I was just on my way over to the office listening to KMUD when I heard David Cobb discussing the movement to amend the Constitution to eliminate corporate personhood. I have a few thoughts on the matter which I’ll share another time, but I want to respond to a woman identified as “Ella” who called in to suggest outreaching to Tea Party activists on the issue. I have no problem with that, if the Tea Partiers are indeed in opposition to the decision and concept. And I agree with David when he says that we can work with people across ideologies and respectfully disagree on issues such as health care.
Then Ella said something which bothered me. She said that the Tea Party crowd would “come around” to the right side on health care. With all due respect to Ella, who has the best of intentions – they won’t. But that’s even beside the point.
If you’re going to coalition with people who have a much different political perspective, you really have to learn how to listen to them. The Tea Partiers have spent the past year in vehement, often hard line, opposition to government run health care in any form. If you don’t realize this, you haven’t been paying attention to them and you aren’t really listening. Government run health care goes strictly against their view of America. Maybe a few will “come around,” but most will not – not even when they realize that Medicare is in fact government run health care.
In short, if you go into any dialogue with an expectation that they will come around on health care, you aren’t paying them the respect they deserve with regard to their world views and ideology. It behooves you to listen as well as talk; to understand where they are coming from and where they want the country to go. Ella has populism in common with them. But unless she is willing to give up support for universal health care, there will not be any agreement on that issue. It has been the primary motivation for Tea Party rallying, more than any other issue.
It’s not a trivial point.
28 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 25, 2010 at 9:14 am
Anonymous
agreeing with all of that, another not trivial issue, code enforcement/compliance. cobb brought up the difference in the words, and the approach, which i put out on his blog a while back, about just say the two words and see how your body reacts. he suggested to call the “thing” code compliance, but then in his “conversation”, kept saying code enforcement. a trivial issue, but it matters. WE have to start saying CODE COMPLIANCE all the time, david.
January 25, 2010 at 9:27 am
Cristina
I might be wrong, but I think that was Ellen Taylor calling in.
And no, the tea partiers aren’t going to “come around” on health care. Not until they’re stricken with cancer, have to mortgage their home to cover what their insurance company won’t, and then have to sell their children to pay for treatment that their insurance company denies.
January 25, 2010 at 9:35 am
Anonymous
and no, the tea baggers will not come around on health care. until it’s too late. the democrats have proven to be more inept when in power than i ever imagined. a year later and still dicking around with this issue. trying to please absolutely everyone, and now pleasing almost no one.
January 25, 2010 at 9:56 am
Anonymous
It seems as if the “tea partiers” really have you lefties in a pickle!
Look at al the Dem’s (some far left) deciding not to run this time around! And there will be more that the voters will decide for them.
It is good to see dem’s and independants voting for what is right instead of the straight party line (MA, VA, NJ, and more to come) as Obama is/has been pressuring the Democratic Congress and Senate to do.
The big question is who will be the new president in 2012?
January 25, 2010 at 9:59 am
Anonymous
Yet another goddamned excuse for David Cobb to make more money sucking off of the activist community for a dead-end initiative.
Real solutions like full public financing of public elections, electoral reform and public access to public airwaves abound — but none of those would give the Demockery Unlimited hacks the opportunity to grandstand.
January 25, 2010 at 10:21 am
Anonymous
Better to fight and lose than relegate oneself to anonymous blog post tearing down the efforts of others.
January 25, 2010 at 10:33 am
Anonymous
If David Cobb wants to waste $100,000 out of his own bank account, he should feel free to do so.
It’s when he pushed unconstitutional ballot initiatives and wastes $100,000 of Humboldt County’s taxpayer money that my stomach churns. And now he’s set to do the same thing in Arcata — Eric would know all about that if he’d bother to pay attention.
January 25, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Anonymous
Two thirds of the people voted for Measure T. It was worth fighting for.
January 25, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Dave Kirby
Do not agree. Tea parties started before healthcare was on the front burner. It was the impending collapse of the economy and the govt. bailout of the “fat cats” that mobilized the first tea baggers. Since that time the right wing media monkeys have tried to steer this group with some success. The biggest victory for the Limbaugh > Beck cartel has been the ability to spread a kind of systemic amnesia as to who was really responsible for the loss of their pensions and retirement nest eggs. The truly worrisome fact is that many of the good jobs that sustained the middle class are not coming back anytime soon if at all. I suspect we will be looking at a series of one term presidents as the balance of power shifts back and forth on the waves of discontent. What bothers me the most about our new American Idol society is the seeming disregard for education, as it is one of paths out of this mess.
January 25, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Mitch
I’m really surprised by this post and the comments.
The health care reform debate has NEVER been about government run health care. It is about insurance industry regulation, the possible provision of a government insurance option, or (on the left) the replacement of a private insurance industry with public insurance. No elected official (AFAIK) has proposed that all MDs be drafted into the health cadre.
I’d guess a lot of Tea Partiers would happily support a public option. It would just have to be sold by something as noble and skillful as the Obama Presidential campaign, as opposed to something as stinky and pathetic as the Obama administration.
January 25, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Eric Kirk
Mitch, from the conservative point of view regulated industry is government run industry. I understand the distinction you’re making, but it’s not one most conservatives care about.
During the town hall meetings last August and September, anyone voicing support for a public option was routinely and loudly booed. It led progressives to charge that the insurance industry was controlling the movement; a charge supported by leaked talking points passed around to various tea party organizations from insurance lobbyists. But they wouldn’t argue points they disagreed with, and their consensus was overwhelmingly a rejection of a public option or anything which would offer competition to the private sector.
It is very consistent with the view of less government and more individual liberty, and they do not necessarily distinguish between individual liberty and the liberty to exploit. They believe very strongly that market forces are the best regulation of any industry and that even well-intentioned government intervention will upset the ecological Smithsonian balance and cause more problems than it solves.
There’s no way around it. These people are mostly conservatives, laced with a few libertarians. They will not support a public option. Not ever. At least not without a major change in ideological outlook. Doesn’t make them bad people. It just makes them conservatives.
January 25, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Anonymous
Two thirds of the people did NOT vote for Measure T. It was 55-45, and that was only after the so-called campaign finance reform proponents outspent the opposition FIVE TO ONE — a little unusual for the “reform” side to be outspending everyone else, eh? This was also after a campaign marked by dirty tricks from David Cobb and Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, who launched a failed coup against the chair of the Green Party for daring to speak out in favor of the Constitution, and who attacked any opponents of Measure T as proponents of slavery, union busting and the oppression of women.
January 25, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Eric Kirk
Dave – There was certainly that element, but the bank bailout was Bush and there were no signs at the April 15 events slamming Bush. Not one in any of the photographs I’ve viewed. It was also a reaction to the stimulus, health care reform, and the fact that a liberal black man had been elected to the presidency.
January 25, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Mitch
Eric,
I wasn’t clear. (I could be wrong as well, but at least let me be wrong about the correct thing.)
Conservatives don’t want health CARE regulated. I think they think it should be handled by doctors. People like and respect their doctors, for the most part.
I doubt very much that the typical conservative has a warm spot in their heart for their health INSURER. People hate bureaucrats, especially bureaucrats that look for loopholes with which to say no.
In my opinion, that’s why the death panel meme had such traction. The right sold the Tea Partiers on the idea that Obama was going to tell doctors what to do.
Nobody in the administration fought back against what was BEHIND the death panel story, they just acted as though anyone who believed it was a birther.
Remember how fast Obama responded to misinformation during his Presidential campaign? Imagine if, instead of making back room deals with pharma, the administration had immediately started pushing out examples of health insurance fraud on the part of the health insurance industry, and pointed out how people would be protected from that. The death panels, I think, would have rapidly faded from view because there would have been GENUINE tragic stories for the media to peddle, tragic stories that supported the case for reform.
The administration has clearly had a policy of trying to bring all the power centers into the tent to see what it can get without a fight. I understand the logic, and perhaps it was worth a try, given the history. I hope that’s why they’ve kept the gloves not only off, but locked in a storage closet.
I don’t know how you can simultaneously be a back-room dealer and a fightin’ populist. A fightin’ populist would have a chance with the Tea Partiers. It will be harder now that Obama has already exposed his willingness to collaborate with the banks, the insurers, etc…
January 25, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Dave
I’d go one step further, and say that the election of a black man tipped the precarious racial balance in this country causing tremors on Wall Street and the Deep South (where the Civil War never really ended).
These issues you brought up carry some of the blame for the polarization of our nation. The real culprit is racism. Apparently our country wasn’t ready for a black president.
Read FBI files from the last three years regarding Obama. He’s a target, and has been one since he decided to run for president. Because he’s black. Being Liberal is the cherry on the cake.
Anything Obama backs is political poison to the Conservatives. He carries a “double whammy” that even has Democrats squabbling like alley cats.
The bottom line: there’s no hope for any meaningful Health Care reforms. A propaganda piece will come out and they’ll say “Victory! New Health Care Bill Passes”
And the lobbyists for the health insurance Industry will smile. The Senators will smile too, knowing that the status quo is safe once more.
January 25, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Anonymous
yes. and when the democrats lose all the seats in congress that they will in the coming elections, and when the house speaker is a republican, obama will be even more of a target, ‘cuz then biden will be pres and the repub v. pres.
January 25, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Mitch
Well, if Dave is right about racism being behind all this, that certainly would change things.
I’m not sure it is. I wonder if there have been any attempts at finding out, or if that’s even possible.
I don’t think conservative = racist holds true, except perhaps in a few states.
January 25, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Anonymous
thinking how obama has to bring everyone to the table, ya know. republicans don’t do bi-partisanship, a new republican president will have all the democrats out of the white house in less than 5 minutes, no dems on any committees, etc. etc.. another big mistake the dems make, they forget how the repubs play ball when they are in power, dems forget and forgive, does not work in politics. obama needs to clean house, even his own, get rid of geithner, bernancke, summers, emanuel, and start over with his supposed change.
January 25, 2010 at 9:44 pm
moviedad
Whatever Obama says in his speeches is meaningless. It is meaningless. If you listen to politician’s speeches you would find yourself agreeing with Hitler. Yes you would, his speeches are full of high ideals, freedom of the individual from oppression, etc. All those speeches are nothing but bullshit. How long are we supposed to pretend that our world is being run by people with conscience and honesty. It’s not, their business is lying. They are successful when their lies are spread far and wide. I feel like I’m watching good conscientious people rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Or the German Jews of the late 30′s telling people not to vote for the National Socialists and leaving it at that. I just don’t have enough ability as a writer to convince people that we are at the precipice of destruction. The rulers in our society have put into place the mechanism by which they can finalize their seizure of the government. Think about it. Think about what it will mean for average, common people when predatory businesses have free reign to do as they like.
The sky is falling.
Groups like the so-called “Tea-Baggers” are so ignorant of what Freedom or Liberty really looks like, they’re busy selling their souls to financial enslavement. As if the only entity that can protect them, and other minorities is itself evil. It is only evil because it is used by our corporate masters to repress people, instead of regulating the master’s greed.
Well, this is futile. No one cares. We’re a country of cowards. See ya in Auschwitz.
January 26, 2010 at 8:35 am
Mitch
“The sky is falling.”
We know.
“Well, this is futile. No one cares. We’re a country of cowards. See ya in Auschwitz.”
Feel better now?
I don’t have any BIG alternatives to offer, but I have a tiny one. Start listening to and talking with people who don’t already agree with you.
IMO, things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, but economic collapse will increase people’s interdependence. That is the glimmer of hope I can see for the years ahead. If we can get Tea Party people to join together in cooperatives, we’ve got a start.
January 26, 2010 at 9:11 am
Mr. Nice
As a Tea Party member, I can only say that this decision didn’t go far enough for me.
On the one hand, I applaud the sensibility of the SCOTUS to strike down the ludicrous rules which boiled over into McSame-Feingold.
On the other hand, I object to the continued limits on individual political contributions. An individual holding a billion dollars should be able to donate a billion dollars to a political campaign.
So, if you want to reach out and bridge the gap, realize that most of the Tea Party folks would probably agree with what I just stated. Unless the liberal left will concede that individuals should be free of arbitrary limits, we won’t be there fighting for your anti-corporate take on this issue.
January 26, 2010 at 9:50 am
Eric Kirk
Thank you for clarifying that Mr. Nice. I agree that most Tea Partiers probably did applaud the decision for partisan reasons, but they may run into some “consciousness raising” experiences in their own communities before this argument is over. Some already have, and the TP leaders have been uncharacteristically silent on the issue.
January 26, 2010 at 10:49 am
Mitch
Mr. Nice,
I’m wondering what limits you feel there should be on an individual with one billion dollars. I’m not talking about fairness arguments here, I’m just talking about having a society that is not continually blackmailed.
Do you have any concerns about concentration of wealth?
What would you think, for example, if an individual bought $500 million of oil and then refused to sell it until the price rose by 10%. If you don’t think $500 million would be enough to have an impact, just imagine that the person has ten billion dollars instead of one. Would that be dangerous to a society?
January 26, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Mr. Nice
They should be limited to supporting a political campaign with one billion dollars + whatever they can get on credit. No more.
Yes. I don’t expect government to solve that. Any attempt they have made has backfired.
OPEC already does this. Society has not collapsed.
What is the argument here, that people should have limits on how they can spend their money? I don’t get it.
January 26, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Mitch
OK, then, Mr. Nice. What are your concerns about concentration of wealth?
January 26, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Anonymous
My philosophy is that any concentration of wealth into the hands of the few is ultimately a result of government intervention and/or war. There is much talk about how “unfettered capitalism” leads to concentration of wealth. I have not seen this. From a free market perspective, a concentration of wealth is inevitably followed by a “dilution” of wealth. The concentration I worry about is government favoritism leading to corrupt individuals hoarding dollars at the expense of healthy competition.
Take a company like Enron for instance. How did Enron get their hands on so much moola? It wasn’t that the government didn’t watchdog enough or that Enron was physically hoarding tangible resources. Enron’s ducats were the result of clever exploitation of government regulations on electricity and broadband internet. This might have been followed by a redistribution of this money, but we will never know as Grey Davis gifted them billions of dollars to prevent a man-made resource emergency which we now have to pay back.
I further contend that Wall Street’s derivative problem was not a deconstruction of morality or lack of regulation. If anything, it was the result of boneheaded regulation such as the manipulation of interest rates to all-time lows during the summer of 2003. This led to a bonanza of artificially inflated house prices which then led to a further money grab on mortgages. We should not forget whose hands were shown filthiest when foreclosures hit the fan: Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the two most powerful, monopolistic, wealth-concentrating GSEs in our country. And what are the geniuses at the Federal Reserve doing to get us out of this mess? Why, manipulating interest rates to all-time lows, of course.
So, I have a problem with wealth concentration. It isn’t the same problem that “liberals” have. I have no problem with individuals or corporations being extremely wealthy. Capital accumulation and investment is not the same problem that occurred in the French aristocracy.
January 26, 2010 at 9:19 pm
Eric Kirk
There is much talk about how “unfettered capitalism” leads to concentration of wealth. I have not seen this. From a free market perspective, a concentration of wealth is inevitably followed by a “dilution” of wealth.
That is absolutely contrary to the reality. Even Hayek didn’t really argue that. He argued that the concentration of wealth wasn’t necessarily a bad thing because he held a quasi-religious belief that market forces could so easily take away what they had given. The reality is that wealth tends to condensate, and once it does the impetus to perform reduces. Therefor the more successful you get and the more psychologically reinforcing the “brand” the more inferior the product. McDonald’s tasted nothing like the original restaurant. Hershey’s candy nothing like the original bars. Starbucks nothing like the original cup of coffee. Condensation begets scale, and scale is detrimental to quality.
There’s a name for the principle. Hayek and the free marketiers don’t even argue the point really. Quality is defined by consumption, and if consumers wanted quality they would buy it. Therefor “quality” is in the eye of the beholder, even if it’s marketing generated. By definition, whatever is purchased is optimal.
It all makes me think of the shoe hats and colored gruel restaurant meals (with the photographs of what the meals represent placed by the plate) in the movie Brazil. Hayek was an optimistic dystopian.
And what are the geniuses at the Federal Reserve doing to get us out of this mess? Why, manipulating interest rates to all-time lows, of course.
That did begin with Reagan you know.
January 27, 2010 at 7:30 am
Mitch
Anonymous,
I’m really trying to understand the point of view you are presenting. You talk about Enron exploiting “government regulations” and the housing crash being due to “boneheaded regulation.” Do you believe that no regulations at all would have prevented these problems? Or do you believe that better regulations would have?
And I’m still wondering what Mr. Nice’s concerns are about concentration of wealth, if you’re not he. And, from both of you, what, if anything can be done to mitigate the problems you describe.