Then I saw the practices in action in this video of Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius and Sen. Arlen Specter getting booed at a town hall.
Chris Good of The Atlantic Monthly has an examination of the plans to rally against lawmakers who support health care reform in August.
I've never really seen or heard of this type of thing before, or at least never thought that it might be effective. Apparently they call it "Astroturf" - as in an artificial grass roots movement. Essentially the lobbying groups responsible for the "Tea Parties" is continuing the effort by planning rallies and events as well as directly confronting lawmakers with organized heckling, booing, etc at their town halls.
Despite initially scoffing at it, watching the short video clips of the infiltrators at work it certainly LOOKS effective. Sebelius and Specter looked totally rattled by the coordinated questioning and booing.
Other accounts of the same town hall however note that the majority of attendees stood and applauded Sebelius and Specter in support, and that it was merely a vocal minority giving the brief impression of an angry mob.
But really, all we're likely to see are the short clips of booing right? So this is potentially an insanely effective strategy for which I cannot imagine an effective counter. Fox News is aptly highlighting these moments, and it gives the impression that everyone is against health care reform.
So, a few points:
Part of me supposes that even if a lobbying organization is sponsoring and organizing these events, it's not necessarily THAT artificial - they appear to be real people who actually believe the things they believe.
However, the things they believe are, well...wrong. In the Fox News clip linked above the questioner rails against medicare, medicaid and social security as "broke". Those are three of the most popular and successful government programs ever, and so it seems kind of oddball to point to them as reasons for not reforming health care.
So I guess what is artificial about it is that the lobbyist organization gives the impression of a well thought out movement that has rallied people together, when in fact it appears it's more like a cattle call for knee-jerk right-wing reactionaries.
You get the strong impression that once you reach a certain level in the administration of these groups, the people running the show don't actually believe any of the stuff the people taking orders are shouting. They just see the angry people doing the shouting as convenient foot soldiers. It's the same old unholy alliance of the machinations of the wealthy and the misguided anger of the poor. It's that "Southern Strategy" all over again - hold your nose and play up to the angry minority in order to form that necessary majority. Admittedly, that's reading a lot into things, but that's my analysis.
The effectiveness in the end of this strategy is going to hinge on the extent to which lawmakers and voters can step back from the emotional reaction to hearing jeers and boos and actually assess the merit of the argumentation, and realize how the majority of their constituents actually feel. And really, that is going to hinge on the supporters of health care reform making their voices heard.
But right now I perceive it as much easier to rally against health care reform than to rally for it, because there isn't a single solid plan to get behind - instead there are many versions. This is where Obama could really make a difference by coming in with a clear outline of what he wants to see, so the voters can get behind it with gusto.
