I’ve seen a lot of over-the-top responses to the new health care law — you know, it imposes socialism, ends freedom in America, etc. — and I’m struck by how similar those responses are to the over-the-top responses to the USA Patriot Act in 2001.
If you took the public outcry over the Patriot Act in 2001, replaced “police state” with “socialist state” and replaced “privacy” with “freedom,” and then replaced the claims of violating the Fourth Amendment with claims of violating the Commerce Clause, you would pretty much have the public outcry over the health care law today — except from the Right not the Left.
Of course, I’m not saying the two laws are the same. But I’m struck by the rhetorical similarities of the case made by the laws’ outspoken opponents.
Hei Lun Chan says:
But this time it’s different!
March 25, 2010, 3:06 pmJames Craig Ziegler says:
Maybe we can get a “repeal both at once” bill passed……
March 25, 2010, 3:08 pmDan says:
Of course, when it was liberals doing the complaining, the “rhetoric of opposition” was limited to rhetoric, not threats of violence. Funny, huh?
March 25, 2010, 3:08 pmlosantiville says:
Except the Patriot Act didn’t cost multiple $Trillions and reach every living American save for those lucky wetbacks.
The greater provable effect justifies the rhetoric. It’s an effing big deal.
March 25, 2010, 3:08 pmShelbyC says:
Wrong. I heard a liberal threaten violence as a result of the patriot act.
March 25, 2010, 3:13 pmlosantiville says:
Dan,
Actually, some of those “liberals” joined Jihad (Like Johnny Walker Green from Marin County, CA) and did commit acts of violence.
Vandalism against Republican campaign assets was much greater in ’04 and ’08 than anything that’s happened in the last week.
March 25, 2010, 3:13 pmcorneille1640 says:
It seems to me that on an emotional level, the prospect of violating the 4th amendment is worse than the prospect that Congress might overreach on its the commerce clause legislation. I’m not saying 4th amendment violations are necessarily worse than commerce clause overreaching (I can imagine scenarios where the latter might indeed be worse), but the “slippery slope” seems more slippery when it comes to the 4th amendment.
March 25, 2010, 3:14 pmSarcastro says:
I think the only thing to do is have a good, old-fashioned crazy-off. Cause each sides craziest proponents are exactly what everyone on that side believes!
March 25, 2010, 3:15 pmgtop says:
Recall: Craig Kilborn “Snipers Wanted”
March 25, 2010, 3:16 pmRandi Rhodes saying someone should off Bush like they did to Fredo in the Godfather. Idle and brainless threats of violence, with varying degrees of seriousness, are not limited to one side of the political spectrum. Sometimes they’re made by miscreant cranks. Sometimes by mainstream media.
Anonymous Jim says:
Way to stay classy!
March 25, 2010, 3:16 pmcorneille1640 says:
Did he join in response to the Patriot Act?
I appreciate your use of “scare quotes” around “liberals,” but how “liberal” is a person who joins the Taliban? (Oops! I just opened up this discussion to a threadjacking about whether or not liberals are al-Qaeda-incarnate-in-America. Sorry.)
March 25, 2010, 3:17 pmcorneille1640 says:
Mr. Kerr could point draw other comparisons, going back as far as (if not further than) the “Country Whig” pamphleteers of jolly old England. In short, I like Mr. Kerr’s title.
March 25, 2010, 3:19 pmA Muppet says:
Ok, but it’s only been a week. And are you seriously claiming that John Walker Lindh (who I assume is who you were refering to) joined the Taliban as a result of the PATRIOT Act? Because aside from being factually impossible (Lindh was in Afghanistan months before 9/11), doesn’t that also strike you as being kind of unlikely?
March 25, 2010, 3:19 pmptt says:
I think Orin is laying the foundation for an administration announcement of military death panels…
March 25, 2010, 3:19 pmPintler says:
I dunno quite who to call liberal or conservative, but just in my lifetime violence has been used or threatened by players from across the political spectrum: Weathermen, KKK, Black Panthers, McVeigh, WTO protests, and so on.
March 25, 2010, 3:22 pmAdam Sullivan says:
It is the old whacko reach around, where the left and right converge.
March 25, 2010, 3:25 pmSteve says:
I also remember all those Democratic legislators saying that it’s perfectly understandable that people would commit violence in response to having their rights taken away, and so forth.
March 25, 2010, 3:25 pmRPT says:
The new GOP: If only the Democrats wouldn’t report the death threats everything would be ok. Anyone here have familiarity with propane explosions? Not pretty.
March 25, 2010, 3:26 pmepluribus says:
Both sides of the political divide are guilty of using excessive rhetoric. The fact that this has been done before does not justify doing it now, nor does it equalize the offenses. Criticsm of the Patriot Act was in many ways excessive, but not as nearly as excessive as criticism of the health care reform today. Further, the Patriot Act enjoyed bipartisan support. Its original passage was supported by both Democrats and Republicans, and it was reauthorized by a Democratic Congress. The health care reform has no Republican support, and some of the harshest, really disgusting, rhetoric has come from members of Congress. The Republican leader of the House himself has said it amounts to Armageddon and will “ruin” the country.
March 25, 2010, 3:26 pmjukeboxgrad says:
OK:
What would be the best examples of “over-the-top responses to the USA Patriot Act” from leading Democrats? Because the “over-the-top responses” to HCR start at the very top of the GOP. Michael Steele, RNC chairman, has described the Dem health care plan as socialism on multiple occasions (link, link).
When did Howard Dean, or some other Dem leader, call the Patriot Act a “police state?” Here’s the closest I can get to such an example: an editorial in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and Erica Jong.
So where are the examples to support the comparison that’s being made?
March 25, 2010, 3:29 pmShelbyC says:
I disagree. I think the criticism of the Patriot Act was way more excessive then the criticism of health care reform.
March 25, 2010, 3:30 pmyankee says:
Are they really comparable? Here’s the contemporaneous statement of Russ Feingold, the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act, on why he opposed it. No accusations that it will create a police state, no allegations of fascism. Rather, he talks about how he worked to make it better, but the final bill did not “strike the right balance between empowering law enforcement and protecting civil liberties.” “Many of its provisions are entirely reasonable,” he says.
That’s worlds apart from the GOP’s approach to healthcare, with Orrin Hatch promising “outright war,” Mitt Romney accusing Obama of betraying his oath of office, Michael Steele calling it “the first vote for the end of representative government,” and Sarah Palin making up lies about “death panels.”
March 25, 2010, 3:30 pmMichael A. Livingston says:
But were the complaints necessarily wrong last time, and are they this time, either?
March 25, 2010, 3:33 pmjukeboxgrad says:
gtop:
And sometimes they are made by a member of congress who talks about how people need to be “armed and dangerous.” Which elected Dem ever made such a statement?
And it’s not terribly hard to find people dropping all sorts of hints about how the people might “violently revolt” if congress passes a bill they don’t like.
And we should expect to hear more of that from the GOP, since it has leaders who are encouraging people to be “armed and dangerous.” The current state of the GOP is not that the “miscreant cranks” are at the fringe. The “miscreant cranks” are in charge.
March 25, 2010, 3:39 pmbyomtov says:
Well, maybe, though I’m not sure how you compare the degree of “over-the-top-ness.” There’s always going to be some of that.
Rather than comparing the rhetoric of the harshest critics, maybe we could compare their numbers and positions of influence. The Patriot Act passed the Senate with one No vote. It passed the House 357-66, better than 5 to 1, with Democrats supporting it by more than 2-1.
So you did not, in fact, see an entire political party devoted to demonizing the legislation, as the Republicans are to demonizing HCR.
March 25, 2010, 3:39 pmyankee says:
I see others have made the same basic point as I have. Orin, do you have any examples of prominent Democratic politicians making the sorts of claims about the Patriot Act that prominent Republican politicians have made about Affordable Care Act? Governors, members of Congress, the head of the Democratic National Committee, Al Gore?
March 25, 2010, 3:40 pmBlue Neponset says:
Wow, couldn’t disagree more.
The patriot act passed the Senate by a 98-1 vote. The difference in the rhetoric is who is spouting it. In 2001 it was the far far left talking about a police state. In 2010 it is Senators and Congressman talking about socialism.
To me, that is a big difference. I am surprised you don’t see that distinction as being important.
March 25, 2010, 3:40 pmSarcastro says:
[Distinguishing based on content is tricky, since it gets into very subjective territory. That being said, one can imagine a realm where a law is bad enough to call for apocalyptic rhetoric, so who am I to say this isn't one of those times?
Though riling up the Civil War 2 folks sounds like a worse idea to me than getting the hippies all shoutey.]
March 25, 2010, 3:41 pmTamerlane says:
This is a good argument why harsh rhetoric is more justified now than then. The PATRIOT Act was supported by a large majority of the legislature and the people and was passed using standard legislative procedures. It was a neccessary response to a critical problem. The majority of the mean-spirited criticism of the legislation was from the left-wing of the Democrat Party. A small minority within a minority.
Something close to seventy percent of the American people oppose what the Obama administration and the Democrat leadership have imposed on us by a variety of unsavory pieces of legislative legerdemain. I cannot imagine how this piece of crap would have gotten through the debate and bi-partisan legislative process that resulted in the PATRIOT Act. Furthermore, not only does this legislation not solve pressing problems; instead it will exacerbate existing ones.
Considered with regard to the appropriate response towards each piece of legislation, the response to Obamacare has been muted and mild compared to the left’s response to the PATRIOT Act.
March 25, 2010, 3:42 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
It ought to be easy enough to figure this out. Following up on Sarcastro’s suggestion, more or less, I think we should form two teams, and tomorrow morning report back with the best examples of over-the-top rhetoric we’ve mined for each side: Patriot Act from 2001, and HCR in 2010. I trust Prof. Kerr to be the judge of who wins (although I suspect winning = losing in this case).
I’m a lawyer, so obviously I don’t mind working for either side.
March 25, 2010, 3:42 pmuh_clem says:
Can someone refresh my memory and post a couple of links to those “over the top” attacks on the Patriot Act?
Bonus points for someone that I’ve actually heard of. Extra bonus points for someone who was actually in a position of responsibility (i.e. Congressman, mass-media pundit, party official.) Say, something akin to “Armageddon!” as pronounced by a member of the Democratic House leadership.
’cause I don’t remember seeing that much that was over the top. Maybe I’ve forgotten, or maybe I wasn’t paying attention at the time. But I need an example to chew on.
March 25, 2010, 3:43 pmben says:
Even assuming he was motivated by opposition to the Patriot Act, which I highly doubt, how in the world can you call someone who joined the Taliban a liberal?
March 25, 2010, 3:44 pmSkyler says:
If they were both bad laws, shouldn’t the rhetoric be strident for each?
I don’t see any issue here at all. The Patriot Act was a collection of bad laws that the politicians had been trying to enact for many years and were opposed by the American people’s reaction to it. They leapt at the chance to enact it with a new name after 9/11.
The recently enacted takeover of the medical industry and student loans and car industry and banking industry, etc., is not the beginning of socialism. That happened quite a while ago, it’s just the latest depth we’ve sunk to, and it was the biggest drop yet.
So what was the reason that we were supposed to not complain about one or both of these laws?
March 25, 2010, 3:44 pmOctavian says:
Both laws constitute bad law and should be repealed post-haste.
March 25, 2010, 3:45 pmravenshrike says:
Senators, Congress, and Al Sharpton.
March 25, 2010, 3:45 pmMatt says:
Absolutely. Professor Kerr poses a remarkably weak analogy. Let’s examine the differences:
March 25, 2010, 3:47 pm1) Bush’s DOJ largely drafted the Patriot Act shortly after 9/11. Parts of what became the final bill were immediately taken up by the various committees with little analysis and no real markups. The final bill was introduced in the House on Oct. 23, 2001, about a month-and-a-half after 9/11 and became law on Oct. 26, 2001 after minimal floor debate in the House and Senate.
a) The health care bill (HCB), by contrast, was a year in the making. Several House and Senate committees spent months drafting the bill after negotiating with Republicans (Gang of Six), etc. etc. There has been extensive national, floor and media debate on the bill and President Obama signed it nearly a year after the first seeds were planted.
2) Several provisions of the Patriot Act have been struck down, including the use of national security letters and sneak-and-peek searches.
b) By contrast, the constitutionality of the HCB’s individual mandate and several other provisions will be tested by the courts, but no serious legal scholar believes – as a descriptive, rather than normative matter – that any provision will be struck down.
Houston Lawyer says:
I seem to recall our sitting president threatening people with mobs with pitchforks. Also, when union thugs beat up people in clear view of cameras, no one seems to mind.
The “healthcare reform” bills will affect personally every resident of the United States that ever needs medical attention. They were adopted without one vote from the opposition party. In contrast, the patriot act was bipartisan and affected very few individuals.
Oh, but let’s not use harsh words to criticize the healthcare bills, because that would be bad.
March 25, 2010, 3:51 pmPhil Smith says:
And it still doesn’t prevent insurers from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions (not for the next four years, anyway). Yeah, they did a great job.
March 25, 2010, 3:51 pmShelbyC says:
OK sez: “I’m struck by the rhetorical similarities of the case made by the laws’ outspoken opponents.”
I’m not sure how you can criticize him for not providing examples of prominent Dem opponents, since there really wern’t very many. And doesn’t the fact that there was no republican support of the health care bill say more about the bill than the repubs? The “no” side was the bipartisan one here, no?
March 25, 2010, 3:55 pmorca says:
Gallup has Obama’s approval at 51% today, up 4 points since the HCR debate began.
Righty Rasmussen has him at 48% approval today, also up 4 points.
March 25, 2010, 3:56 pmMatt says:
And 49%-40% say it was “a good thing” rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill.
But methinks that as long as conservatives continue living in their conservative fantasy world where Obama is a socialist, the bill is opposed by 99% of the country, and nothing of substance is ever worth discussing, we’ll be hearing a lot more of Tamerlane’s nonsense.
March 25, 2010, 4:00 pmepluribus says:
Words do have consequences. Angry rhetoric can and does lead to angry conduct. Republican leaders who have been in the vanguard of the angry rhetoric bear a lot of responsibility for the violence that ensues. Weak statements to the effect that “we understand the anger of the American people, but of course we deplore violence” don’t cut it. If anyone honestly and sincerely believes that this is Armageddon, as the Republican leader of the House calls it, is there any limit to what he or she would do to stop it, including vandalizing the offices of members of Congress, threatening to send “snipers” out, posting the home addresses of members, even a lot more? This has gone way, way too far.
March 25, 2010, 4:01 pmShalom Beck says:
In Professor Kerr’s version of the old fairy tale, we shouldn’t believe the boy who cried wolf because last week the girl down the street pulled the fire alarm.
Obama is a committed socialist who is implementing socialism. What is so hard about that to understand?
March 25, 2010, 4:04 pmepluribus says:
100% Republican opposition on every single vote is “bipartisan”? Give us a break.
March 25, 2010, 4:05 pmepluribus says:
Have you ever looked up the word “socialist” in the dictionary? I didn’t think so. It might disorient you.
March 25, 2010, 4:08 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Good questions, but not relevant. In this case, the anti-ObamaCare forces are getting judged on style without any examination of substance, a process which renders Klan meetings and Civil Rights rallies indistinguishable.
March 25, 2010, 4:08 pmShelbyC says:
100% plus some dems.
the “yes” side consisted of only dems.
March 25, 2010, 4:08 pmGuest14 says:
If what Obama is implementing is socialism, then bring on the socialism. It’s disgusting that the right thinks that the only purpose of this country, this society, is to extract as much wealth from the world and put it into the hands of the top tenth of a percent, the oligarchs. The values of the right are repulsive, and should be opposed. If that opposition is called “socialism”, so be it.
March 25, 2010, 4:10 pmSarcastro says:
This, folks, is how you argue.
I dare anyone to refute this off-topic edifice of logic and evidence! Soon, 110% of Americans will know the Kenyan usurper’s Cloward-Piven plan to make America the world’s first Sharia-Commie nation!
March 25, 2010, 4:11 pmepluribus says:
Shelby, you have demonstrated that there was some division among Democrats but absolutely none among Republicans. Nice try. No points.
March 25, 2010, 4:11 pmScrutineer says:
I’m struck by how similar those responses are to the over-the-top responses to the USA Patriot Act in 2001
The principal difference is that 99% of people griping about the Patriot Act had no idea at all what it actually did. Their thinking amounted to: Republican national security legislation + Orwellian title = police state.
To be fair, it’s probably justified to reflexively oppose anything cooked up by folks who favor language like “homeland security” and “patriot act”.
March 25, 2010, 4:12 pmuh_clem says:
I know. Examples are so 2009. Nobody cites examples anymore.
For instance, that lawsuit filed by the states Attorneys General seeking to overturn the HCR act contained No Case Citations .
Welcome to the future. Get used to it, as you’ll spend the rest of your life here.
March 25, 2010, 4:14 pmAllan Walstad says:
James Craig Ziegler says:
That would be a great deal indeed. Many people were angry about one, many people about the other, and at least some of us are very angry about both. As far as the “Patriot” Act is concerned, let me point out that if we do get to a police state, it will be no simple matter to say “oops” and turn around. Something quite similar applies to the feds’ health care takeover–undoing it will be a lot harder than it would have been to exercise even the tiniest sliver of common sense and not gone there in the first place.
The mechanisms of central government control over every aspect of our lives are being constructed, partly by committed collectivists, partly by clever but benighted pols playing their usual games, like “promise the moon,” “the sky is falling,” and “it’s THEIR (never our) fault.” Psychological habituation ensures that most people come to accept each imposition as the new normal.
Critics invoking “police state” and “socialism” are hardly going over the top; portraying them that way is itself just a type of rhetorical posturing.
March 25, 2010, 4:14 pmShelbyC says:
Well, I’m just scratching my head trying to understand some of the comments that seem to be implying that the fact that the no side had 100% of repubs and some dems makes that side less reasonable.
March 25, 2010, 4:15 pmAllan Walstad says:
Um, like the people who voted for it?
March 25, 2010, 4:16 pmyankee says:
There were prominent opponents of the bill, most notably Senator Feingold and 66 House members (mostly Democrats) who voted against it. Did any of those people employ the sort of rhetoric that the most prominent Republican politicians have been using to characterize the Affordable Care Act? Or prominent non-politicians: did MoveOn.org use the kind of rhetoric we see from Glenn Beck today?
You can find lots of contemporaneous examples of rank-and-file left-wingers using rhetoric like “police state,” but the most prominent individual and institutional opponents of the Patriot Act were remarkably restrained in their criticism. It’s completely different from the histrionics of the leaders of the opposition to the Affordable Care Act.
March 25, 2010, 4:17 pmlatinist says:
I’m a little disappointed by the response here. This is a libertarian site! Shouldn’t there be at least a few people saying “yes, exactly, the Patriot Act and the health care bill are two steps along the same road toward a socialist police state in which freedom and privacy are both relics of a forgotten past, thanks to the wretched Dempublicans”? Come on, libertarians! Speak up!
March 25, 2010, 4:23 pmMark Field says:
This reminds me of the 1860 election. Lincoln got zero votes in most Southern states (yes, he really got zero). By the twisted logic of the slaveholders, that made Lincoln a “sectional” candidate (bad) instead of a “national” one (good). A clear example of the pot calling the kettle black (literally, in this case).
March 25, 2010, 4:24 pmpc says:
It’s probably because the version of HCR that passed is more conservative than: Nixoncare, Republicancare circa 1993, BobDolecare and Romneycare.
March 25, 2010, 4:25 pmwolfefan says:
Hi ShelbyC –
The vote didn’t turn out to be bipartisan, but that doesn’t mean the bill itself wasn’t. I’m not sure what kind of bill would have gotten any GOP votes. It does, though, contain lots of GOP ideas (“death panels”, for instance.) My understanding is that the health care bill is in large part based on Heritage stuff from 1993 – 1994. Can’t provide cites right now, so I may be wrong…
March 25, 2010, 4:26 pmyankee says:
Many of the Conspirators are libertarians, but not all are. I’d characterize some as conservitarians, and others as Republican partisans.
There are virtually no libertarians among the commenters. Most are completely ordinary liberals or conservatives, though there are some conservatarians.
March 25, 2010, 4:31 pmRowerinVA says:
I dunno, Orin, this comparison is pretty thin. Critics of the Patriot Act rarely in writing (and never in person, in my experience) identify a specific provision of the Act as problematic, and they often don’t identify a specific Constitutional provision that is allegedly violated. (And when they do identify specific provisions, they are often wrong about them being new to the Patriot Act.)
The anti-Obamacare crowd is pretty direct on both points: the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is the main legal target, and the Constitutional objection is either the Commerce Clause or a broader discussion of the fact that Constitution establishes a government of limited powers, and the government here appears to be operating under a no-limits theory.
Heated rhetoric aside, the narrow legal focus of the latter group makes them pretty easily distinguishable.
Guest14, your claim:
… is a bit oversold, isn’t it? The US has the most progressive tax system in the world, by a large margin. It is, and for a long time has been, one of best places to be in the middle class or lower class; our poor are very rich compared to the rich (or in many cases the middle class) in most of the rest of the world, and the chief health problem of our poor is over-eating. There’s no evidence that in the US, Person A having 10x his needs makes Person B worse off, once Person B has 1x his needs. Envy isn’t a valid government concern. In fact, the evidence suggests that having a richer neighbor is good for you. Poor people seem to know this, as they overwhelmingly move to where the rich people are.
But if you really think wealth redistribution is imperative, have the courage of your convictions and donate all your money to those who have less. All of it.
March 25, 2010, 4:38 pmbyomtov says:
Shelby,
the “yes” side consisted of only dems.
I’ll join the others who have pointed out that, while that’s true of the vote on this bill, it’s hardly true of the underlying principles.
See here.
March 25, 2010, 4:39 pmNunzio says:
I dunno. Rhetoric, even heated rhetoric, seems to have been the norm for awhile (as anyone who participates in the VC comments can attest). Maybe it’s talk-radio, plus the internet, especially the ability of anyone with a phone cam to upload to YouTube, plus a handful of 24-hour cable news networks fanning the flames.
Basically, the college campus culture has gone viral so that a lot of public discourse is just ranting and raving.
Perhaps we should just be gentleman about it and bring back dueling
March 25, 2010, 4:52 pmtroll_dc2 says:
I note this item of interest: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501722.html?hpid=topnews
Want to bet that someone will defend the throwing of bricks as symbolic speech?
March 25, 2010, 4:53 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
Complaints don’t generally have case citations. Don’t get me wrong, I think their legal theory is doomed, but it has nothing to do with whether their complaint has citations.
March 25, 2010, 5:09 pmbyomtov says:
From troll_dc2′s link:
Vanderboegh said he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks. He said he receives $1,300 a month because of his congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension. He has private health insurance through his wife, who works for a company that sells forklift products.
I don’t begrudge the guy his disability check, or his health insurance, but he sure doesn’t seem overly reflective.
March 25, 2010, 5:10 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Well, I guess I disagree on several levels.
1. It’s sort of an “It’s the economy, stupid” thing. Reaching into someone’s pocket and snatching their cash generally elicits more angst than does esoteric slights like diminished privacy. If I discovered someone had been peeking into my window at night (depending on the gender, etc) I might be miffed. If I discovered someone had hacked my bank account and swiped $1,000 I would be a bit more than miffed.
2. It occurs to me the PROCESS here is generating a great deal of angst – the alleged usurpation of the normal function of Congress by a demi-God, his henchwoman and henchman, and a gaggle of gang-members acting blatantly in their own interests (bribes) at the expense of the country. The earlier affront can at least be LABELED something done to protect our country. Not so with the MOAB.
Then, of course, there is the extent of the MOAB compared to that of the Patriot Act. No one accused the later of adversely affecting – directly – a large portion of the population. If you have nothing to fear you have nothing to fear. With the MOAB, however, people fear the wholesale damage to an already crippled economy (job loss), wholesale additions to the debt (inflation), and wholesale diminution of medical care (death panels, etc.).
Regarding slippery slopes – I also believe some are VERY concerned the new Congressional procedures open a Pandora’s Box of trouble for other assaults.
March 25, 2010, 5:20 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Ok, troll_dc2, I’ll make you a deal: on the basis of your absurd anecdote, I’ll confess that us anti-reform reactionaries are a bunch of backwoods brick-throwing yahoos bent on violence, if you’ll stipulate, on the basis on my equally ludicrous anecdote, that the pro-reform crowd is made up of cannibals with an insatiable appetite for the man-flesh of their opponents.
March 25, 2010, 5:23 pmAnonsters says:
Gotta love it.
March 25, 2010, 5:24 pmDougInSanDiego says:
If you are so disgusted with the basic tenants of this country – freedom, self help, initiative, etc. – then why on EARTH would you immigrate here, if an immigrant, or stay here, if a native?
March 25, 2010, 5:27 pmAnonsters says:
If you don’t like exactly what I like, leave the country! This country was founded on and protects my principles, not yours! Go away!
[In lieu of Sarcastro.]
March 25, 2010, 5:31 pmepluribus says:
Thanks for this example of the kind of over-the-top rhetoric we’ve been talking about. Did you compose this pure BS on your own, or are you just quoting from the Republican leader of the House?
March 25, 2010, 5:32 pmAnthony says:
And this differs from HCR exactly how?
March 25, 2010, 5:32 pmSarcastro says:
Looks like Guest14 misspelled Freedom self help, initiative, etc. as “extract as much wealth from the world and put it into the hands of the top tenth of a percent, the oligarchs.”
Way to correct him and engage his argument DougInSanDiego
LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!
Also, I enjoyed how you said Health Care is different cause
1. Privacy is dumb, security rules. Health care is dumb, the economy rules!
2. No one complained about the PATRIOT act’s procedure!
3. No one expressed anxiety about the PATRIOT act’s effect on Americans.
Clearly, you listened quite carefully to the arguments made back in the day.
March 25, 2010, 5:33 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Whorehouse management is an horrifically stressful job.
Oh – wait – he said WAREhouse.
Nevermind.
March 25, 2010, 5:33 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Not asking you to leave.
Asking why you would wish to stay, given your utter disgust of the country.
March 25, 2010, 5:35 pmorca says:
For the socialized medicine?
March 25, 2010, 5:36 pmAnonsters says:
I don’t have an utter disgust of the country, just of certain ideas expressed in it.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I think those ideas should be suppressed.
Which is but one reason why I would want to remain in this country.
Anything else I can clear up for you, chief?
[P.S. I confess I liked orca's answer, above, better. Well-played, sir.]
March 25, 2010, 5:37 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Nope. People are more attached to their wallets than to their bay window blinds.
Nope. In fact, a clear majority of those in Congress went with the flow.
Slight of hand. The CORRECT issue is: no one created new ways in Congress to shove legislation down the throat of an unwilling Congress to get the Patriot Act approved.
March 25, 2010, 5:39 pmSarcastro says:
When I think America, I think health care through employment.
March 25, 2010, 5:39 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Ah ha!
March 25, 2010, 5:40 pmSarcastro says:
9-11 was awesome!
March 25, 2010, 5:40 pmAnonsters says:
Where “new ways” = “old ways used repeatedly in the past by both Republicans and Democrats.”
March 25, 2010, 5:41 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Just looking out for your health! A life of unhappiness is no way to live. If you dislike the whether or culture in Boston, by all means move to another city. Same with countries.
March 25, 2010, 5:41 pmepluribus says:
I love your logic, Doug. Anybody who wants to reform health care hates the country and should leave it. Makes sense to me. People outside the country are the ones who can reform health care inside the country, aren’t they, Doug? Again, did you think this gem of logic up on your own, or are quoting it from the Republican leader?
March 25, 2010, 5:42 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Nah – that was pure creativity at work.
March 25, 2010, 5:43 pmPhilC says:
Interesting article troll at 4:53, especially this:
“But in the mid-1970s, Vanderboegh read Friedrich von Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom,” among other books, and had an epiphany.”
I take it that epiphany was bricks, as civil disobedience.
March 25, 2010, 5:43 pmDougInSanDiego says:
OMG!
I had no IDEA 9-11 was perpetrated by CONGRESS.
Kind of makes sense, though.
March 25, 2010, 5:44 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
Orca, if I ruined my monitor by spitting Diet Coke all over it just now, I’m sending you the bill!!
March 25, 2010, 5:44 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Oh, I personally think MOST people would like to address and correct the faults in health care. Come to think of it – it seems this “you don’t want health care reform” silliness has been addressed once or twice before.
I’ll have to go back and see what I actually said, cause I don’t recall saying anyone who likes HCR should leave the country. By memory, the discussion was about hating the basic tenants of the country – you know, that pesky freedom and liberty thing.
March 25, 2010, 5:48 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Odd.
I recall ‘reconciliation’ being used in the past, but not to reconstruct a huge portion of the economy such that the government can control what was previously free enterprise.
March 25, 2010, 5:50 pmepluribus says:
Doug:
You have mentioned these tenants a couple of times. Who are they? You don’t have to give names, but maybe you could characterize them. Are then co-tenants? Joint tenants? Tenants by the entirey? Tenants at will? I’m having trouble understanding your point (I’m sure you must have one) and would appreciate it if you would explain.
March 25, 2010, 5:52 pmepluribus says:
Doug,
March 25, 2010, 5:56 pmPeter says:
Orrin,
You dont give us much to chew on.
On Monday, you observed that scholars agree the law is constitutional. nothing on why is it is constl, ie prior examples of similar uses of the commerce power, or explaining how it is in fact an exercise of the tax power.
today you tell us that lots of people are mad about the law, and lots of people were mad about the patriot act. what are we to make of this? bc lots of unsound arguments were offered before re the patriot act, the arguments offered now over obamacare are unsound as well?
Pretty sparse servings if you ask me. of course no one did.
March 25, 2010, 5:57 pmAnonsters says:
So, in other words, you’re baaaawing about the substance, not the procedure.
So then stop pretending you’re bawing about procedure. Because you’re not. The procedure, as such, is what the procedure’s been in the past.
March 25, 2010, 5:58 pmAnonsters says:
And yet there are already nearly 100 comments on this thread. ;)
March 25, 2010, 6:00 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Like, what, voting? Even “deem and pass” went by the boards, whether or not it was legitimate. I don’t quite understand how passage of a statute equals “imposed”. You don’t like it and your party didn’t like it, well, too bad.
March 25, 2010, 6:10 pmsecond history says:
I recall ‘reconciliation’ being used in the past, but not to reconstruct a huge portion of the economy such that the government can control what was previously free enterprise.
Reconciliation was not used to pass the health care bill, it passed using regular procedures. Reconciliation was used to amend the previously approved legislation, just has it has been used in the past to change existing laws.
Reconciliation has been used to create COBRA insurance (the name is from the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985); the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); tax cuts in 1993, 1997, 2001, 2003, and 2005; welfare reform; and reduced Medicare spending (2005). All of these changes, particularly the tax cuts, had an large impact on the economy.
March 25, 2010, 6:13 pmDougInSanDiego says:
The little old guy who owns the corner store gives you credit so when you need a gallon of milk and have forgotten you wallet you need to be inconvenienced. The favor works fine for a while.
Later, you drive up to the front door with your rental van and begin emptying the shelves. When done, you say you want to sign. The little old shopkeeper objects but you insist, claiming he had offered you the right. You then take off for your annual trek to the Amazon basin, returning 2 months later to find the shop out of business. Seems the old guy could not pay his bills.
That’s an abuse of the procedure – not of what you ‘bought’.
This is not all that difficult to understand ………….
March 25, 2010, 6:16 pmDougInSanDiego says:
Reconciliation was used to pass the jointly approved bill because the gang of Pelosi, et al, lacked the needed votes using a normal process. It was a misuse of the process, taken up specifically because the standard process would not get the job done.
Further, not many would claim that COBRA, etc had the sweeping restructuring effects that the MOAB does. Cramming THIS piece of legislature through with the bastardized process used to do so … not similar to the other Acts you mentioned.
March 25, 2010, 6:22 pmtroll_dc2 says:
Doug, do you EVER concede that someone else who disagrees with you might have a point?
March 25, 2010, 6:26 pmuh_clem says:
100 comments, but not a single example of “over the top” rhetoric against the Patriot Act.
March 25, 2010, 6:27 pmAnonsters says:
Actually, I have no idea what you were trying to say in your analogy/metaphor/short story.
March 25, 2010, 6:32 pmGuy says:
Orin, admit it. You love riling all the commenters up by pointing out that everyone occasionally suffers from cognitive dissonance. Do you get paid for each comment?
March 25, 2010, 6:40 pmDave N. says:
I haven’t been participating in this food fight, but with 30 seconds of search and using very elementary Google skills — “Howard Dean Patriot Act” — found this, directed at those benevolent, fairminded folks at MoveOn.org, and republished on their website.
March 25, 2010, 6:49 pmAnonsters says:
Democrats: Sign this Petition to express your anger!
Republicans: Throw bricks through Congresspeople’s windows!
March 25, 2010, 7:00 pmDave N. says:
Or maybe Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe, who noted:
Just to make sure that Jacoby was not misquoting Senator Kerry, I found another source (though there are many others).
And this from a guy who voted FOR the Patriot Act.
March 25, 2010, 7:02 pmAnonsters says:
Dave, to be fair to John Kerry, he was against it before he was for it before he was against it. Maybe.
March 25, 2010, 7:04 pmDave N. says:
Anonsters,
Yeah, and the fringe who called for George W. Bush’s assasination at anti-war rallies represented the Democratic mainstream.
Get a grip.
March 25, 2010, 7:04 pmAnonsters says:
Yeah, the NRCC hasn’t tacitly endorsed the intimidation of Congresspeople by violence. Really, nothing to see here.
Anyway, I will agree to get a grip if you’ll agree to wake up. Deal?
March 25, 2010, 7:09 pmepluribus says:
A white powder and a threatening letter have been discovered in Congressman Anthony Weiner’s office. Weiner voted for health care reform. Words do have consequences, don’t they?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001197-503544.html
March 25, 2010, 7:09 pmBob from Ohio says:
That would be cool. Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell at 20 paces.
Would they have to use flintlocks though? That would be awkward.
March 25, 2010, 7:11 pmyankee says:
Yep. Dean pledged to “repeal those parts of the Patriot Act that betray the Bill of Rights” (emphasis added) and said it is “undermining our civil liberties.” No references to the “crown jewel of [fascism],” a police state, or the “end of representative government.” No claims that it created “death [squads].” No declarations of “outright war” with the Republicans or promises that his administration would refuse to cooperate with the Republicans about anything. No thinly veiled threats of violence.
March 25, 2010, 7:11 pmsecond history says:
From the Washington Post, reporting from the lunatic fringe:
March 25, 2010, 7:19 pmDave N. says:
“They call . . . taking away our civil liberties ‘The Patriot Act.’” That seems a little over the top to me, but hey, YMMV
March 25, 2010, 7:22 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Excellent!
March 25, 2010, 7:24 pmDave N. says:
Sorry, my employer blocks “Talking Points Memo” (which, as its name implies, a series of Democratic talking points).
Here’s the NRCC website. Please point to the section of THAT website where the NRCC “tacitly endorsed the intimidation of Congresspeople by violence.”
March 25, 2010, 7:27 pmAnonsters says:
Here’s the story from the Roanoke Times. The money quote is from Andy Sere, NRCC spokesman. Compare with statements in same story by Gov. Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
March 25, 2010, 7:30 pmgtop says:
What she said was stupid and intemperate. We can go back and forth on this all day if you like, but whatever she said, it was not a clear wish to see the President dead like the ones I cited.
March 25, 2010, 7:33 pmAlanDownunder says:
Orin’s struck by the similarities, I’m struck by the differences.
One law is about surveillance, the other about health care; one law affects liberties, the other affects the wallet; one law might have saved the odd life or limb, he other is guaranteed to save thousands; one law was top-down ‘vote quick or you’re a traitor’ from the White House, the other took ages in a bottom up process on the hill; one law had a fair degree of bipartisan congressional support from Dems, the other had only disciplined lockstep obstruction from the GOP.
Not even playground-level “he did it too, Miss” works for Orin here.
March 25, 2010, 7:34 pmAlanDownunder says:
Oh, and Romney and the AEI devised Obamacare, while the Patriot Act was pure Cheney and Rove.
March 25, 2010, 7:37 pmDave N. says:
So some idiot named Andy Sere says something incredibly stupid. Frankly, the NRCC should fire him (and also find someone who realizes spewing talking points at inappropriate times is REALLY, REALLY dumb). But that still doesn’t come close to justifying your comment:
March 25, 2010, 7:39 pmSkyler says:
Epluribus:
Yes, it has. The congress went WAY too far in dismantling the little freedom we have left in this country.
March 25, 2010, 7:42 pmamateur historian says:
Several people have said that the overheated leftie rhetoric came only from the “fringe,” not from Democratic leaders.
So when Al Gore raged about the “brownshirts” — calling the Bushies Nazis — was he officially re-classified from near-Presidential leader to crazy fringe guy?
March 25, 2010, 7:42 pmNunzio says:
Can we all agree that calling it the PATRIOT Act, based on an acronym, was silly?
It is very difficult to take politicians seriously
March 25, 2010, 7:44 pmtroll_dc2 says:
So we have no freedom left? Or did you say what you did just because you wanted to provide proof that Orin was right?
March 25, 2010, 7:45 pmAnonsters says:
Well, we agree on something, at least.
Kumbaya, my brother.
March 25, 2010, 7:45 pmAnonsters says:
The USA PATRIOT Act, no less.
March 25, 2010, 7:46 pmDave N. says:
I agreed with you on John Kerry, too. But that was low-hanging fruit.
(And USA PATRIOT Act is the DUMBEST name EVER given to ANY piece of legislation passed by ANY legislative body on this Earth. So we agree there, too.)
Peace.
March 25, 2010, 7:46 pmJohn says:
Did you see all thos Tea Party Kitties standing outside a polling station in Philadelphia with lead lined pocketbooks intimidating voters in the last election?
March 25, 2010, 7:57 pmJohn says:
Slow boil. Is freedom lost when the federal government forces you to pay a penalty for doing nothing?
March 25, 2010, 8:03 pmRPT says:
All of it.
March 25, 2010, 8:03 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Howard Dean decried the Patriot Act as “shameful,” “morally wrong,” and “unconstitutional.” Al Gore insisted that the Patriot Act resulted in “constant violations of civil liberties,” was among Bush administration policies that placed America on a path “toward the dangers prophesized by George Orwell in his book ’1984,’” and called for its repeal.
I think that Dean and Gore were intemperate and wrong. But I do not have a problem with them making their political case to the country in these terms. I fail to see how the Republican leadership’s articulation of its opposition to Obamacare is any more disagreeable. The tenor of the GOP’s remarks are much the same–i.e., that Obamacare and/or the fashion in which it was enacted are shameful, morally wrong, unconstitutional, and threaten our basic freedoms and way of life. One can disagree with this assessment, of course; but, the claim that Republicans are more strident strikes me as a straightforward application of Kerr’s Law.
Of course, other liberals/progressives expressed their outrage over the Patriot Act in even more inflammatory terms. For example, Naomi Wolf appears to have approved of an academic’s comparison of the Patriot Act with Nazi legislation. This sort of invective was not at all uncommon with respect to the Patriot Act or the Bush administration’s approach to civil liberties. (Glenn Greenwald condemned Professor Kerr for even daring to be civil on the subject.)
March 25, 2010, 8:09 pmRPT says:
That would not be a fair fight. McConnell is not exactly your tough guy type.
March 25, 2010, 8:10 pmSkyler says:
troll asked:
No, we no longer appear to have many recognized freedoms.
For the past twenty years that I’ve noticed, the CDC and WHO have tried to make every political issue into a medical issue. This is before we have a nationalized medical industry. Everything from gun control to bullying in schools has been considered a medical issue.
Now we’ve got the first lady declaring war on obesity.
There is no limit to what can be labeled a “health” issue. I’ve had government medical forms from the military ask me how many times I use a condom with my wife or if I have a gun in the home. There is NO limit to what the government will classify as a health issue.
You want to smoke a cigarette or pipe? Uncle Sam will decide how that affects what medical treatments you get. You keep a gun in your home? Obama’s cronies will determine whether that is appropriate for your children’s health.
When the government tells you that you must buy something whether you want it or not, then you have no freedom.
We’re done. The experiment in democracy is over. We’ve seen its end this week. We may salvage something by repealing this bill, but I doubt it at this time. I haven’t seen any tendency for politicians of any stripe to voluntarily relinquish power once it has been put in place.
March 25, 2010, 8:13 pmMark Field says:
I kind of like this idea.
And orca: Great comeback.
March 25, 2010, 8:18 pmElliot says:
This will be wonderful. Both sides will shocked at the threats and slurs of the other. Congressman Bullmoose will blather away about his courage in standing up for principle in the face of threats to his life. Sensitives from all across the political spectrum will wring their hands in glee at the prospect of moral exhibitionism. Let the games begin.
March 25, 2010, 8:18 pmepluribus says:
The Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk:
I’ll accept your word on this. But your failure is not a very persuasive argument.
March 25, 2010, 8:26 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
epluribus:
Well, I provided specific examples (with links) of Democratic rhetoric regarding the Patriot Act that I regard as being equivalent to the rhetoric of the Republican leadership on healthcare. Readers will have to decide for themselves whether that evidence is persuasive; but, I note that you: (a) do not address those examples; or (b) provide any counter-examples. Given the sarcasm of your substance-free comment, I gather that you are not actually interested in any such evidence nor open to persuasion. Accordingly, I am not going to lose any sleep over your judgment as to the persuasiveness of my argument.
March 25, 2010, 8:56 pmRoger the Shrubber says:
And pretty soon, they’ll be coming for our precious bodily fluids.
March 25, 2010, 9:00 pmepluribus says:
The Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
Good night, and pleasant dreams.
March 25, 2010, 9:01 pmuh_clem says:
Well, that’s an example. It’s not a very good example since it doesn’t support Prof Kerr’s thesis. But the link does indeed work. that’s a start:
“As Americans, we need to stand up—all of us—and ensure that our laws reflect our values. As President, I will repeal those parts of the Patriot Act that undermine our constitutional rights, and will stand against any further attempts to expand the government’s reach at the expense of our civil liberties.”
I can understand why you don’t agree with Dr. Dean when he says this, but it’s nowhere near the “Baby Killer” “Armageddon” rhetoric we’re seeing on HCR.
Nice try. Thanks for playing.
Any others?
March 25, 2010, 9:06 pmFrank Howland says:
I always find it surprising that you libertarians care so much more about property rights than rights of personal freedom. You seem to believe much more in the rights of huge corporations than those of ordinary people. It also surprise me that even seemingly sensible people like Orin can ignore the much more violent rhetoric and actions of the people opposed to health care reform than those who were and are upset about the Patriot Act.
March 25, 2010, 9:16 pmHans Clapton says:
What’s the “over-the-top” part?
March 25, 2010, 9:18 pmmattski says:
Conservatocialists!
March 25, 2010, 9:18 pmElliot says:
I nominate the following for special consideration by the vapors committee:
“I know how the “tea party” people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their “Obama Plan White Slavery” signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.”
Courtland Milloy
March 25, 2010, 9:25 pmWashingon Post 3/22/10
The Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
uh-clem:
I cited examples involving notable Democrats (Howard Dean and Al Gore) that support Kerr’s thesis in a prior comment. This sort of talk about the dire consequences of the Patriot Act was common on the Left in general; a good example would be Scott Horton‘s reference to the Patriot Act as granting “police-state powers” and calling for its repeal or this faculty speech that ends with a call for impeachment and worries that otherwise “there may be no democracy left to defend.”
March 25, 2010, 9:37 pmmattski says:
That’s not funny.
March 25, 2010, 9:42 pmDougInSanDiego says:
sounds like a nice, normal, well adjusted person who would make FINE neighbor.
March 25, 2010, 9:43 pmStephen Lathrop says:
A basic tenet: if you don’t like how it runs, use freedom, self help and initiative to try to change it. All get the basic tenet benefit—tenants, disgusting tenants, even tenters, basic tenants, immigrant tenters, immigrant tenants—all can be tenanted under this tent. It’s a big tenet.
March 25, 2010, 10:19 pmDavid Gaw says:
On the other hand, if you take the public outcry over in , replaced with and replaced with and then replaced with , I think you’d find every political controversy is similar to every other political controversy. I think it’s the validity (or lack thereof) of the specific criticisms that determines both the merits of those claims and how similar they are to other claims. It remains to be seen which claims are actually “over-the-top” and which have merit, though I suspect that even in the fullness of time there will remain considerable disagreement over who was right.
March 25, 2010, 10:39 pmDavid Gaw says:
Er, that didn’t work. Let’s try that again:
On the other hand, if you took the public outcry over (political issue) in (year), replaced (criticism) with (different criticism) and replaced (value) with (different value) and then replaced (claim) with (different claim), I think you’d find every political controversy is similar to every other political controversy. I think it’s the validity (or lack thereof) of the specific criticisms that determines both the merits of those claims and how similar they are to other claims. It remains to be seen which claims are actually “over-the-top” and which have merit, though I suspect that even in the fullness of time there will remain considerable disagreement over who was right.
March 25, 2010, 10:41 pmjukeboxgrad says:
gtop:
Bachmann is an elected Republican member of congress. Which elected Democrat expressed “a clear wish to see the President dead?” Which elected Democrat said, like Bachmann, that the people should be “armed and dangerous?”
I am not claiming that my fringe is less nutty than your fringe. I’m simply pointing out that your inmates have taken over your asylum. This is a key distinction. The opening post is all about glossing over that distinction.
===============
elliot:
Courtland who? Are you planning to quote anyone else no one ever heard of? I already cited Erica Jong. You should be trying to do better than that, not worse.
===============
curmudgeonly:
I wonder if you know who said this about the Patriot Act:
Was it Dean? Gore? Cindy Sheehan? Michael Moore? Ward Churchill? Barbra Streisand? Rosie O’Donnell? Keith Olbermann? Or was it Robert A. Levy, “a senior fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute?”
I have a feeling you know the answer.
Do you see a material difference between what Levy said, as compared with what Dean and Gore said? I don’t. And you claim that those statements are comparable to Michael Steele repeatedly describing HCR as socialism? Even though “the version of HCR that passed is more conservative than: Nixoncare, Republicancare circa 1993, BobDolecare and Romneycare?”
How do you make that add up?
==========
amateur:
Hmm, let’s see:
I’m having a hard time getting worked up over one remark by Gore.
March 25, 2010, 10:42 pmElliot says:
Courtland Milloy. Metro columnist for the Washington Post since 1983.
March 25, 2010, 11:03 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Duh. I know. I’m not click-impaired. My point is that unlike Michael Steele, Michelle Bachman, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (various people who have been quoted in this thread), no one ever heard of him.
If you think it’s a good idea for all of us to start citing unreasonable and/or questionable and/or offensive statements by people no one ever heard of, we are quickly going to run out of recycled pixels and electrons.
March 25, 2010, 11:17 pmTGGP says:
Hei Lun Chan:
March 25, 2010, 11:21 pmBut this time it’s the same, and that’s why I’m still angry!
Purple Koolaid says:
Not the patriot act, but I do remember people going bat-crap crazy about welfare reform. Good thing Clinton signed it, or it would have been worse.
Turned out to be one of the best things that ever happened to poor people in this country.
March 25, 2010, 11:45 pmJoseph Slater says:
Re the “USA PATRIOT Act,” I’ve long felt that names of statutes should NEVER be acronymns that spell words.
March 25, 2010, 11:51 pmuh_clem says:
Which particular quote supports his thesis? Let’s see it in context.
And, BTW, calling something “unconstitutional” is not over the top. Several front-page posters here have described HCR as unconstitutional and while I disagree with them, I don’t think that they’re out of line – “unconstitutional” is just a technical term, and as long as a reasonable argument is provided why something violates the constitution it’s entirely reasonable to use the term.
March 25, 2010, 11:54 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
That would be the Iroquois?
March 26, 2010, 1:14 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The Rhetoric of Opposition -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by tim.gier. tim.gier said: via @VolokhC The Rhetoric of Opposition – http://goo.gl/HXue [...]
March 26, 2010, 1:29 amSteve P. says:
Well, I’m a little late to the party, but the similarities that Prof. Kerr notes occurred to me earlier, as well. They are very different pieces of legislation, with very different effects, but the overblown rhetoric is definitely reminiscent of 2002.
There are tangential differences – after health care we have threats of rightwing violence (with both sides making hay), while back then there was a disconnect between progressives and their representatives. Still, as I recall, the PATRIOT act was viewed as the most evil thing to walk on two hooves.
My favorite cartoon of the times.
March 26, 2010, 1:32 amDave N. says:
Amen! The name is an abomination.
(COBRA is a bit different, since there is little evidence that someone with too much time on his or her hands was trying to be cute)
March 26, 2010, 2:19 amG. May says:
Let’s not pretend one party is substantially worse than the other in this regard. Inmates running the asylum? This whole my-party-isn’t-as-sleazy-as-your-party argument beongs on a freakin’ playground, not a respected law blog.
I think you may find criticism of The Patriot Act a little more muted simply because the vitriol, hatred and violence directed toward Republicans and Bush was spread out over a several policy areas. As of right now, the Democrats only have one, so it’s just easier for opposition to focus. Just a theory.
My negative views of The Patriot Act and Obamacare are similar in that they were both hastily concocted, go too far, will accomplish too little, needlessly expand government’s reach, and their implementation was questionable.
The strange thing is how no one wants to own up to the socialist label here. Is socialism bad or something? Oh, I’m sure I’ll be greeted with the same sort of dismissive argument which amounts to “read a textbook” that always makes me chuckle. One would think that those who worship at the altar of nuance could grasp the reality that a major shift in economic ideology in a modern and extremely complex economy/government such as ours is not going to look like a neat and trim text book model.
In reading this blog and its comments over time, I get the impression that people think socialism means GM would actually stand for Government Motors, the rich actually cut checks made out to a list of poor people approved by the IRS, and that there’s just one bank – The First Last U.S. National Bank. Or something like that.
I guess having a lot of socialisty stuff before Obama and Co. gave things a violent shove in that direction (short list: government control of the means of production (GM), government forcibly giving workers control of the means of production (Chrysler), massive and rapid government intervention in services (Obamacare), and effectively nationalizing the financial industry) doesn’t really count? At this point, it seems more a matter of determining what type of Socialists the Democratic leaders are, rather than if they are.
Heck, you can argue one way or the other that a progressive federal income tax is socialist, but it’s tough to say it’s not when you increase the EITC to provide a net gain in income to the working poor. If you really want to get into the weeds, you can look at the redistributive nature of much of the stimulus. But if you want to look at wealth redistribution, you don’t have to look much further than what’s coming out of the horses’ mouths.
March 26, 2010, 3:42 amyankee says:
This made me laugh out loud. So true!
March 26, 2010, 4:40 amSteverino says:
Don’t you think it’s a little disengenuous to frame the question quite that way?
The Patriot Act passed with broad bipartisan support. It passed with 98 in favor in 2001 in the Senate. And 89 in favor in 2006.
Here’s a link to a left wing site with the roll call. But it links to to the Senate itself.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml
Why is it surprising that leading Republicans are leading the charge in favor of HCR? They actually are in favor of repealing HCR. They certainly didn’t vote for it, as the Democrats did in the case of the Patriot Act.
These are two entirely different circumstances. In the case of the Patriot Act, very few in the Democratic establishment were against it. So you won’t find many Democratic leaders denouncing it.
In the case of HCR, all of the Republican establishment was against it. So you will find a great many Republican leaders denouncing it.
It seems natural, no?
As far as the whole socialism question goes, it probably doesn’t help your case that Sen. Baucus and Dr. Dean have been bragging about how health care reform is really a victory for wealth redistribution.
You’re gonna have to forgive us po’ folk. When the democrats claim a victory for wealth redistribution, we’re gonna think socialism.
Of course, it also doesn’t help that Newsweek runs an edition following Obama’s victory that proclaims “We Are All Socialists Now” on the cover.
http://redhatrob.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/newsweek-socialist-cover.jpg
Or that Al Sharpton is proclaiming victory for socialism.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/03/22/al-sharpton-american-public-overwhelmingly-socialism-when-they-elected-pr
It seems sort of nit-picky to insist on debating about just how much, exactly, of the means of production President Obama has to nationalize before you’ll acknowledge the existence of socialism, doesn’t it?
You’ll miss the victory party at Al’s. I hear they’re having a BBQ. Wear red.
March 26, 2010, 4:48 amTim says:
And none of them (ZERO) planted the seeds for nationalization of 1/6 of the economy. On the contrary, this bill absolutely does. If people cannot afford health insurance, the government will have to provide it for them or they will have to pay the fine.
March 26, 2010, 8:16 amjukeboxgrad says:
g may:
It’s not a good sign for the quality of your argument that you posted a video which falsifies what Ellison said. The video you cited carries this title: “Keith Ellison [says] 9-11 was a setup.” For some odd reason, it is strategically edited to end precisely at the moment that Ellison was about to say this: “The fact is, I’m not saying September 11 was a U.S. plan or anything like that, because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box, dismiss you.” And Ellison also said this:
And he also took responsibility for making an inappropriate comparison:
How ironic that the person who edited the video (and people like you who cite this video) are doing exactly what Ellison predicted: distort what he said in order to put him “in the nut-ball box.”
It’s also worth recalling this about PNAC:
PNAC made that statement a year before 9/11. I don’t like Ellison’s rhetoric (and I’m glad he retracted it), but the premise underlying his comparison is correct: Bush and the GOP exploited 9/11 in order to get away with doing things they had been itching to do for a long time. As someone else put it: “he was saying that a tragedy was used in a manipulative way. And that’s where the comparison ends.”
When the best thing you can find to run up the flagpole is something pointedly unimpressive, what you’re better off running up the flagpole is nothing at all.
Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk thinks we should be shocked because Dean and Gore reacted to the Patriot Act the same way that the Cato Institute did. Trouble is, there’s nothing shocking about that. And given the full context of what Ellison said (and what he said afterward), there’s nothing shocking about that either.
On other hand, we have the head of the RNC repeatedly describing HCR as socialism, even though HCR is roughly the equivalent of Romneycare. We have an elected official like Bachmann encouraging people to be “armed and dangerous.” We have Tim Pawlenty saying (one day after the Stack-IRS attack) that people should “take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government in this country.” We have Cheney himself accusing Obama of treason. We have Palin promoting birtherism. We have CPAC welcoming sponsorship by the John Birch Society. We have 45% of Republicans believing Obama was not born in the US, and 57% believing he’s a Muslim. We have Liz Cheney and Bill Kristol coming up with “The Al Qaeda Seven,” rhetoric so extreme that even Ken Starr is embarrassed.
There are nuts in both parties, but in the GOP the nuts are now running the show.
According to his son, William F. Buckley said this:
Buckley has lost that battle.
The pretending is all yours. The first step is admitting you have a problem.
March 26, 2010, 9:39 amStephen Lathrop says:
More than half of healthcare is already in Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans system etc., hence nationalized. Even accepting your premise, which is a silly premise, the current reform can’t be nationalizing more than 1/12 of the economy.
March 26, 2010, 9:49 amThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
jukeboxgrad:
The fact that someone at the Cato institute said something on par with what Al Gore, for example, said about the Patriot Act doesn’t assist your argument. The question in this thread is not whether anyone’s characterizations are correct; as Professor Kerr noted in the post “I’m not saying the two laws are the same. But I’m struck by the rhetorical similarities of the case made by the laws’ outspoken opponents.” What your counter-argument boils down to is the contention that the Partiot Act’s detractors were right and Obamacare’s detractors are wrong on the merits. But that does answer the question of whether their rhetoric is similar (which is what Kerr asserted).
And, in keeping with your usual tendency on this site toward hyper-partisan ranting and raving, you simply mischaracterize what I said. I certainly have not claimed that anyone should be shocked by Gore et al.’s rhetoric. To the contrary, I wrote that “I think that Dean and Gore were intemperate and wrong [on the merits]. But I do not have a problem with them making their political case to the country in these terms.”
uh-clem:
I already provided you with both the quotations and links that provide the context. I think your unwillingness to address them — after repeatedly demanding that they be produced — says more than a little about your willingness to contemplate evidence that might cotradict your views.
March 26, 2010, 10:16 amElliot says:
“Duh. I know. I’m not click-impaired. My point is that unlike Michael Steele, Michelle Bachman, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (various people who have been quoted in this thread), no one ever heard of him”
I suspect we have all heard of the Washington Post. Incitement to violence in the Washington Post by an employee of the Washington Post? I’d say that qualifies.
March 26, 2010, 11:28 amjukeboxgrad says:
curmudgeonly:
I don’t think you’re actually paying attention to what Kerr actually said:
He’s talking about “responses to the USA Patriot Act in 2001″ which were allegedly “over-the-top.” He has been asked to demonstrate examples of D leaders who offered such “over-the-top” responses. He has not done so.
You mentioned Dean and Gore. Are you claiming what they said was “over-the-top?” If so, then you should explain why taking the same position as the Cato Institute (on that issue) should be considered “over-the-top.”
If you are not claiming that what Dean and Gore said was “over-the-top,” then your comment is not relevant to Kerr’s claim.
I notice you said this:
Presumably that means you do not consider their remarks “over-the-top,” because everyone should “have a problem” with political discourse that’s “over-the-top.” By definition, since the term means “outrageous behavior.”
I showed evidence that “Republicans are more strident.” You are responding that evidence by doing this.
You have admitted yourself (I think) that what Dean and Gore said is not “over-the-top.” So what is there that needs to be addressed?
March 26, 2010, 11:28 amtroll_dc2 says:
When I saw this story in today’s Washington Post, my immediate reaction was to think that, for now at least, the health-care issue has become the new face of the culture wars. Does anyone else agree with that?
March 26, 2010, 11:30 amG. May says:
Since I’m pretending right now, I’m going to pretend you actually watched the whole video and let’s pretend you actually applied it to not only the discussion at hand, but the context of my response. I think it might go something like this:
“Hmmm, he linked a video with an elected Democratic official making some absurd characterizations of Republicans. Well. we are talking about sides using over the top rhetoric in political debate after all. Let’s watch it and see.
“Ouch, yeah he did say that Dick Cheney was in his own branch of government. Said his actions were the very definition of ‘totalitarianism’, ‘authoritarianism’, and ‘dictatorship’. Got healthy applause for it too.
“Hmmm, he said that 9-11 made it possible to bring out ‘all this discrimination against religious minorities’.
“Uh oh, he said 9-11 was almost like the Reichstag fire. I guess he Godwined his own point.”
Since you’re all in the mood to provide your insight on the elements of my argument that aren’t helpful, allow me to return the favor by saying that it doesn’t help your argument by doubling down on his invocation of Hitler and the Nazis. You see, if you had actually applied that video to the context of my post, you wouldn’t have gotten all mangled up in 9-11.
I guess you feel the Obama and Co. are running the same parallel in exploiting the economic meltdown for legislative gain then, no? I mean, after all, we can’t let a good crisis go to waste now can we? It’s encouraging that you’re running apologetics for Ellison, but walking back a patently stupid and offensive remark doesn’t unsay it – as Republicans ought to well know.
But let’s get back to your hyperpartisan screed (which is doing a marvelous job of illustrating the long running observations of the co-conspirators here by the way):
Because everyone knows that if a Republican proposes it, it’s not socialist right? Really, this attempt at an argument is just silly. Do you need that broken down for you? Nevermind the numerous examples I cited upthread of socialist policies being tossed about with reckless abandon. Just ignore that part and splutter on about how calling something socialist that appears to be socialist is somehow over the top.
Considering that he’s suggesting a golf club as the tool of violence and refers to “the window of big government”, I’d say this comes across as more a metaphor, but then that’s probably not the right kind of nuance for some. Stupid comment to make on Pawlenty’s part? Sure. Should he have made it? No, but I’m not about to take up arms to defend the Rotunda from an assault by legions of those evil, white, racist, homophobic Teabaggers with their Pings and Clevelands.
As for Palin, Birthers and other miscellaneous Republican crackpots – do you really want to pull out polls illustrating overhyped opinions? Some people don’t buy into certain polls, but there are others available.
So one side gets the Birthers, the other one gets the Troofers. Want to start getting into which one of those is more extreme than the other, or would you like to call it even? Forgive me for not delving into quackpot groups that align themselves with Democrats since this post is way too long and addressed to someone who thinks the other guy’s mud is dirtier.
See: denial.
March 26, 2010, 12:24 pmThe Curmudgeonly Ex-Clerk says:
jukeboxgrad:
No, what I am saying is this: I agree with Kerr that the responses to the Patriot Act and Obamacare are similarly over-the-top. I just do not take issue with hyperbolic political rhetoric in general (and neither do you, if your comments here over time are any indication); I’m not sure that such talk is persuasive, but it is ubiquitous and unremarkable, and both sides are more or less guilty of it in equal measure.
When I say that I do not have a problem with Gore making his case about the Patriot Act in the terms that he did, what I mean is that, while I disagree with his absurd characterization (and have no qualms about identifying his rhetoric as over-the-top nonsense that should be disregarded by reasonable people), I do not think his rhetorical absurdity is itself anything to get all that bent out of shape about (i.e., his language is not so demagogic that it poses a danger to the Republic). Likewise, while one might disagree with the GOP’s characterization of Obamacare, I do not think that the GOP’s characterization is atypical of our political discourse or outrageous in the sense that it deserves to be condemned for its form or style as opposed to its substance.
Rhetoric could be taken to such extremes as to be objectionable in terms of its language alone, but calling Obamacare “socialist” is not such a case any more than Gore’s invocation of 1984 was, and both remarks are on par with one another in terms of their sheer over-the-top-ness. Likewise, I think the claims that Republican rhetoric is especially outrageous or that it far exceeds the norms of civilized speech (and the insinuation made by some that it poses a danger of violence) are inaccurate and politically motivated. That is, I do not think it’s a coincidence that the complaints about the outrageousness of Republican rhetoric are coming exclusively from Democrats and likeminded folks.
March 26, 2010, 12:36 pmgtop says:
Jukeboxgrad:
Look, wanting to see the electorate “armed and dangerous” as to an “issue” — not a person — is an obvious figure of speech.
Bachmann noted later that she was speaking metaphorically about being armed and dangerous. This was, of course, obvious to anyone who has the slightest familiarity with uses in the English language, even without the later “clarification.”
Look, I myself said that the expression was intemperate. But to pretend that it could be considered seriously as a call to armed insurrection by anyone other than a raging nutball is laughable.
(Your turn — the entire opposition consists of nutballs, blah blah blah Nazi blah blah.)
March 26, 2010, 3:34 pmThe Cattish Mr. Man-Man says:
Two things different, two things the same.
Ponder them ponderously, from imponderable points of view and dialectics magnificent, and, presto, they become the very opposite, two things the same, two things different.
March 26, 2010, 5:51 pmChrisTS says:
Because other countries only have political tenets, but we have political tenants?
March 26, 2010, 6:09 pmChrisTS says:
Oh, foo. I did not see this. Beat me to it. Guess I’ll have to start throwing bricks.
March 26, 2010, 6:15 pmElliot says:
“Because other countries only have political tenets, but we have political tenants?”
Well, we have political rent seekers.
March 26, 2010, 8:03 pmDave R. says:
I realize I’m late to the party, but on the off chance Mr. Kerr sees this: what makes the “imposition of socialism” claim over the top? How is it factually in error? We have effectively nationalized one sixth of the economy and imposed significant financial burdens on the middle class and most employers, and it’s out of bounds to call that socialism? When, then, does it become permissible to call something socialist?
March 26, 2010, 8:07 pmSteverino says:
Dude, relax.
Why don’t you enjoy some fine art.
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/Patriot.Act.Columbia.2.321154.html
Or maybe a book. Maybe you’ll enjoy “Assassinatin of George Bush: A Love Story.”
It’s available at Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1430321350/thevolocons0d-20/
You’ll be pleased to know the “I Hate George Bush Reader” is also still available.
If you enjoy movies, maybe your local Blockbuster has the British fantasy about George Bush’ assassination available for rent, “Death of a President.” It was critically acclaimed and won six international awards.
I’m sure a couple of days of escape, basking in the elevated civic discourse of yesteryear, will do wonders for your outlook.
March 26, 2010, 8:38 pmleo marvin says:
And the proof of your assertion is the great show of enthusiasm the socialist stock market is making for this Great Leap Forward by pouring its soon to be voided currency of the pre-socialist USA into shares of the soon to be worthless health insurers.
The irony of these cries of “socialism” coming from the same corners that routinely wrote off criticism of the last administration to a supposed mental disorder can’t be overstated.
March 26, 2010, 9:31 pmSteverino says:
Technically, what the insurance industry has become are “rent seekers.” Sure the shares have gone up. The buyers hope to profit from special privileges the government has granted these companies. The stock buyers are betting with the house.
This is hardly the same thing as a free market.
Unlike the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, socialism does actually exist as a form of economic organization. It can be defined. Socialism is a centrally planned economy in which the government is in control of the means of production.
It should be an easy distinction, who is or who is not a socialist. Or capitalist for that matter. Do you believe markets or governments should decide outcomes? Do you believe the profit motive or governments should control capital flow?
The issue is, socialists don’t like being called socialists.
I understand that.
Still, it’s just very difficult to call democratic senators like Max Baucus “free market capitalists” while they are bragging on how their new laws will redistribute wealth fairly.
March 26, 2010, 10:07 pmleo marvin says:
Before the bill was passed, the Right’s scaremongers were predicting it would kill private insurance. (See here, and lots more here.) Now that the market has exposed how laughable those predictions were, the companies have gone from death row to “privileged?” I’ve heard of moving goal posts, but this is the first time I’ve seen it tried after the game.
Actually it’s a system in which the means of production are commonly or governmentally owned, not just controlled. That disqualifies the health insurance industry. Moreover this bill regulates, it doesn’t “control.” Believe it or not, there’s a long continuum of greater and lesser regulation between a market that’s unfettered and one that’s controlled. So, no, the new health care law is by no means “socialism,” but let’s put those pesky facts aside, and assume it is.
And that’s exactly what has me worried about my Republican friends. How’d they let a socialist like Bob Dole infiltrate them and rise to Senate Majority Leader? And to think they’ve been taking advice all these years from that socialist propaganda machine, The Heritage Foundation. And now they’re flirting with making another dirty socialist, Mitt Romney, their presidential candidate.
Oh, dear.
March 27, 2010, 2:49 amG. May says:
A few days of gains in the stock market doesn’t expose anything. Besides, I thought it was the Republicans who were looking out for the health insurance industry? By your logic, looks like Obama and his Co. of “scaremongers” have really cozied up to all those evil health insurers they’ve been demonizing and gave them a big boost for those so-called massive profits they’ve been raking in at the expense of our deteriorating health. Talk about goalposts moving.
Potato – Potahto. This is that textbook style parsing that’s so strange coming from lefties who are usually so beholden to the nuanced view. Let’s not talk about what this Administration has done in terms of ownership though (GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc). Let’s talk about redistribution, which leads us to:
Rather than break down the redistributive properties of the legislation, I’ll refer again to Max “My girlfriend would make a great US Attorney” Baucus’ take on the subject.
March 27, 2010, 11:12 amG. May says:
Getting back closer to the topic and because for some reason the site wouldn’t let me post this response yesterday:
Great question. I’d like to see a response from some of the Co-conspirators on this since many of them seem to scoff at the notion regularly. There’s plenty of evidence to support accusations/labels of the socialist tendencies this Administration has shown.
Let’s say for a moment that this Administration and HCR aren’t socialist. Is it really over the top rhetoric to throw out that accusation though?
Is it as over the top as some of the bilge we were subjected to during the last administration? Some commenters here would have us believe that there were no high profile figures or organizations that engaged in such hyperbolic rhetoric as using the “S” word seems to be. They ask for citiations of such when a simple Google search will answer their lazy questions. After typing in “bush shred” and having the search engine auto-complete to “bush shredding the constitution”, I figured it would be easier than I thought.
Everyone knows Democrats just aren’t capable of that sort of nonsense though. Especially elected Democratic congressmen talking about the Patriot Act and that eeeevil Rethuglican Imperialist Bush and his cronies.
Inmates and asylums indeed.
March 27, 2010, 11:28 amSteverino says:
It really doesn’t matter which party is espousing socialism. It’s like saying that what Obama is doing must be constitutional because some Republicans proposed similar things.
It’s also ridiculous to say that unless a government is in possession of the physical title of ownership it isn’t in control. This is typical of the evasions socialists-who-don’t-like-to-be-called-socialists use.
It makes no practical difference.
Here’s an NPR interviw with Milton Friedman, in which he calls Nixon the most socialist President in history, and elaborates as to why.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/int_miltonfriedman.html
If you want, I’ll save you the trouble:
Of course, Friedman died in 2006, so he didn’t live long enough to witness the current administration and the concept of a “pay czar.”
I realize, again, that advancing the cause of socialism often requires that people can’t be allowed to call it what it is. Many causes are like that, because they are unpopular. In fact, many causes, such as President Obama’s fundamental transformation of the United States, require that they be presented as business-as-usual.
It shouldn’t be surprising that people aren’t buying that PR campaign.
Yes, I know we are being told that an administration and a political party that believes it has the power to address the “maldistribution” (per Sen. Baucus) of wealth, decide how much executives can make, what products and services we must buy, etc., are staunch free-marketers. Followed by “don’t you dare call them socialits.”
It’s just not going over very well.
Perhaps the solution would be to strike a blow in favor of the First Amendment, and outlaw the word “socialist” as hate speech.
March 27, 2010, 7:56 pmElliot says:
I suppose people can quibble over the definition of socialism, but few are paying attention. Socialism has a common meaning much like freedom, democracy, fascism, free trade, and democracy have common meanings. And we can all show how smart we are by challenging each specific use of those words.
However, people understand these terms and use them everyday. We can expect campaigns will use them, and people will understand them. A very small number will object to their use, but nobody will care.
March 27, 2010, 9:10 pmleo marvin says:
I don’t have time to refute your whole new round of evasions and red herrings, so I’ll settle for this one and let the rest speak for themselves. That you would dismiss the difference between government owning a business, and regulating it in a way that increases its value in the hands of its private owners, speaks volumes.
March 27, 2010, 9:35 pmSteverino says:
I don’t have time to refute your whole new round of evasions and red herrings, so I’ll settle for this one and let the rest speak for themselves. That you would dismiss the difference between government owning a business, and regulating it in a way that increases its value in the hands of its private owners, speaks volumes.
This is cute. In a nation where the government controls corporations as well as the allocation of resources, this is simply betting with the house.
What the government has done in terms of “regulating it in such a way that it increases its value in the hands of its private owners” is mandate that everyone buy its product. I.e. allocated resources to these companies through force of law.
So people are buying stocks based upon privileges this industry has gained from a government. If you can own stock in a command-and-control economy, it’s usually safer to invest with the winners the government has selected.
March 27, 2010, 10:09 pmleo marvin says:
Of course it matters when Obama’s being vilified as the second coming of Karl Marx by people who displayed no such concern when the same policies were being advocated by Republicans. But if what you mean is, “Obama’s as much of a socialist as Nixon, Dole, Romney and The Heritage Society,” then I agree.
March 27, 2010, 10:48 pmleo marvin says:
Oops! I obviously meant The Heritage Foundation. Apologies to the Heritage Society, whoever they are.
March 27, 2010, 11:06 pmleo marvin says:
Which is why the left favored a public option to compete with the private insurers, thus avoiding windfalls and lowering costs. But the right killed that, claiming it would be socialism to compete with the insurance companies. So to now complain it’s socialist to favor the insurers is like murdering your parents and pleading for mercy because you’re an orphan.
March 27, 2010, 11:47 pmG. May says:
Beautiful projection! Simply take my argument about the redistributive properties of the healthcare bill, ignore it, and cling bitterly to the ownership/control argument about healthcare. Red herrings and evasions indeed.
But let’s set aside the fact that I pointed out that the socialistic properties of the healthcare bill revolved around income redistribution and cited a leading Democrat who clearly shares the same opinion. The fact that you think the purpose of government regulation, or more precisely – that this particular government regulation is designed to increase the value of that industry in the hands of its owners is not only absurd on its face, but contrary to the rhetoric the President and his fellow scaremongers have been bloviating about for the past 2+ years.
Now, let’s get back to your use of language for a moment. You used “control” before where you use “regulation” now. If you’re clarifying now, then fine, I’ll agree with you on that point. But let’s not pretend that “ownership” and “control” when it comes to this subject aren’t interchangeable and then chide me for your imprecision.
Lastly, speaking of red herrings, are you going to refute the redistribution argument (which is the one I made), or are you going to focus on arguments I wasn’t making? Or are you just conveniently lacking time?
March 27, 2010, 11:47 pmG. May says:
This strawman is so puerile as to defy serious response.
March 27, 2010, 11:54 pmSteverino says:
You’re avoiding the very large possibility that Obama is more of a socialist than any of the others you mention.
Actually, I’d say it’s a certainty. Which is probably why the moniker will stick now, while McCain couldn’t make it stick during the campaign.
The word “socialism” isn’t just an empty accusation. There is actually content behind it. If you believe governments and not markets should decide how to distribute wealth, what you will buy, how much you will pay for it, how resources are allocated, etc., then you are in favor of socialism. If that describes you, leo marvin, then embrace who you are.
Insisting that socialism requires government ownership of the means of production, and that anything less than actual ownership can not be socialist, has long been discredited as unsophisticated “hard” marxism.
Also, don’t kid yourself that no one had similar concerns when Republicans float similar ideas or engage in similar activities. My immediate reaction when I heard George Bush say that he had to abandon his free-market principles when advocating TARP was to observe that you can’t abandon principles you never had. A lot of bad socialist policies have been advanced by Republicans. Normally due to short-sighted political expediency or a general lack of commitment to or knowledge of the free-market.
This has been obvious for some time. Even going back to the Eisenhower administration. He came away from a meeting with Nikita Khrushchev during which the Soviet PM extolled the economic and moral virtues of communism vs. capitalism, and remarked that it was very difficult to make a case against that.
No, actually it isn’t. He just wasn’t capable of making it. A lot of Republicans have the same deficiencies.
In the end, it doesn’t matter what set of principles one politician or the other imagines they hold. What matters is the effect of the policies they put in place. That was Friedman’s point about Nixon, and why he called Nixon the most socialist President in history at the time of the interview.
So, I’m going to have to double down on my prior statement that it doesn’t make a bit of difference which party is espousing socialism. It certainly has no bearing on the question of whether or not it is over-the-top to call someone a socialist. It isn’t over-the-top when the content of the policies advocated are in fact socialist.
March 28, 2010, 12:27 amOchre says:
I’m struck by how they both make me sick but at the same time laugh out loud.
But I’m not saying that that Orin Kerr is one of The Aristocrats.
March 28, 2010, 4:27 amMichael B says:
The very reasoning (actually, it’s more a concoction than a piece of reasoning as such) Prof. Kerr is forwarding in the original post is nothing more than a piece of sophistry, surface level sophistry at this, indulging a base equivocation.
Comparing the reaction to the Patriot Act that Bush signed (passed by notable margins in both houses of Congress and supported by both Republicans and Democrats in both houses, also supported by a large majority of the American people), comparing that with the reaction to Obama’s health insurance legislation (passed by minimal margins and approved by literally NO Republicans in either house of Congress, also disfavored by a majority of Americans in nearly all polls, to this day) – that comparison is specious in the extreme, indeed it is vacuous.
One may as well compare an overly heated reaction against a couple that believes in spanking their children (***), up to the age of four of five, perhaps, with the reaction a town might have against a couple of parents who are truly deviant, who truly and grievously abuse a child of theirs, resulting in the child’s death.
If the reactions were “similar,” which group of “reactionaries” should be judged harshly? The first group, wont to judge the parents who believe an occasional, mild, judicious spanking is proper – or the second group, who harshly condemns the parents who truly abuse their child, even to the point of death?
Iow, Prof. Kerr’s formulation is simplistic, it rests first upon faulty logic, even in an abstract sense, and it also rests upon an equivocation between the two wholly disparate social policies.
March 28, 2010, 5:49 pmFro says:
There is an abundance of evidence supporting entirely reasonable claims that the Patriot Act permits violations of 4th amendment rights. Peruse this list.
I rarely remember a strong claim being made about the Patriot Act that wasn’t supported by factual claims and logical arguments. Meanwhile, I cannot remember any of the claims about the Health bill, no matter how outrageous-seeming, that were supported by ANY references to the bill’s language, or any other factual claims and logical arguments.
Orrin’s post is embarrassing in its failure to actually argue in support of what he implies.
March 29, 2010, 7:51 amG. May says:
Try reading the comments section sometime. It might jog your memory.
March 29, 2010, 12:04 pmnicks says:
Hello,
March 31, 2010, 4:26 amIt’s really very good post
thanks for sharing your knowledge
Willy