Do you remember when the Nazis wanted to march in Skokie, Illinois? I do. They teach it in American History and Constitutional Law classes. The town of Skokie understandably was not eager to have Nazis parading in front of their Village Hall, so they passed several ordinances specifically designed to make it a pain in the ass for the Nazis. For example, they required that the Nazis post a $350,000.00 indemnity bond prior to their march. The dispute wound its way through the courts for three years with the ACLU bravely taking the side of the Nazis. In 1978, the Supreme Court refused to block the Nazi demonstration in Skokie, invoking the First Amendment. Then Chicago stepped in and granted the Nazis a permit to march in Marquette Park (alleviating Skokie from such a spectacle). The Supreme Court refused to stop the Marquette Park demonstration and it took place on July 9th, 1978.
The lesson is that the First Amendment protects all speech, no matter how hateful. The ACLU won few friends for taking up this thankless cause, but it was important in preserving rights to U.S. citizens that are not enjoyed by many in Europe. It’s supposed to be a shining moment of progressive courage in the defense of civil liberties. But don’t tell that to Len Nichols of the New America Foundation.
The Clinton campaign convened a conference call with health policy experts to denounce Obama’s new mailer, which attacks Clinton’s plan for “forcing” Americans to sign up for insurance, and which features a couple at a kitchen table that recalls, for some, the famous insurance-industry-financed “Harry and Louise” ads against the original Clinton plan.
“I am personally outraged at the picture used in this mailing,” said Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, a leading supporter of mandatory insurance, who called it a “Harry and Louise evocation.”
“It is as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Ill.,” Nichols said. “I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage.”
I think Nichols just fundamentally doesn’t understand the Nazis-in-Skokie lesson. Sure, it’s disgusting that Nazis even exist, and no one wants to be subjected to public concentrations of Nazis. But, in this great country, they can get together and peaceably demonstrate. I don’t think this is a good example to invoke for something you think should not be done. But that’s not the only problem with Nichols statement.
First, take a look at the mailer (.pdf warning). It’s a picture of a middle-aged couple sitting at the dinner table and looking over some literature (presumably about Hillary’s health care plan). It’s not evocative of Nazis in any way, and it has only a superficial resemblance to the Harry & Louise ads of 1993-94. Both ad campaigns use a middle-age couple sitting around the kitchen table (hardly a shock, considering that couples tend to discuss their bills there, rather than the garage). And both ads are critical of Hillary’s health care plan. That’s where the similarities end, as Barack Obama’s criticism is 100% accurate, while Harry and Louise’s criticisms were total distortions. Hillary’s plan will force everyone to buy health insurance from a corporate health insurance provider. Yes, it will supply subsidies for those willing to swallow their pride and go on the dole, but it will also provide penalties for those that refuse to swallow their pride and who don’t qualify for the subsidies.
I also really don’t appreciate Nichols saying that these insulting mandates are “the only way to get to universal coverage.” I won’t say it is as insulting as that time when the Wehrmacht invaded Poland, but it’s obnoxious. Hillary’s plan shouldn’t be called ‘universal coverage’, it should be called ‘universal insurance’, because that is what it is. It’s an enormous boon to the insurance and pharmaceutical corporations she keeps promising to fight. That’s insulting. I don’t want insurance against getting sick. I know I am going to get sick. I want health coverage for when I get sick. I don’t want to give my money to a health insurance corporation that has my worst interests at heart. Don’t tell me this is the only way to get health coverage to everyone. That’s bullshit.
Now, Wolfson is a smart enough man to know that his surrogate had gone too far.
[UPDATE: At the end of the call, Clinton aide Howard Wolfson disavowed the Nazi reference, saying the campaign didn’t think it was appropriate, though he acknowledged the passions the issue stirs.]
Once again, an apology after the fact.
I like how in Obama’s ad the parts about Hillary use Angry Red (Republican) colors and the parts about Barack use Soothing Blue (Democratic) colors.
In fairness, there’s no way Obama’s (or Edwards’s) plan is significantly better. Obama is attacking from the right, using the wingnut meme about “mandates”. I’m still likely to vote for him, but wish he’d come up with a compelling plan rather than pander to the kneejerk right. He really needs some new advisors, IMO, because he’s going off in a direction that can only do him harm.
I don’t know if it’s right-wing …
My preferred politician is to the left of Wellstone. But I don’t want the government telling me that I need to give money to an insurance company.
If I get a car, OK, I need insurance. I can accept this because a car is not mandatory. But requiring me to pay $300 a month to an insurance company for the simple act of being a citizen of the United States strikes me as wrongheaded.
How is that different than being forced to pay for social security or medicare?
well, for starters, you don’t have to pay into Social Security and Medicare unless you receive a paycheck. You don’t have to buy auto insurance unless you own a car.
for continuers, SS and medicare are run by the government, as opposed to for-profit corporations answerable to shareholders and headed by a limitlessly paid CEO.
Bingo! This is exactly like the auto-neg insurance mandate. It is a legalized protection racket. Guaranteed premiums backed up by the force of government for private corporations, who in turn take the money, and entrench themselves by buying the oligarchy. Bullshit.
Fucking Clinton talking at the debate about how Barack’s plan is political/avoiding the tough decisions. What a load. They are all avoiding the tough issue. Health care is a right in every industrial nation but ours. The UN charter guarantees the reasonable access to health care. We are broken. By the insurance industry. Country is a joke.
Ending rant.
Well, BooMan, for starters, everyone pays for the U.S. military, government officials and employees (like Mrs. Clinton’s secret service detachment), highways, education, everything the federal government does, everything. And everyone pays local taxes on real estate, sales taxes, education, everything anyone can imagine. So why can’t everyone pay taxes for the maintenance of the physical, human bodies that populate the U.S. Of course the insurance companies can’t be allowed to suck out a new health care system. But they will because the U.S. refuses to let its government control doctors, pharmaceutical companies and everything connected to them. The electorate refuses to demand it. You see, its socialist. Well, social security and Medicare are equally so, why does everyone keep bitching! There will be no health care reform, from either Clinton nor Obama. And everyday more and more people will lose coverage. Great country, the richest country in the world. What a laugh, bitter and nasty.
PROFIT.
When we have single-payer system, then mandates are just fine by me.
Until then, I will literally fight to keep us from being forced to supply profit to un-worthy corporations who already practice patient abuse.
[Imagine Jeff Foxworthy’s delivery:] If you are forced to pay a corporation as much or MORE than you are forced to pay your government in taxes, you just might be a fascist tool.
Our country was founded in part by people who were motivated to revolt for JUST these reasons. Because we don’t have sway over the behavior of the corporations, yet supposedly do over the gov’t – well, you can guess which one I want to be force to pay.
HILLARY A NEW FORM OF EVIL! Think of the precedent that this sets. Especially in concert with all the crap Bush has pulled. IT IS AN ISSUE OF CIVIL LIBERTY.
If she thinks she’s done anyone a favor by making this crap come even close to our laws, she’s got another thing coming.
“When we have single-payer system, then mandates are just fine by me.”
I agree. It’s more than profit, however … I don’t want to be forced to fund a nonprofit either.
Corporations are simply not as accountable as governments are. I can’t vote for the Board of Directors or President of Blue Cross or Pfizer.
..then you don’t want a single-payer system? Taxes are the method of force in all single-payer systems.
It also happens to be a great way to redistribute wealth.
That goes both ways obviously. Right now the money flows up, in single-payer in flows down, and in the Hillary/Barak world it just flows around and around until it’s all spent on paperwork and profit.
So either it’s all good now (GOP), just needs a tweak or two to expand coverage ‘enough’ (Obama), will be the corporate boot on the neck of the working classes (Hillary and the ‘Old Romney’) or will be the government’s boot instead (Single Payer).
I wonder what the other options are? To me, of all of these options, the proven one is best: Good ol’ European Socialized Medicine. And that means compelling people to participate through taxation. It also means re-exerting influence over our own government.
Unfortunately, for another 4-8 years, the game is already lost.
Yes, single payer would be great.
I just don’t want the government mandating that I have to pay money to a private insurer.
Because I don’t pay social security or medicare taxes into corporation.
He’s responding to Hillary’s claim that “her plan will cover everyone” with this.
It doesn’t, it forces everyone above a certain level to cover themselves, regardless of whether they can afford it.
How would you recommend that he respond to it? FWIW, I also think it was clever for them to subtly remind everyone of Hillary’s previous healthcare failure, especially since she’s using her time as first lady as part of her experience that makes her ‘ready on day one’.
it will be tagged, The Campaign of Apologies
Tell ya at this rate, if I’m given $5 for every apology issued, I’ll soon be able to buy an ounce of gold. Price $915. today’s close
‘That’s insulting. I don’t want insurance against getting sick. I know I am going to get sick. I want health coverage for when I get sick. I don’t want to give my money to health insurance corporation that has my worst interests at heart. Don’t tell me this is the only way to get health coverage to everyone.’
The whole non-discussion about health insurance/care/whatever is like U.S. persons trying to reinvent the wheel. Very embarrassing There are so many examples of universal coverage and everything approaching it to any degree in Canada (right, in N. America, north of the border) and all over Europe it’s impossible to understand what the disagreements are all about. Refer to an existing system, examine the pros and cons, and come up with an alternative. There is so much experience available it’s impossible to believe that anyone could come up with a presently non-existent formula. In the Netherlands, where I live, everyone is REQUIRED to be insured. The rich pay for private insurance, employees above a certain yearly salary also have to insure themselves, everyone else falls somewhere inbetween: but everyone pays into the system, even people on welfars. The state negotiates, keeps the prices under control (doctors, dentists, medicine, etc.). The free for all in the U.S. is stupid and backwards. It is such crap that in the so-called biggest, most liberal economy in the world the pharmaceutical companies and much medical staff can demand whatever the wish and get it. The situation is disgusting, revolting, and everyone goes on discussing something that has been completely solved elsewhere. Why are U.S. persons so reluctant to recognize that people elsewhere in the world might do things better?
Because we are the Marlboro Man, and we’d die before we let our neighbor get somethin for nuthin.
ah, you know you’ve got a real election on your hands when the negative direct mail pieces start arriving from the person who needs the bump more. And it’s even better when the rejoinder contains a reference to Nazi in it. Good ol’ American politics.
Wonder if he’ll use them in Missouri. I don’t think I’ve gotten any direct mail from either candidate (other than fundraising requests).
It’s interesting that the Democrats have all picked up the Republican habit of naming something by what it’s not. Universal Coverage. Clean Air. We’re going to be living with this trend for a long time, no matter the party.
You haven’t seen anything yet! Imagine what things would be like if Obama does well on Super Tuesday. It will make Rove and company look like rank amateurs.
Swift justice.
What a Dick!
I with Ezra, it is a dead ringer for Harry and Lousie.
what’s with the haircut and clothes remark?
At bottom, my problem with these health care plans is that they both suck and they would preclude us ever getting a real single payer system. It’s only once we concede that we can’t get single payer that shitty solutions like Clinton and Obama’s begin to look good. And, in that context, Ezra is wrong that criticisms of them do lasting damage. It’s not clear that lasting damage isn’t a good thing.
After all, when things like this are happening, there’s no telling how huge the 2009 congressional margins will be.
As I recall, Obama said his plan was a first step, something that could get done early in his administration. I’m not so sure either plan would necessarily have to be a dead end. Once the hurdle of getting people used to the idea of any kind of national health care is passed, it might be a lot easier to sell the idea of making it better by cutting out the middle men.
I don’t remember Hillary suggesting that her plan was just the first step, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t.
I can’t give you a quick link, but both Hillary and Barack have made it clear in their own ways that their plans are practical, not ideal.
Hillary talks about it in the context of her prior failure, so she likes to talk about how she settled for S-CHIP, and how she no knows better what is possible to accomplish. Barack says he would go for single-payer as his first preference, but it’s more important to get people covered.
There’s an argument in favor of both their positions, but I’d rather see how big our majorities are and see if single payer will fly in the next Congress before I get worked up over these stupid mandated or semi-mandated plans.
I went over to Obama’s campaign site to see if they had posted this online. There was nothing, but what I did see makes me curious about the PDF file attached to this story.
So, on exactly what basis do we know that: (1) it came from the Obama campaign and (2) it was actually distributed.
Very good point, on the three pages. It could be that the fourth page is the outside of the mailer, but even so, it could (and should) contain information, so it should be included.
Also the overall design is…. well, not up to the design standards of, say, the Obama website. Putting Hillary’s name in that ugly red font on the second page? Doesn’t look very professional. I don’t see his logo on this flyer, or acknowledgments required by campaign laws. And it’s just talking points, not really any INFORMATION… you’d think that the Obama campaign would want to put out actual details on their position, not repeat the crap we hear on the news. This is printed matter, not a 30-second soundbyte.
This was probably produced outside the campaign, unauthorized — whether by an over-enthusiastic supporter or someone else, couldn’t tell you.
Rather than getting mired down in a debate over the minutia of health care plans, it’s the overall pattern of the Clinton campaign that concerns me. This latest incident is only one of a series of nasty attacks by the Clinton campaign and its surrogates. Whether or not Nichols’ attack represented the Clinton campaign is immaterial since there are other examples of the Clinton campaign engaging in this style of politics.
THE FALSE CONTRITION STRATEGY
Apologies mean little when the original offense was part of a calculated plan, and the strategy behind this technique is to level charges — which has an effect, since most people won’t check while many more will only remember the accusation — and then back away in fake contrition. This is often followed by entreaties for forgiveness, which then place the burden of forgiveness on the offended party — oddly.
THE ATTACK DOG STRATEGY — & righteous indignation
Another common variant of this strategy is the Good Cop/Bad Cop game (attack dog), in which the candidate himself or herself engages in dirty politics while disavowing any knowledge of the attack. Complaints about the attack by the injured party are responded to with righteous indignation and the status of offended party is inverted in Orwellian fashion.
We’ve seen examples of these strategies in use by the Clinton campaign in numerous incidents recently. And protests about being falsely accused are merely part of the Clinton strategy. Establishing oneself as the injured party works well when there are polarizing pressures in play. This is when cognitive dissonance becomes pronounced. The confusion created by the storm of charges and counter-charges makes it difficult for voters to decide an issue objectively. They then fall back on traditional loyalties, such as gender or race. In effect, since dissonance prevents them from deciding the question objectively, they must rely on a simpler heuristic — i.e., who do you trust — in order to steer through the paradoxical nature of the problem.
THE TWO-FACED STRATEGY – the social butterfly game
Presenting oneself as the offended party — even while conducting dirty attacks — is at the core of these strategies. Every opportunity is used to present oneself as the conciliator, thus overly gracious displays are used excessively, just as social butterflies are prone to overdo their displays of friendliness. Inauthentic displays of affection are hallmark of this strategy. The purpose behind the offered handshake is not to show affection, but rather, to force the recipient to abide by social mores regarding reciprocity. This technique is known as the “foot-in-the-door” technique, and has been quite effectively by Hare Krishnas in airports, who offer a “free gift” to passing strangers only to ask for donation in return once the ‘gift’ has been accepted.
The claims are somewhat misleading (they don’t provide all the facts), but are not deceptive. It’s less misleading than saying that Obama doesn’t support health care for all Americans.
The attack on the photo is overdone, but I can see the point that this is kind of a ‘dog whistle’ for Clinton due to the health care debacle in 1993-1994. I don’t think the Harry and Louise theme is very overt, but it’s probably intentional.
As far as attack mailers go, this is about a 2/10.
I was brought up in Skokie. That was a gut wrenching ordeal that they went through as there was a large Jewish population in that “village” which is precisely why the Nazis chose it. What that has to do with any kind of health insurance propaganda from either campaign escapes me. Shame on them for even bringing it up.