands to the sides of my face and shaking my head.]
If they are concerned about their identities (as I am), they should use pseudonyms (as I do).
So you advocate the use of pseudonyms (which I don’t use) to exercise our 1st amendment rights so we are less vulnerable to potential government abuses. Should we carry unlicensed, concealed weapons as well to protect our 2nd amendment rights as well?
Bob (which I presume is not your real name) you are wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin to address them.
With all do respect I do believe you are being sincere, but as educated as you may be you do seem very, very ignorant. I would honestly suggest that you start reading some history books to understand the rational behind the our constitution, bill of rights and why they came to be. Then start reading the history of socialism and all its various guises from it’s origins in the 18th century, the warnings made about its tyranny in the 19th century, and the bloody legacy it left behind in the 20th century. What Obama and the Dem leadership are trying to pass is not new or innovative. It’s just the latest flavor of the same old junk that has been foisted upon people for a long time now. That is what has many of us so concerned. We know where this stuff leads and it NEVER ends well.
The politicians have campaigns and get there message broadcast over a wide area in a short period time with the help of big media. The politicians already have the louder mouthpiece to speak through than the average person who votes once or twice a year. These people go to the town halls so they can be heard. We’ve already gave them the opportunity to say their peace and intently listened to what they had to say. Now it is our turn.
Here we have Obama saying what Officer Crowley did was stupid for arresting Skippy Gates for just yelling at him in his own house. Yet, when a frustrated citizen tries to strongly express their opinion it is Obama’s administration that shuts down the conflict by arresting all thought. That is STUPID! That is hypocritical.
Mike asked: Bob, what do you expect the “content” to have if it doesn’t contain “email addresses” or “specific websites”? I can’t believe I even need to ask this question.
I expect people to forward arguments about health care that the White house can refute. I can’t believe I even need to answer this question! 🙂 Seriously, did you look at the whitehouse blog? I thought it was pretty clear.
Josh, you’re right — good point about politicians having louder mouthpieces. But I still think a town hall should be for dialog, not for drowning out the other guy.
expect people to forward arguments about health care that the White house can refute.
Why? They haven’t refuted one yet, merely thrown out insults and asked their servants to inform on any opposition.
“However, people who post such content to accessible websites or who send out mass email are doing something in public. If they are concerned about their identities (as I am), they should use pseudonyms (as I do).”
Bob, direct from the WH website:
If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
I don’t know if you are that naive or deliberately obtuse. In either case, there is no other way to take this except as a request for the whole email, addresses included. I should worry about spammers, not my government.
When – as one person commented to a democrat politician last week – Congress is trying to ram through massive changes to 1/5th of the US ecomony in less time than Obama spent choosing what kind of dog to buy his kids, politicians deserve to be yelled at. Health care impacts everyone. Massive government spending impacts everyone and yet only the top 5% of wage earners are expected to pay for it. They promise huge savings when they’ve never been able to achieve them on the health care programs they currently run. People are smelling rats, and those rats are currently running Congress and the White House.
All politics is local.
The City of Madison, of Wisconsin has its War on Cars, which takes the form of putting in these “traffic calming devices” — various kinds of speed bumps, lane narrowings, and cement “traffic circles.” No, not the kind of traffic circle that is all-yield and does away with stop signs — these go in where there are stop signs in one direction, not the direction people go flying around a blind corner, and no, the traffic circle restricting device doesn’t slow anyone down, just makes it harder to cross from the stop-sign direction without getting smashed.
When these were put in, we had this evening-long “informational meeting” to “explain what the traffic circles were for and why they were a good idea.” We had a contingent of pro-circle people, who thought they were needed for pedestrian safety and that anyone opposing them wanted their kids to be run over, and there was an even more vocal contingent of anti-circle people, who were in the peasants-with-pitchforks mood.
The City Traffic Engineer got up and had a full 2 1/2 hours worth of meeting slides and visuals. A full 10 minutes in to this, the pitchfork people interrupted, questioning when they would be “heard”, and then the Traffic Engineer explained that he wasn’t there to “hear from anyone”, he was there to give 2 1/2 hours of Powerpoint explaining why the traffic circles were Good for Us, and he threw a hissy fit that the audience didn’t want to sit there through his 2 1/2 hours of Powerpoint “that he had worked so hard at” (sound familiar?)
Our Totally Stupid Alderman went on to say that there was nothing “he could do about this without appealing to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission” (this is Madison, mind you). But maybe he was not or Completely Stupid Alderman, because what he got out of the pitchfork people that the pro-circle zealots were to angry to listen for, is that the pitchfork people lived at the top of a hill and were worried that they were going to slide into the proposed circle at the bottom of the hill, and that Portland, Oregon, which seems to be the model of urban meddlers everywhere, does not have snow and ice in winter.
So Stupid Alderman (never relected, we are two Alders since then), promised in aldermanic fashion right then and there, that the pitchfork people would get prompt street plowing from the City. And guess what. The entire neighborhood used to never get plowed out, and my street used to get all rutted in Winter, which somehow never bothered me because that was a natural system of speed bumps to slow down speeders past my house, but ever since then, we get promptly plowed after every storm.
So what is the point of this? One kind of vocal, perhaps even angry-rude kind of people are the Zealots and True Believers, you know, like the pro traffic-circle people and the Obama people, who have The Safety of Children and every politically correct sentiment on their side. The other kind of vocal-angry-rude people are the peasants-with-pitchforks, who don’t understand that what Dr. Frankenstein has going on up in the Castle is for the betterment of mankind (organ transplants? life extension? Universal Healthcare?), but whatever it is, they don’t like it. These are the grumpy geezers at the town halls, the people-at-the-top-of-the-hill at the traffic circle meeting.
It is interesting that President Obama seems to have cast his political lot with the angry zealot activist contingent, and that his brand of politics doesn’t even rise to the level of Stupid Alderman, who at least worked out “a deal” where the traffic circles stay but the whole neighborhood got better snow plowing.
The President can “punch back twice as hard”, metaphorically one would hope, against who Axelrod and Emmanuel think are right-wing operatives, but if there is a contingent of seniors who are “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”, he can shut them up, but he is certainly not making them go away and doing anything to change their minds.
There is all of this talk about Chicago-style politics: I come from Chicago, I grew up in Chicago, and neither generation of Mayor Daley would act this way.
Goodbye Jim hello Bob-1?
Norm –
At the risk of “damning with faint praise” somewhat, Bob-1 is a hundred thousand times more polite in his discourse than Jim has ever been. I believe Bob-1 is mistaken in a great many things and perhaps even deliberately obtuse sometimes, but he’s never been arrogantly smug about his own inflated sense of superiority, doesn’t dismiss contradictory evidence out of hand with links to his own talking-points and stringpullers, and never to date have I seen him bring up irrelevancies to try to deflect attention away from self-contradictory statements. Meaning no offense to Bob-1, he’s the kind of debating opponent that I think we can respect. Chasing off posters like him leads to more, not less, posters like Jim.
Point taken.