Old and Angry: The Politics of Crisis
The latest CNN poll confirms what most of the town hall videos show: the angry demonstrators against Democratic health reform plans are, for the most part, far older than 50. Those older than 50 tend to oppose Democratic health care reform and those under 50 tend to support it. Forget for a moment whether or not these protests are truly organic or astroturf, the one demographic standout is age. (UPDATE: Per Da Goat’s comment, I don’t believe 50 is elderly! The protesters look more like over 65. But the CNN data only captured a cutoff at 50.) There are obviously some exceptions here but the visuals are quite striking.
Why do elderly voters oppose health care reform and younger voters support it?
Matthew Yglesias argues that this just jibes with the 2008 election results. Younger voters liked Obama from the start – and still do. Older voters disliked Obama from the start – and still do. This may be a factor of partisan ID, cultural issues, comfort with a black President, etc. Either way, there is nothing much to conclude here other than to say that those who generally like Obama also support his health reform efforts. Those who don’t like Obama dislike his health reform proposals.
What matters most for Yglesias is the state of the economy, which more than anything else has dragged Obama’s approval numbers down. If the economy turned around, his overall numbers would go up and, consequently, the opposition to his health care reforms among the elderly would soften.
Another take on this is that elderly voters already get their government health care through Medicare and worry that efforts to expand coverage to the non-elderly will weaken Medicare. Because of these concerns, Steve Benens claims that the elderly are especially vulnerable to transparently false attacks e.g. forced euthanasia, etc. Moreover, since the non-elderly have moved away from the GOP, the only way for the Republican Party to gain any traction for 2010 is to organize heavily among the elderly.
Then there is the question of timing. These town hall meetings are mostly held during the work day when retirees have a chance to attend.
My sense is that a combination of these factors are at work. Despite all the quasi-racial complaints that “my America has disappeared” this is not so much about elderly people turning to the right as getting scared.
Not to sound like Glenn Beck too much, but America really is at a precarious moment. These are big issues that we are trying to grapple with and they affect people personally. Americans SHOULD be passionately engaged on this issue. Should America continue along the path of private health insurance, knowing that health care costs eat up an increasing proportion of the economy (and wages) and that tens of millions have no coverage other than the emergency room? If not, will the quality and availability of health care radically deteriorate under a public option plan that gradually morphs into a single payer system? Nobody can honestly say they know the answer to these questions.
All I know is that people can and will have to fight over this. The 2006 and 2008 elections were, to a significant extent, part of that fight. But so are the protesters today – whether they be Tea Party activists or concerned, older voters worried about their Medicare.
And, yes, these confrontations will likely turn violent at times. In Tampa, they already did. Expect more of that as both sides – grassroots and astroturf – dig in.
In fact, we often forget just how much violence accompanied major social change in American history. With all the other issues at hand – a collapsed financial system, a crippled manufacturing sector, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, spiraling national debt, and, yes, a health care crisis, people are going to fight for what they think is right.
Charges and counter-charges of astroturfing are besides the point. The issue at hand with these town halls; the reason we are talking about them this way is that opponents of reform have taken a new level of militancy to this issue. They’ve hung Congressmen in effigy, phoned in death threats, shouted down Congressmen and questioners without waiting for answers, painted pictures of Obama as Hitler. These aren’t pointed questions. They are statements of anger and protest, similar to Code Pink outbursts.
And so now the supporters of reform – grassroots liberals as well as astroturf pro-health reform groups – are fighting back against these protesters – sometimes with heavy-handed tactics.
The most important question – will this change any Congressperson’s mind – seems lost in this exchange. Nobody is likely to be swayed by a mob. But do these mobs represent a beleaguered and desperate right wing minority in its last throes? Or do they signify a large-scale backlash among the majority of the population. The polling is mixed on this; majorities still support the most controversial element – the public option. Yet, the public is still very confused about the consequences of the overall package, and Obama has done little to clear up concerns.
In the end, I suspect that these town hall confrontations will serve more as performances of national frustration than they will exchanges on health care reform itself. With unemployment approaching 10% tensions are boiling. People who claimed that they’d give the Obama Administration time to let the stimulus run its course are not so patient when their own jobs have been eliminated. And when you add the birther fringe on top you get a more toxic brew.
Perhaps the country needs this as catharsis. Self-righteous appeals to civility are probably pointless. In September, Congress will almost certainly pass a significant bill, Obama will sign it, and the tea partiers will jump on to another sign of the Apocalypse. The real question will be – as it has been from the start – the economy. If the employment picture really improves by the middle of 2010, Obama and the Democrats will look heroic for standing up to the right-wingers. If the economy is still stumbling, expect this episodic rage to turn into a more significant electoral challenge for Democrats in November 2010.
30 Responses to “Old and Angry: The Politics of Crisis”
Better edit that quick or the HTML police will be forced to taser you elrod. =)
Here we go with the CNN polls again.
For what they're worth.
In any event the ignorant, frail and slow of mind will always be susceptible to fear-tactics. The GOP is nothing if not masters of the fear-pitch. It's sad these same old doggies that they're herding around are the same ones their MedMob buddies would slaughter [deny the claims of] due to their being a drag on the money-game statistics that is the MedMob gravy train.
I've got a friend who paid her premiums for decades faithfully [and expensively]. Thousands upon thousands of dollars paid out in premiums. Recently she discovered she'd contracted a fatal illness that is causing organ failure unless she gets a transplant. Instantly the insurers started trying to deny her costs, running her around, increasing her deductable. And when that failed they jacked up her premiums quadruple what she used to pay. In other words they'd been made fat off her for years and they'll be damned if she's going to result in a payout. They put “claims adjusters” on her case around the clock. By my figuring she's got about 100 more costly procedures to go through to make up what she's paid in premiums over the years, let alone the interest on that money. And wouldn't you know, they dropped her and she had to go to a more expensive outfit yet in order to keep up.
She'd be better off just paying out of pocket even though those thousands that went to the original company were more than sufficient to pay for her doctor visits and procedures. She's elderly too and gets all fuddled up pretty easy. What a racket and there they stand at the town halls fighting for the very wolves that will devour each and every single one of them in the MedMob money-racket.
People over 50 are elderly?
I have to wonder how much the Afghanistan fiasco is hurting Obama. Only 41% now support the war, down 9% from May. Similar to Obama's plunge in popularity. Perhaps people are realizing that “open ended wars” mean an open ended drain on the budget.
Yeah – I turn 36 in two days so I'm getting up there myself!
Actually, 50 is nowhere near elderly. But that was the cutoff point in the CNN poll. The protesters I'm speaking about are over 65.
Are you kidding? It is easy to know why those over 50 oppose it.
There aren't many details in stone yet, but it IS in stone that tens of millions more are to be covered, including those with preexisting conditions (likely to be expensive) and 2/3 of the cost is supposed to be covered by cuts to Medicare.
So who does that hurt?
No one believes there won't be rationing, and since medicare is already on the road to being insolvent, with people discussing how to FUND it for years, the idea of stretching the existing dollars over so many more is highly unpopular to seniors.
Getting caught up in this stripped down health care system is unpopular to many of the rest of us.
Why not just fix the flawed 'preexisting condition' coverage and let the rest of us alone? At least until a real plan that will drive down actual costs rather than services is on the table.
A lot of us feel that special interests have a seat at the table and all the concern of the administration is for them. We don't want someone dictating what health care we get. Why isn't our government listening?
No one believes there won't be rationing. …
Everyone who repeats this absurd argument should get a piece of paper and write, 1,000 times over:
There is rationing NOW.
There is rationing NOW.
There is rationing NOW.
There is rationing NOW.
There is already rationing. It's done by health insurers right now. And there will continue to be rationing by health insurers in the future.
I haven't seen the 2/3 number from Medicare anywhere. Clearly Medicare does need cuts in costs.
There ARE special interests at the table. They are the health insurance companies, the AMA, PHARMa, hospitals and the various other stakeholders who already dictate what health care we get.
I turn 36 in two days so I'm getting up there myself!
Well, happy birthday, Elrod. I am old enough to be your mother, although my own offspring is only 19 (well, okay, 20 at the end of next month).
I am also the same age as John Hughes, who died today.
Some different poll numbers from the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357
<snip>
American voters disapprove 52 – 39 percent of the way President Obama is handling health care, down from 46 – 42 percent approval July 1, with 60 – 34 percent disapproval from independent voters. Voters say 59 – 36 percent that Congress should not pass health care reform if only Democratic members support it.
Voters are split 39 – 41 percent on whether the President's health care plan will improve or hurt the quality of health care in the nation, with 14 percent saying it won't make a difference.
Only 21 percent of voters say the plan will improve the quality of care they receive, while 36 percent say it will hurt their quality of care and 39 percent say it will make no difference.
Voters oppose 68 – 26 percent requiring people to have health insurance or pay a fine and oppose 68 – 27 percent taxing employees for health care benefits from employers.
<snip>
Independent voters, perhaps the key voting group, are more worried about the deficit rising than congressional inaction, 54 – 37 percent. These voters say 59 – 36 percent that overhaul should not occur if it would “significantly” increase the deficit. Independents oppose 63 – 33 percent passing a bill with only Democratic votes.
Independent voters also don't think Obama can keep his promise to avoid increasing the deficit and pass health care by an overwhelming 77 – 17 percent.
“The key to this political battle over health care out in the country is independent voters. And that bloc is the key to most elections,” Brown added. “These are the voters who broke strongly for the President last November and who were in his corner during the first months of his administration. But on these key health care questions they are siding with critics who question whether health care reform is worth the projected cost.”
Support for Obama's handling of health care is down among key groups:
Women disapprove 49 – 41 percent, down from a 48 – 39 percent approval July 1;
Voters 18 to 34 years old disapprove 48 – 44 percent, down from a 54 – 35 percent approval;
Low income voters disapprove 47 – 43 percent, down from a 49 – 37 percent approval.
One other comment on a seperate part of the thread starting comments:
“The most important question – will this change any Congressperson’s mind – seems lost in this exchange”
That question was probably answered before it was asked. These townhall meetings were never really meant to change the mind of any member of Congress on the merits of the bill itself, they were intended to make a sales pitch.to the public to sell the Obama product and generate pressure on the Blue Dogs to heel and reassure the public with pretty speaches. The fact that the Democrats are throwing out their own astroturfing brigats just confirms what was already pretty obvious.
Here are two examples
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/06/say-isnt-…
Friend –
I wanted to send you an urgent invitation to an important Town Hall with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen on Thursday morning. She’ll be talking to constituents and gathering feedback — this is an ideal opportunity to make sure your support of health insurance reform is seen and heard at exactly the right time to make a huge difference…….RSVP here:
http://nh.barackobama.com/GraftonTH….
Tim Arsenault
New Hampshire Field Director
Organizing for America
and here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090807/ap_on_go_co…
<snip>
White House aides David Axelrod and Jim Messina traveled to the Capitol for their presentation to Democratic senators. Senators saw videos of disruptions at events held by House members, and were told to organize their events more carefully as well as work with labor unions and other friendly groups to generate enthusiasm.
One more thing to add:
A reference and a comment from John W. Whitehead
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead
The reference:
“I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical….It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”– Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (Jan. 30, 1787)
The Comment:
“Thomas Jefferson, that revolutionary patriot who advocated rebellion every 20 years or so in order to remind the government that a spirit of resistance flourished among the people, must be turning over in his grave.
After all, the people who fomented the American Revolution did so using the same tactics as those protesting Obama’s health care plan and the nation’s mounting debt. They spoke out at rallies, distributed critical pamphlets, wrote scathing editorials and took to the streets in protest. They were rebelling against a government they saw as being excessive in its taxation and spending. For their efforts, they, too, were demonized and painted as an angry mob, extremists akin to terrorists, by the ruler of the day, King George III.
Full article here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/…
These shameful episodes of the DNC calling Obamacare protesters paid shills -even running TV ads to slander them- and Nancy Pelosi seeing imaginary Swastikas should make clear to anyone still giving Obama the benefit-of-the-doubt just what these far-left elitists think of your opinion.
Note that whenever Obama, Emanuel, or Gibbs are asked about why polls show SO many people oppose their misguided Cap-n-Trade and Obamacare proposals, they ALWAYS segue-right-into “we need to educate the public…”.
LOL- save your breath guys, Constitutionally-aware patriots don't take lectures from Marxists.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com
I don't have a problem with civil disobedience. It's served our country well during times the government and/or corporations ignored or abused citizens and/or the country in general. We have a long and proud history of civil disobedience and it is the right of the people to engage in that particularly democratic form of expression when they see it as necessary. That doesn't mean however that every noisy disruptive protest that comes down the pike is necessarily productive or even well-intended. It is our responsibility as citizens to make that determination. If I sincerely believed the worst of the propaganda floating around about healthcare reform, then I might decide to become angry and disruptive at a town meeting too, but since I recognize fear mongering for what it is I am unable to view this as a noble enterprise along the same lines as a war protest, civil rights protest, union protest, etc.
JSpencer, that's a good comment and I respect your opinion. From my perspective though, anyone who isn't angry about this plan and the way that the Dems have attempted to rush it are the ones who are believing propaganda. There's simply no way to reconcile all of the conflicting selling points, where we're being told that it will cover a lot more people but lower costs for everyone, or that we'll be able to keep our current plans if we'd like but the employers will be able to shift people onto the public option plan and the insurance companies will be subject to new regulations. And meanwhile, of course, the seniors are being told that although much of this will be paid for via Medicare reform, it won't impact their current level of access and service.
Only magical thinking could make all of that work.
Now, I can understand your point about the level of passion based on whether you're protesting a war or a govt program that you disagree with. And frankly, I don't have the level of passion that's being displayed by some of the protesters- but that's mainly just due to my temperament. I do, in fact, think it's important to try to block a program that I feel is going to do far more harm than good, and will impact people's well being and financial futures in a very negative manner.
“There ARE special interests at the table. They are the health insurance companies, the AMA, PHARMa, hospitals and the various other stakeholders who already dictate what health care we get”~ elrod
*******
lol…or “MedMob” as I have unofficially dubbed them. They are in the busine$$ of medical monopoly and this whole fight is over controlling territory. Yes and there is rationing too. Just re-read the example of my friend above. She is nowhere near an isolated case either, this is how they do business.
The rise in violence is like Chicago in the '30s. It's the thinnest of lines between monopolies and organized crime.
Republicans lies about the current health care reform are noted in this article, entitled “Republicans Propagating In Attacks on Health Care Reform“.
Thank you.
Dont' forget how the GOP was all in favor of Uncle Sam funding their buddies at BigOil and the hostile corporate takeover of Iraq. They LOVED the gravy train then at taxpayers' expense..
In reference to that Matthew Yglesias link elrod provided, here's Ezra Klein talking about the same thing and providing a VERY illuminating graph of the percentage of uninsured in America.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/200…
In short, the percentage of uninsured skyrockets after 18 years of age, then slowly declines, reaches somewhat of a plateau during working age years, then falls to almost 3% once the magical Medicare age has been reached. It's nothing new but very interesting to see it in graphical terms.
Lit3Bolt–
Thanks for the chart. That's a mighty sudden drop at the age of 65!!
Leonidas,
I would disagree with this generalization. While there is unquestionably a sales pitch going on in many of these, there is also a forum for constituents to voice concerns. I have attended and worked these at a variety of levels and assure that the pols and their staff are listening, and if enough people are expressing a concern, it is noted. Secondly, if you don't think the other side political dial isn't doing the same thing, you are being naive.
The unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly to 9.4%. That will affect this debate a great deal, I think. Democrats will credit the stimulus bill – rightly or wrongly – for turning back the unemployment figures (even though the news is still bad). The Dow is at its highest point since November. Locally, our biggest employer just announced a return to full 40-hour work weeks again. Cash-for-clunkers is a huge success story here in Knoxville. These nuggets of economic relief may help to quell some of the anger, frustration and skepticism about health care reform. Remember, Ronald Reagan's approval number dropped to 43% in early 1983 at the depth of the recession. We know what happened next.
CStanley,
I'm not sure that all the pieces fit together either. And with the real possibility that there will be no public option, there is even more uncertainty. But reform is a long-term process and will require lots of tweaking. I anticipate this as a first major step toward overhauling our health insurance system. It will be a lot easier to make incremental adjustments once this first hurdle is passed than if we literally threw it all out at this point. If we really did start over and try something very modest it would not pass at all. We've already seen that in 1994. When reform is killed, it's killed. The GOP would smell blood and refuse to bail the Democrats out with a small-scale bill that, say, banned dropping pre-existing condition patients.
CStanley, thank-you for your thoughtful response. I agree, there has to be honest and genuine dialogue about the realities involved, whether we're talking about a continuation of the status quo or the proposed reforms. Any rhetoric that is designed to misinform or frighten people into either position is disingenuous to say the least; also I recognize that neither party is lily white when it comes to those tactics. That said, I would rather see a greater emphasis (from reform detractors) on suggesting improvements and plans to improve the status quo (meaning more interest shown in cooperation and solutions) and less emphasis on criticism without suggesting useful alternatives. I'm not referring to you or anyone in particular here, I'm referring to what I see in the general national discourse. In general it seems to me that the people who already have what they need prefer not to see any change. Those who are struggling to pay higher and higher premiums or who can't afford healthcare are desperate for change. To me the greatest irony is in seeing those who already have some form of socialized healthcare posturing to prevent others from having it to. Not much credibility there..
I had a little different take on this. Instead of older voters being looked on as possessing experience and wisdom, many of the comments and even the original essay are painting them as poor dears who are easily frightened and misled. They need to just put on their housecoats and slippers then let the younger voters take care of important matters. There is some truth to that with respect to things that are obviously scare tactics (like euthanasia) but is that really what is driving their objection?
The polls say that the biggest objection to “Obama's plan” (whatever that is) is that it will increase the deficit. isn't it possible that older voters place a higher value on fiscal responsibility, possibly because they have already learned the hard way themselves? Possibly older voters are more likely to understand you can't spend you way out of debt, and when you're low on cash it's not a good time to buy things?
DaGoat, if what you suggest is true, and “older voters place a higher value on fiscal responsibility”, then why aren't they giving up their social security and medicare enmasse?
DaGoat, if what you suggest is true, and “older voters place a higher value on fiscal responsibility”, then why aren't they giving up their social security and medicare enmasse?
They paid into those programs and now are receiving the benefits. I don't follow your reasoning.
They paid into those programs and now are receiving the benefits. I don't follow your reasoning
That is a big difference that some people seem to be missing. SS was not sold to people as a social welfare program. FDR purposely set it up as a system that people paid into during their working years and then drew from after retirement. He did so intentionally so that people would not be partaking in 'welfare' but putting their own money away for the future (of course for it to work, it also depended on the demographic structure of that time when there were far more young people paying in and far fewer retirees drawing out, and for a shorter time period.)
Medicare was set up similarly.
Therefore, the irony or disconnect that some allege when senior citizens simultaneously say they don't want the country to move toward a general socialized medicine system, while they themselves are supposedly enjoying such a system, really isn't so. These people see that what is currently being proposed is for seniors to give up some of what they were promised (and that they feel they earned) and give to others who will not be paying their own way.
It is time for the GOP to take a stand and denounce these threats. There is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588
Obama's gonna kill Grandma?
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/…
They paid into those programs and now are receiving the benefits. I don't follow your reasoning. – DaGoat
How much do you suppose they are being RE-paid compared to what they actually paid in?? Consider how much they are being supported by the younger workers – who ironically tend to want a piece of socialized healthcare too.