Right Dismisses Violence While Continuing To Incite It
Mar 26th, 2010 | 81 responses
John Hinderaker (in a post very non-incitingly titled “What Was That Line About the Tree of Liberty and the Blood of Tyrants?”) sneers at concerns about the rash of violence — almost all of which has been directed against congressional Democrats — following Sunday night’s passage of health care reform legislation:
Today’s big news story, along with the epic debate on health care taking place in the Senate, is the Democrats’ claim that some of their Congressmen have been threatened with violence after voting for the government’s takeover of health care. Steny Hoyer claims that more than ten House members “have reported incidents of threats or other forms of harassment.” He also admits that figure is “just an estimate,” which I guess means he made it up. Nor is it clear what “other forms of harassment” means; angry phone calls from constituents, perhaps.
He takes the first sentence of the second paragraph to give us his pro forma disclaimer about the undesirability of violence, then launches into an Eric Cantor-style whine about how Republicans have been victimized, too:
We condemn political violence in virtually all circumstances; certainly in all circumstances that could arise in our democracy. Threats of violence, sadly, are not uncommon in politics; let alone “harassment.” Even insignificant conservatives like us have been threatened with violence on several occasions, and the linked article notes that Jim Bunning received threats after he temporarily held up the extension of unemployment benefits a few weeks ago.
And in the third paragraph, he gets to the heart of his argument, which will sound familiar because it’s the same explanation Republicans like John Boehner and Michele Bachmann have given for incidents like Rep. Louise Slaughter’s children being threatened; Bart Stupak getting over 50 phone calls ranging from extended, obscenity-laden rants to actual death threats; and bricks with threatening messages attached being smashed through windows of lawmakers’ home district offices (emphasis is mine):
The current threats (assuming they are real, as I assume some of them are) are being played up in the press because the Democrats want to dampen the anger that has erupted over their adoption of a government medicine program through a series of legislative maneuvers that are in some respects unprecedented. It is important for the Democrats and their press minions to understand that there are many millions of Americans who regard Obamacare not just as misguided public policy, but as an illegitimate usurpation of power. I am one of the many millions who are outraged at the Left’s attempt to destroy the private health care system that has served my family so well, and who regard Obamacare as illegitimate.
And that’s the source of the violence, right there. Not that “Obamacare” is “an illegitimate usurpation of power,” but that Republicans in Congress and their (may I?) minions on the far right and in the media have been promulgating the lie that it is, since the debate on the legislation began over a year ago. And it IS a lie. Health care reform is not “an illegal usurpation of power.” And it’s not “Obamacare.” It’s health care reform. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about health care reform. Presidents for over 100 years have been trying to reform the health care system, unsuccessfully. Barack Obama is not the first one, or the only one — he is simply the one who succeeded.
Republicans really need to get over their rage that they are now the minority in Congress and that the president is not just a Democrat but also a black man. The Democrats campaigned on health care reform; they promised health care reform; they spent over a year debating health care reform while Republicans negotiated in bad faith, won concessions and still refused to support the bill, and in general did everything they possibly could to sabotage the bill from even being voted on, much less passed. Despite all that, the Democrats passed the legislation — even while Republicans still, to the bitter end, presented endless amendments they knew would not pass, closed down committee meetings using an arcane Senate rule about committees not meeting after 2 pm (committee meetings that were completely unrelated to health care reform –one of them had to do with homeless veterans), and more — even though they knew these were empty and useless measures at this point, that they would do nothing but slow passage down by a few hours.
These were the illegitimate usurpations of power. The health care reform legislation that now is the law of the land was passed in accordance with House and Senate rules and procedure, by the majority, which supported it. We’re talking about majority rule here. This is Democracy 101. Democrats have the White House and majorities in the House and Senate. They pass legislation on majority votes. That is how our system works. It is not “illegitimate.”
But it’s the fact that Republicans both inside and outside of Congress have been hammering on and on and on, repeatedly over months and months, telling Americans in every way possible things that are simply not true — of which the “illegitimate usurpation of power” is just one — that has raised some Americans’ fears and anger to the point of violence. Republicans need to take responsibility for that, instead of continuing to claim that the Democratic Party, which won a majority of the popular vote in a legal election, is “illegitimately usurping power” by passing the legislative agenda it campaigned and won on.
Hinderaker himself has clearly bought into these lies, as we see with that line, “I am one of the many millions who are outraged at the Left’s attempt to destroy the private health care system that has served my family so well, and who regard Obamacare as illegitimate.”
This law is not an “attempt to destroy the private health care system,” nor does it do so. This law is a middle-of-the-road, entirely mainstream attempt to curb some of the private health care system’s worst abuses — it does not destroy the private health care system. If Hinderaker’s family has been “well-served” by being refused coverage due to preexisting conditions, or by having a family member’s coverage cancelled for actually needing the insurance, or by skyrocketing premiums, or by paying more every year for less coverage, then okay, I admit it, it’s true, these benefits are being taken away from him. But he will not have to give up his current insurance policy, or any of the doctors any of his family members use. He just won’t. And if he thinks he will, let him find the place in the law where it says he will, and show it to me. I don’t think he can.
For a more concise exposition of the above viewpoint, see Josh Marshall’s piece, “The Undying Shame.”
81 Responses to “Right Dismisses Violence While Continuing To Incite It”
Don't stop now bud. You keep failing to prove your arguments, then keep changing the subject, and I keep knocking this misinformation down.
I'm having a great time.
Was that directed at me? If so, I was away from the computer for a bit because I had to feed the baby (and that would be ma'am, not bud.)
Now, from your link on the doc fix, you seemed to have missed the whole point. Yes, the article is saying that Congress is unlikely to pass their customary fix before the break because the GOP is blocking cloture. And, maybe you didn't catch the last line where Reid vows that they'll do it after the break and make it retroactive:
And from that you're trying to claim that the Dems intend to actually implement the cuts, even though the only reason they haven't passed the waiver for it again is that the GOP is threatening filibuster and the Senate leader is explicitly saying that they intend to pass the extensions after the break?
Why not give us some facts to back up your claims – then address the issue of Republican dishonesty – then admit that regardless of the facts, you will persist in believing things which are simply not true.
If you'll let me know which claims I've made that you feel are inadequately substantiated, I'd be glad to address it.
As for GOP dishonesty- I'm not the one claiming that either side has been honest. Both sides of the debate have been deceptive as usual.
“I also find it childish that you try to discredit me on a simple mistake which has no bearing on my arguments.”
Like a spelling mistake or other typographical error? Oops. [chuckle]
I was debating whether or not to comment on that, since I feel like I'm piling on. It is a bit ballsy to claim that substituting points about one bill for an argument against an entirely different bill 'has no bearing on the argument.'
Points for chutzpah, I guess.
You can be generous, lenient, magnanimious, and let it slide this time.
I almost did, but he had added a spelling quibble to a few runaway remarks he made on another thread, so I dithered but decided to proceed here.
Congratulations on that baby, by the way.
Thanks!
With all that pent up venom, you had me fooled as well CStanley
Now I've finished my research. I hope you're having fun with the baby
. That must be very rewarding and wonderful. God Bless.
You are correct that I missed Reid's promise to pass the amendment when they come back. My mistake. I offer a correction of my previous post. That information was not correct.
However, I found that the Doc Fix is not a part of the Health Reform Bill at all.
The Doc Fix was included in the regular budget proposal, and is not specific to the Health Care Law. It's a whole separate piece of legislation. Sure, it's part of overall health reform. But it's NOT part of the Health Care Bill ! This is why the CBO scored the HCR bill without it – because it's NOT part of HCR funding in the bill.
Basically what you're trying to do is count something that isn't a part of the HCR law as a part of it.
Now IF this were a part of the HCR Bill, that would change the bill's scoring, and you would be correct. The problem is that it is a completely separate piece of legislation.
Is that legitimate? Well, yes in the overall scope of Federal spending absolutely. But your conflating two separate pieces of legislation. By that measure you could conflate spending for Iraq and Afghanistan with Health Care Reform.
I wish I had caught that earlier. It certainly makes me look silly in regards to my last post. Again, my mistake. In my defense I was eating a really good pizza at the time
.
You're a slippery one CStanley. We've managed to get very far off of my original point that Republican claims of Death Panels – Abortion Funding – Government will take over hospitals – how often do I have to repeat this?
I'm still waiting for your answer on all that – a defense of the indefensible, if you will.
And please note, that I have issued 2 factual corrections when I've been wrong here – are you capable of the same?
What was venomous? The only thing I recall writing that was a bit sharp was the “T-ball” comment. I admit leading off with that, with a newcomer, was probably a bit of an incitement but to describe that as a venomous comment relative to most blog smack talk, seems a bit much. Other than that everything I wrote was pretty straightforward rebuttal of Brian's statements.
I'll give you that one bud. I really do think anyone reading your comments would easily perceive that you were questioning the intelligence of liberals.
Kudos for the magnanimous retraction. You're still a little stuck on claiming that the doc fix isn't related to the HCR bill, but I'll let you get by with that one. This is at least an argument which isn't counterfactual, just pushing it a bit. Claiming that they didn't need to account for this is akin to Bush not including Iraq/Afghanistan war funding in the budget. The Obama administration rightly called them out for that and has begun including it- and they should have insisted that Congress do the same with this obvious healthcare expense. Instead, Congress had the CBO score the future Medicare costs as though the cuts will go into effect, even though they obviously have no intention of letting that happen. Get it?
Anyway, me, slippery? LOL. It's called lively debate. There are some good discussions here, mainly because no one gets by with making unsubstantiated claims or using rote talking points. Linking to a blog like Huffpo, for instance, is fine but don't claim it as authoritative. Same goes for people like myself who lean right- I might link to Ed Morrissey but I don't act as though because he says something, this makes it so. I know that no liberal here would accept that, so if I'm making a claim I try to back it with fact and if Iink to an opinion piece I'll say that I agree or disagree with that opinion but I'll also try to explain why.
As for answering about defense of GOP- I did. My answer is that I don't defend GOP dishonesty at all. I just wish you'd quit defending Democratic party dishonesty. Don't make the mistake of assuming that those of us who criticize the Democratic party are of the opinion that the GOP is laudable or trustworthy.
Welcome to TMV.
Please continue Axel, I think your holding back too much, let it flow. =P
Well and you pointed out before I got my post up that you were comparing two different bills. That was a very nice show of integrity on your part.
I've been very aggressive in my arguments lately, and I'm sure you can understand that with all of the blatant dishonesty before the bill was passed, and now these threats and even acts of violence, it's easy to jump into the fray.
If that was even remotely true why do 62% of Americans want the GOp to continue to fight it,
Leonidas, my entire post is the answer to that question. If you don't agree, make your case.
They're all lawyers, on that blog. Unfortunately, that doesn't always imply respect for the law.
I didn't know you had a baby. I mean, obviously I know you have children, but I thought they were all older (i.e., still children, but out of babyhood).
Back in the Fall or '03, when I was in my first and only semester of law school, in the Criminal Law class I sat behind a guy and every class he was reading the Drudge Report.
The very few (2) lawyers that I know personally, seem to have a much higher regard for the law, but neither are politicians.
hi commenters: axel and others, Just use your facts and your opinions about the TOPIC of the article.
thanks
dr.e
Yes, the older two are well out of babyhood so you're not mistaken about that…and I don't think I've mentioned the baby here (except I recall an email correspondence with Dr. E about my pregnancy.) Anyway, my little one was born just before the first of the year.
Hmm. I thought we'd made amends and was looking forward to some lively discussions, but apparently you're still ticked off and I don't really get your complaint. You wanted me to address your charge about GOP dishonesty, which I eventually did- and yes, it was well into the discussion. Why didn't I address it right away? Because I never disputed it so I didn't realize until later that you were still assuming that I was defending GOP rhetoric. If I had at any point said that conservatives were being honest in their rhetoric while Democrats were not, then that would have been an assertion that I should defend- having not said that though, I really didn't expect to be required to defend something I never said.
Bottom line in our discussion is that it was your opinion that the GOP was highly deceitful in the healthcare debate and Dems weren't. I disagree, and I haven't seen anything in your comments or links that are 'provable facts' to dispute my point of view. My disagreement though doesn't amount to an opinion that GOP was honest and Dems weren't- it's that both sides have been dishonest, and furthermore my main complaint with Dems is that when asked to defend their policy there is deflection. If you'll note, this was my initial response to you, that there's been no real attempt to defend the legitimate criticisms of this HCR bill. To me it is quite obvious that all of the overblown complaints about the Tea Party (including labelling its participants with a crude epithet, and constantly painting all of the participants with the excesses of the fringe- something that rightwingers have done to their discredit through the years by ridiculing left wing protesters) has been an attempt by the Democrats to deflect attention from the bill itself with all of its faults. This is my opinion. If you're not convinced, that's your prerogative, but my perspective is that you are falling for the usual tricks that both of our parties play in order to avoid having to actually defend their policies.
I pointed out the doc fix part as it relates to the CBO scoring because this is one of the most blatant ways that the Dems gamed the scoring system. Both parties do this, it's not new or unusual. I also pointed out that what they did in this instance is very similar to what Bush did in keeping the war funding off the books. They fail to include large budget items that clearly should be included in the bills, and then pass the additional funding measures as emergency funding later. That is what I showed you is about to happen with the Medicare provider cuts being delayed, again, as they always are. It's a budgetary sleight of hand, and again, I think you are falling for it.
But if you want to continue being angry at me, or focusing on whether or not I answered your questions or what have you, go right ahead. Unfortunately I think that is a lot of what is wrong with our system- as some of us have said here at TMV many times, the two parties play a great game of 'Let's you and him fight'…meaning that they benefit from turning Dem voters against GOP voters and vice versa, and create these faux controversies that everyone argues over and people on one side focus on anger at the other side without ever really considering what the politicians on their own side are really doing.
I can see where we had a misunderstanding. I am very sorry I didn't pick up on that sooner. I was so hellbent on proving my little point I missed it completely.
I have had too many debates where rather than answering my arguments because they have no counter-argument, the other party simply attempts to change the subject. That is frustrating. I can see now that this was not what was happening. I am happy to admit my misconception and error. I can see where we were misunderstanding each other on that, and I certainly apologize if I crossed any lines.
If you want to continue a more reasoned debate, I believe that the many, many links to relevant information, such as CBO studies which I posted, do indeed disprove your statement that the Democrats don't have any solid arguments for the effectiveness of health care reform. I'm glad for that lively debate also. Intelligent debate I might add, which is terrific.
I don't see where you actually posted a criticism of the Bill, except for the Doc Fix, which we agree uses a budgetary gimmick common to both parties. You are absolutely right on that point. I will be happy to concede that the Dems were “highly deceitful in the health care debate” if you give me some more solid examples. Many of my posts here were pointing out criticisms we've heard from the right which just don't hold up. The point I've been trying to make this whole time is that it seems obvious to me that the level of dishonesty from the right is far, far beyond that of the left at this point. I won't disagree that the left has it's dishonesty, and certainly some in this debate over health care – it just doesn't compare to what we've seen from the right over this issue. Someday that will be reversed, and I for one plan to be making my political calculation based on the facts (I trust you will too and there is no insinuation there, I just reread it and want to clarify) – and if in the future the facts support the Republicans, I will support them too.
Now to address some new points you bring up – have the Dems used the Tea Party and it's outlandish rhetoric to deflect criticism of the plan. Sure. I would accept that in a second. It's not an unreasonable strategy though when the opposition is relying on fabrications to misrepresent what the plan proposes. It's simply pointing out the insanity of some of the claims, and rightfully so. I don't see how that is illegitimate under the circumstances. I will back the Republicans in a second if the Democrats ever resort to such dishonesty. The thing is I just don't see where they have so far, at least on health care.
There is just no comparison in my mind between the dishonesty about the bill which some Dems have engaged in, and the far worse dishonesty the Republicans have perpetrated. It's like an employee telling a white lie once in awhile, and one who's every word has to be double checked.
Now I don't think this is a universal and permanent trait of Republicans and conservatives. I do get carried away and imply that sometimes. I just did that in another post and need to go correct it. But the truth is that right now the balance of fact and evidence backs the Dems. Someday, I expect that they will start to run out of ideas, panic when they start to lose the backing of the people, and start to engage in the same level of dishonesty that the right wing is using now. I will not be a Democrat when that time comes. The real goal here is to do what's right for America.
You're right that both parties are trying to set us against one another. Most times that is simply a cynical and disgusting attempt to convert voters by raw emotion. It's to be deplored in most instances, and in an ideal world wouldn't happen. But right now the balance of truth has swung way beyond that past norm. I'm not going to accept a false comparison between the lies that the parties have engaged in recently.
I hope you see where I'm coming from. I'm used to arguing with some of the more fanatical and extreme elements of the right, and my positions have gotten more fanatical in response. I can see that this forum may have a much different and may I say welcome standard, and I will have to adjust to that. To give you a hint, I live in one of the most conservative segments of the country, and I just don't get many opportunities outside of work and school to debate with reasonable individuals. I can see that this has had an impact on my own reasonableness, and for the worse.
On a personal note, thank you for that very generous and polite response. You're ahead of me there, and that's something I want to be able to embody in the future. I get too worked up over all this, and I need to get some perspective. Congratulations on your baby! That is a beautiful blessing. God Bless and have a great day.
Here's a little olive branch that I thought you might appreciate. It's a BIT off topic, but it pertains to our personal topic of dishonesty in both parties.
I was one of those people very shocked and dismayed at the revelations regarding enhanced interrogation. Now I understand that different people can reasonably disagree on what tactics should be legal under the circumstances of the current war, but we now know that actions were taken which went way beyond anything which was legal at the time. Terrible, terrible crimes were committed by the government, and then covered up, and regardless of how high it went, I always believed that those who were responsible at whatever level would be brought to justice for that. I don't know if Bush knew or Pelosi knew or who did at what level – but I firmly believe that if those who were responsible, both Republican and Democrat, never pay a price – we open the door to more such crimes in the future, and who knows from which party.
One of the reason's I supported Obama and the Democrats during their campaign was their pledge to investigate and rectify that – up to the highest levels. They were very clear on that. Yet what did that pledge come to? Nothing. Now I feel we are in the worst possible situation, where the actions of the previous administration have not been confronted and either punished or excused. I think we have a dangerous precedent where extremely illegal and unconstitutional acts might be engaged in by either party when in power, and they will expect it to be swept under the rug.
Maybe that is what Washington has always done, but this was such a clear cut case that it seems amazing to me that the people involved got away with it.
I think Obama's and the Democrat's dishonesty on this issue may wind up having far worse consequences someday than any of us realize. Debts and deficits and health care policies might not matter much if I can't rely on my own government to defend my rights, but instead have to fear for my rights on account of my own government.
Thank you, Brian, for the well wishes regarding my baby and for the gracious response.
For my part, I'll mention that I think if you'd been following along here for a longer time period during the entire healthcare debate, you'd see that I have expressed a lot of different qualms about the legislation- so although today I only pointed out a couple of things, really I'm expressing my general frustration at never getting straight answers or responses from Democrats who have supported the bill(s). I suppose looking at today's conversation from your perspective, that I haven't effectively made my case about the deflections, but from my perspective it is based on a pattern (not just the current meme about the Tea Partiers or threats, but also starting last summer with Town Hall meetings and during and prior to all that just in general blog discussions- my perspective is that when people do raise legitimate questions, the Democrat response is either to deflect by saying “We have to do something, there is a crisis, and the GOP is just the party of NO”, or alternatively, to shift the focus from the legitimate question that was just raised by pointing out the less legitimate or false claims that have been made about the legislation.
Really, all of the false claims are based on kernels of truth. No, there aren't death panels and we're not going to suddenly face drastic rationing. But there are elements of the bills that disturb people for their potential to set up situations like these: Comparative Effectiveness Panels will decide what is cost effective and what is not. I absolutely do not approve of conservative rhetoric like “Death Panels”. It's stupid, hyperbolic, and unproductive. But I also don't approve of the Democrats using that against the conservatives who want to analyze just how far we might expect things to go with rationing of care (which is inevitable, and yes, just as we currently have rationing according to people's ability to pay and according to the designs of health insurers.) In other words, the new programs will use some criteria to decide what is covered and what is not- and people have a right to ask and receive answers about what those criteria at all. Saying 'read the bill' (which virtually no one has done or could actually do) isn't an answer.
Now to be clear- I am criticizing both sides here. What has happened is the Dems using the foolishness of some GOP/conservatives against them. As a conservative who wants honest debate, this angers me, but my anger goes to both parties. Is it, as you suggest, a reasonable strategy to play people off of each other? Sure, if you want to praise the gamemanship aspect. As a voter and taxpayer though, I know that's a game that I (and you) will lose. So, although you put more responsibility on the side which used overheated rhetoric, I place the blame on both sides because ultimately the Dems have to also be accountable for putting strategy above transparency and accountability to us.
So much of this really is all the mirror image of Iraq policy, with the two sides reversed. Then we had antiwar protestors who were smeared by the GOP, and the rational opposition wasn't heard until very late in the game. The same budgetary trick was used to conceal the real cost of the policies (this is what I was getting at about the health care bill and doc fix- not that I was conflating two different bills, but rather that I was pointing out that they shouldn't be two different bills because that's just a way to make it look like the costs of the second bill aren't part of the policy of the first bill, when of course they are- Medicare reimbursements are one of the major budgetary items in our federal healthcare outlays.)
Anyway…I've gotta sign off now…hope this all gives you some food for thought.
Before I sign off…one more thought about my comparison with the Iraq War and other policies under Bush. Although I do agree with what I just read in your last post, I also think there was LOTS of overheated rhetoric and wild accusations and assumptions then by the left. In some ways, claims were being made which were just as wildly overblown as any of the Tea Partiers' claims about the HCR- maybe more so in terms of paranoia. There were some otherwise intelligent people seeing black helicopters everywhere, claiming that we'd see martial law and a suspension of elections in 2008- that was how they viewed the Bush/Cheney administration.
The people who believe that the Obama administration is made of anti-American, communist, anti-Christ, whatever…are IMO just like the people who saw the Bush administration that way. Now, I do realize you're expressing a much more rational complaint about the enhanced interrogation techniques- an opinion I pretty much agree with- but that's the point- you can express this rationally or irrationally, and many people were doing the latter just like many people on the right are also expressing their concerns in irrational and wildly overblown manner.
But you see the effect is that the real complaints never get addressed because people just ridicule and marginalize the complaintants by painting them with the broad brush that really only applies to the more shrill fringes of the protest movements.
Anyway, my little one was born just before the first of the year.
A New Year's gift! Belated congratulations, Christine. My daughter was born on the first day of the new year, too — but in her case it was the first day of the Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah!
You've got some very good points there CS. Have a good night.
Congratulations to your family as well Kathy.
Thanks Kathy, and that's cool about your daughter's birth date. There's something especially poignant about new life starting in the new year.
Congrats to the recent additions to your families. =D
There's something especially poignant about new life starting in the new year.
Yes, indeed, and for me, I felt that poignancy of “This is a new start” very forcefully for the reason I've mentioned here in the past. In fact, to me, it felt almost eerie.
No it wasn't LOL.
You ramble about the current progressive meme of right wing violence, then go on with gobblygook about some form of popular mandate by being elected for the reasons you think the democrats won in disregard of all the polling data that suggests a deeply divided nation and in more cases than not a disapproval of the bill, as well as a 62% support including a majority of Republicans and independent for Republican efforts to challenge the passed legislation. that case has holes as big as the ones in the bottom of the Titanic.
Would a moderate bill have to rely on reconciliation? If its moderate why so many democrats voting against it and no republicans voting for it? Do Blue Dogs habitually raise a fuss over moderate legislation and vote against it? Can you reasonably answer those questions?