Due to the ridiculous, irrational and generally bat-shit crazy nature of most of the recent town hall protests, I shall attempt to stay within the the traditional bounds of taste and calm argument. But then again you need crazy to fight crazy. Despite numerous allegations, forged Kenyan documents and Soviet-born attorney/real estate agent/dentist wackjobs arguing to the contrary, I still must state that I do not believe that Glenn Beck is a suppository. Despite ample evidence, similarities in intelligence, coherence, emotional stability and where their heads usually end up, I still do not believe Glenn Beck is a suppository. Still, on a daily basis he provides no evidence that he isn’t. Now that I’ve opened this Lou Dobbsesque approach to the political issues of our day, let us consider the combined One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest-Cocoon reenactment of belligerence that has more commonly been referred to as “town halls”.
To begin with, it is worth expressing my belief that despite my own strong convictions on the question of health care reform, there are numerous reasonable, thoughtful, sincere and intelligent critiques that can be made of the present nature of the health care reform before congress. Despite efforts to resolve the issues, there are numerous questions of financing which can seriously and sincerely be debated to good effect. A number of analyses of the current plan don’t predict significant savings to the system as a whole, which has been an argument for health care reform and will become an even more necessary change due to growing entitlement obligations and costs in coming years. Furthermore, while fears of a public option driving private firms out of business are as half baked as dipping Doritos in Nutella, the precise structure and nature of a public option could again be reasonably debated. A public option would pressure private firms while also supporting the expansion of employer provided healthcare, but it would expand government obligations and though Medicare has been one of the most popular and effective programs some doubt it could be a sustainable model for a larger plan. These are just a few of the smaller questions possible in debating healthcare reform, but clearly there are multiple thoughtful positions.
In considering the growth of the town hall movement and the sources of its buzzwords such as “death panel” a good place to start is Sarah Palin, who due to the insane fees right-wingers will pay to see the nation’s hottest former governor-granny, was able to inexplicably quit her job earlier this summer without enduring the fear of lost health insurance that most Americans would if they quit their own jobs. As if her failed pep-talk/beach-front announcement of her resignation weren’t incoherent enough, her actual resignation speech sounded like something composed by chimps on magic mushrooms signing to a dyslexic beat poet who then combined the notes into a single document. My chimp theory may sound ridiculous, but it’s generous, I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to humanity that we couldn’t write such a thing short of such a process. If you have any doubts, you’ll find Vanity Fair’s edited version of her speech here. As if these oratorical abominations weren’t enough, the helo-hunter is back with her thoughts on American health care reform. Though I may find her presence and popularity irritating, I still try to find some good in most things Sarah Palin says. Usually that mean humor but I’m open to whatever comes. In her most recent statements, the former governor has instead adopted an approach which I’ll name “don’t let Obama’s dingo eat my special needs baby.” Additionally, the former governor has brought us the wonderful term “death panel”, which while it refers to actual end of life counseling, bears no actual resemblance to its antecedent and exists in the same dimension as Dick Cheney’s conscience/soul/knowledge of firearm safety. But despite being a fabrication as real as her qualifications for the presidency, the death panel rumor has spun on and on despite articles debunking it in the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post and virtually every major newspaper not owned by Rupert Murdoch or Moonies. In many ways, Sarah Palin’s own popularity and position is remarkably similar to the nature of the current healthcare debate and the opposition to reform. Palin supporters are truly a faithful group, believing frequently in the disproven and nonexistent. For example, they believe in her high ethical standards and while a number of the suits filed against her were frivolous, the largest ethical question, so-called “Trooper gate”, found her to be violating Alaskan ethics law. Also they believe in her competency to lead our nation and that she will one day be elected president. If I believed more strongly in her chances I’d buy canned goods and a ticket to Denmark. But the defining quality of this faith in Palin as well as in the birther movement and opposition to healthcare reform, three distinct but heavily overlapping contingents, is the lack of any need for evidence other than that which confirms already held beliefs.
This lack of need for proof is endemic in the present era, but with these conservative political causes it becomes worse as such sources as Fox News continually pound their audiences with allegations and rumors until they’re taken to be fact. Simultaneously, actual facts, such as the viewing and analysis of President Obama’s birth certificate by nonpartisan groups, are shoved under a rug beneath O’Reilly’s ego, never to see the light of day again, though they might be sexually harassed with a falafel or a loofah, depending on whether a certain blowhard studies his vocabulary cards closely enough. Such clear evidence as birth announcements in newspapers or a hospital can be easily tossed aside by those who would rather believe something to be true rather than to consider if it actually is.
While many reasonable people have gone to town hall meetings, have protested and have asked questions, many people have attended simply to cause disturbances. But some lesson can be learned. For example, we’ve learned that the only guy dumber than one who brings a knife to a gunfight is the jackass who brings a gun to a Presidential town hall meeting and gets interrogated by federal agents. Another regular battle we can learn from is the debates between legislator who have so-called “facts” and constituents who come armed with “well, Glenn Beck says”. For the record let me say this: getting news analysis from Glenn Beck is like preparing for a murder trial by watching a Matlock marathon stoned. I can’t say for certain, but I think I’ve known Jack Russell terriers that had a more informed grasp of public policy then Glenn Beck and what’s more, they didn’t cry all the time.
It is a strange sort of cycle that the most radical opposition to healthcare reform has caused: Every time Michele Bachman gives a speech, one of the founding fathers rolls over in his grave. Every time Michael Steele speaks, the three other black Republicans become extremely embarrassed and question why they’re Republicans, which is an interesting question in itself. Every time Sarah Palin speaks, everyone wonders what the hell she’s talking about. However, her supporters don’t need to know what’s she’s saying because they are not driven by coherent thoughts but rather messages sent in Morse code to their fillings. Meanwhile, her critics are still trying to figure out what the hell she’s talking about as a sort of Alaskan anthropological study. And John McCain’s probably trying to look down her shirt, or as he likes to say “remembering why I chose her for my running mate.”
Ultimately I’m not saying that all who oppose healthcare are crazy, self-interested or really, really crazy. Though I would say the cause isn’t wanting for the tinfoil fedora regiment. Sometimes intelligent, independent minded people can find themselves in agreement with people whom they would disagree with on virtually every issue and aspect of their world view. That said, if you show up to your book club and the other regulars are Pinochet, Mugabe, Mao and Colonel Sanders, it might be a bad sign (Col. Sanders is more amoral than anything and served as filler in the book club example, much like chicken is a rare filler in his food). A reasonable debate is probably impossible, but on future issues hopefully some level of sanity, if not civility, may be maintained and we’ll end up with something other than an older, white and overweight version of the “Beat It” video.
Will Baldwin is the Cornell Democrats Director of Community Relations
