Rhetorical Danger Zone: Hoyer and Pelosi Call Town Hall Disruptions “Un-American” (UPDATED)
A lot of pundits (including me) have been highly critical of the rhetorical Hiroshimas that some Republicans use when battling Democrats or trying to gain political support by mobilizing their political base. And now we have a classic one coming from the Democrats: the use of the label “un-American” to describe town hall protesters who are effectively drowning out discussion of health care reform:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, insisting at the start of a long and politically heated summer congressional recess that healthcare reform can be achieved this fall, today are calling the disruption of “town-hall” meetings by vocal protesters “simply un-American.”
“We believe it is healthy for such a historic effort to be subject to so much scrutiny and debate,” Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Hoyer (D-Md.) write in an Op-ed essay published by USA Today.
“However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue,” the two leaders write. “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”
They point to a series of protests at congressional district hearings held by members of Congress this summer, including one where the likeness of a congressman in Maryland was hanged in effigy, one displaying the tombstone of a congressman in Texas and meetings where protesters have shouted down opponents with “Just say no.”
Here is a direct link to the post. (Thanks to readers in comments for pointing out the omission..)
UPDATE: The White House is rejecting the Pelosi Hoyer charge.
The problem isn’t pointing to or condemning behavior that squelches actual discussion of issues that protesters strongly disagree with, or the death threats or the recent news that one protester has urged people to bring guns.
The problem is the use of the phrase “un-American” coming from people who belong to a political party that has members who (rightfully) criticize Fox’s Bill O’Reilly for suggesting some people he disagrees with are “not good Americans” (in other words they are “bad Americans” and does that imply “un-American?) …or Sean Hannity whose callers say “you’re a great American’ (suggesting that if you don’t agree with Hannitys rip-n-read the RNC talking points broadcasts, you are not a great American because the only great Americans are Republicans)….or Bush administration members or Republicans who suggested that if Democrats didn’t support Bush policies they wanted to lose in Iraq, didn’t care about making the country safe, didn’t care about terrorism.
The word “un-American” is the danger zone — stepping up the rhetorical political life-death struggle that has huge stakes for what Americans will pay or not pay in health care, the Obama administration’s future clout, and the Republican party in terms of both its clout and how it will wind up being perceived by swing voters. A phrase such as “is not the way discussions have been conducted in American democracy at Town Hall meetings.” would be more accurate.
The use of the phrase can turn off some people who don’t approve of the lets-drown-the-Democrats-out-and-get-media-time tactics that suggest the Town Hall meeting is outmoded anyway (unless it’s new role is in “scream therapy”). Here are a few excerpts from Doug Mataconis, who thinks the op-ed is riddled with factual errors:
Even worse then getting the facts wrong, though, is the fact that Pelosi and Hoyer have decided to characterize those who disagree with them as “un-American.” They and their supporters will, no doubt, claim that the label is only meant to apply to those who have been disruptive, however it’s worth noting that they never managed to find it necessary to say the same thing when the disruptive tactics were coming from the left..
The use of “but the left did it…” or “but the right did it” is often a device to excuse one side. But Mataconis isn’t doing that at all and the example he provides is a valid one. He gives an instance of a protest involving drowning out speakers that Pelosi didn’t condemn, then writes:
So, a town hall filled with disruptive Code Pink demonstrators is “democracy in action,” but a town hall filled with opponents of ObamaCare is Un-American. Or at least that’s how the calculus works in Nancy Pelosi’s universe…I’ve been critical over the past week of some of the more sensational of the town hall protesters tactics.. I’ve denounced those like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and the folks at Americans for Prosperity who have decided that the way to fight HR 3200 is to lie about it. However, the fact that I think their tactics are wrong, or counter-productive, doesn’t mean they’re un-American, or that they should be compared to Nazis, or that they’re racist.
The whole Nazi thing going on now between the two parties shows how frenzied the battle is becoming over health care reform, how polarized the country has become, and how emotions, rage and aggression increasingly trump real discussion over policy.
FOOTNOTE: In the early 70s my grandfather Abraham Ravinsky would often show me his photo album and show me pictures of how the Ravinsky family’s men, women, infants, and kids were almost all brutally murdered by the Nazis. So to Republicans and Democrats who use the phrase I say:
My family had experience with the Nazis. Part of my family was wiped out by the Nazis. Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans are not Nazis. And it downplays and sugarcoats the unspeakable horror they experienced in the last days of their lives when you use that phrase. Can all of you cut the polemics, please?
There are other aspects to this:
1. The use of the word “un-American” is as unlikely to win over some people in the center and independents and Republicans who decry the tractics as Republicans calling Obama a “Marxist,” “socialist,” or suggesting that he is basically a Nazi-fascist-communist-authoritarian like figure is going to win over some people in the center and independents and Democrats. It’s language that appeals mostly to the choir. This could CHANGE, however, if there is an act of violence at a meeting or a death threat goes beyond a threat.
2. The op-ed is one more instance of the story now becoming the STORY about the CONTROVERSY over the policy. Bad news for the White House and Democrats.
3. The Democratic and Obama political teams are not as slicks skillful as they did during the campaign. When Obama was elected many believed that due to the way he ran his campaign, and how the Democratic party finally got its act together, the Democrats would be in for a long haul in office since it seemed as if they had superior political skills, instincts, and a response mechanism to trump the Republicans in the future. Today (and this can change, of course) it seems as if the Democrats can’t get a handle on how to effectively deal with the situation without making it worse or hand delivering their political foes red meat that can be fed to a hungry ideological choir warmed up by frenzy-fanning overstaters Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
In the great-minds-think-alike department, here’s NBC’s Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg:
Another weekend, another spate of health-care debate nuttiness. The debate — not the issue itself — is now the story. Think about that… In fact, that may explain why it appears the White House is losing the message war. It is trying to fight back by unveiling two campaigns. One is a truth squad of sorts via the White House Web site. It’s easily the most aggressive Web effort by any White House to date. Meanwhile, on the political front, the DNC is asking supporters to flood congressional district offices to voice their support for health-care reform. This is a big test for the Obama political machine, because one thing that has gotten lost in this debate over town hall protests: how the Obama supporters have been out-organized so far.
Another question: Will the next target of Town Hall protesters be Obama’s upcoming Town Hall? And, if so, if they create a media event will it drown out or help Obama’s message? Todd & Co again:
By the way, it will be interesting to see what happens when President Obama holds his own town hall in Portsmouth, NH, tomorrow. One of us got our hands on an invitation from a conservative group planning a protest outside of Tuesday’s venue. “There will be news media from all over the world at this event,” the invitation reads, “and it will be the ideal opportunity for us to tell the rest of the country exactly how NH voters feel about Obamacare (taxed/rationed healthcare).” If anything, we’d bet some inside the White House are hoping for a confrontation, since they believe the president’s demeanor alone will politically play well with the folks they care about most about right now: ACTUAL independents.
Indeed, what is emerging is a battle between two parties and, in many cases, the typical ideological battle between left and right. The race is on to see which side discredits itself first — and the one that looks to have overreached the most or is most frighetening to those in the middle will likely lose credibility and important chunks of public opinion on health care.
Future opinion polls will be very interesting — and one side will see it’s clout rise…and the other will see it fall. Place your bets in Vegas now.
26 Responses to “Rhetorical Danger Zone: Hoyer and Pelosi Call Town Hall Disruptions “Un-American” (UPDATED)”
[...] from all over the Political spectrum: The Moderate Voice, JustOneMinute, The Atlantic Politics Channel, The Huffington Post, Politics Daily, Le·gal [...]
If there's a direct link to the Pelosi-Hoyer op-ed in this post, I've missed it, <AHREF=”http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html?loc=interstitialskip”>so here you go.
The headline-writer uses the term “Un-American” as such:
Well said George… There's an awful lot of mountain-out-of-molehilling going on in effort to justify or excuse the childish STUPIDITY being exhibited by a small faction on the right.
When one uses the term un-American, we think of McCarthysim, black lists and witch hunts. Here we are 60 years later and that word is being used again. It is an embrassment for Arkansas that one of our senior elected leaders was the first on the country to use it. Although she apoligized, Blanche Lincoln will forever be remembered as the mother of the un-American movement. Sadly, the Arkansas State GOP is just incompetent. They have a bunch of stuffed shirts running against her. The words they have used in the past are not much better. No one is running against the Governor and not one republican ran in the last congressional elections. There is another alternative, Trevor Drown from Russellville, a respected Afghan war vet is running as an Independent. He will have a major impact on this election. Many republicans are attacking him accusing him of splitting the conservative vote. Well sorry, they gave up their right to be any kind of voice for Arkansas when they cannot even get anyone to run in so many races. trevor has shown that party politics is not part of his agenda. He is a leader that will use common sense and listen to the people.
Yes, American democracy is all about screaming lies and distortions at a public forum to discuss health care solutions.
“Un-American” is usually a term employed in jest as it is so over-the-top jingoistic. But I don't think Pelosi used it tongue in cheek, which is too bad. The shout-downs are thuggish, but they aren't un-American.
And, yes, these Tea Party protesters are exactly on the same level as the Code Pinkers. But America has always had room for screamers and nutjobs. And the screamers usually discredit themselves by their actions.
“Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American”
un-American is not a good word to use, but I wouldn't put this anywhere near the same idiocy of calling people Nazies.
I think we all understand and agree with their point. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-Democratic.
Booing is OK (it can look childish, but it allows the speaker to continue on once the booing stops) etc., but this is actively making sure dissenting opinions can not be heard. This is trying to prevent the utterance and hearing of opinions you don't like, ruining the purpose of a public gathering meant for questions, answers, listening etc. If the term un-American is somehow over the line, how should we describe such extremely malevolent stupidity? Call it anti-democratic?
Democrats just keep shooting themselves in the foot. The Republicans did it in 2006 and we see where that got them. 2010 will be a time to clean house. Vote for people that represent you and do the research this time.
The runaway premium similar to the peak fuel price last year and left so many folks in despair insists on staying the course with the attitude 'unchanged', clearly this trend could bankrupt individual, business, and government. Now the government subsequently is tasked with these two main assignments, first, to address premium inflation, second, to expand coverage to all in urgent need.
In order to cover all and not to add to the deficit, the public option can not set the same rates of private market, rather, it needs to have the function to keep it in check in terms of inflation, too. Unfortunately, this 'unavoidable' direction is aggressively being accused by the runaway premium, citing government 'take-over' .
Under the circumstances the energy bill to determine human future and the other major issues is presently piled up, who wants to waste time making enemies ?, which also does not benefit the forthcoming election.
On the other hand, to make things worse, critics say the savings from the proposed public option is not enough to meet the revenue goal. Furthermore, on another hand, some say 'hands off' . Where do these No tax, No saving and the like intend to force this reform to go ? The conclusion by 'just-say-no' is no doubt. Ironically, the Deficit-sensitive groups have a distinctive common ground, they all have a Deficit-driven background out of question.
Of all choices, the best thing would be savings through efficiency. Considering the wasteful structure, the highest premium in the world, and the most expensive part of medicare, with the prevention / wellness program in place, an American style innovation, an 'outcome'-based payment founded upon IT system may be enough to save more than 50 billions per year (500 / decade), both 'improving quality' and removing the unnecessary procedures (as pay is dependent on patient's outcome). Young folks and advocates need to explain the notion of a pay for outcome agreement to the elderly misled by the disinformation.
Unlike private market, this public option includes large-scale investments, these large investments still does not get the fair score, instead seem to become a source of acute conflict, even so, this common sense-based program needs to develop further as early detection goes beyond monetary value.
In short, with the heartbreaking tears in mind (Nearly 11 Million Cancer Patients Without Health Insurance), private market also needs change and should join together to complete this reform , as promised, if not, the runaway premium only has itself to blame. Job-based coverage (indirect payment), mandate code, and ample capital might be favorable to the private market. And It can be said that fair competition starts with fair market value.
Over time, supposedly, the public plan will concentrate more on basic, primary cares, and the private insurers will provide their clients with differentiated services.
Thank You !
Part 1.
Problems :
1. No systematic, expansive Prevention & Wellness Program.
According to the scoring of CBO on the prevention & wellness program, all fitness centers around the world should close down immediately and all media have to end
reporting health tips about prevention. Rather, all of the excellent health systems seem to have one feature in common, a expansive, systematic preventative program
requiring immense investments.
I think a prevention system works as a 'levee' built against flood by the government, similarly, it also needs non-profit investments from the government 'on a large scale'.
This might offer us one clue of why all of the free states have public insurance policy in place.
Surprisingly enough, the system today is designed around treating patients once they become sick. As far as I'm concerned, the congress affected by the special interests
has turned down the budget request for prevention program in Medicare & Medicaid, which are the most expensive parts of the health program. Let's imagine the astronomical
costs and invaluable lives following the levee breach.
2. A pay for each service / volume compensation, & No E-Medical Record.
As much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the
recipients, and this 700 billion dollars a year can cover a lot of uninsured people, in return, it could lessen the tragic, prohibitive ER cares.
Medical errors ( No e-Medical Record ) & lawsuits, more profits motive, and indirect payments from employers etc would account for it.
Supposedly, 'a pay for each service / volume' compensation seems to leave the medical institutes unequipped with the essential IT system. To understand its importance, If
we imagine the cost difference between the previous and current system in financial institutes, the magnitude of cost-savings and the mess in health care system can
be easily explained.
3. Premium Inflation.
This last spring, due to the demand decrease, the peak fuel price came down below $40 per barrel, though, the
'Similar' insurance premiums keep on rising, accordingly the inaction could bankrupt family, business, and
government 'BEYOND this recession' , as all across the spectrum agree.
Insurance premiums have nothing to do with the law of demand & supply and the free / fair market concept.
Basically, as demand diminishes, the price tends to reflect it, nonetheless, the insurers that formed a cartel through
consolidation have replenished the loss by exercising inhumane malpractices involving denying, capping, cherry-picking, rationing, rapid
premium increase and the like. And this runaway premium ended up in the collapse of middle
class ranging ' from finance to mental health' , alongside the peak fuel price and fast-growing mortgage rate, as all of
us know. Thereby they could be cited as an objective for anti-trust or anti-corruption. If the public plan sets the same rate of the insurers, it will be another headache.
Ironically, the Deficit-sensitive groups have a distinctive common ground, they all have a Deficit-driven background out of
question. Therefore, I'd say they have nothing to say about deficit unless they are free from the sponsors.
And the spoiled menu, 'Takeover and Rationing Cliche' is still marching for bankruptcy, as opposed to its motto.
4. 'Work or Break' health system with no brake or safety system.
Just like marriage, economy also undergoes up and down, however, economic downturn is not reflected in the employment-based system.
The rising mental stress or illness & 'keep eating habit' , which are the epicenter of a number of different diseases,might be traced
to this insecure system and exorbitant premiums.
Part 2.
The Public Plan:
1. Thankfully, the health care reform bill currently before Congress makes several key investments including more primary care doctors in preventive care, and those pieces
of the public plan must be maintained .
2. The pay for 'Outcome' pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM, and it will help doctors focus on their patients.
3. The 'innovative' idea of a 'pay for value / outcome' pack will allow for Quality and affordability
. If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient's outcome, you will most likely strive to
prescribe the best medicine earlier in the process, let alone skipping the wasteful, unnecessary risk-carrying
procedures.
Young folks and advocates need to explain the notion of a pay for outcome agreement to the elderly misled by the
disinformation.
4. The synergy effect of the combined Health Care IT & a pay for 'outcome' system may allow the clinicians to
'correctly' diagnose and effectively treat a patient earlier in the process so that it can measurably decrease the
crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.
5. The creative idea of 'a pay for outcome' will more likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic.
Under the 'pay for outcome' pack, for good reason, best practices as 'recommendations' would simply help them
make a better decision, and the government won't still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making
process as a non-expert.
6. This New 'Payment Reform' could accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it will save more cash.
And this idea will be able to bring 'competition' to the private market, as a result, it can contribute to mitigating premium inflation.
7. Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve'
care, that means more than $1trillian over next decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the
wealthiest. Supposedly even the 'conservative' number of such savings might be able to meet the objective of revenue-neutral.
(Please visit http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?st… for detailed infos).
8. Through clinic's network, users of its health-care services can keep up with their health information and information for family members, and receive health guidance and recommendations from clinic that is optimized for each person.
The system also allows patients to upload information from home-health devices such as blood glucose monitors and digital scales. Patients can authorize whether they want to share their health information with doctors or other caregivers, and those caregivers can provide health-care and general wellness recommendations based on the information patients provide.
9. In case the health care reform provides the general public with peace of mind, the rising mental stress, obesity caused by the insecure system and
exorbitant premiums may bend the curve surprisingly.
10. Clearly, the positive impacts involving massive job creation, promising stem cell research, several times more economic effects of 'from bed to work' lie ahead, these will lead to economic recovery.
Part 3.
Conclusion ;
1. The last thing to expect is rallying for premium inflation, JUST SAYING NO.
2. Over time, supposedly, the public plan will concentrate more on basic, primary cares, and the private insurers will provide their clients with differentiated services.
3. With the Prevention & Wellness Program as a stable levee in place, the promising pay for value/ outcome reimbursement reform based on IT system could clear the way for revenue-neutral. Some say the installation of IT network will take time, but once this new outcome-based payment system is implemented, the hospitals reluctant to adopt it will most likely rush to introduce it.
4. The final hurdle looks like a scoring issue surrounding the savings on Prevention & Wellness Program, but I'd like to say
health clubs and media reports on prevention tips must be maintained.
5. People would be entitled to various services whether you are employed, unemployed or self-employed, homeless or housed, young or old, chronically ill or mentally ill, moving from job to job or from town to town or from state to state.
Thank You !
I would somewhat agree that the term “un-American” will just add fuel to the (already) rabid fire-starters who want to torpedo any meaningful dialog regarding health care plan for all. Anti-democratic works, I think.
I still shake my head in amazement when hearing today's politicians, supposedly fully aware of our 24/7 newscrawl, continue to utter things that can easily explode in their face (Obama's “cops acted stupidly” comment, & now this.)
Some folks just don't learn…
The protests of yesteryear were organizes and very vocal (loud). These protests were mostly about civil rights and the Vietnam War. These protestors were not called Nazie's or told by the President to shut up and gosit down. The protesters were mostly liberals and shouted down everything not to mention closing buildings with their sit-in's. They were (as we are) Americans making sure they were heard. I work with the public and know of only 2 people who support this healthcare plan.
Apparently all the right-wing blogs have decided that Pelosi described all criticism -all anti-reform voices- as Un-American. Which is incredibly idiotic of them, but there you go.
It's not a good choice of words simply because it is very loaded, but I think the notion is acceptable. Drowning out opposing views is un-American, considering the adjective “American” is linked to democracy.
Ironically enough, the people who whine and whine about being “silenced” by scary socialist thugs are the ones we see at the townhalls doing what they say is being done to them. When Pelosi criticize said people *specifically*, then all the right-wingers jump up and down screaming that Pelosi has called all anti-reform people un-American. But she didn't.
Unfortunately for Spkr. Pelosi, it appears that drowning out any reasonable discussion about healthcare reform is a prototypical American thing to do.
Thats why the American insurance industry is paying $1.4 Million a day to combat the reform effort.
How can a few townhall meetings compete with $1.4 Million a day? Here's your democracy in action, bought and paid for… no wonder people get outraged. Too bad they aren't getting outraged about the right things.
Btw Joe, your comments about the contrast between the real Nazis and the use of the phrase by political opponents today are well taken. Current users are parading their ignorance.
1. ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INCLUDING CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT BE ON THE PLAN SELECTED.
2.THE PLAN CONTAIN NO MORE THAN 100 PAGES.
3.THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE PLAN OR BE AN INSURER OF LAST RESORT.
4.ONLY U.S. CITIZENS COVERED.
These four simple steps that does not favor any special interests, only American citizens interest can be accomplished if our Congress would put U.S.A. first and not themselves. When are we going to elect people that represent us and not themselves? Wake up America.
HSR0601,
Please try to limit the size of your comments. It breaks up the natural flow to a thread. Thank you.
[...] Weekly Standard, Gateway Pundit, The Huffington Post, Top of the Ticket, Moe_Lane’s blog, The Moderate Voice, JammieWearingFool, JustOneMinute, The Atlantic Politics Channel, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, The [...]
Some Republicans started it long before 2006, “terrorist sympathizers” anyone?
“How can a few townhall meetings compete with $1.4 Million a day? Here's your democracy in action, bought and paid for… no wonder people get outraged. Too bad they aren't getting outraged about the right things.”
Exactly. This is no longer “by the people, for the people”, it's by the “lobbyists for the lobbyist's client.”
Good point. I am not a fan of either party. To me it seems like when 1 or the other have the upper hand with the majority, they stumble and and fall right on their faces as we are all witnessing with the current Democratic party. It is no wonder why either party cannot keep the majority – Greed and Over zealousness play into their thought process instead of doing what is best for the people they represent. Anyone with common knowledge of politics knows that both parties can finger point all day, but what good is that doing?
“Good point. I am not a fan of either party. To me it seems like when 1 or the other have the upper hand with the majority, they stumble and and fall right on their faces…”
Oh totally agreed, there is bad apples in both parties. Well said Corey24
[...] aisle, as defined and delineated by said factions, seem perfectly fine with the current narrow Obot vs. Teabagger health care debate, Joe Cannon’s question, “how do we keep left-wing criticism of Obama [...]
[...] Rhetorical Danger Zone: Hoyer and Pelosi Call Town Hall Disruptions “Un-American” (themoderatevoice.com) [...]
[...] Rhetorical Danger Zone: Hoyer and Pelosi Call Town Hall Disruptions “Un-American” (themoderatevoice.com) VN:F [1.5.6_840]Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)Related Ways to Take Action: YOUTH, CARE AND COMMUNITY – Help us enhance the lives of children and teenager [...]
[...] JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief wrote an interesting post today onRhetorical Danger Zone: Hoyer and Pelosi Call Town Hall <b>…</b>Here’s a quick excerpt [...]