A friend has called me out as a dupe because (gasp) a conservative foundation has launched an anti-Obamacare patient advocacy group and has been called out (oh noes) by some progressive leftist public interest organizations and blogs. Wow, one set of highly organized partisans deeply invested in the outcome of a political issue are dismissive of their opposition because it might (gasp) involve a set of highly organized partisans deeply invested in the contrary outcome of same political issue. Whoda thunk?
Perhaps more germane is the fact that using the involvement of partisan organizations in any political protest to invalidate the protest itself is a distraction. It is a feat of rhetorical legerdemain that allows one to sidestep the argument by pointing at people with complaints and saying, “oh they aren’t sincere,” “they don’t know what they’re talking about,” without dealing with the legitimacy of their complaints. Oh, someone somewhere might have given someone some funding, we don’t have to listen to them.
It’s also kind of illustrative of the echo chamber effect. In the Wonk Room post linked above they use the following language:
After orchestrating and funding the so-called Tea Parties movement, Americans for Prosperity — a nationwide front group founded and funded by the right-wing polluter Koch Industries — is launching an ad campaign characterizing President Obama’s effort to reform the health care system as a government take-over that will ration care and care and deny treatments.
Wow, you can see why my friend Steve thought I was a dupe. According to that graph, the evil “Americans for Prosperity” are the invisible hand behind the whole tea party movement. (BTW isn’t it asinine to use “So-Called” when you’re already using the word’s “Tea Party” as a slur. Or are there some ligit form of “Tea Party” you want to distinguish? Oh well, moving on.) If you follow the first link, though, you find that:
Despite these attempts to make the “movement” appear organic, the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works.
Okay, sloppy language in the first post, they obviously meant that Americans for Prosperity was only one of two “principle organizers.” (Weasel word alert. Define the level of support required to make a “principle organizer.” How many tea parties do you have to organize? All? Half? 25%? A dozen? Six? ) So what have they done? Well Freedom Works’ sinister plans involve a trio of websites (apparently you can make a web site look “amateurish” by having a slick flash intro, good to know) distributing literature, and advice on sign construction. Americans for Prosperity went so far to hide their hand in the movement by posting a half-dozen events on their website. Damn them!
So it’s all been outed, we’re all puppets of the ebil corporate lobbyists. So what do these deluded servants of corporate hegemony look like?
Well here are some, the guy in the Green Party T-shirt is obviously a mole for the insurance industry. And then there are those ungrateful people in Michigan, don’t they realize that Obama saved the car industry? Damn, these people actually infiltrated Revenna, is no place safe from creeping Astroturf? San Diego? Aren’t they liberal there? What about San Jose? Boston? And here we have the obvious signs of a monolithic, synchronized, top-down movement under the centralized control of sinister conservative groups with Rove-like organizational prowess. CNN is obviously part of the conspiracy for omitting the sinister influence from their coverage. Not to mention the ABC affiliate in Fresno. Of course we know that the Soddom and Gommorah of modern crypto-fascist neocon pro-corporatist ideology are Vegas and Reno. At least our brave representives from Virginia, and Missouri know how to deal with these threats to the republic.
You know I posted about this line of thought earlier:
Apparently because I do not accept the Kensyan kool-aid of wild government spending, or the evil “necessity” of nationalizing banks and auto manufacturers I must be a candidate for the tinfoil hat brigade. But maybe Mr. Cooper is right, and it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that trillion dollar deficits will never raise tax rates, just like that real estate market will never go bust, and the stock market will always go up.
We can add to that the fact that I don’t believe that the same entity that runs Medicare, Medicaid and the VA is somehow going to miraculously become more efficient than private insurance and save us money and give me and my family better health care now makes me a dupe of evil corporate lobbyists.
16 Comments
Steve Buchheit · July 22, 2009 at 9:25 am
My point was that you claimed the Tea Parties to be an organic outgrowth of public discontent, and that my earlier comment (and I believe you refuted this on your blog) that it was a staged performance for conservative purposes was wrong. My link to the source watch articles shows the ties between Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity which started the Tea-Parties and helped organize them (and are now behind Patients United Now).
I do not doubt your sincerity, Steve. I know you have the courage of your convictions. And I know you personally don’t feel like you’re being used and you went to the protests because you felt affinity to their stated purposes. For that, I encourage you to continue to make your voice heard (and I hope you know me well enough to know that I mean that fully).
However, as I stated before, the Tea Party movement was compromised from the get go. I would be as if I held an Obama party in my home, as I was urged to do by his campaign, and declare it a grassroots movement to elect him. Or if I would answer the call to any of MoveOn.org’s requests to go out and protest and say it was “grassroots.”
As to all the photos of all the protests you of all people know there are conservatives everywhere (as well as libertarians of all stripes) and that just because someone is “Green” doesn’t make them liberal (see bruhaha over nominating Nader as their Presidential Candidate). But this is what I see in all those links to the protests, white people (if I missed a minority in any of those photos, please point them out to me), conservatives, protesting at “liberal” congressmen and politicians’ speeches and offices, also carrying signs for other conservative causes, and bashing Obama (fair enough, the current President is often the focus of discontent) over some policies started under Bush (the bank bail out).
As for CNN and other MSM omitting the link or not fully investigating the movement, I believe you already feel they don’t do their full job as journalists, and I believe you have already heard me criticize them as well.
What I was pointing out was the movement was started and funded by a lobbying group which is attempting to hide behind “grassroots” (and tell me if looking at the Americans for Prosperity and Patients United Now websites you see them claim anything other than “grassroots”) but are really astroturf.
That doesn’t mean you can’t agree with their positions, but you can’t claim “grassroots.”
Steve Buchheit · July 22, 2009 at 10:04 am
In re-reviewing the pictures, there’s one with four kids who may be Indian or Hispanic. So I’ll modify my statement to “vast majority white” protest.
PeterWilliam · July 22, 2009 at 10:21 am
I have, since becoming an adult in 1989, worked in healthcare. I’ve even been a clinic manager at Stanford University hospital. Yet, I can see the writing on the wall and know exactly what this industry about. I will likely be evacuating the healthcare industry before the end of the month (waiting to hear back). With a mortgage and newborn about to arrive, it’s a necessity.
S Andrew Swann · July 22, 2009 at 12:22 pm
If I missed a minority in any of those photos, please point them out to me
No, that wasn’t in the original blog post, but I didn’t think a racial breakdown was the point.
———————————
as for this:
Dude, you’re buying into a bill of goods if you believe that somehow “Americans for Prosperity” orchestrated all this. I could spam this post with literally hundreds of links to different events all over the country and trying to blame one pissant think-tank for all of this is giving them a hell of a lot more credit than they deserve. You’re playing the same guilt-by-association game that partisan GOP twits use to blame every single anti-war protest on George Soros and every Obama rally on ACORN and the SEIU.
S Andrew Swann · July 22, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Oh and as far as them “starting the movement” according to The Christian Science Monitor
But what do they know?
Steve Buchheit · July 22, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Supported (funded) by think-tanks but it’s a grass-roots movement? A top-down grass-root organization? Remember the sign in one of your rebuttal articles that said something like “Whoever pays makes the rules”?
I wonder where they’ll find help with organizing their national coalition?
Notice that the organizers also only stopped inviting conservative speakers when that connection was pointed out and organizers remembered that, hey, those conservative politicians brought about a lot of this debt themselves.
As for the racial composite of the protests, I may have mis-remembered a blog post or rebuttal, so I apologize for making that comment here.
Steve Buchheit · July 22, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Forgot to include this part, I’ll concede that the first protests were grass-roots, but, even as the article then says, it was quickly co-opted by larger interests.
michelle · July 22, 2009 at 1:39 pm
OMFG, Steve Buchheit – you did NOT just attempt to make ME A RACIST. Or someone TOO STUPID to “understand” I’m being used. Since you are my husband’s friend and I would like to like you, I’m going to try to NOT call you every FUCKING name that’s going through my head right now and just assume you’re tired, having a bad day, not thinking clearly, etc.
DUDE – I was ON the planning committee for the SOLON tea party. You know, the one with Steve in the picture. IT WAS NOT FUNDED BY ANY ORGANIZATIONS. Also, of all the people I talked to that day, no one had EVER protested before but EVERYONE said they couldn’t stand by and watch their country be destroyed. And there WERE BLACK PEOPLE AT THE SOLON TEA PARTY. By the way, the police department told us if we had more than 25 people show up we would have the biggest protest in Solon HISTORY. WE HAD 250 SHOW UP. SOME WERE BLACK, SOME WERE CHINESE, SOME WERE (GASP) WHITE. Somehow the white people DISCREDIT the movement? WHATEVER.
There were rallies in Solon, Cleveland, Medina, Ravenna, Bainbridge, Chardon, Ashtabula, etc., etc. I bet there was even a rally in your little oasis of ORWELL – Yep, I just checked and it was held at 62 N Maple Street, Orwell, OH 44076. I assume you know where that is, I don’t.
Trying to say the THOUSANDS of tea parties across the country on both April 15th and July 4th were funded by some corporation and therefore not ‘grassroots’ is just BULLSHIT and you know it. It’s FUCKING BULLSHIT.
Someone in my family has a saying that I agree with: “I have 2 fears, one is that we are heading towards another civil war. The other fear is that we’re not.”
Peter William – Since you are in the healthcare field, I would like to hear more about your take on the healthcare bill.
S Andrew Swann · July 22, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I’m afraid of a civil war erupting on my blog. . .
But it is sort of what happens when you start this whole Astroturf nonsense. WTF? Why is it that a guy getting together 250 people from his basement is legit only insofar as neither he nor any of the people he organizes have no contact with some larger outside group? Someone downloads sign ideas from the internet, Astroturf. Someone participates on an online-forum, Astroturf. Someone speaks at a rally who has ties to something or other, Astroturf. Someone buys a T-shirt from Cafe-Press, Astroturf.
It’s a meaningless term that only serves as a) an attack on an opposing POV that doesn’t address the argument at issue and b) a security blanket used to reassure oneself that there’s no way so many people actually hold these opposing views, they all must have been bought off.
Steve Buchheit · July 22, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Michelle, again, I must have mis-remembered a post or comment about the race thing, and for that I apologize.
And, yes, we did have a rally. It was organized locally (if you can call it organized). They asked for extra police coverage (I’m Chairman of Safety). And as I’ve noted elsewhere, protesting excessive government spending on a day where I would have to pay an officer double-time to baby-sit the protest is at the very least ironic.
Just as your husband believes I’m being mislead by those “progressive leftist public interest organizations and blogs” and being a tool about it (and he may be right), that is at same the level that I believe you are being lead as well.
There was a template set up, even a name, for the protest even before you organized it. There was a common date and principles. That’s what’s known as organization, there were thousands of parties, as you say, all on the same day. The funding doesn’t need to be direct, it could just be enough to make sure everybody knows to have a protest on April 15 and July 4 and what to have it about. Get the word out through communication routes (news, newsletters, other organizations and social networks) and stir up the conversation on the national stage. Viral marketing techniques.
And just like I participated in an Anti-War protest, I can’t claim it was grassroots organized (as it was organized by my Union and scheduled to take place the same weekend as other protests around the country, although my local was responsible for organizing and getting all the permits here in Cleveland).
My post all started with researching Patients United Now. As I dug deeper into it’s background I started seeing connections to other groups, most of which lead back to Koch Industries. That lead to American’s for Prosperity and their claim (and others making the claim) they were connected to and pushing the Tea Parties (http://www.americansforprosperity.org/search/node/tea+party – and note, Steve, their use of “Tea Party”, although not the name of the actual protest as far back as 2007 – even 2006 calling for a “Second Great American Tea Party”, far before the grassroots the CSM points to).
Steve Buchheit · July 22, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“a) an attack on an opposing POV that doesn’t address the argument at issue”
I believe I have addressed the arguments at issue on my blog. Unfortunately I don’t think we’ve seen each other in the flesh since January, but I think you know my views on these issues.
“and b) a security blanket used to reassure oneself that there’s no way so many people actually hold these opposing views, they all must have been bought off.”
Again, see my comments above that I know you and your wife, and many people who attended those “parties”, hold your opinions honestly. I know there are subtle differences between the main movement and your own opinions.
Also, as you may see, I’m not arguing that you’re being “bought off” (as in a paid actor), but that your discontent and dissent is being channeled and framed by others.
S Andrew Swann · July 23, 2009 at 7:35 am
So it is impossible to have any sort of national-level grass-roots protest because any such enterprise requires a level of organization that automatically renders it “Atroturf” by these definitions.
I’m afraid I take issue with the conclusions you draw. The fact is, you’ve taken a position defining grass roots vs. Astroturf in such a way as to render the terms meaningless. We no longer even have to have direct involvement by some overarching lobbying group, all they have to do is sit on the sidelines and claim credit and “frame the debate.”
In case you haven’t noticed, that’s what think tanks do, their job is to “frame the debate.” That’s what the media does, what politicians do. . . And resorting to saying “well they named the damn thing,” come on. People have been calling Tax Protests tea parties since at least the seventies. It’s not a new term. And I’ll take a wild ass guess that when Rick Santelli melted down on the trading floor he came up with the same idea all on his own.
Why is it so important to draw the distinction? Why is it important to the left that a dozen people picketing in Providence are part of some vast conspiratorial network? (You know what we used to call those networks? Political parties)
(BTW- “irony,” your comment exactly mirrors the old right-wing comment about the anti-war protesters picketing the very institutions that allow them the freedom to protest. Sorta how our country works.)
Steve Buchheit · July 23, 2009 at 8:16 am
Steve, you may be right that the position I’m taking renders the terms meaningless and I’ll have to think on that. And I do see the irony.
I see more involvement by these groups in directing the protests than I think you do. I could be wrong in my assessment, a view aided by many of those “leftist public interest organizations and blogs.”
As to why is it important to me? Because (I think) I see good people (the average protestors) with good intentions (the debt and deficit coupled with the Federal Reserve “unreserving” is very worrying) being used for other purposes (larger attacks on the administration and its other programs). And that bothers me.
michelle · July 23, 2009 at 10:53 am
Steve B – My discontent and dissent and frustration and anger are all being channeled and framed by a larger entity – You’re absolutely right. I’ll admit it, THE GOVERNMENT are the ones channeling all my emotions.
As for sleazy connections you could spend your time persuing, instead of worrying about connections in protest parties, which hold no power, why not check out the connections between ACORN, SEIU, GOLDMAN-SACHS AND THE ADMINISTRATION. Do you realize how many members of the board of Goldman-Sachs now work in the administration? Goldman-Sachs, the folks that bought AIG. You know why the government wouldn’t give Lehman Bros any of the bailout money? Because they were Goldman-Sachs biggest competitors and people fromt the board of Goldman-Sachs are now making the decisions as to where the money is spent.
IMO, those are much more worthy ties to make, since those folks actually hold power and control government and money distribution. The tea parties are not doing anything but protesting.
S Andrew Swann · July 23, 2009 at 12:28 pm
There you reveal your blind-spot. The protests are, in general, opposing the growth of 1)the federal government 2)deficit spending and 3)taxation to support #1 & #2. The fact that the people opposing these things oppose an administration that’s given use little more than promises, trillion dollar deficits and massive federal intervention into major sectors of the economy (finance, manufacturing, energy and health care) should not be surprising, much less a sign of some larger entity channeling the discontent to other ends. frankly, it would be bizarre if anyone at a Tea Party did not support “larger attacks on the administration and its other programs.”
I know health care reform is a pet issue of yours, but the fact that the fiscal hawks in the tea parties appose its current incarnation has more to do with a 1.6 Trillion dollar price tag, federal power grabs, and a disturbing aversion to daylight in Congress than it does any pernicious influence by lobbying groups.
Steve Buchheit · July 25, 2009 at 1:12 am
Michelle, yes I’ve seen those links and I do believe that colored Paulson’s behavior (and the links to Goldman-Sacks has been there since GHW Bush’s administration). Also how quickly GS’s petition to become a “bank” that was approved last December. There have been other linkages between businesses and government which have also been just as disturbing, including the outsourcing done by the previous administration.
Steve, that’s a lot of things to heft onto an administration that is now just half a year old. Some of it is your politics, which is a fair position. We hold different positions on those issues because of our independent political philosphies and life stories. While the underlying issues I think we agree on (too high a debt, government involvement in private business, need for reform in healthcare), our take on the neccessity and potential outcomes differ.
Comments are closed.