Steven Pearlstein on Republican Lies
A lot of bloggers are noticing Steven Pearlstein’s piece in today’s Washington Post in which he quite forcefully takes Republican leaders in Congress to task for the lies they are propagating, both directly and via their operatives in the streets and at political meetings.
Here are the first three paragraphs:
As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don’t agree. Today, I’m going to step over that line.
The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.
There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress — I’ve made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.
This is what happens when massively powerful societal institutions are challenged — especially when those challenges actually stand a chance of becoming reality.
Two points, in my opinion, are crucially important: First, that what these anti-reform protesters are doing is the antithesis of legitimate democratic dissent, and in fact subverts democracy; and second, that although the crowds of ordinary people are genuine (not paid protesters, iow), their anger and fears are being stoked by well-paid political and corporate actors who have no problem with spreading the most outrageous lies and disinformation in order to stoke fears that are either very much overblown or groundless to begin with.
Krugman notes, as many others have, that the physical thuggishness — despite what right-wingers are saying — sets these demonstrations apart from any political dissent that greeted Republican political campaigns:
Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.
And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received.
He also points out that, although the crowds disrupting public meetings and screaming at members of Congress are real, ordinary people (as opposed to operatives) who are genuinely angry and afraid, their anger and fears are so detached from the reality of what the Democrats’ proposals entail that you have to ask whether they are reacting to the substance of Pres. Obama’s ideas, or to flatly false narratives kicked up by people whose intentions are, shall we say, not benign:
There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.
Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.
That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.
And cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.
18 Responses to “Steven Pearlstein on Republican Lies”
The sad part is that there is a legitimate discussion to be held and very legimate concerns about some of the facets of the various proposed bill. However – driven by some of the more vocal right – they focus on disinegenous arguments and overstatements. The truly sad part, however, is that wiht many people it works.
“They’ve become political terrorists”
LOL….talk about constructive critizism. Did Pearlstein go on to call them Nazies? Sounds like Pearlstein is just as good at poisoning the well than anyone on the right. Or maybe he just poisons every once in a while?
What I find the most interesting about this whole THUG talk is that Clinton supporters talked about being “screamed down” at caucuses during the dom nomination process. If anyone has a recent history of being thug-like…it's Obama supporters.
As I stated once before…these town hall meetings are pointless and a waste of time. Dems need to get their people in line and pass the bill they want…not the bill that gives them some political cover. Have some courage and follow their convictions.
It's August, ppl should be shopping at Staples or Walmart for Back to School not engaging in hysterical hyperbole fomented by PR flacks.
RN – no, actually the takeover of health care by the government is more important.
@@Fifty-five percent (55%) of Democrats have an unfavorable view of those opposing the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the leaders of their party. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Republicans and the plurality (48%) of voters not affiliated with either party view the protesters favorably.
Senior Democrats charge that many of the protests at the town hall meetings are orchestrated by special interests, but 49% of voters believe, generally speaking, that the protesting citizens are reflecting the concerns of their neighbors.@@
Liberal talking points show divergence from reality……again.
This is getting redonkulous. Of course the public is misinformed. They're ALWAYS misinformed, on almost every single issue. The media makes it really really EASY to be misinformed and hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. That's not really news.
Right now both parties are just pushing for political advantage in a leadership vacuum, because Obama wants to be able to blame Congress if healthcare goes bellyup. The press is just cheering it on too.
I had read Pearlstein's article today and although he makes some good points, I think he pushes too far by including points that are reasonable debates and framing them as outrageous. The end-of-life issues are way overblown by the GOP, and I think they are deliberately misinforming the public. On that issue Pearlstein is right on the money. On the other hand debates about whether it's going to cost an outrageous amount of money or just a hell of a lot of money are reasonable discussion points.
So in a way Pearlstein falls victim to that which he is criticizing – in an attempt to strengthen his case he misrepresents points on which reasonable people can disagree.
AR-
had you read Mikkel's blog post previous, I think you'd agree it's not about a “takeover”, and there are a number of plans in the offing. However,imho and by much of the tenor of your posts, far right rhetoric obviously forbids you from considering other definitions. Chicken Little cries “Socialism oh mah lawds theyz gonna make us Socialists and takes away my already too expensive-not covering enough healthcares!”
I understand concern about paying too much for not enough give-back, that's what we have already. Has an insurance co. posted a significant loss recently? Anyone? I'll bet statistically there are more medical bankruptcies ( which by the way cost taxpayer money in Judges' docket time) than there are Aetna expected earnings shortfalls. Who wins? Who's already won? The fact that we are bickering amongst ourselves is proof positive their diversionist lobbying has won.
Ronald Reagan, the “Gipper” didn't exactly follow through on his much lobbied plan from Operation Coffee cup ( gotta love the pseudo militarized jargon, eh wot?) to kill Medicare. Granted, I think Medicare itself needs retooling, but without it you wouldn't be able to get $4 generics at Walmart.
Obama's dingo ate my baby!
RN – if you do not believe that ObamaCare is the first step in creating a fully nationalized health care industry, you are just not paying attention.
AR,
As a supporter of single-payer health care I WISH you were right. But I don't think this bill will lead in that direction – with or without a public option. I know there are many people who see the public option as the Trojan Horse for single payer – and I mean proponents of single payer (including possibly Obama in 2007), but I don't hold that view. There are too many powerful interests at work to keep the private sector out of health care delivery.
What I think WILL happen is that a reform bill will pass and it will have incremental effects on health care – some predicted and others not foreseen. Some services will become surprisingly cheap and others will become surprisingly expensive. Health insurers will adjust to the new reality and continue to be profitable. The public option will take on a fairly small number of people – mostly the young and poor – and medicine will continue as before. And politicians will congratulate themselves with health care reform and leave it alone for a long time – excepting the agitators on the left and right of course.
I suggest that it might be a good idea to check out some facts.
Notice that the pants on fire rating for falsehood ratio is 3 to 1 “in favor” of the opponents even when you go back and look at statements from the primary campaigns.
I suggest that it might be a good idea to check out some facts.
Your link shows how prevalent lying is on both sides.
Miss the second statement, AR? One of the Politifact people was on NPR and admitted that it seemed the most outrageous representations were on the opponents' side.
AR,
and what was Medicare/Medicaid then? You're chugging the Kool Aid too fast to stop and read the details amigo. Also, what about Gov't run healthcare for veterans? Should they turn in their benefit cards? Where have you been for the past 30 yrs? Seriously, you haven't been paying attention.
Fully Nationalized means Gov't ownership,outright- and nothing in either Bill or or proposal suggests that. I'd worry more about Uncle Sam listening in on your conversations than I would worrying about the cost of an MRI. What impinges freedom more?
I think you've been swallowing the Beck juice too long, imho.
Of course, you provide no corroboration to your claim that Obama supporters have behaved in a “thug-like” manner. And if you think town hall meetings are a waste of time (and I can see that I am wasting your time as well) then stay away from them. And invite your thuggish friends over to your house for a cross-roasting, or whatever it is you call that thing you find meaningful and a good use of your time.
[...] Steven Pearlstein on Republican Lies (themoderatevoice.com) [...]