Republican Fear Mongering about Medicare Changes is Working Despite Being Lies

[iNow]

An interesting piece in the NYTimes this weekend. It highlights some interesting points.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/opinion/27sun1.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

It has been frustrating to watch Republican leaders posture as the vigilant protectors of Medicare against health care reforms designed to make the system better and more equitable. This is the same party that in the past tried to pare back Medicare and has repeatedly denounced the kind of single-payer system that is at the heart of Medicare and its popularity.

 

For all of the cynicism and hypocrisy, it seems to be working. The Republicans have scared many older Americans into believing that their medical treatment will suffer under pending reform bills.

 

The general public believes that, too. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll of 1,042 adults found that only 15 percent believe changes under consideration would make the Medicare program better, while 30 percent think they would make it worse.

 

<...>

 

But far from harming elderly Americans, the various reform bills now pending should actually make Medicare better for most beneficiaries — by enhancing their drug coverage, reducing the premiums they pay for drugs and medical care, eliminating co-payments for preventive services and helping keep Medicare solvent, among other benefits.

 

<...>

 

What the Republicans aren’t saying — and what the Democrats clearly aren’t saying enough — is that in important ways, coverage for a vast majority of Medicare recipients, those in traditional Medicare, should actually improve under health care reform.

 

<...>

 

Republicans have done far too good a job at obscuring and twisting the facts and spreading unwarranted fear. It is time to call them to account. President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have to make the case forcefully that health care reform will overwhelmingly benefit Americans — including the millions of older Americans who participate in Medicare.

 

 

 

 

What are your thoughts? Have the lies been too well propagated / will kill reform, or is there still enough momentum to implement change? Is that change a net positive or a net negative in your opinion? Discuss.

[bascule]

Is it wrong to say that the Republican base is less capable of evidence-based thinking than the Democratic base?

[A Tripolation]

Is it wrong to say that the Republican base is less capable of evidence-based thinking than the Democratic base?

 

Yes...yes it is.

[bascule]

Yes...yes it is.

 

Why exactly is that? I think it's a valid and defensible position.

 

Just as an example:

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/majority-republicans-doubt-theory-evolution.aspx

 

 

Now granted, belief in evolution doesn't necessarily translate to a generally better ability to reason based on evidence, but there is a rather interesting divergence here.

[JillSwift]

There have been a few studies about this question.

 

Here's one that I find especially intriguing: Study: calm people are liberal, skittish are conservative

[A Tripolation]

I like how you all use the word "base" and then can get away with mass generalizations...

 

But, evidence based rationale is not limited to science and maths and what seems to be valuable here on this forum.

 

Bascule...say that 38% of a field was afflicted with Blackshank, but it was the only available lot. Should you plow a new field and cut back on corn? But doing so would then create a shortage of sileage for cattle...and if the summer is particularly nasty, then you won't have enough hay. And with no sileage reserve, most of your cattle will die, and you'll have to sell them off, leaving no revenue for NEXT YEAR's procurement of equipment and seeds and such. What should you do about that blackshank? Grow a GE-hybrid of tobacco that is resistant? Oh...but it doesn't do so well in this climate. And the leaves are harder to cure out. And the pH of the soil isn't right...so now you have to get some lime and potash...but then that means you're going to have to cut back on Sudex hay, leaving NO reserves of hay at all.

 

THAT'S the kind of "evidence-based reasoning" that many farmers (who are overwhelmingly conservative) have to deal with.

 

Just because liberals statistically tend to have more "book smarts" than conservatives does not make them any more adept at rational reasoning.

 

Edit**

I just noticed how off topic this is

Sorry iNow.

[padren]

Is it wrong to say that the Republican base is less capable of evidence-based thinking than the Democratic base?

 

I'm not sure if the issue is 'capability' as choice. Perhaps they've evaluated the evidence and thought about it very well, and came to the simple conclusion that lies and fear mongering would suit their overall goals better.

 

Perhaps it's Democrats that are ignoring the "evidence" and giving the American public too much credit.

 

Well, that may describe the "parties" better than the "base" I'll admit, but I am not 100% sure it's all that different with the base. I think they are more afraid of health care reform working than it failing - if it works then it will be far harder to repeal when a Republican controlled government comes along with the right free-market solution that doesn't push us in a direction of European style moral relativism and government facilitated services.

 

It's far more important to keep "traditional values" than it is to save lives or improve quality of living.

 

At least that's how it appears to me - and if someone holds that view any arguments over whether a bill saves lives is moot, all that matters is if the spirit of the bill is based on a sickly "Liberal America" ideal or a healthy "Conservative America" ideal.

[CaptainPanic]

You know you don't live in a functioning democracy if your politicians deliberately misinform the public to gain political power.

 

I have no more to say. For me, the USA is not a democracy any more... sadly, its system collapsed.

 

I don't understand how the politicians get away with it. Destroying democracy, telling lies, and occupying themselves only with gaining power. Aren't they supposed to represent the population or something?

Edited September 29, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[padren]

I don't understand how the politicians get away with it. Destroying democracy, telling lies, and occupying themselves only with gaining power. Aren't they supposed to represent the population or something?

 

That's the problem I think - the people who are spreading these lies are doing what the people who voted for them want them to do - kill liberal legislation at all costs, by any means necessary.

 

If you want a higher ethical standard of politician, you need a base that cares enough to hold them to that standard.

[JohnB]

Is it wrong to say that the Republican base is less capable of evidence-based thinking than the Democratic base?

 

Is it wrong to conclude that the Democratic base is full of itself, considers itself to be mentally a superior group and only sees daylight when it yawns? No wonder partisanship is so strong over there. Has it occurred to anyone that you change minds by discussion and not by telling the other side that they are some sort of mental inferior?

 

I notice that poll page shows 53% believe in evolution and 66% believe in creationism.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

 

Says it all really.

[Sisyphus]

That's the problem I think - the people who are spreading these lies are doing what the people who voted for them want them to do - kill liberal legislation at all costs, by any means necessary.

 

If you want a higher ethical standard of politician, you need a base that cares enough to hold them to that standard.

 

I wonder if that's really possible. Most Congressional elections basically have two viable candidates, which for most people are "our guy and their guy," both of whom are basically appointed by their respective party leaders. "Our guy" might be a an eyeroll-inducing slimeball, but it's not like I can vote for "their guy!" Realistically contentious primary elections are ridiculously rare.

[CaptainPanic]

That's the problem I think - the people who are spreading these lies are doing what the people who voted for them want them to do - kill liberal legislation at all costs, by any means necessary.

 

If you want a higher ethical standard of politician, you need a base that cares enough to hold them to that standard.

 

Umm... yes... true. Stupid people can be fooled more easily. But it's not the point I tried to make. Well, to be honest, I didn't really try to make my point in my previous post

 

So, what's wrong with the democracy in the USA - why is it no democracy?

In democracy, because everybody can (in principle) be a candidate for some job, you get a wide choice of people to choose from. Because people will vote for the person they feel best represents their view of how things should be run, you get a representation of the population as a result.

 

-When those people that you can vote for start deliberately misinforming the voters, the system also automatically crashes. People will vote for the wrong candidates.

-When voters choose their representatives only because of 1 important topic, then the system automatically crashes. All other points that are less important are completely neglected when people vote. That means that somebody might be a convinced socialist, but votes McCain because the person is dead against abortion or something. You need 10 parties, or more, to be able to give everybody a chance to vote for something that makes sense. That is the main problem with 2-party democracy.

 

The democracy in the USA already has suffered from the 2nd point for a long time. The 1st one will bring it to its knees, and I am afraid that some nutcases in the USA are gonna blame Obama for it - while he seems to be the only one who actually gives some facts every now and then that are accepted by well-informed people across the Atlantic...

[iNow]

So, what's wrong with the democracy in the USA - why is it no democracy?

 

In democracy, because everybody can (in principle) be a candidate for some job, you get a wide choice of people to choose from. Because people will vote for the person they feel best represents their view of how things should be run, you get a representation of the population as a result.

 

Lately, the majority of our populace seems to vote for the one who scares them less. Fear is rampant in the US, and people are being controlled like rats in a maze. Fear, however, ties directly in with the OP, so I found it worth mentioning again.

 

I find your points spot on about the failures we are currently facing in our system.

[padren]

Umm... yes... true. Stupid people can be fooled more easily. But it's not the point I tried to make. Well, to be honest, I didn't really try to make my point in my previous post

 

So, what's wrong with the democracy in the USA - why is it no democracy?

In democracy, because everybody can (in principle) be a candidate for some job, you get a wide choice of people to choose from. Because people will vote for the person they feel best represents their view of how things should be run, you get a representation of the population as a result.

 

-When those people that you can vote for start deliberately misinforming the voters, the system also automatically crashes. People will vote for the wrong candidates.

-When voters choose their representatives only because of 1 important topic, then the system automatically crashes. All other points that are less important are completely neglected when people vote. That means that somebody might be a convinced socialist, but votes McCain because the person is dead against abortion or something. You need 10 parties, or more, to be able to give everybody a chance to vote for something that makes sense. That is the main problem with 2-party democracy.

 

The democracy in the USA already has suffered from the 2nd point for a long time. The 1st one will bring it to its knees, and I am afraid that some nutcases in the USA are gonna blame Obama for it - while he seems to be the only one who actually gives some facts every now and then that are accepted by well-informed people across the Atlantic...

 

While I don't want to descend into a discussion on whether democracy itself is dead in the US... I will agree that it is severally impaired.

 

First, it's not that people are being misinformed, it's that people want to be misinformed - they actively avoid competing points of view and criticism, fail to fact check, and accept their representatives making blanket statements like "Obama is delusional if he thinks he can..." without describing what they base such a statement on. They do this willfully (often on both sides) because they are so certain that their values are correct, and the "little facts" are not worth their concern. They feel they have a winning ideology that trumps the opposing ideology and there is no room for proposals that move the nation in a direction away from their ideological predilection.

 

I see the largest problem being that we have gotten so polarized and distrustful of the "opposition" that the idea of working out a consensus has become unthinkable.

 

As for holding representatives accountable the first thing people need to do is actually make it known to their representatives that their key issue is honest debate of the facts, and that requires millions of Americans actually writing their representatives when they drop that ball on a regular basis. When Wilson gets millions of dollars in days for an act he openly apologized for how can he take any message from that other than his outburst and subsequent disingenuous apology has the approval of his constituents?

 

People didn't call him on his distasteful outburst - they funded him for it. Ironically, if they approve that, then they have to see his apology as disingenuous... and are actively supporting such underhanded tactics. Perhaps most of the people who voted for him actually found his behavior unacceptable from an ethical standpoint (lets just assume that for the sake of assuming we have ethical base) which is theoretically possible - what is certain though is they did not speak as loudly as those that did contribute funds. Those people are resigned to the idea that politics is an ugly affair and even the people they vote for will continue ugly politics. They are the ones failing the system IMO. They should be calling into every conservative radio show, writing him directly, and making their discontent known.

A huge part of the problem is people are so jaded they just resign themselves to defeat of ever being able to counter the momentum in Washington.

 

The next largest issue is people only tend to discuss politics with like minded people and stay to "trusted" news sources that already agree with them. We have to discuss issues with people of opposing views in a constructive manner to advance our own views. We have a lot of discontent but everyone vehemently defends a different direction in how to fix it - we actually have to come to the table with the notion that we don't individually all have it figured out yet or everyone just tries to hammer everyone else with their own ideas.

We have to have some faith that proper civil discourse will lead to the best outcome in the long run, even if it takes a while for the best ideas to rise to the top. If we individually each think "my ideas are the best, but they will win out in the long run, even if not right now... and if they don't in the long run then they weren't the best afterall" we can actually let them compete in an open manner of debate on their merits, instead of panicking and trying to railroad our ideas through for fear that they'll be sunk due to dirty tactics of "the opposition."

 

A huge part is myopic fear I think. Both parties rile up their bases to the point where the idea of the opposition winning just one election could spell unrecoverable disaster for the country - finally send it off that cliff to the left or right. People have to stop buying into that and demand policies be won on their merits, not through political force, even if it means their favorites may not win this election, or even next. We have to see the quality of the discussion as the most important thing to fight for, and all our ideas and ideological preferences must come second. It's the only way we can make any progress over any real span of time.

[bascule]

Is it wrong to conclude that the Democratic base is full of itself, considers itself to be mentally a superior group

 

You can certainly say that about me, however applying it to Democrats as a whole is a composition fallacy.

 

No wonder partisanship is so strong over there.

 

Your conclusion is the strong partisanship here is due to arrogant Democrats who regard Republicans as their mental inferiors?

 

I don't think that's a particularly defensible position.

 

Has it occurred to anyone that you change minds by discussion and not by telling the other side that they are some sort of mental inferior?

 

Perhaps the issue you're not getting here is that the latter is a conclusion reached by the inability to accomplish the former. These are generally not people easily convinced by things like facts, evidence, and logical reasoning. In your statement is the tacit assumption that there is no discussion going on.

 

I frequently change my opinions when convinced otherwise. Many American conservatives do not.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

 

Says it all really.

 

Hmm, for some reason I thought you were going to link Penn & Teller. Their segment on getting the results you want from opinion polls is much better.

 

Have you seen this?

 

lUPMjC9mq5Y

 

It's hard to have a dialogue with people who have such a limited understanding of how government actually operates.

Edited September 29, 2009 by bascule

[iNow]

Has it occurred to anyone that you change minds by discussion and not by telling the other side that they are some sort of mental inferior?

Perhaps the issue you're not getting here is that the latter is a conclusion reached by the inability to accomplish the former. These are generally not people easily convinced by things like facts, evidence, and logical reasoning. In your statement is the tacit assumption that there is no discussion going on.

 

I frequently change my opinions when convinced otherwise. Many American conservatives do not.

 

And I think this is really the key point. Most of us have come to this conclusion AS A DIRECT RESULT OF trying, not INSTEAD of trying.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A very interesting article about exactly these points was put out this evening. A slightly chilling read, but worth your 3 or 4 minutes:

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/opinion/30friedman.html

I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.

 

And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish settler as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.

 

Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination. <

more at the link

>

[Pangloss]

But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.

 

Accusing the opposition of deligitimizing an argument is just another form of deligitimization. I don't see a lot of value in scaring people that Obama might be assassinated. It certainly shouldn't change his policies, so what's the point?

[iNow]

Accusing the opposition of deligitimizing an argument is just another form of deligitimization. I don't see a lot of value in scaring people that Obama might be assassinated. It certainly shouldn't change his policies, so what's the point?

 

When I read the article, Pangloss, I had a different understanding. I did not see this as some attempt to scare people that Obama would be assassinated. First of all, it's a very real possibility in this culture and climate, so there's always that... But I won't base any arguments on that since every president we've ever had led the country and lived with the possibility of assassination.

 

What I took from the article... And this couples well with many of the comments we've read here in these politics threads these last several weeks... including this one as shown above... is that this political climate is poisonous to us, and dangerous, and it's time we do something about it and stop accepting it. It goes beyond simply failing to make progress and get things done. It extends into us/them warring mentalities where facts and evidence can no longer overcome ideology and group associations.

 

People are living with witch burning mentalities and encouraging those mentalities in others. These "burn them at the stake" mind sets are being directly reinforced, and worse, leaders of the party are not denouncing the behaviors which are caustic to us as a nation and a people.

 

I appreciate your desire to avoid silly partisan attacks, but I truly hope it was not your intent to dismiss the change in tone and approach we're seeing as something not worthy of attention or concern. All of the wrong behaviors right now are being reinforced. People are self-selecting media and the battle drums are beating.

 

What I take issue with here is how many of those drums are drumming as a result of blatant lies, misinformation, and dismissals of reality.

 

 

 

From the article:

Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.

<...>

The American political system was, as the saying goes, “designed by geniuses so it could be run by idiots.” But a cocktail of political and technological trends have converged in the last decade that are making it possible for the idiots of all political stripes to overwhelm and paralyze the genius of our system.

[Dudde]

I've also seen on several occasions, including the above video, a bunch of conservatives sitting around with signs that are a little more hostile than I like to be when using my brain to solve problems. Things like 'not armed...yet' or 'it's time for another revolution'

 

 

iNow

What I take issue with here is how many of those drums are drumming as a result of blatant lies, misinformation, and dismissals of reality.

 

This is a good summary

[Moontanman]

I hope no one is surprised by the disingenuous nature of the Republicans Core or the ability of the Republican base to believe pretty much anything they are told as long as it agrees with their basic world view. Our whole society is currently ruled by people who only listen to people who say what they want to hear. News has gone from reporting the facts to spinning the situation to mean what ever the viewers want to hear. Medical care for the masses? Oh god no that would be socialism, and we all know socialism is just a half a step away from godless communism. Possibly I am too emotional to be completely unbiased on this but for a country as advanced as the USA purports to be to allow it's citizens to be destroyed financially or worse die from lack of medical care is simply wrong! What would Jesus do? If my read of the Bible was in any way accurate he wouldn't be a Conservative Republican for sure!

 

I still don't understand why my spell checker always capitalizes Conservative but not liberal

[bascule]

Accusing the opposition of deligitimizing an argument is just another form of deligitimization

 

That's an apples to oranges comparison. There's a rather stark contrast when one side delegitimizes the argument with lies and the other side delegitimizes their opponents with facts.

 

Much of the Republican opposition to healthcare reform is based on lies, examples of which can be found in the OP and are the topic of this thread.

[padren]

Accusing the opposition of deligitimizing an argument is just another form of deligitimization. I don't see a lot of value in scaring people that Obama might be assassinated. It certainly shouldn't change his policies, so what's the point?

 

Baseless accusations yes, but we are talking about observing a lot of events and dialog and drawing the conclusion they are deligitimizing their opponents. It's not simply shouting "You Deligitimize!" at the opposition.

 

As far as assassinations go it was a valid concern when Bush was President and it's a valid concern now. There were nuts on the left that accused Bush of basically the largest black flag op in world history and murdering thousands of Americans, election fraud and all but eating babies for breakfast. He was pretty heavily deligitimized by those groups and accusing those groups of such had merit. The key difference from that time however, is the Democrats denounced those nuts just as Republicans did. There were Democrats that accused him of milking 9/11 and endangering civil liberties and a great number of things - but those were based on his actions, not his ideology and did not deligitimize him, merely criticized him.

 

It's worth pointing out that difference and ask the question as to why Republicans are not denouncing these people. It has nothing to do with "scaring" anyone about possible assassinations or steering Obama's policy but to call the Republicans on their policies with regards to civil discourse.

[Pangloss]

What I take issue with here is how many of those drums are drumming as a result of blatant lies, misinformation, and dismissals of reality.

 

I agree.

 

 

As far as assassinations go it was a valid concern when Bush was President and it's a valid concern now.

 

Of course, and there are many intelligent, objective people working on such matters every day. Incidentally, I highly recommend Ronald Kessler's "In the President's Secret Service", published just last month. An excellent read.

 

 

It's worth pointing out that difference and ask the question as to why Republicans are not denouncing these people. It has nothing to do with "scaring" anyone about possible assassinations or steering Obama's policy but to call the Republicans on their policies with regards to civil discourse.

 

You could be right, but it raises the question of why the far left wasn't denounced by the moderate/mainstream left during the Bush administration. And THAT raises the question of whether this is really a fairly normal exercise in democracy.

 

But I agree with you -- moderate/mainstream political organizations should denounce the extreme members/examples of their own ideologies, rather than leveraging them. That should indeed be the way human politics works.

 

 

That's an apples to oranges comparison. There's a rather stark contrast when one side delegitimizes the argument with lies and the other side delegitimizes their opponents with facts.

 

Sure, but I don't believe that comparison entirely holds true in this case.

 

 

There seems to be a determined effort here to establish some sort of baseline accepted opinion that Republicans/conservatives are less rooted in reality and fact and more rooted in rabble-rousing behaviors. I submit that this is an opinion, and not a particularly important one, and in my opinion it is counter-productive and obscuring.

 

I don't believe it is important to determine which side, if any, tends to be more right than the other. What's important are the issues themselves, and the facts regarding them.

 

You all are, of course, welcome to feel differently, as I'm sure many of you do.

[bascule]

There seems to be a determined effort here to establish some sort of baseline accepted opinion that Republicans/conservatives are less rooted in reality and fact and more rooted in rabble-rousing behaviors. I submit that this is an opinion, and not a particularly important one, and in my opinion it is counter-productive and obscuring.

 

I don't believe it is important to determine which side, if any, tends to be more right than the other. What's important are the issues themselves, and the facts regarding them.

 

To reiterate yet again, and get back to the topic of the thread, the facts regarding the issues (namely healthcare in this case) are incredibly important, and a considerable number of Republicans are not choosing to learn the facts about the issue, instead propagating lies.

 

At least in the case instance of the healthcare debate, much of the opposition is based on lies.

[padren]

You could be right, but it raises the question of why the far left wasn't denounced by the moderate/mainstream left during the Bush administration. And THAT raises the question of whether this is really a fairly normal exercise in democracy.

 

Can we clarify the definitions in use? I see 'criticism' to essentially say "You are wrong, I find your plans to be full of flaws, you suck as a person, you are not being entirely honest, etc" and to 'delegitimize' is to say "You are a fraud, you have no right to the position you hold, you are an illegitimate fake and if the facts were known you'd be forced out of your office."

 

During Bush's first election, there was serious concern as to the legitimacy of the votes - as backed up by a huge series of facts and people in positions of clear conflict of interest (Katherine Harris, for instance) and lawsuits to stop doing manual vote counts.

 

However, the moment Al Gore conceded Bush was undeniably the next President of the United States. The far left continued to hammer Bush as illegitimate, but the main bulk of the party and Gore all called to move forward. Many were still bitter, many raised the question of "the mandate" in a term that failed to win the popular vote but he wasn't delegitimized by the Democrats.

 

When left wing fringers considered Bush to be behind 9-11 and effectively tried to delegitimize him they were panned universally by Democrats. In fact Democrats as a party failed to even criticize him for the most part after 9-11, and certainly never loaned credibility to those delegitimizing him.

 

He was accused of crimes but within the context of abusing his position, based on actions he took. I think that's pretty fair.

 

Can we clarify:

A) the meaning of "deligitimizing" someone and

B) the actions the right have taken to try and deligitimize Obama?

 

I think that would help clarify the topic