Be Careful What You Wish For: Healthcare, Democracy, and the Internet
As a free citizen in a democratic republic, what combination of factors would make you so fired up that you would actively seek out your local congressman and shout at him until he will listen to your two cents on an issue? Recently there has been a wave of American anger boiling over at town hall meetings regarding healthcare. In a previous post, I questioned what the news media would cover during the August recess of Congress. I posited that Americans would begin to demand more answers from those in power regarding their lack of progress on international issues. I was right about the renewed call to politicians for more accountability, but wrong about the agenda that would be called into question. It seems a sizable portion of our citizens are most concerned about, indeed fearful of, the Democrats' healthcare initiatives and are voicing their concern to elected officials while they are making their August visits to their home constituencies. Some politicians, mainly those opposed to the President's ideas on healthcare reform, have been applauding this recent surge in democratic activity from the taxpayers. While others, notably those in the majority party which has recently enjoyed a large amount of voter support in the last few election cycles, have exhibited shock and some surprising tactics to counter the solidifying opposition to their domestic agenda.
Before any analysis of the townhall disputes, let it be noted that the most vocal citizens are not always representative of the majority of people. And conversely, an organized and passionate opposition does not necessarily signal the involvment of high profile political and lobbyist groups. Sometimes in times of recession, uncertainty, and dramatic shifts in the governing philosophies of new leadership, people become frightened of major changes proposed for long standing, vital institutions like healthcare. That these people are loud and visible does not mean they deserve condemnation or discreditation. However, violence as a means of political protest should not be tolerated in any circumstance. Inflicting physical harm on others at meetings intended to improve healthcare is not only terribly ironic, it is counter to the democratic process.
Thankfully, the healthcare debate has not yet reached an inappropriate level of violence, but it has been intensifying due to a number of factors. Economic stress and fear over the federal deficit are factors, but the real catalyst to the fire is the Internet's emergence as a truly powerful democratic tool. As proven by the election of President Obama, the Internet and its manifold applications can be used to profoundly shape the American political landscape. In the 2008 presidential election, the Left was able to use technology to garner the support and money needed to elect a candidate who was dismissed as a long shot just months before the campaign. Now the Right has followed suit and is using the Internet to strike back at last year's political victors.
The telltale signs of digital democracy are all over the healthcare town halls. We have easy access to viral videos of shouting matches between healthcare proponents and opponents, between local politicians and the citizens they represent. Ten years ago, the liklihood of these videos making it beyond the local newscast would have been slim. But now all someone has to do is capture a protest on their cell phone, upload it to YouTube, and wait for Drudge to pick it up and put it on the radar of every major media outlet and political operatives in Washington. (See Videos Below)
Perhaps the most effective and most scary development in the art of political persuasion is the partnering of talk radio, 24/7 cable news and the Internet. Karen Jaroch, one of the participants at a Tampa Bay town hall was noted to be part of a Glenn Beck sponsored group, the 9-12 Project. Now regardless of your opinion of Glenn Beck's politics, his ability to motivate political action through his talk shows and website is impressive. The woman at this protest was a homemaker who now has a louder political voice thanks to the ability of cable news and the internet to connect her to those with similar views. As a result, she's made her local news in connection with a major national story and articulated her beliefs to a larger forum.
On the other side of the issue, there are definitely proponents of Obama's health care reform being organized and sent out to town hall meetings. White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina recently told worried Democrats that "if you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard" and encouraged them to do extra prep work to ensure their supporters had a presence at health care town halls. Likewise, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has promised send out union members under his command to counter the Republican thugs that his Vice President Rich Trumka charges with fomenting "Brooks Brother riots". Even if the charges of Republican led mobs are as outlandish as the John Sweeney would make them seem, does sending out countering teams of Democratic thugs constitute the appropriate reaction? Are opposing hordes of shouting activists really helping further the civil debate on healthcare?
Whether organized political supporters showing up at town halls are good or bad, this kind of passion is exactly the response we should expect in a vibrant democracy. We applaud citizens of other nations when they take to the streets to express their political will. Why demonize Americans as brain-washed, lobbyist funded, ideologues when they challenge their leaders and don't automatically assume that their government is acting in their best interest? Surely they can't all be on the payrolls of political bosses; some might actually be passionate Americans voicing their genuine opinions about an issue that's really important to them.
But politics aside, the really interesting facet of all this healthcare uproar is how technology has been used to fuel it. Some on the Left have argued that the raucous opposition to Obama's healthcare that's been showing up at town hall meetings around the country is so organized that it has to be a deliberate, calculating resistance orchestrated by far Right wackos and lobbyists for the insurance companies (see Rep. Dingell's comparison below).
The big hole in this argument is that this is not the 1960s and it doesn't take high profile political connections and lobbyist funding to organize people any more. As Obama knows from his internet fueled presidential campaign donations, all people need is internet access in order to connect with each other and show support for issues they care about. And if they have a Facebook page, a Twitter account, or even email on their cell phone, it makes it about ten times easier for them to quickly find out where and when a town hall is taking place and why it's important for them to be there.
The White House, of course, is aware of the power of the internet, and they haven't been slow in reacting either. On a recent post on the White House blog, the Obama Administration announced the release of a new web page filled with tools and videos that people can use "to push back on the misinformation about health insurance reform." (See the video explanation from Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White Houses Health Reform Office below)
In addition, the White House now has an email address, flag@whitehouse.gov, where we can report "fishy" information on healthcare that we find floating around on the web. Obviously, there has been critics of this attempt by the Obama Administration to track information about its detractors. In a written letter to the President, Sen. John Cornyn (R) called for an end to this new policy, raising the Orwellian prospect that the Administration maybe keeping a database of private information and questioning what would've been the response if his predecessor had done the same. Even the ACLU told Fox News that the White House blog post "could send a troublesome message."
Is the White House treading on potentially illegal ground and violating our right to free speech, or is this a political tactic appriopriate for the digital age? After all, in a world flooded with information, who decides who is right and who is wrong? Do we want to give this responsibility to the executive branch of the Federal government, to Congress, to Matt Drudge and YouTube, to cable news and talk radio personalities? Or is it every citizen's right to decide what emails and websites are worth believing?
One thing is for certain, some lawmakers get the relationship between democracy, hot button issues, and the Internet. And some don't, like Sen. McCaskill, who admitted to an angry crowd at her town hall meeting, "I don't understand this rudeness." What McCaskill sees as rudeness, might be seen by others as a tech savvy, better informed public exercising its responsibility to make sure their political voices are heard. Whether elected by the voters or made popular by TV ratings and website hits, the shapers of public opinion had better not lose touch with the new technology-driven dynamics of the American political landscape or they will surely be left behind. And those in power who have figured it out, they better not abuse their power either, or we may find ourselves all left behind. Behind where? How about trapped behind the tv glow of an angry cable prophet of doom, hidden behind the data of a secret government watchlist, or even stuck behind a long line at the Federal Health Care Clinic.
America, Health Care, democracy, democrats, internet, life, obama, republicans, technology 
Reader Comments (2)
Well written, informative and balanced piece. There is so much here to discuss and I find your deductions accurate and disturbing. The place I want to start with is the White House. The idea that the most political place in the country is scouring the internent for opposition to their cause, no matter how good their purpose, is at the least, the misuse of public money and at the most, a political coup hell bent to detroy freedom of speech.
In my opinion, the White House has no right to dictate policy. They can support laws and bills in Congress but as 1/3 of the checks and balances system, the President should be following the voice of the country in a objective manner. I know it is idealism, but the President should not come up with the idea, get a friend or friends in Congress to push the bill through, send out a wave of publicity (the position gives an uneven amount of air time to the office), and then sign the very thing he sent through or veto it because there were changes along the way.
I am excited to see the messyness of democracy. I am excited to see that most blogs are about politics, except for celebrity ones, and this topic is not taboo to two days before a presidential election. It is full time and complicated and passionate and uncomfortable. People can change their towns, states and nation in America and the internet is helping Americans to realize that.
I couldn't get the videos and pictures, but the article was good. I can not help but think of Adams when he tried to stop opposition newspapers from printing lies about him in Alien and Sedition Act. The people will be informed as much as they want to be. Maybe the quality of the information that people can understand is based on their education, which government is resposible for. So in the end, the constituents are exactly what America has made them.
The townhalls are great -- I still can not believe Spector is a Democrat! That is just weird.
The videos and connections are great. Thanks and they really add a whole new dimension to your argument.