Apple of Doubt

The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.

– George Orwell

It started with a group of protestors shouting down an elected representative as they were trying to discuss why they supported Obama’s current healthcare bill. From there the meme spread like wildfire through popular media. Well meaning people, the lunatic fringe, professional political groups with morally suspect funding, and those caught up in the mix have been descending on town halls across the country. So the democrats and progressive groups have mobilized an effort to counter them. A country of often irrational partisanism meeting in cramped town halls with raised voices. Violence was, perhaps, inevitable.

So how have the pundit class responded to this surge in protest tactics from the right? Their bread and butter has always been overgeneralization and tribalism and what a marvelous opportunity to paint their opponents with a broad bloody brush. You can’t step two links out into the right-wing blogosphere without encountering the words “union thugs”. While the liberal-sphere’s allegations have been dismissive of the genuine emotions harnessed by right-wing groups to fuel the protests. Both of them fighting for an edge in the popular narrative but I can’t help but notice one of these things is not like the other. Though admittedly leading democrats have been trying hard to fit their foots into their mouths.

Conservatives could have defused the situation at day one by simply saying those protestors shouting down the opposition were behaving rudely and undemocratically. From that point on nothing that was done at these protests could be used as ammo. Instead legions of right-wing twitterers have slapped “I Am The Mob” onto their avatars scaring the hell out of people all too familiar with political extremism through the ages. Democratic candidates distance themselves from eco-extremists and the anti-capitalist left while Republicans embrace racialist groups and John Birchers. American conservatives have always been more adept at cultivating popular rhetoric through fomenting disgust and disillusionment, perhaps because of their close association with their own fringe.

It’s tempting to say, with a wink, that the right has discovered, or rediscovered, protesting. Of course the right has a long history of protesting. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that America has a long history of reactionary protest. For every major, and a great deal of minor, changes in America there is always a contingent vocally opposed to it. So these protests against a radical change in this country’s healthcare are not a unique or sui generis phenomena. Nor are they, by themselves, evidence of widespread disapproval against it as some have taken to treating them to be. Protests like this can exist independent of general opinion.

This new “wave” of political violence isn’t mainstream just yet. There are always extremists, radicals, malcontents and little tyrants in every movement and ideology. It, as they say, takes all kinds. So I don’t think the actions surrounding these town halls are proof of a new stage in the devolution of american political discourse. This is not to say that there hasn’t been a growing radicalism in right wing politics over the the past decade or so just that I don’t see these protests as a turning point but an all too foreseeable outbreak.. These might be the preliminary moments of a turn for the worst in the way we as a country approach politics but at this stage I’m skeptical.

Why shout down your opponents? Often it’s a tactic used out of desperation or an emotional reaction but what else could it be? Do those who use this tactic feel the speaker is somehow illegitamite? That they have some ulterior motive? If so then it’s just a case of over enthusiastic bulverism which fails to account for the well intentioned man on the street who supports the policy.  Perhaps it’s a basic disrespect for those speaking as if all those who disagree or hold a certain ideology are not worth talking to. That would fall in line with what some conservatives say and the demonization popular amongst pundits. Maybe it’s a true conviction that the opposition is evil and is to be defeated at all costs. It’s that kind of thinking that frightens me the most.

It could be the barbaric side of realpolitik that treats policy engagements as the evolutionary replacement for pitch battles. Through such a view there are may be no standards of decorum or rationality in politics, only being about who can rattle their sabers the loudest and scare the populace the most. The kind of empty headed loud mouthed rhetoric that dominates the pundit class. In the end it’s like a mix of all the above but none of them strike me as particularly convincing justifications for their strategy.

In the end I think these protests are now mostly a mixture of true grass roots sentiment whose flame is being fanned by well funded political groups. Like any form of  direct political activism it tends to attract extremists. We should denounce these extremists everywhere we see them if we believe in open discourse but should be careful to seperate the legitimate arguments from extremist antics. I think there is a great deal of absurdity in the arguments against public healthcare in general and that those with the loudest voices are often not the brightest lights. However I doubt the efficacy of these tactics. While a great tool to energize the conservative base and attracting media attention to their message it strikes me as, ultimately, meaningless to the larger forces that will decide the fate of healthcare in America.

Or maybe I’m just overly optimistic.