Contempt for the Governed

by Robert Tracinski, editor www.TIADaily.com

"Faced with a full August of "Town Hall Hell," in which they would be forced to
face constituents angry over six months of bailouts, runaway spending, and an
attempt to socialize medicine, the Democrats have decided on their response: to
denounce their constituents as "angry mobs" and to do their best to avoid them.

Our political system is based on "the consent of the governed." This approach is
the opposite: contempt for the governed.

Some congressmen have decided to cancel their town hall appearances. Others are
filtering out the audiences, packing them with union members and other advocates
of socialized medicine, while keeping out anyone who might show signs of public
dissent.

TIA Daily reader Robert Fudge reports on his experience at an event in Tampa
which has gotten quite a bit of attention:

"I attended the Healthcare Reform Town Hall meeting held in Tampa, and as
predicted the meeting was rigged. This Town Hall meeting was sponsored by
Organizing for America (the successor of Obama for America) and the Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), with both congresswoman Betty Castor and
state representative Betty Reed in attendance.

Knowing there might be a lot of people in attendance, I made sure I was there an
hour before the start. When I arrived, there were approximately 75 people ahead
of me in line. The people around me were being very condescending, arrogant, and
vocal against anybody they identified as being pro-liberty.

"After about 15 minutes from when I arrived, a couple of ladies came out who had
badges that read 'Hillsborough County Democratic Party.' They proceeded to hand
pick people whom they knew, and directed them to a side door.

When I asked one of them if I could go in via this same route, all I got was a
vicious scowl. One lady within the line, who was very nasty, said that they are
letting the handicapped people in early, so I went up to a gentleman who had a
pro-liberty sign, and a cane, and directed him to the same side door.

He was rejected and sent back. Then the same lady told me that they are letting
the 'workers of the event' in.

"When the main doors opened for those of us in line, only about 50 people fit
into the Board Room. Clearly, their strategy was to hand-pick their audience.

They selected a small board room to hold their meeting to ensure they seated a
pro-government-healthcare audience, and made sure the opposition remained
outside to look like an 'angry mob.' But just like the Tea Parties, the crowd
was a well behaved, creative bunch.

"The lady was right when she said that the people let in early were 'working the
event'—they were working the event in their favor! I am sure the photos and
videos from inside will paint a picture of 'total support for Obamacare.' This
was absolutely despicable and adds more evidence of their not wanting any real
debate on the issue."

Backing up this assault on the voters is a vile smear campaign in the mainstream
media, of which the most extravagant example (as usual) comes from Paul Krugman
at the New York Times, who declares that opponents of socialized medicine are
all racists.

What evidence does he cite for this claim? Well, you'd just better read it for
yourself.

For the most part, the protesters appear to be genuinely angry. The question is,
what are they angry about?...

[T]hey're probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what
they've heard about what he's doing, than to who he is.
That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same
cultural and racial anxiety that's behind the "birther" movement, which denies
Mr. Obama's citizenship.

Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care
protesters are one and the same; we don't know how many of the protesters are
birthers, but it wouldn't be surprising if it's a substantial fraction.

So these are the standards that prevail at the New York Times: it's acceptable
to libel whole swathes of the population without a shred of evidence, based only
on what you feel might "probably" be the case.

If you look at the actual poll numbers, of course, you will discover that the
Democrats and their shills in the partisan press have declared war on a majority
of American voters.

What those polls show—vividly demonstrated in this graph—is a catastrophic loss
of public support for Obama's health-care plan in the last six weeks.

This was the period during which Obama introduced the plan and spoke endlessly
about it. Note that the beginning date on the graph is the day before Obama's
prime-time ABC News special "Prescription for America," in which he launched his
campaign.

In short, the more Obama and the Democrats talked about their health-care bill
and provided specific details, the more the people hated it.

These numbers show how absurd it is for the administration to claim that the
town hall rebellion of the past few weeks is "manufactured."

If that's the case, how come the left couldn't manufacture a similar uprising
two years ago? Before the 2007 August recess, MoveOn.org and other leftist
organizations loudly advertised that they were going to target vulnerable
congressmen at town hall meetings and with rallies in their home districts, in
order to push them to vote for a US withdrawal from Iraq. But the campaign never
materialized: the "surge" was beginning to show results, and there just wasn't a
big enough constituency for defeatism.

Peggy Noonan gets it dead right when she writes that "you can't get people to
leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless
they are engaged to the point of passion…. People are not automatons. They show
up only if they care."

The idea that the health-care protest is "manufactured" is a giant act of
projection. The left is attributing its own motives and methods to its
opponents.

It is the Democrats, after all, who pack their town hall meetings with union
shills. And remember Barack Obama's famous history as a "community organizer"?
His job description was the very definition of "Astroturf."

A Columbia University graduate who grew up in Hawaii, he was hired to "organize"
communities in Chicago. He was an outside agitator brought in to stir up trouble
in neighborhoods where he had never lived and about which he knew nothing.

Noonan also names the essential issue when she says "The Democrats should not be
attacking, they should be attempting to persuade, to argue for their case."

That is the real meaning of "the consent of the governed."

It does not mean that a politician has to slavishly follow the latest poll
numbers. It is sometimes necessary for a leader to do something unpopular
because it is the right thing to do—and to hope that the voters will eventually
agree with him. But when a leader does this, he has to explain clearly why he is
doing it, he has to accept that his constituents are free to complain and
disagree, and he has to accept that they are the ones who are ultimately
entitled to judge his fitness for office.

In short, the principle of "the consent of the governed" means government by
persuasion, not by fiat.

But that's just the problem. Obama and the Democrats tried persuasion—but they
couldn't find any buyers for their arguments.

So now, like French aristocrats sneering at the dirty rabble gathered outside
their palaces, they are raining down contempt and abuse on their own
constituents.

I think this will go down as one of the all-time great political blunders.

There are thousands of people around the country who were never politically
active before—who will spend the time between now and November 2010 volunteering
and donating and actively campaigning to throw these arrogant rascals out of
office.

It is also a fatal mistake in the shorter term. Refusing to engage the public in
defense of their health-care proposal is a confession of weakness, an admission
that they can't win this argument on the merits and are losing the support of
the people.

The Democrats are now about to compound that error by walling themselves off in
their fake town-hall meetings and preaching to the converted.

If they won't talk to their constituents, you can. Talk to your friends, to
acquaintances, to people you meet on the street.

Organize health-care forums examining Obama's legislation. And don't just
organize to storm the newly fortified town halls. Organize to go door to door,
canvassing your neighbors.

Tell them why they shouldn't support Obamacare, answer the questions your
congressman won't answer, and tell them to call and write their congressmen.

Our leaders can ignore some of the people some of the time, but not all of the
people all of the time. Show them what "the consent of the governed" means, and
give them a taste of what will happen to them if they think they don't need it.

--------------------------------------------------

What is TIADaily.com?

http://www.intellectualactivist.com/about.html

This magazine is for those who take ideas seriously — those who realize that
fundamental ideas shape our culture and change the course of the world — those
who believe that the philosophical ideas we accept are a matter of life and
death.

This magazine is for those who agree that the job of a thinker is not to play
academic word games, but to address the crucial issues of human life: what kind
of government we should live under; what we should seek in art, in love, in
friendship; what standards we should uphold in our thinking; where our
civilization stands in history and in contrast to the rest of the world.

The Intellectual Activist examines and evaluates the ideas that influence the
whole spectrum of human action — from the immediate practical realities of
politics and economics — to the vision of human potential offered by art — to
the vast achievements of science and the threats of ignorance and superstition —
to the grand-scale drama and powerful lessons of history — to the way in which
basic ideas filter down to the smallest details of our lives, to our habits, our
pastimes, our entertainment.

This magazine is for those who want to change the world, not through mindless
street protests, but by changing the ideas that shape our lives. It is for those
who want to be activists, not just in politics, but in the realm of the
intellect.