As many people on the Left have noted, progressive activists are hamstrung in their ability to advocate for health care reform because we don’t have a final product to point to and say “these are the good things in the bill that will benefit you.” And, yes, that is almost entirely Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) fault because his committee has not only failed to produce a bill, but all the rhetoric surrounding the Finance Committee’s work is about the ways in which their bill will differ from all the others. Instead of a surtax on millionaires, they want to tax the luxury health care plans. Instead of a government run public option, they want privately run co-ops, etc.
The unruly anti-health care reform crowds that are disrupting town hall meetings all across the country are manned by people who don’t even know the specifics of what they’re protesting. How do I know that? Because I don’t even know the specifics of what they are protesting. And I think that’s a key issue when it comes to debating the degree to which these protesters are just expressing their First Amendment rights.
It’s a complicated issue. There is plenty of reporting that these protesters are being mobilized by Glenn Beck’s 912 Project, Rush Limbaugh, and certain astroturfing organizations. It’s completely legitimate to oppose legislation and to adopt plans to use social action to defeat it. Making sure that your activists know where town hall meetings are being held and that they turn out in numbers to express their opinion is pretty standard political activity. This is one way that a vocal minority can expand its influence and there is nothing suspect about it.
But, there are problems with this movement. The primary problem is that their strategy involves disruption and, to some degree, intimidation. You have the right to petition your government for the redress of grievances, but it’s not clear that you have the right to cause disturbances that prevent others from doing so. Just because you have the right to attend a public meeting (subject to fire codes, of course) doesn’t mean that people don’t have the right to kick you out of it if you are loud, disrespectful, and obnoxious.
What’s legitimate is to pack the hall with opponents of health care reform and have them ask tough questions and express their opposition to the proposed reform. What’s not legitimate is to make it impossible to conduct a civil debate where all sides are heard. It’s not legitimate to cause disturbances that require that additional police be called to the scene. It’s not legitimate to assault other people, who are merely expressing their same rights, with verbal harassment.
These tactics are certainly going to cause some backlash, but that doesn’t mean that they won’t succeed in their main purpose. It just seems a bit surreal to see this amount of passion around a bill that is languishing in Max Baucus’s languid brain.
