(From CBS2School)
Political gamesmanship is at play when watching the media hype over rambunctious Town Hall meetings. A boisterous gathering to voice protest is not new. Using them for political advantage, however, seems to be the newest game in town.Fox News and other like-minded conservative outlets use the rowdy footage to exaggerate animosity toward Obama’s health care policy.
CNN and other more Obama-friendly media use the Town Hall outbursts to suggest a right wing conspiracy has been organized. Republicans, they claim, orchestrate Astroturf hostility in desperation before facing another defeat to a popular president.
Wonderfully for us we have both options to consider. It has not always been so.
Freedom of speech has faced great opposition throughout history. One of its greatest defenders, however, was English polemicist and poet John Milton (1608-1674). Areopagitica, published in 1644, was Milton’s most ardent defense against the tyranny of censorship and government-controlled speech. In particular Milton was speaking out against Parliament’s Licensing Order of 1643. Despite his loyalty to Parliament during the English civil war, Milton disagreed with their new found power of censoring the written word. Protecting it against dissent never protects truth. He wrote:
“Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter.”
Unfettered free speech was not Milton’s end game. Even Milton understood the need for limits. Free speech to Milton did not give license to the inane or foolish. He encouraged some level prudence.
What to do then about these rowdy and raucous Town Hall meetings?
A recent TIME magazine article suggested that the French have learned to adopt a more modest attitude when it comes to swim attire or the lack there of. Traditional two-piece bikinis have replaced the more revealing and revered topless bathing. The French word for this new prim attitude is pudique.
Before our own cultural Star Chamber rewrites the rules for political speech, perhaps a little pudique here in America would help the cause. Recognizing a respectful etiquette when exercising our free speech may go along way in helping to preserve it. When crossing into the busy streets of political discourse adhering to the adage “stop, look and listen” may help advance the truth.
After all, as former Chief Justice Warren E. Burger once stated, “Free speech carries with it some freedom to listen.”
Milton would have gladly agreed and so should we.
_________________
Health Care Town Hall Anger Rages On
Out on the health care firing line, senators and members of Congress continued to get battered by constituents angry over President Barack Obama’s reform plan Wednesday — with voters raising questions about everything from assisted suicide to coverage for illegal immigrants.
Lawmakers insisted over and over that the bills in Congress would cover neither — but their answers did nothing to tamp down the anger from Afton, Iowa, to Hagerstown, Md., to Rocky Mount, N.C.
In Iowa, a self-described “dumb southern Iowa redneck” told Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, “I see nowhere in the Constitution where health care is a right. ... I want to hear it from Obama, I want to hear it from Pelosi, about how this is about ‘We the people.’“
9 comments:
I went to the Naperville Chamber of Commerce meeting on the health care debate, with representatives Judy Biggert and representative Kirk (who was from nowhere near naperville and appeared to be there to promote his upcoming senatorial campaign). It was a lively meeting, all right - no riots, no overturned tables, no mayhem - but I was disappointed in the conduct of both sides. The anti-health care people had confined their vocal wackos to the parking lot (where they protested with signs and slogans as we drove in) and appeared themselves as traditional, conservative, suit-clad business types. They conducted themselves with decorum and politeness. The side I supported didn't dress as nicely, but asked relevant and pertinent questions. All except for one loud-mouthed guy in a Yankees hat, that is, who spoke up when it wasn't his turn and made the pro health care side look rather foolish. The moderator, though obviously favoring the conservative-ish side, managed to let both sides get in an equal number of questions, which I was surprised by. All in all, the meeting had less hysteria than the press portrayed elsewhere and several intriguing topics of debate, which I've included in my meeting notes (not typed here, obviously - four pages long). The process of health care reform and how it plays out in the Capitol will be an excellent chance to see our government in action.
Obama messed up in his strategy to get healthcare reform passed
I believe he should have identified specific criteria that he wanted in a bill(public option, no tax on benifits etc) or the white house should have drafted most of a bill themselves. This may have angered some congressmen by cutting them out of the process but I don't think that scenario is any worse than what has happened during this recess.
he should have gone for the 51 senators, relying on Reid and Durbin to whip for cloture only.
to fix the fundamental screw ups he needs to do the following:
1) gather Rahm Emanuel, Reid, Pelosi, Axerold, Sebelius, Baucus, Conrad, Dean, and a liberal senator (maybe Rockefeller) to revamp the strategy. It's important that the media see this as a restart <-- they're looking for a restart story anyway.
2) He needs to outline what is necessary for his signature, and what is absolutely not acceptable. This will give SOMETHING to debate about until house-senate conferencing. To a degree, this will make shouting at townhalls seem too extreme and unproductive.
3) hold some townhalls in states with swing senators. Im talking IN, North & South Dakotas, Missouri, Maine, Virginia.
4) Whip for cloture votes only and allow Senators to vote as they please for passage (there should be moderate whipping to gurantee 51 votes)
5) Make sure the House bill has a public option to satisfy the Tri-Caucus members. this should be pretty easy
6) Let the Senate pass co-ops versus public option. Then, among the senators Reid sends to conference, identify a "point-man" of sorts on (someone the media likes) that has enough seniority and clout to make a strong case for passing bill out of conference that has a weaker public option (something like what the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed).
7) Always have someone of high-profile competing with republican press conferences. This needs to happen to change the media momentum. It can be Howard Dean, Tim Kaine, Pelosi, Frank, or maybe Franken
8). Address the nation via prime-time broadcast from the WH or address Congress. The former may be the most effective if done quick enough.
9) Start getting some ads up
^^ many things to do within the next month, but he really messed this process up, so it's necessary - in my opinion
The Republicans have no reason to vote for any healthcare reform. From what I can tell, they negotiate to water down a bill they aren't going to vote for anyway. It's also important to note that the Senate Finance Committee is going to be the only committee to not report a public option. The memberships of the Finance Committee and the House Energy and Commerce committee are always made to be more conservative than either respective chamber as a whole. So if they House E&C committee can report a public option, I am willing to bet no democratic senator will disapprove it to the point of voting the bill down on final passage, assuming it passes cloture.
*Regarding the reconciliation process, Alan Frumin is known to do his best to treat each party equally. Thus, I am not optimistic he will rule to allow the major parts of any healthcare bill to pass by reconciliation, whether they are separated into individual "provisions" (a term from the Byrd Rule that is subject to Frumin's interpretation) or not.
I am not convinced the Democrats should, or even need to, actively pursue the process or reconciliation. This could change quickly once Congress reconvenes and the debate starts back up again though.
On point number six of your suggestions - are you aware of any senators the media "likes"? You seem very well informed about the political process. Are there any "golden boys" (or girls) that the press seems to cast in a favorable light? Kennedy met your "seniority and clout" prerequisite, but he's dead. Any chance of Obama using the senator's agenda to whip up support in a time of mourning? Or did Kennedy's scandals overshadow his status?
It's kind of a moot point now - he's been dead about a week (Kennedy, not Obama) and Americans have lousy attention spans. Back to my earlier question - who would you recommend? Someone from the administration seems perfectly qualified to handle the high-level debate, but outside endorsement seems like it would have a better effect on point six.
Darkside DM 305: good question.
If I had to choose (kennedy would have been a good choice, but yeah) I could see Chris Dodd (D-CT) (which he is actually starting to do a bit, probably not trying to get too far ahead of Obama's speech next week though), maybe Claire McCaskill (D-MO), John Kerry (D-MA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would be a good one, or maybe Russ Feingold (may bee too persistent on including a public option)
Any of the above choices would garner decent media coverage and have clout on a conference committee. Now that I think about it, Claire McCaskill might be a good choice. She's given luke-warm support to a public option as long as it doesn't involve too strong of a mandate.
Just to clarify for everyone, DM doesn't stand for Derek M. It's Dungeon Master, and I'm Alex. Not Alex S, Alex Knife-fright (most of you know me). Derek's a brilliant, insightful guy, but he's got a different screen name. Clearing things up a tad.
Cool. I'm looking at the web-pages of the suggestions, and they've got some pretty impressive records. Interestingly enough, Politico.com is backing Dodd as a successor to Kennedy's Health Care crusade. On the Hardball of Kennedy's funeral/memorial thing, though, Matthews and guests implied Obama as the new Kennedy. Only time and political analysts will tell, I suppose.
I checked McCaskill too. She's only been in office since 2006, but a voice from the HSGA Committee and her Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight (this is all straight from her senate.gov page; I'd never heard of these until I started the research) might have some impact. I did see an inclination towards reforming existing institutions (Medicare negotiations/spending), so your public option concept seems to be more her style. Dodd's more Obamaesque, but more open to suggestions on the reform bill.
It's interesting for those of you that have posted that the key to serious health care reform policy is POLITICS and not the GOVERNING of what ever policy goes to a vote.
That "inside baseball" game of leading legislation through the legislature is a major challenge for President Obama now. Even if his address to the nation and a joint session of plays to the people, will it matter if members in the Senate and the House won't conference on bill either with/without a public option.
And also without trying to push through the "reconciliation" process, Democrats will need 60 votes to block a likely Republican filibuster.
Mr. Wolak, good points.
I don't think members of Congress should be the president's audience wednesday night. If his healthcare approval numbers - and his general approval numbers - get even the slightest bump after wednesday night, he will regain the momentum.
The more Obama's approval ratings increase, the more Senators and Congressmen there are to persuade off the fence (or back onto the fence if they jumped to the "you won't get my vote" side)
Without reconciliation, I still think the Democrats can muster 60.
Since hearing the news of Baucus offering his own proposal soon, I am willing to bet that the conservative Democratic senators are more willing to go with mainly Democratic plan vs. bi-partisan plan if Grassley and the others continue to criticize any policy compromises (i.e. they now criticize co-ops).
I think you can get the support of Snowe, Collins, Liberman, Conrad, Warner, and Baucus on board if there is a "trigger" effect in the public option. With these 6, democrats can get 60 because if you can get Conrad, Baucus, and Liberman to at least vote for cloture, then you can get the other 56 dems for cloture as well; Collins and/ or Snowe would put it at 60-61.
Nonetheless, Reid & Durbin need to keep reconciliation in their back pockets.
**Note: Considering the apparent result of the conference call Obama had with the liberal base in the HoR, I am starting to fully believe a bill w/o a public option may not pass the HoR. I was a bit surprised that the Chairs of the Progressive Caucus and the 3 minority caucuses held their ground so adamantly re: the public option directly to the president.
We'll see what happens wednesday night. Roger Simon of POLITICO is right, it's pretty much make or break - at least where the public option is concerned.
Regardez-vous public opinion - the text for the infamous Tuesday speech comes out tommorrow. Even money says it'll be utterly devoid of the rabid socialist ideology the Right predicts.
Here's the clincher: Obama can't win on this. If it smells slightly of socialists (alliteration +3), he'll get hammered and health care support goes the way of the dodo. If it's the generic speech on education that I thought was the whole point of the address, Fox and Co. can easily claim that the "intense public opinion" forced the change, emboldening their side to toughter tactics against health care reform.
It's not easy to be President.
Darned if you do and darned if you don't, as the adage goes (keeping it school-appropriate). Therefore, I'd say the only option is DO - the "it-sounds-crazy-but-it-just-might-work" approach of bad scifi movies. Pack the speech with socialist concepts. Talk about public education and diversity, and how it's a right in this nation. Talk about all the good things the taxpayer dollar does for the country. Talk about how "children are our future" and how they should grow up healthy. Don't actively call for the rise of the proletariat and the public execution of the bourgeois oppressors, but don't make it devoid of political agenda. Let the Right complain. Take a stand and say "THIS is what we need and THIS is what we're going to do." End it with a challenge. Show the Democrats in the Senate and on the street that this is the party in power, and they'd better shape up and act like it!
Sure, treading carefully has its place. Don't actively stomp on every toe on the Hill. But let 'em know that this is the Executive branch and it's going to execute.
Of course, I'd again give 1-1 odds that he'll do nothing of the kind.
Let's see how it turns out.
In light of my earlier prediction (spookily accurate), the Republican response to the speech bears note. How will this affect the Democratic party? Will they stand behind a president even when he's actively deleting some of their key points? Obama might have done better to just say "We're the majority, we're passing this WITH the immigration stuff, so ha-ha." Maybe leave the last bit off, but I think he can turn the "YOU"RE A LIAR" thing around and whip up some strength.
Again, see how it all plays out. I give 5-1 against party unification, even money on continued bipartisan attempts.
Post a Comment