We can no longer be the silent majority
By Richard Larsen
August recess for the nation’s lawmakers was certainly not business as usual this year. With headlines and debate centered on the controversial overhaul of our health-care system, it could be fair to say many of them ran into constituent buzz-saws in their town hall meetings across the country.
While the exchanges at these meetings were sometimes confrontational, the freedom behind such truly grassroots response to a proposed totalitarian health-care system was inspiring. It would seem that those objecting to “Obamacare” had learned Thomas Jefferson’s truism, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” And silent they were not.
Some of the statements and exchanges between lawmakers and their constituents were memorable, and many provide lasting lessons and imagery that should not be lost on an informed and attentive electorate.
For example, it was not that long ago that Speaker Nancy Pelosi encouraged and praised dissent, and said it was courageous to “speak truth to power.” It may have come as a shock to some, then, to hear from the Speaker that it’s now “un-American,” and that by so engaging, one must be part of a “dangerous, angry mob.” We might rhetorically ask what has changed from then to now?
Speaking of the Speaker, who is exceeded only by Joe Biden for making glib, nonsensical remarks, one of her best accusations against the town hall protesters was that they were “astroturf.” As Astroturf is to real grass, so likewise “astroturf” is to genuine grassroots level politics. Without question, what we witnessed in August was a legitimate grassroots response from concerned citizens about pending health-care legislation and dizzying expansion of government and the federal debt. The only real “astroturfing” we saw was when the health-care overhaul supporters began to show up en masse in buses. Wonder where they came from? I’ll bet the Speaker knows.
Illustrating what I said a few weeks ago that “Nazi” references really have no place in American political dialogue, the Speaker ignominiously called the protesters “Nazis.” She is obviously oblivious to the fact that Nazis are socialists, and that quite to the contrary, the protesters were standing up for their individual right to choose, which is anathema to socialism. If such ignorance was not so scary coming from the third-in-line from the president, it would be humorous. Pelosi’s accusation led to one of the best one-liners from a town hall attendee. Marine veteran David Hedrick at a West Virginia town hall declared, “If Nancy Pelosi wants to find a swastika maybe the first place she should look is on the sleeve of her own arm.” Marines don’t take kindly to pejorative characterizations.
Speaking of good lines, perhaps leading the “best of” collection from August town halls was one delivered by Dan Jeror, addressing Steny Hoyer, Pelosi’s second in command in the House. Jeror, after emphasizing that he was a registered Democrat, asked Hoyer, “Why would you guys try to stuff a health care bill down our throats in three to four weeks when the president took six months to pick a dog for his kids?”
Carol Shea Porter of New Hampshire thought it was below her dignity to answer a question from one of her constituents, and had the audacious retired policeman removed for even asking. How dare these lowly constituents question the omniscience of their puissant elected officials!
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee took a cell phone call in the middle of a constituent’s question about health-care reform. That sure goes a long way toward dispelling the notion that our elected officials aren’t listening to us!
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC referred to the protesters as “worse than racists,” while comedian Janeane Garofalo called them “racist rednecks who hate blacks.” But in an interesting twist of such typical radical characterization, Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative, was beaten up at a Missouri town hall by local Service Employees International Union members, one of them shouting racial epithets. So really, who were the racist rednecks? They obviously were following the White House directive to “punch back twice as hard.” Unfortunately for Mr. Gladney, they took the directive as literal. Not surprisingly, the event received scant coverage from the mainstream media.
For the “silent majority” that typically sits reticently on the sidelines waiting for the political dust to settle, the “Tea Party” protesters and outspoken dissidents to the transformation of America are the only semblance of a check and balance we have. With the legislative and executive branches under single-party control, and the mainstream media acting as their guard dog, all we have is our individual and collective voices of disapprobation. It’s time to no longer be the “silent majority.” This is a fight for the soul and future of America.
Award-winning columnist Richard Larsen is president of the brokerage firm Larsen Financial. He graduated from Idaho State University with degrees in history and political science.
Charles, you’re going to get a lengthy thing on how you don’t know what you’re talking about because sometimes it storms in Texas without actually raining. This will be offered as some kind of “gotcha” that disproves your whole point. (Which was not at all complicated in the first place.)
I think there is more to it. You took umbrage at the notion earlier when I mentioned it, but the fact that so many attribute racism to our rejection of administration policies because it’s apparently “implied” is very disturbing. It seems to be endemic to those with little tolerance for conservatives.
I’ll give you an example from a New York based liberal blog I participated in a little last week.
Someone named Sue said, “Tom I am sick and outraged too!! It is racism no doubt about it! Reagan talked tax cuts and Obama wants to talk responsibility? Give me a friggin break, I have had enough of the sh** from the right, they make me ILL!!!”
Donna Marie said, “This whole uproar is NO DOUBT about race. Nothing more!”
And that was just the beginning. I’m just trying to understand this “implication” business better. If someone opposes Obama’s agenda, regardless of what they actually say, they object because of racism. So when we objected to Clinton’s similar policies, we were anti-Southern? Seriously, you people and your affectation for “nuances” slays me. And I’m beginning to think it is endemic for those of such closed minds that they can’t honestly believe someone would object ideologically, so the nuanced “implicit” meaning of what they actually said have to be disected. It reminds me when I wrote a column a few months back where I referred to people across the country, and I used the words “across the fruited plain.” There were some who were just convinced I was making a pejorative reference to people of a different sexual persuasion. If this wasn’t so seriously contributing to ineffectual communication in the public dialogue, it would be laughable!
I didn’t take umbrage, I just wondered, do you really want to get into the whole racism thing again? Apparently so, but sorry, I have nothing to say on that. No doubt a lot of people dislike Obama because of his race, but obviously some people are just opposed to his policies, and I’m fine with that. I have nothing to offer about Sue or Donna Marie.
Let’s go back a step.
John M’s original statement was, “RDH I don’t remember any republicans saying that against liberals. I remember a lot of liberals saying republicans were trying to quiet their dissent but I don’t remember any actually doing it.”
So RDH found several quotes to support his point. Then John M. came back and said, “you still failed to mention any republicans who said it was unpatriotic to disagree. Did the president, vp, or republican speaker say it? I’m still waiting. You quoted pundits. Those are not party leaders.” (Even though rdh included a quote by Senator Zell Miller, Republican National Convention speaker, 2004.)
So then I mentioned quotes by Sarah Palin and Rep. Heather Miller, R-NM. You said those didn’t count either, because they were “factual” and weren’t about the Bush administration, and the person making the quote had to be on a par with Nancy Pelosi.
So my point was, how many times are you guys going to move the goal posts? You keep redefining the criteria so you can discount more quotes. Anyone with a search engine can find multiple quotes from Republicans calling Democrats – in so many words – unpatriotic. It’s not rocket science. It’s not even nuanced. It is what it is.
Politicians of all stripes imply their opponents are unpatriotic or racist or whatever. You know they do. It isn’t a trick only used by “you people.” It’s not right, any more than it’s right to say everyone who opposes Obama is racist. I just don’t get why you pretend to be so shocked by these things. Your father was in politics. You weren’t born yesterday. You can’t possibly be that easily shocked.
Think I’m not following the gist of the conversation going on here. However, I can comment on one thing.
Richie says:
September 15, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Charles, you’re going to get a lengthy thing on how you don’t know what you’re talking about because sometimes it storms in Texas without actually raining.
Not sure where this fits in but indeed it does storm without actually raining here, it’s called virga. Quite common here. Saw a lot of this summer. You get the whole storm, just nothing reaches the ground, it can get wild. Lightning, thunder, wind, the whole ten yards, just no rain on the ground.
So what does that have to do with anything? I’ve read both posts and you appear to be arguing the same things from opposite sides or did I miss something?
I, for one am tired of being called racist just because I disagree. When the time for compromise comes I not going to be in a mood to compromise about anything. I go for the jugular. I’m not shocked by much of anything any more, but mad, definitely I am that.
Charles C.,
Good point about the goal posts moving. I sometimes wonder if we’re playing with any goal posts to start with. There are way too many people to quote to make much sense of anything. If you can find comments one way, give me awhile with a good search engine and I can find comments going the other way. In that respect computers are not helpful devices.
Didn’t move the goalposts at all, Charles. None of the quotes cited accused dissenters of being “un-American” or “unpatriotic.” That’s my whole point. All we’ve heard for the past eight years from your end of the spectrum is how Republicans purportedly claimed dissenters were exactly that. Yet to my knowledge, no one to the level of Pelosi, ever said it. Which means, that the only way someone could claim that such a thing had been said is if they a) regurgitated what pundits or talk-show hosts had said, or b) they made the intellectual leap from “demoralizing to the troops” to “unpatriotic” in their own minds to justify their claims. I think it’s another of those situations where something has been repeated so often that’s it’s accepted as factual, while there is really nothing factual about it. In your words, “it’s nuanced” or “implied.”
That’s a good one. No one ever accused the Democrats of being unpatriotic. Not once. Well, excluding remarks about Obama and excluding remarks made by someone at a level lower than Nancy Pelosi and excluding remarks that don’t verbatim use the word “unpatriotic” and excluding other criteria yet to be discovered as new quotes emerge.
Never. Didn’t happen.
Not even other people in your own party would ask us to believe that with a straight face.
Let me see if I have this right.
When Cheney said, “I think if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we will do is validate the Al Qaeda strategy,” he didn’t mean to imply those people were unpatriotic. Cheney would be shocked, SHOCKED, to find out people took it that way. Yes, he’s characterizing those people in a way that suggests they’re acting to undermine their own country, but he didn’t actually use the word “unpatriotic.” So he couldn’t have meant that. No Republican would ever characterize his opponent as unpatriotic without using the word “unpatriotic.” Those kind of tactics are only used by people who oppose Rick. Otherwise, they don’t exist. Do I have that right?
Richie, I’m afraid you do have it right. Face it, we only have one role to play in this drama, and that’s the role of villian. Rick sees everything as black or white, right or left, and it simply isn’t possible for someone on his team to use innuendo against a political opponent. That’s only for the bad guys on our team.
Disgusted Reader, I think Richie was simply predicting that you would call me out on fact that rainless storms do exist. Of course anyone in southeast Idaho knows we can get those big thunderstorms that only produce a lot of electricity and threatening clouds but no rain, or only a few drops of rain. But I was using the possibility of predicting rain without using the word “rain” as a metaphor. My point was not meterological. I think that’s where Richie was going.
Good commentary, but still haven’t disproven my claim empirically. The fact is that throughout the Bush era the left claimed incessantly that Republicans called dissenters “unpatriotic,” a la Pelosi’s statement from two weeks ago against the right. You still haven’t produced anything disproving my thesis, that, while accepted as fact, the only way you could arrive at that conclusion was by inference and innuendo.
So if the windows in your car are down and someone comes up to you and says, “The sky’s getting dark and the wind is starting to blow; looks like it might storm,” you wouldn’t go roll up your windows. If it rained and your car got soaked, you’d feel comfortable saying to that person, “Why didn’t you tell me it looked like it might rain?!” Because they expected you to infer it might rain from the words “it might storm,” and you think that’s wrong of people to do that. That’s innuendo. That’s bad.
Yeah, right.
Merriam Webster defines patriotic as “possessed of love for or devotion to one’s country.” It takes nothing other than an understanding of the English language – not “innuendo”– to see that the quotes offered by rdh, Richie, myself, and others ascribe a lack of love for or devotion to one’s country to the ones being attacked. It’s totally disingenuous to pretend you can’t understand that.
Incidentally, Rick, I checked out the Battleground Poll you mentioned. Indeed it does show in question D3 that 59% of respondents consider themselves conservative. Out of curiosity, did you read question D4? It asks whether respondents think of themselves as Republicans or Democrats. 37% are strongly Republican or lean Republican. 42% are strongly Democrat or lean Democratic.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last week asked, “Overall, which party – the Democrats or the Republicans – do you trust to do a better job in coping with the main problems the nation faces over the next few years?” 48% said Democrats, 28% said Republicans.
The Harris Poll asked “Regardless of how you usually vote, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an Independent?” 26% said Republican, 36% said Democrat, and 31% said independent.
Harris has been doing that same poll since 1969, and not once has the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans exceeded the number of people identifying themselves as Democrats, and the number identifying themselves as Democrats has been remarkably consistent for 30 years, while the number of Republicans or Independents goes up and down. The highest percentage of people always responds that they consider themselves Democrats.
So that “silent majority” might consider itself conservative, but the majority votes for Democrats.
What Rick is defending is just plain dirty politics. Accuse your opponent of not having America’s interests at heart, then when it’s said you’ve disparaged your opponents’ patriotism, affect an innocent look and say, “Who me? What did I say? I never said he was unpatriotic! I just said he didn’t love America! What?”
You must think we’re chumps, Rick.
Ah, Robinsky, you’re always good for a laugh. You apparently have missed out on a great deal of the discussion here.
This is not about what I have attempted to call (or infer) about dissenters, but rather is regarding my reference in the column to Ms. Pelosi’s calling dissenters to Obamacare “un-American” elicited the predictable response that Republicans had been saying that about dissenters to Bush’s wars over the past eight years. Lefties for the entire duration of the Bush terms have made that claim ad nauseam, yet have not, even in the posts here, been able to provide evidence that anyone at the level of Pelosi ever said such a thing.
This brings you to the context of the current discussion. I’m a literalist with words: I think that if Pelosi calls us “un-American” that that’s what she meant. Charles believe that inference matters more than the words themselves, hence his assertion that by saying “dissenters are demoralizing to the troops,” that constitutes the same thing as saying “dissenters are unpatriotic.”
In other words, in Charles’ world, it doesn’t matter what someone actually says, or for that matter, what they intended to say. For the “real meaning” is going to be inferred by the hearer of the words, and it is up to them to “infer” what was really meant, rather than being restricted to the actual meaning of the words employed.
In light of that, I think your beef should be with Charles, not with me, unless you subscribe to that bizarre philosophy of communication as well.
You’re really overthinking it Rick. Obviously, you don’t mind 8 years of Republicans calling Democrats un-American or unpatritiotic, but once the situation is reversed, suddenly it’s an outrage. This seems to be the point of almost every one of your columns. It’s incredibly tiresome.
By the way Rick, it looks like it might storm, you might want to roll your windows up.
You’ve obviously bought the same line as well. I’ll extend to you the same challenge: what high level Republican ever told dissenters during the Bush administration, that they were “un-American” or “unpatriotic?” You’re repeating the same line, and that’s my point: to my knowledge they never did, but you all assumed it was so. All I’m asking is for proof to your claim.
Nancy Pelosi called the people who shout others down and try to threaten others during debates “un-American.” Personally I agree. It is un-American. So is shouting “you lie” at the president of the United States. ESPECIALLY when the President of the United States was not lying! Wilson was.
But saying that the Democrats who didn’t want the US to be engaged in a war that was a historic blunder “cut and runners” you have no problem with Rick? It seems very whiny and hypocritical to me to suddenly have a thin skin when these things are directed at someone in your party, but you had no problem with it when it was all flowing the other way. Disgusting.
Terri, what is more disgusting is the fact that it’s Pelosi who has the thin skin and is engaging in the conduct you’re accusing me of.
Terri T.,
Now when Pelosi had people who were on her side and shouted others down she thought that was so wonderful and encouraged them. Now they against her and suddenly it’s no longer wonderful? How did that happen and better yet how does that work?
Better yet, WHEN did it happen? When did Nancy Pelosi direct someone to shout someone else down? Prove it to the same standard Rick requires other people to prove a Republican ever called a Democrat unpatriotic or unAmerican. In other words, prove it word for word, verbatim, 100% positive, time and date. If that’s the standard we’re using here, it applies to you guys too.
On a side note: Another “birther” lawsuit has been thrown out. The latest suit was filed by an army doctor who fought a deployment to Iraq by claiming Obama was not eligible to be commander in chief. The suit was brought by Orly Taitz, who has become famous for these kinds of lawsuits against Obama. The judge said Taitz “presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture.” In fact, the judge said if she files any more cases like this in court she will be subject to sanctions, presumably for excessive frivolous lawsuits.
Time to fire up the old keyboard, Rick. Surely your rights are being trampled here somehow. Surely there’s something to whine about in this, along the lines of “Democrats did it before, how come we can’t do it?”
Rolling, if there’s nothing to the claims, why has he dished out $1.4 million to his legal team fighting them? There’s one little thing he could do that would end it all.
And Terri, here you go. This first link includes video clips from Pelosi since 2003 where she calls dissent “very American” and “patriotic.” http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/14/pelosi-2006-to-anti-war-protesters-im-a-fan-of-disrupters/
The second link is to her Op-ed in USA Today last week titled “Un-American Attacks Can’t Derail Health-Care Debate.” http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html. She’s said it even more caustically than she did in the op-ed but I don’t have time to look for it.
Why has he dished out 1.4 milllion to defend himself? BECAUSE PEOPLE KEEP SUING HIM.
Why does he have to defend himself from lawsuits from idiots who don’t believe he was born in Hawaii? How do I know? Ask the idiots.
Well this is my opinion and no one has to agree with me if they dont want to, but Ive lived in Idaho all my life, grew up in Arbon valley, and my dad always said once a man (or a woman) has proven themselves to be a liar, you should not trust them in the future. Sarah Palin said that the health care law would create death panels that encourages old people to die to save money. This is a lie. I dont know if she thinks now that shes not a governer she doesnt have to tell the truth, but I say be careful of people who have to tell lies to try to convince you to vote the way they want you to. THe insurance companys are raking in money night and day and something needs to be done to help people who can not pay for the medicines they need, or they have to go without food to do so. No one has to agree with me but I feel something needs to be done.
All he has to do to stop the lawsuits is show the birth certificate, you buffoon. Don’t you think it would be worth it to him? I figure he must not have it otherwise he would have or he would have had hawaii relaese it. That must be why he won’t release his college records. I read that occidental college gave him a scholarship only for foreign students. Makes sense.
John M, you moron. He showed his birth certificate. It’s legal. If you don’t like the birth certificate he showed, too bad. He hasn’t had to spend any money fighting these suits for some time as courts are now refusing to hear them. If you’re such a believer, why don’t you donate some money to Orly Taitz? Get her to start another one. You can keep up these lawsuits well into the next millenium, nothing will happen, because it’s over. The birth certificate has been verified by the Federal Election Commission and the courts and multiple fact-checking organizations. You pea-brains think there should be a different, better birth certificate. By all means, keep spending money on more of these lawsuits — drain yourselves dry, it’s going nowhere and it never will.
Eyes Rolling,
So he showed the birth certificate. Strange, no doctors, no nothing. I even have a Kenyan one on my computer, so after this long if the only thing he had to do was show it why did he waste so much money on a forgone conclusion? Oh, yes and tell his family in Kenya, they lie.
rolling, you’re the moron. That was a certificate of live birth that any one even a grandmother, can request of the state of Hawaii and doesn’t need an attending doctors witness. NOT the same as a birth certificate. Pull your head out. DR is right, even the ambassador of Kenya said last year that obamas birth site is now a tourist attraction.
Grandma Y, good for you. I agree with you 100%.
I also think people who bring guns to debates or try to intimidate or threaten others who disagree with them are being un-American. Pelosi said, “Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe. But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.” I agree. I find zero to respect in people who tell lies or use hateful or violent rhetoric to get their way in policy debates. Dissent is one thing. Without it, we would never have achieved civil rights or women’s’ right to vote or an end to slavery. But inciting violence in a meeting where people are trying to get information from their elected officials on a pending bill is not the same thing, nor is industry lobbyists “planting” protestors to pose as ordinary concerned citizens.
Since when is defending yourself against frivolous lawsuits an indication of guilt? I guess your support for tort reform doesn’t to Obama, right Rick?
The “birther” thing is good for Obama. Please keep it up. Please donate generously. Here’s a link to make it easier for you:
http://drorly.blogspot.com/
What was it the judge said? “…“presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture.”
But hey, I’m sure you guys are a lot smarter than this judge. I’m sure you can prevail. Go for it.
Charles, I’m surprised you would agree with Y. After all, Palin simply followed your communicative protocol of implied meaning from the review panels.
Palin has a brain the size of a hazelnut.
Rick, I don’t have a communicative protocol, except “tell the truth.” I just said it’s possible to imply someone is unpatriotic without using the actual word “unpatriotic.” You know it’s true. Any person who uses the English language uses implication all the time, as in our “it might storm” example. You know it, I know it, that’s the way it is. Politicians are masters of it.
Go to Yahoo and type “Are Democrats unpatriotic?” into the search space. You’ll get some pretty ugly stuff. These posts are not from people who are bothering to be oblique like politicians are, but like Robinsky said the other day, politicians are more canny than that. They play the “who me?” role. Imply something without coming right out and saying it, but make sure the insinuation gets out there. Then people further down the food chain will spread it on the internet and in editorials and so on. I’m not endorsing it, I’m saying it exists. Are you saying it doesn’t Rick? If you say politicians don’t use those kinds of tactics, I’m saying you’re lying, because you know better.
There’s no doubt they use it, but it’s dangerous and contaminates the communicative process. Prime examples, Palin on the “death panels” and Jimmy Carter and Maurine Dowd on racism. It seems obvious to me that “implication” destroys the meaning of words.
THANK YOU. That’s all I’m trying to establish. Of course it’s dangerous. In an ideal world, people would speak clearly. Politics is not an ideal world though, nor is journalism.
Charles, you mean all this discussion and we’re on the same side? Hallelujah!
Too good to be true, isn’t it?
I’m comforted by the fact. I would think in the medical industry where you work as I recall, as in the financial services sector where I am, that strict adherence to actual word meaning is critical. I’m a literalist, and it sometimes drives my wife crazy, so I’m with you, that “implications” do no service to communication, especially with the written word.
Sometimes it’s a different story with in-person communication. Linguistic experts say that body language and inflection comprise as much as 90% of communication when in person. That would leave a lot more room for “fuzziness” in interpretation through innuendo or implication, which I still have issues with.
Just as a side note, I write my columns as I think them, with the same words and all, for to me words can be as precise as a surgeon’s scalpel for their meaning. I honestly strive for verbal precision, not to avoid implication per se, but for clarity to facilitate comprehension. But even with that effort on my part, as our discussion back and forth illustrated, it’s clearly difficult to completely avoid misinterpretation due to perceived implication and innuendo.
You liberals are really reaching, to still be
defending Obama. He is having the Fed
printing more and more money,(to get us
out of debt). He is taxing all energy, sugar
products ( I knew the twinky tax would eventually
follow the punitive cigerette tax of Clinton) watch
for the fat tax, and the lazy tax for folks that dont
exercize. Obama is a fascist, forcing everyone
to live his way. Impeach this commie loser already.
Richie,
You were born without one. You got Palin on the brain for a brain.
Charles C. and Richard Larsen,
So, you both agree about what you’re talking about. What did I say earlier and in another article? Somebody owes me a 6 pack (Dublin Dr. Pepper).
Mr. Sant,
Twinkie Tax? Cool, I’m, allergic to them. Why you worried about a fat tax? I’ll lay odds I weigh more than you do? Does this mean you made more than $250,000 last year?
The products that we purchase are
already taxed to the hilt. But go ahead
Obama, tax this economy to death.
Right now Obama is going down the
list play by play on my plan for civil war.
Kill the economy, kill the dollar, kill
freedom, etc. Obama is playing right
into my hands.