Sunday, August 16, 2009

It's Loud and It's Tasteless, and I've Heard It Before



Sometimes it's tough to keep the narrative straight. Perhaps you might remember this. Back in the distant past, nearly two weeks ago now, we had it on good authority that those who were protesting Obama Care were somehow inauthentic. The way to tell? They were too well dressed. In fact, we learned that they were part of a "Brooks Brothers Brigade." The president's press secretary, the always-dapper Robert Gibbs, explained the dynamic thus:

Mr. Gibbs compared the protesters with the "Brooks Brothers Brigade" that he said appeared in Florida after the 2000 presidential election.

"I seem to see some commonality in who pops up at some of these things," he said, without elaborating. "You can see quite a bit of similarity between who shows up where."


Two weeks later, the town meetings have been happening throughout the country and now a different picture emerges of the protestors. Turns out the protestors aren't Brooks Brothers people at all. In fact, they aren't fashion forward in the least. They are a mob. And not very well dressed at all.And our betters don't approve. Here's the measured response of Robin Givhan of the Washington Post:

By and large, the shouters are dressed in a way that underscores their Average Guy -- or Gal -- bona fides. They are wearing T-shirts, baseball caps, promotional polo shirts and sundresses with bra straps sliding down their arm. They wear fuchsia bandannas and American-flag hankies wrapped around their skulls like sweatbands. A lot of them look as though they could be attending a sporting event and, as it turns out, the congressman is the opposing player they have decided to heckle. If not for the prohibition on signs and banners inside these meetings, one could well expect to see some of these volatile worker bees wearing face paint and foam fingers, albeit the highlighted digit would be one expressing foul displeasure rather than competitive rank or skill level.

The nerve of these people, huh? Why can't they be like their betters? Givhan then provides some useful context:


The elected officials stand in front of a lectern or roam the hall -- making sure not to stray too far from the protective reaches of their security detail, just in case a yeller lets a right hook fly. At the town halls hosted by Sens. Arlen Specter and Claire McCaskill, both legislators dressed for business. Specter was in a dark suit and tie. McCaskill wore a chocolate brown jacket with a narrow standing collar. Sen. Ben Cardin wore a dark suit with a navy striped tie to his meeting with his health care mob. They all peered at the irate speakers in some combination of stoic disbelief, subdued annoyance and preternatural calm.

Here's a guess: if the assembled mob/throng/yellers were making a Congressional salary and had the perks that a typical Congresscritter enjoys, they might not need to wear "promotional polo shirts." And let me confess: I've been known to wear a promotional polo shirt myself. The stitching on the left sleeve of the red polo shirt I am wearing right now provides an unmistakable advertising message for one of my former employers. It's a fine shirt and makes excellent weekend wear. But it is the mark of my inferiority. If you're going to wear a polo shirt, it really ought to have a polo pony or a crocodile or somesuch on it.


What's really happening here is a very old story, of course. This is a matter of class. Our betters have worked hard to achieve their station. They have gone to top-flight universities and soaked in the verities they have learned and have applied these life lessons quite diligently. They know better than to wear the togs of the sales rep, the middle manager, the line worker. They've long since learned the importance of rejecting the ethos of such people, the forgotten middle class they'd prefer to forget. They've gotten beyond that. It's an occupational hazard; facing the rabble they represent/transcend is a difficult thing, indeed. But it's something that must be done, no matter how distasteful the process. The middle managers and sales reps and general contractors aren't a resource to learn from: they are a cash crop to harvest.


And please understand, our betters love people, even though the people are so damned slovenly. That's why our betters are endeavoring to provide something as important and necessary as Obama Care. They understand that this is Kabuki theater, of course, and that town halls and other listening events are part of the process. Of course you get a listening tour. Just don't expect anyone to hear anything.

19 comments:

my name is Amanda said...

I was thinking the shouters at the town halls were purposely accentuating their "average American" status with their clothing choices; that it was another "helpful hint" distributed by conservative groups, along with stationing themselves in front to make it look like the whole room is full of angry protesters, etc.

At any rate, if the strategy is to "look like the boss" for the politicians at these town halls by wearing "full Washington regalia," I'm unsure about how wise that is... I guess we'll see.

Mr. D said...

I was thinking the shouters at the town halls were purposely accentuating their "average American" status with their clothing choices; that it was another "helpful hint" distributed by conservative groups, along with stationing themselves in front to make it look like the whole room is full of angry protesters, etc.

And that assumes facts not in evidence, of course. And most importantly, it assumes that the people who have been showing up are a bunch of mind-numed robots who need instruction from their betters. There's no way that these people could have come up with their opinions independently. They just need to stop listening to Limbaugh or getting e-mails from Newt or something. Pity that these sheep has such terrible shepherds, huh?

But thank you for proving my point. You're making the Thomas Frank argument, Amanda. Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

Amanda, it's too bad the protestors dont' take their queues from someone you'd like, perhaps Acorn, SEIU or some other pro Obama organization. The fashion of those who protested Bush never came up, and in many aspects it was proven that they were organized.

When will the intellectual elite realize that their constiuents while often ambivalent and apathetic, arent' completely stupid. This isn't only about health care. It's about a central government becoming increasingly involved on the lives of the average citizen. The signs and messages bearing "Don't Tread on Me" bear this out. By the way, Organized or not, their votes still count, and their opinons still matter.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

The funny thing in all of this is that I keep hearing about the tangents: the clothing of the protesters, their lack of authenticity/mobiness, the shouting, the use of the term "death panels." What I don't hear as much of is "What is it that people are so riled up about?"

Sure there are sociological answers to this question, but there's an obvious one too. This health care reform, to the extent that we know what it is, is a terrible idea.

"Change" does not mean "reform." I think that is the unifying message. Most of these folks probably want reform of some sort. After all, health care is pretty expensive. But they don't want another government boondoggle, and that is all that is on offer right now. If these politicians were actually discussing how to responsibly reform health care, there would be no protesters. These people are calling BS.

Night Writer said...

Ah yes, Ms. Givhan, the cognoscente who divines and extrapolates political through fashion cues. We've heard from her before, back in the day when Justice John Roberts and his family were introduced by Pres. Bush at the White House:

It has been a long time since so much syrupy nostalgia has been in evidence at the White House. But Tuesday night, when President Bush announced his choice for the next associate justice of the Supreme Court, it was hard not to marvel at the 1950s-style tableau vivant that was John Roberts and his family.

There they were — John, Jane, Josie and Jack — standing with the president and before the entire country. The nominee was in a sober suit with the expected white shirt and red tie. His wife and children stood before the cameras, groomed and glossy in pastel hues — like a trio of Easter eggs, a handful of Jelly Bellies, three little Necco wafers…

...In a time when most children are dressed in Gap Kids and retailers of similar price-point and modernity, the parents put young master Jack in an ensemble that calls to mind John F. “John-John” Kennedy Jr.

Separate the child from the clothes, which do not acknowledge trends, popular culture or the passing of time. They are not classic; they are old-fashioned. These clothes are Old World, old money and a cut above the light-up/shoe-buying hoi polloi.


To give her her due, she is the perfect example and voice of political commentary of this age when ideas may be taken on and off to fit one's whim or the social situation and those in the know can mock the new kids because their cuffs aren't turned just the way they're supposed to be this year. It's a wisdom that can spot Dolce & Gabbana but not Marx & Engals; that gets a tingle up it's leg at Prada and Armani but merely dribbles on itself at Locke and Adam Smith.

Oh, but it does sound really smart.

http://thenightwriterblog.com/2005/07/22/and-your-mother-dresses-you-funny/

Mr. D said...

Thanks for the look back at the deep thoughts of Ms. Givhan, NW! I'd forgotten that little bit of nastiness.

Anonymous said...

All,
I am already on record saying I don't give a rat's ass about the goings on at the Town Halls, who is behind what, etc. I really don't understand the (feigned?) outrage on the left over what appears to be the legitimate protest tactics of Town Hall attendees. Nor do I understand the Right's silly obsession/(feigned?)victimization meme. All this crap about your "betters" sounds silly and bitter after a while. Why do you really care about what some douchebag mouthpiece who lives in DC or NYC says anyway? Come down off the cross and address the real issues. Nmaely, that we still have very big problems with health care, lack of insurance for many in this country, under-insurance for many more, and an un-sustainable model that absolutely needs to be reformed. So try to recognize a few simple points:

Most people, irrespective of ideology, agree that healthcare reform ought to do some basic things like: (a) Reduce the number of the uninsured, (b) Make insurance less costly for those who are already insured, and (c) reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare services that produce no actual benefit.

Given that, I don't believe there is any possible way to achieve these goals without: (a)Increasing the amount of regulations imposed on businesses (including insurance companies), (b)Providing some kind of government subsidy for people who can’t afford insurance, and (c)Creating some kind of competitor or regulator in the market who is large enough and/or powerful enough to put downward pressure on the prices of healthcare services.

I can't help but notice that each of these measures offends conservative sensibilities: (opposition to regulation, government spending and government involvement in the marketplace). But something has to happen. There simply is no possible way of addressing the primary goals of healthcare reform without offending the basic tenets of modern conservatism, what do you propose we do? And complaining about your "betters" and proposing tort reform are not the answer (although tort reform should certainly be on the table).

You all controlled Congress, the Courts and the White House for 6 of the last 8 years. Yet, no Conservative on this blog or anywhere else has offered any ideas that come close to plausibly solving any of the problems we face. For Conservatives, is it simply a matter of preferring ideology over practical solutions?

Tell me I am wrong. Show me the comprehensive plans that Conservatives have put together (and the better not ahve the words death Panel in them). I am honestly beseeching you to engage in a serious discussion here. You guys are usually pretty dependable for that.

Regards,
Rich

my name is Amanda said...

I have no idea who Thomas Frank is, so I doubt that I am making his argument; I simply don't live my life believing everything people say and do without thinking about the context and who they are.

You're saying that people weren't given instructions on "how to behave" to get the most attention and influence the dialogue? They were. So please consider for a moment exactly who is treating the people who may have behaved accordingly, like unthinking followers.

my name is Amanda said...

Oh, and in response to the Anonynmous person - the point isn't that the opinions of organized mobs don't count. The point is - and always has been - the undecided voters, the voters not dedicated to a specific party or movement. And they deserve to know whether there really is a "majority of angry protestors" or if it's a distortion being implemented by the opposing group. Because any purposeful distortion, no matter who is forming it, is a lie.

Mr. D said...

Nor do I understand the Right's silly obsession/(feigned?) victimization meme. All this crap about your "betters" sounds silly and bitter after a while.

Yeah, it appears you don't understand it. If you did understand it, you wouldn't be so dismissive. Dude, it's not crap. It's also a large reason why your side is losing the argument. The approach that the Democrats have taken in this debate has been singularly offensive. It's the Thomas Frank "What's the Matter With Kansas" argument and it's rightly blowing up in your side's face. R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Find out what it means to me.

Why do you really care about what some douchebag mouthpiece who lives in DC or NYC says anyway?

Douchebag mouthpieces are one thing. Our congressional representatives are quite another. Did you catch Dick Durbin today? Your senior senator, who feels meeting with his constituents is "unproductive."

Come down off the cross and address the real issues.

By your leave.

Namely, that we still have very big problems with health care, lack of insurance for many in this country, under-insurance for many more, and an un-sustainable model that absolutely needs to be reformed. So try to recognize a few simple points:

Most people, irrespective of ideology, agree that healthcare reform ought to do some basic things like: (a) Reduce the number of the uninsured, (b) Make insurance less costly for those who are already insured, and (c) reduce the amount of money spent on healthcare services that produce no actual benefit.


Lots to chew on there, good sir. I'm willing to look at (a) to the extent we understand what the number really is. Do we provide insurance for people in the country illegally? Do we insist that people who are young and healthy and in entry-level jobs carry insurance? And if so, how much? As for (b), sounds good. How are you going to do it? And as for (c), the best place to start is tort reform. It doesn't end there, of course, but it starts there. Although I notice you're being dismissive of it later on in your argument, while conceding it needs to be on the table. First things first.

Given that, I don't believe there is any possible way to achieve these goals without: (a) Increasing the amount of regulations imposed on businesses (including insurance companies), (b) Providing some kind of government subsidy for people who can’t afford insurance, and (c) Creating some kind of competitor or regulator in the market who is large enough and/or powerful enough to put downward pressure on the prices of healthcare services.

So many questions. When have additional regulations ever decreased costs? Name five examples. Hell, name one. As for (b), why must the government do it? And why would have any confidence that the government would do anything other than make a hash of it? Are we basing our expectations on the fine job that we see in Medicare, or VA, or other places where the feds are already involved? And for (c), there's a word for that: rationing. People aren't going to be willing to provide the services you seek, at the level you seek, just because you deem it necessary.

That's all I can post for now. More later.

Night Writer said...

Actually, Mr. Anon, there was a conservative proposal introduced way back in 2005 that was quickly slapped into Committee limbo where it was denied life-sustaining nutrition and water and expired "naturally". This was H. Res 215 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr109-215) to get away from wasteful 3rd-party payer system that is at the root of today's mess. A summary of the proposal is as follows:

4/14/2005--Introduced.
Recognizes that: (1) the current third-party model of health care delivery is expensive and prevents individuals from having immediate control and ownership over critical health care decisions; (2) the current model's flaws contribute to the number of uninsured in the United States; and (3) defined contribution plans provide patients greater power to select their health care provider and preferred treatment.
Recommends that Congress move the Nation's current health care delivery system toward a defined contribution system.


The only way to make health insurance and health care affordable is to return it to a competitive marketplace where the patient/insured gets to make decisions on the amount of coverage he/she needs, what will be covered and how much "self-insurance" (i.e. deductible) will be carried. You know, the way people currently decide on auto insurance, home-owners and rental insurance, flood insurance, etc. And when was the last time you heard of a "crisis" in any of these markets?

The 3rd-party-payer model has distorted and ballooned the cost of care and removed it from any effective market pressure. Further government involvement will only further magnify this inefficiency because we all know how efficient the government is in elminating waste, especially when a multitude of bureaucratic jobs and patronage are on the line.

Changing to a direct-pay model (where, for example, employers turn the money they're currently paying for health insurance benefits over to their employees in the form of higher salaries or as vouchers for purchasing individual insurance) would immediately incentify consumers, insurers and providers. It wouldn't be an easy change, and likely perceived as traumatic since few people have any experience in anything but our current system, but no reform is going to happen easily or painlessly. If there's going to be pain, however, better to suffer it for a viable and efficient model with greater prospect for gain than to stay in morphine-masked fog of the current model or the false hopes and illusions of a program even farther removed from market forces.

Mr. D said...

I have no idea who Thomas Frank is, so I doubt that I am making his argument; I simply don't live my life believing everything people say and do without thinking about the context and who they are.

You don't have to know who Thomas Frank is to make his argument. His book, which came out a few years back, was called "What's the Matter with Kansas." His theory is that Kansans aren't voting properly (that is, the way he'd prefer they vote), because they are being distracted by side issues. And you are making the same argument.

You're saying that people weren't given instructions on "how to behave" to get the most attention and influence the dialogue? They were.

First, you need to present the evidence for your assertion. And then, beyond that, so what? What is wrong with people coordinating messages?

So please consider for a moment exactly who is treating the people who may have behaved accordingly, like unthinking followers.

I've made this point before, Amanda. Let me try again. I believe that the protestors (a) honestly believe what they believe and (b) came to their conclusions independently. Whether they came to their views from reading Hayek or Rand, or listening to evil Rush Limbaugh, or having read me (it's possible - I have a regular reader in the state of Kansas), is immaterial. You believe what you believe because of the things you've read, the experiences you've had and the belief system you've developed. No one questions that. It would be helpful for you to extend the same courtesy to those who oppose your views. It's hardly axiomatic that someone who doesn't think what you think is unthinking. Right?

Mr. D said...

NW,

Thanks. That cite is what I was going to look for. And the approach makes more sense, for the reasons you've stated, than creating another quasi-governmental entity (with attendant bureaucracy), that will not do any of the things Rich would like to see happen.

The key word is "incentivize." People do respond to incentives.

W.B. Picklesworth said...

Incentivize? The U.S. Congress and Obama administration know all about that. They are doing everything possible to incentivize us to give them the boot in '10 and '12.

Now, if only the elephants could do a little incentivizing.

Anonymous said...

TORT REFORM ESTIMATE 25-50% ALL PROCEDURES ARE DEFENSIVE/LAWSUIT AVOIDANCE PROCEDURES RATHER THAN CURATIVE, TRANSPARENT PRICING, MAKING HEALTH CARE BENEFITS THAT PEOPLE RECEIVE AT WORK TAXABLE AND USE THAT MONEY TO FUND THE UNINSURED. UNINSUREDS SHOULD BE DEFINED AS THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD INSURANCE, NOT THOSE WHO CHOOSE A BOAT, PRADA SHOES, OR WHATEVER ELSE INSTEAD OF INSURANCE. FROM A GOVERNMENT RESTRICTION PERPSECTIVE, INSURANCE NEEDS TO ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO WISH TO PURCHASE WITH REAL CHOICES. SEE CHARLES KRAUTHAMERS WRITINGS REGARDING THIS MATTER. IF THESE MEASURES ARE PUT IN PLACE, THE SYSTEM WILL BE LARGELY REFORMED.

Night Writer said...

Tort reform? With the Trial Lawyers being among the biggest contributors to the Party that happens to be in control of the WH, House and Senate? I mean, it's a great idea and long overdue, but that idea already has a Death Panel waiting for it with knives sharpened. Perhaps you'd like to run some tests, first?

As for taxing healthcare benefits of workers: surely you're only referring to those workers who are in the wealthiest 5%, because we've been promised that 95% of us won't see our taxes increase one penny. I don't see how adding to the cost of insurance for those few will pay for much of anything. But on the off-chance that there is a slight possibility that someone really does mean to tax the health benefits of working men and women...those free-loading parasites...let's look at my co-workers.

Last year we were informed that our wages were frozen for '09 and 10% of our workforce was being eliminated. Our share of the group health premiums has gone up steadily over the past 8 years (one of the reasons I switched to a high-deductible plan with an HSA), meaning a net loss in income this year for people, many of whom are already under considerable financial strain. Adding to the costs these people already face will do nothing but drive them out of necessity into a yet-to-be-created nationalized healthplan. Saaa-ay, you don't think that's the ultimate goal, do you?

On the other hand, say my company says it isn't going to offer health insurance any longer as there are no effective ways to control these rising costs. Instead we're going to give you the $7k+ we're already spending on your benefit and you find your own plan. If this happened on a large scale, insurers would be lining up (or advertising like mad on TV) to tap into this market. I'd bet they'd even be willing to offer me coverage that doesn't include, say mental health or chemical dependency treatment, if I'm willing to risk it. Yes, I'll pay more "income" tax instead of being taxed on my health insurance, but I think putting the market back into health insurance is more effective than ever-more-expensive government meddling.

Anonymous said...

All,
thanks for all the great responses, especially from Night Rider. I knew I could count on you guys for thoughtful and informative insights from the Right. Something that I think has been clearly lacking so far. I do want to respond, but have much to digest. In the mean time, I found a very informative link on the Atlantic today that provides a great deal of background info on the topic of health care, and the demographics that really spell out why it behooves all of us to be involved, and to hope that we can come to some sort of reasonable compromise on a solution. I am thoroughly convinced that inertia is not an answer.

Please check this, ad all related links out. Very informative, and to my miund, objective.

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/08/an_idiots_guide_to_health_care_reform.php

Regards,
Rich

my name is Amanda said...

Just as it's hardly axiomatic that calling out unthinking followers who are distracted by side issues is purely "intellectual elitism." There is merit to the argument, whether I studied the trend years ago in college, or whether a bunch of people wrote ten books about Kansas.

(Yes, I've heard of that book, but I haven't read it (yet?).)

Mr. D said...

Just as it's hardly axiomatic that calling out unthinking followers who are distracted by side issues is purely "intellectual elitism."

Didn't say that it was "purely intellectual elitism." Wouldn't say that. But there's an element to it and it works against your argument and tends to cause anger rather than understanding. But be my guest, argue it however you see fit.

There is merit to the argument, whether I studied the trend years ago in college, or whether a bunch of people wrote ten books about Kansas.

We're going to have to disagree on this. I don't think there is merit to the idea, because I don't know (can't know, really) how an individual comes to the conclusions he/she comes to. But I assume they have done at least a modicum of thinking on the issue.

(Yes, I've heard of that book, but I haven't read it (yet?).)

Well, go ahead and read it. But I'd suggest you read the poem "There Was a Child Went Forth" by Walt Whitman and "Great Expectations," too, in accordance with the book. Call it comparative literature if you'd like.