uncivic meetings

[a_priori]

We of the political left and middle are increasingly exhorted to acknowledge a painful truth: the bizarre public ‘debate’ over health care, its shockingly disingenuous claims and scarily angry town hall shouters, all reflects a deep undercurrent of racism in American society. It’s not us, of course; we’re not the racists. It’s them. Those people.

Comments

[a_priori]

I don't think it's helpful to put the blame on Bush and company. Screaming crowds and ridiculous untruths predate this century. And they also aren't unique to the conservative side. There was an interesting story on NPR's "On the Media" last week, detailing how the blueprint for the town hall antics came from arch-liberal Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals.

I agree that there is a lot of misunderstanding, but we should be clear that it's on both sides. Very few people (including among members of Congress) have actually read any of the reform proposals. Many support them for blind loyalty to Obama or the Democrats, while others are driven by a fear of insurance companies that is no less ignorant than fear of a government system.

If republicans don't want to be painted with the brush of extremism, it is up to them to speak their moderation loudly. Right now, the crazy-ass conservatives are the only conservatives talking.

They aren't talking, or we aren't hearing them? 'Unexcitable politician gives calm and detailed policy analysis' is not a headline that sells newspapers or attracts viewers. The media flock to crazy like flies to rotting meat. Take a look at Sarah Palin's latest comment on health reform. It's not a good argument, of course, but it's also not an insane rant like her last one. It even has a dozen footnotes, for heaven's sake. Have you heard anything about this statement in the press?

[greensword]

I don't think it's helpful to put the blame on Bush and company. Screaming crowds and ridiculous untruths predate this century

I'm not saying that Bush et al fundamentally changed human nature - I'm saying that they've fostered a culture of fear that has played to some of the worser parts of human nature. There's a difference.

And they also aren't unique to the conservative side.

I'm not saying that either. However, in this debate, it's not the liberals who are showing up with weapons and vowing to "water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants".

I agree that there is a lot of misunderstanding, but we should be clear that it's on both sides. Very few people (including among members of Congress) have actually read any of the reform proposals. Many support them for blind loyalty to Obama or the Democrats, while others are driven by a fear of insurance companies that is no less ignorant than fear of a government system.

Of course there's going to be misunderstanding and bad will on both sides. These "sides" consist of millions of people! But trying to create some sort of false equivalence between the sides in the hope of trying to seem moderate and objective seems to me to obscure the point. Republican leadership at the very highest echelons have endorsed statements that are blatantly untrue and have refused to condemn the growing tone of violence amongst their supporters.

They aren't talking, or we aren't hearing them? 'Unexcitable politician gives calm and detailed policy analysis' is not a headline that sells newspapers or attracts viewers. The media flock to crazy like flies to rotting meat.

You don't have to tell me that. If your argument is that the media distorts public discourse, I'm already sold. Nevertheless, if the defense of the Republican leadership on this issue is that their former VP candidate once said something that wasn't crazy, that's... disturbing.