Make sure you read Michael Scherer's excellent take on the smearing of Zeke Emanuel (including an interview with Zeke from the Italian Alps). I think Scherer gets at something pretty deep in this passage:
The attacks on Emanuel are a reminder that there is a narrow slice of Americans who not only don't trust government, but also have come to regard it as a dark conspirator in their lives. This peculiar brand of distrust helps create the conditions for fast-moving fear-mongering, especially on complex and emotionally charged topics like the life and death of the elderly and infirm. Prairie fires of that kind are hard to douse when the Administration's own plan for health care remains vague, weeks away from being ready for a public rollout. The health-care bill that recently passed the House does not contain, as some have suggested, any provisions that would deny treatment to the elderly, infirm or disabled like Sola's son. One provision allows doctors to be reimbursed for voluntary discussions of so-called living wills with patients, but does not in any way threaten to deny treatment to dying patients against their will. The legislation anticipates saving hundreds of billions of dollars by reforming the health-care system itself, a process that would try to increase the efficiency of medical care by better connecting payments to health outcomes and discouraging doctors from unnecessary tests and procedures. The Obama Administration hopes that many of these reforms will be made in the coming years by independent panels of scientists, who will be appointed by the President and overseen by Congress.
This is where the criticism of Emanuel enters the picture, since he is just the sort of scientist who might be appointed to one of those panels.
Between the attacks on Zeke and the ritual incantations of phrases like "death panel," it's clear the administration has inadvertently stirred up the anxieties of a certain paranoid strain of conservative, with its persistent fear of being mocked and victimized by elites of various kinds. Which makes it hardly surprising that Sarah Palin is leading the charge.
One thing that makes this worldview especially challenging to deal with: Any attempt to explain how such wildly inaccurate information may be wrong is invariably interpreted by the paranoid conservative as elite condescension, which often drives her to hold the view even more tightly. Liberals and rationalists, including the ones who populate the Obama administration, tend to believe information is the great neutralizer. But that's not necessarily true in these cases, unfortunately. (Again, see Sarah Palin.)
The good news is that I don't think paranoid conservatives represent a very big fraction of the American public. The bad news is that they appear to be driving the health care debate at the moment.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (6)
As the "party of life" as they like to call themselves, the GOP does like to use the word "death" a lot. First we had the "death tax", now "death panel". What next? I also don't agree that paranoid conservatives are a big part of the Amerian public. They are a big slice:
www.newsobserver.com/.../1644163.html
As the "party of life" as they like to call themselves, the GOP does like to use the word "death" a lot. First we had the "death tax", now "death panel". What next? I also don't agree that paranoid conservatives are a big part of the Amerian public. They are a big slice:
www.newsobserver.com/.../1644163.html
Why is it the the folks who profess to be the most devout Christians (at least by their piety) the same folks who are most afraid of death (as reflected in the Terri Schiavo case or in objections to living wills). Don't devout Christians welcome death?
Why is it the the folks who profess to be the most devout Christians (at least by their piety) the same folks who are most afraid of death (as reflected in the Terri Schiavo case or in objections to living wills). Don't devout Christians welcome death?
I think this explains why the paranoia seems to be especially concentrated among white southerners. In my own lifetime as white southerner, I've been all too well aware of the really deep distrust of the federal government that has pervaded the white southern subculture. Of course, it has racist roots; that's how the segs were able to quell the strong challenge of the New Dealers for the allegiance of white southerners in the 1940s. But one doesn't have to attribute this attitude to racism purely and simply [I personally find that, er simplistic], because, thanks to reinforcement by post "Southern strategy" Republicans, it has become a free-floating presumption, n ... view full comment
I think this explains why the paranoia seems to be especially concentrated among white southerners. In my own lifetime as white southerner, I've been all too well aware of the really deep distrust of the federal government that has pervaded the white southern subculture. Of course, it has racist roots; that's how the segs were able to quell the strong challenge of the New Dealers for the allegiance of white southerners in the 1940s. But one doesn't have to attribute this attitude to racism purely and simply [I personally find that, er simplistic], because, thanks to reinforcement by post "Southern strategy" Republicans, it has become a free-floating presumption, not to be questioned and applicable to just about anything. The region has changed enormously in my lifetime, and plenty of us have surmounted that--but many haven't.
Sorry, Mr. Schrieber, but your post is wishy-washy liberalism. Too many liberals don't talk to conservatives and learn how to knock their arguments down. You're not trying to convince a zealot, you're trying to convince those the zealot is influencing and confusing.
Many medicare patients already have living wills and end-of-life instructions. All this bill does is re-imburse those recipients for the costs associated with this, nothing more, nothing less.
Let the zealots call me a liberal oppressor. Who cares? All I want is to give people the facts and not leave the field open to demagogues.
Sorry, Mr. Schrieber, but your post is wishy-washy liberalism. Too many liberals don't talk to conservatives and learn how to knock their arguments down. You're not trying to convince a zealot, you're trying to convince those the zealot is influencing and confusing.
Many medicare patients already have living wills and end-of-life instructions. All this bill does is re-imburse those recipients for the costs associated with this, nothing more, nothing less.
Let the zealots call me a liberal oppressor. Who cares? All I want is to give people the facts and not leave the field open to demagogues.
And the absolute perversity of the whole paranoid conservative "death panel" argument is that the government is actually trying to do what these paranoid conservatives want: give end-of-life decision-making to the patient not the doctor, not insurance companies, not the government. By kicking and screaming against this legislation they would make it more likely that doctors and insurance companies continue to be the final arbiters of end-of-life decisions.
Remind me why Lincoln thought it was so important to keep the Union intact...?
And the absolute perversity of the whole paranoid conservative "death panel" argument is that the government is actually trying to do what these paranoid conservatives want: give end-of-life decision-making to the patient not the doctor, not insurance companies, not the government. By kicking and screaming against this legislation they would make it more likely that doctors and insurance companies continue to be the final arbiters of end-of-life decisions.
Remind me why Lincoln thought it was so important to keep the Union intact...?
Reading this thread raised a question in my mind, and I don't think I've seen any specific information that would bear on it.
What is the regional spread of the jeering-hostility-type opposition at town hall meetings?
It would be interesting if it is indeed distributed in such a way as to parallel local/regional political loyalties. That is, if it appears in certain places precisely because they are districts (or are close to such) we know to be GOP majority strongholds.
Reading this thread raised a question in my mind, and I don't think I've seen any specific information that would bear on it.
What is the regional spread of the jeering-hostility-type opposition at town hall meetings?
It would be interesting if it is indeed distributed in such a way as to parallel local/regional political loyalties. That is, if it appears in certain places precisely because they are districts (or are close to such) we know to be GOP majority strongholds.