tea parties

Flickr photo by Mike Bryant

Lost in the hubbub about the tea parties, the health care town hall protests, Joe Wilson, and the ACORN sting is the outcome of a long-simmering meta debate about the vibrancy of the grassroots right and its capacity to organize online. Along with a slew of other bad political indicators, the perception that the GOP might be stuck in a permanent Luddite rut reached its peak with the election of Obama and the role the Internet played in his victory.

Nearly a year later, not only have things turned around, but they've done so faster than anyone could have dreamed or imagined in those post-election doldrums.

First, hundreds of thousands of people showed up, flash mob-like, at Tea Parties not even three months after Obama Nation reached its apogee with the inauguration. The left was caught flat-footed and stammered that it must have been the creation of Fox News, although Fox News existed in the latter Bush years and during the McCain interlude and was unable to conjure up a similar display of enthusiasm in that period.

In August, the rightroots gained further velocity with the health care protests. This was significant in that it was the first head to head match with OFA and the unions, and it was no contest.

The third key moment came when Joe Wilson was able to raise as much (if not more) money than his Democratic opponent after the "You lie!" outburst. The left's immediate rallying around Rob Miller was a textbook netroots play, aided by ready-made infrastructure (an ActBlue page ready to accept contributions without crashing and display real-time feedback). For a Republican -- especially one deemed to be on the "wrong" side of a PR war -- to have been competitive in money raised with a netroots Democrat is something that simply would not have happened in the Bush years. This is especially striking given that Markos, Stoller, Bowers et al. made money raised for candidates the sine qua non of the netroots, an outgrowth of the left's 1970s era obsession with countering "big money" in politics.

Finally, the O'Keefe/Giles video bust of ACORN -- the right's biggest media coup since Rathergate -- showed the right to be getting its sea legs in investigative journalism, a space virtually patented by the left in recent years.

What we seem to be witnessing is the Feiler Faster Thesis in action, with a robust grassroots opposition to Obama, aided by the Internet, taking shape far more quickly than anyone could have predicted, and comparatively speaking, in a far more timely fashion than it took the left to gets its act together against Bush.

(The big asterisk in that comparison with the Bush years is 9/11 and the wars, but looking back to August and early September 2001, the Democratic opposition to Bush was weak and defined largely by spineless Washington pols like Tom Daschle rather than a sea of grassroots protest, which became apparent only later when the Internet became a viable organizing vehicle.)

So, the fear that Republicans would be disorganized for months if not years after Obama taking office has proven to be unfounded. The right's rise online (and offline too) has been a pretty automatic reaction to Democratic hegemony in Washington, disproving the notion that there is anything intrinsic to the right or the left driving the use of specific tools. And wrapping this up in a neat little bow, the political environment turns out to be the decisive factor in how emphatically people use the technology, not the other way around.

Understandably, not all of this has been online. Talk radio, and yes, cable news, still plays a role, particularly in the critical task of driving calls to member offices. As I noted on Twitter in August, 

For all the talk about lefty activism recently, it seems the right has an institutional advantage in contacting Congress... on every issue

From immigration to health care, most of the time you hear about a lopsided disparity with one side shutting down phone lines on Capitol Hill, it's conservatives doing it. While the political climate may dictate how effectively the tools get used, the right and left still have a tendency to focus on different things, with the right jumpstarting its movement in recent months with legislative advocacy and moving bodies to events, and while the left first built the netroots around raising money for candidates.

As a skeptic of the hegemony of money in campaigns and a believer in shoeleather organizing, it's not surprising to me that a newly resurgent right has made such an explosive impact on the national debate in the last two months. All the folks who wondered for five years where our response to the netroots was now have their answer.

From the Times-Union:

For Mike Wortenberger, an area small-business owner, this is not his first tea party. Wortenberger has been to two in Indianapolis and one in Warsaw. This week he attended one in Mishawaka.

Wortenberger said it's not an issue of being anti-Democrat or Obama or pro-Republican.

"Basically, I feel the government is out of control," said Wortenberger. "It's not just the Democrats, it's Republicans, too. I don't blame Obama. The system is broken."

Wortenberger said he believes government is ignoring the will of the Founding Fathers. "The Founding Fathers were a lot more intelligent than we are," said Wortenberger. "They used God as guidance and I don't think that's the case anymore."

Wortenberger said he knows of several people making the trip and is traveling with a couple of people. Having been to several tea parties previously, Wortenberger admitted that for some people attending it's "strictly political," but for the majority of those in attendance they feel like Wortenberger in that both sides have let down the American people.

"Our Republicans have ignored us as much as the Democrats," said Wortenberger.

Awhile back, I posted a memo forwarded to me from a friend on Wall Street, wherein one of his firm's senior analysts saw the nation being a bunch of boiled frogs as the Obama adminstration gradually remade the nation in a socialist image.

Of course, the whole "boiled frog" plan was dependent on one thing.

The frog not seeing the thermostat getting turned up. 

Unfortunately for the wee-wees in the White House, the frog noticed.

Now the Obama team is left trying to argue:   

a) The frog really didn't see the thermostat being turned up

b) The frog shouldn't complain about the heat of the water

c) The water really isn't as hot as he thinks it is

d) The frog is a fool and listening to people who want it to freeze to death

e) Hot water is really good for the frog

  Needless to say, the frogs aren't in a buyin mood

(Yes, I know that electric trains generally only have a powered third rail. I'm just extending the metaphor.)

One of the most tired phrases in politics is "Social Security is the third rail of American politics."  The problem is that it's true - Bush figured that out by squandering all of his political capital trying to reform it back in 2005.  It turns out that old people vote and they can be easily scared when the spectre of taking away their government checks is brought up.

We face a similar problem with health care.  It's obvious that the system doesn't work, and not just for people with pre-existing conditions and those who lose coverage.  It costs too much and isn't portable.  The lack of a true national market and the employer coverage model is a failure.  Too many people lack coverage and those people stick hospitals with huge bills for admissions that could have been solved with a visit to the family doctor, if they had one.

That being said, there are a lot of solutions better than Obamacare.  We've heard them before on this site and others and they aren't the point of this post.  The problem is that if Obamacare is defeated, no politician in their right minds will touch the healthcare issue with a 10-foot pole.  In persuing the worthy goal of defeating one specific bill, the issue has been demagogued to the point of insanity with threats of "death panels" (Sen. Isakson (R-GA), who put the provision nominally at issue, thinks this is nuts), "keep government away from my Medicare (note: WTF?) and all sorts of hyperbole about the continued "existence of the republic."

And don't think for a minute that every accusation about killing grannies and such lobbed against government can't be lobbed at private insurers.

So instead of a debate on what to do, we have people holding up pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache shouting down elected officials before they can answer questions.  We have liberals convinced that people who oppose Obamacare are foam-at-the-mouth dittoheads and birthers organized by lobbyists.  And they're partially correct - many (not all) town hall shouters have spouted a lot of nonsense and many are making this personally about the president and anger at losing the last election.  It's embarrasing to people who have real issues with Obamacare who want to and make something work instead of yelling until they're red in the face.

The window for reasonable debate has closed by conservatives who want to make this Obama's Waterloo and liberals who are circling the wagons against a perceived onslaught of crazies.  The next reform proposal from either side will fall into the same pattern.  Eventually, everybody with power to do anything will throw their hands up.

Now healthcare is a "third rail," just like Social Security.  There are other, smaller, third rails to contend with.  Our primary system is rigged to prevent any serious talk about ethanol.  Serious agriculture subsidies reform is stymied because the committees that make ag policy are filled with congressmen from districts that feed off the USDA teat.  We can't have a serious discussion about Israel for long without someone getting called an anti-semite or a zionist likudnik stooge.

The problem?  You can't cut the size of government with all of these third rails in the way.  Everything has to be on the table.

Healthcare isn't just a sixth of the U.S. economy, it's a very big chunk of government spending.  The problem with the deficit hawkery I've heard recently is that it's small bore.  Spending freezes avoid the difficult choices about what exactly we want to cut.  Pork appropriations, non-military foreign aid and arts funding seem like ripe targets for popular cuts, but they make up a vanishingly small part of the budget and won't change the overall fiscal picture.  Survey after survey shows that people think government is too big, but they don't want to cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security education, defense or anything specific beyond the amorphous "waste."  The only real solution is to slow and reverse the growth of healthcare costs while still providing the care people demand, and we are in the process of blowing it for the next several decades by turning a deadly serious issue over to the loudest, angriest, least reasonable wing of the movement, destroying any hope of comprimise a la Wyden-Bennett.

In the zeal to stop a bad new policy, we have guaranteed decades of the bad old policy.  Good job guys.

David Wu melted down at a townhall in Oregon when asked why he won't read the health care bill or the cap and trade bill. Watch it here:

Congressman Wu meets Samurai Mom from WashCoGOP Oregon on Vimeo.

Wu managed no coherent response. That isn't totally unusual for him. I was in the House chambers for the Medicare vote, when I worked for Nick Smith. There were many strange things that night. But one of the weirdest was Wu's behavior. David Broder reported (pdf) that a fellow member of the House described him as "almost catatonic."

But hey, why be able to read or explain a bill that he thinks is one of the most important ever, right?

H/T NWDigest.

The basic reason for the Tea Party protests is the concern about government spending and wasteful practices, and that many feel their concerns about government spending and bailouts are not being heard. A interesting element of the Tea Parties is the make up of the participants. They were a rather diverse group of fiscal conservatives. Some in the media used the protests to promote their own brand of conservatism, or on the other extreme, some in the media dismissed the protesters as 'radical right' crazies. However, if you look at local news coverage of the Tea Parties you can see that they represented a wide range of people who have a legitimate concern about how the government spends money. President Obama would likely have been better served by ignoring the protesters, as was the White House's first reaction to the Tea Parties. Belittling these people was politically unwise, and pretending that his administration has addressed any of the concerns of fiscal conservatives was less than honest.

H/T Flaps Blog and RedState

Obama on "People Who Wave Tea Bags Around"

RCP article CNN Versus the Tea Parties does an excellent job in explaining why so many in the middle class don't like Washington's big spending. The argument about taxes often devolves into condescending remarks from the left stating that these people obviously don't realize that their taxes will not go up. This is then followed by rather useless statements from the right trying to drum up sympathy for the wealthy who pay a much higher percentage of taxes. Both sides miss two key point; trust and math. What many of the Tea Party participants were saying to the government was,

'I don't trust you with my money.'

'Who will pay for this trillion dollar deficit?'

'How does this colosal debt really help the country and the economy in the long run?'

'How will you avoid massive inflation if you keep spending at this rate?'

Fairness arguments fall flat, because life's not fair, and trying to convince people that the wealthy have a raw deal will not engender much sympathy. 'What works,' would be a much better tact for fiscal conservatives, as the Tea Parties showed many people do not feel that reckless government spending 'works.'

What Ms. Roesgen and others like her do not understand is that some people are interested in more than their own narrow self-interest. Perhaps the protestor she interviewed, who was holding his 2-year-old son, is eligible for a tax rebate. And perhaps his state will get a juicy piece of the stimulus money. It is possible, just possible, that such a bribe does not influence him. Perhaps it doesn't buy his support because he is skeptical that his taxes can remain low when the federal government is embarked on a record-shattering spending spree. He may be offended by the bailout culture, and worried that the obligations of taxpayers cannot remain low when it seems that every irresponsible borrower, failed car company, and free spending state is being rescued by the federal government. Additionally, he may be dubious that the government will spend the money wisely. It has been rumored that government spending has produced waste, fraud, inefficiency, and corruption. But he also may simply believe that engorging the government and enfeebling the private sector -- no matter who is writing the checks -- is not good for the economic or spiritual health of the country.

Middle Class Protest Deserves More Credence

Congress is buzzing about attacking health care after the Easter recess. Coming off the success of the tea parties nationwide, let’s carry that momentum to the fight to protect our rights as patients and Americans.

First, for those of you who are ready to act, the practical tools to get you started. Then, the background.

1. Sign this petition: It asks politicians to “First, Do No Harm” as they consider health reform. A quick look will give you plenty to shout about! 

2. Enter this video contest: Think about all your fellow Americans who need to understand why we believe as we do about health care. Why don’t we want the federal government making decisions about our health and controlling our insurance coverage? Make a creative video that will reach your neighbors and arrest their attention! 

What it’s all about:

If you’ve been focused on Tax Day and need a little catching up on health care, we’ve got you covered. The Health Policy Consensus Group, a coalition of free-market health policy experts, put together a statement expressing the dangers of proposals on the table. This gives a great rundown of what needs to be stopped, and why. Pass it around! [In case you’re wondering, the next Consensus Group statement will detail what we’re FOR – but first, we felt we needed to explain why we’re against these proposals.]

Some background:

Health care is a tax issue, too. We will be called upon to fund the $634-billion (some now say $1-trillion) health agenda of President Obama, and the billions for the Health and Human Services Department to head up health IT and comparative effectiveness research. But that’s only the beginning.

An individual mandate for health insurance – ordering everyone to purchase a certain government-determined policy – would carry tax penalties for those who don’t comply. In Massachusetts, where they’re a step ahead on this experiment, that annual penalty for noncompliance has passed the $1,000 mark and is rising. 

Even more likely: new mandates on businesses to provide a government-designated level of benefits and to pay the piper if they don’t. Punishing businesses for hiring people isn’t the way to help workers already struggling in this economy.

Each new tax chips away at our freedom. And there are other freedoms in the balance in this debate. The creation of a public insurance program, whether it looks like a Medicare-for-all or a slight knockoff, threatens our options for health insurance. The hallmark of Medicare and Medicaid, those huge government insurance programs, is paying doctors and hospitals at much lower rates. Private insurance – that is, the rest of us – makes up the difference now, but what if private insurance isn’t around any more?

A new public (and yes, that means government-run, even though The New York Times thinks that term is fearmongering) health insurance plan would be able to set its premium prices far lower than private insurance. What business can compete with tax subsidies and severe underpricing?

Along with the artificially low premiums, a public insurance plan would more than likely pay doctors and hospitals less for their services than private insurance does. Medicare doesn’t even cover health providers’ costs. If millions more Americans join a public plan that pays like Medicare, we could face a serious crisis just to keep doctors and hospitals in business. Considering we already have a shortage of primary care doctors, this doesn’t sound like a grand idea.

You spread the word and got fired up about your taxes. Now what about your health? Your health, your freedom to make choices about your family’s health care, not to mention MORE taxes – these are worth your time.  

Sign the petition

Enter the video contest

Inappropriate Humor Alert...

Tea Party protesters won a victory today as the mainstream media could not ignore their protests like they have in the past. As expected some of the media described the protesters as radicals (ever-classy and most-trusted Anderson Cooper of CNN used an obscene joke to describe the attendees) despite the pictures showing peaceful gatherings of people of all ages in attendance. Yet media logic dictates if you don't love Obama, you must be crazy. Yet it's not just the media searching for crazy. A report was leaked by DHS on "Rightwing Extremism." To quote the report,

Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures.

Dang it, I'm a radical. There were signs, once in high school I got a detention for a overdue library book; even back then I was bad. My internet chatter about obscene government spending has all been a clever ploy to manipulate my readers to take radical action like, 'vote the bums out,' or 'tell your representatives what you think.' I tell you I'm bad, and if I didn't have a job or a cold I would have been one of those crazy tea party animals too. You need further proof that I'm a radical? How about this...

Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and corporations as a part of subversion strategy.

Well there you have it. I'm concerned that China owns us, and all our debt, I must be a radical. Granted, I'm a centrist on guns and immigration, and lean a bit left on the social issues discussed in the report, but imagine my surprise to find out that I've been cavorting with other radicals over the past 2 years by volunteering for the McCain campaign. Pro-life, pro-second amendment, high concentration of veterans, don't let the good humor, sarcastic wit, family values, and helpful manner fool you - we were all a big bunch of radicals, just ask MSNBC.

Now I know there is a serious side to this report. Every group in every country has its nutballs, and its the government's main job to protect its citizens from radicals of all sorts. Yet this seems like a veiled attempt to blur the line between staunch conservatives and radical Klan-like groups, when in reality that is a very clear and distict line. Veterans in particular are owed an apology for their less than flattering portrayal in this report. As for me, I'm going to keep chattering about the economy, and take pride in the fact that someone out there thinks I'm radical.

You Could Be A Radical Too...

Mainstream media personalities have begun making a sport out of ridiculing “tea parties.” If you’re living on Mars, tea parties are spontaneously formed groups of activists disgusted with just about everything the federal government is doing. But in the marble bosom of the socialist salon, teaparties would seem to be the stuff of humor: