Frank’s Case Book

I am not sure what is more amusing, watching middle class Americans marching for Conservative principles in the Nation’s capital or Liberals (at least the Liberal blogs) becoming apoplectic in reaction.

On September 12,  some thousands of Americans exercised their right to freely assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances. Estimates on the numbers who came vary by orders of magnitude. The Washington Post reported that 30,000 registered with FreedomWorks, but that was only one of the organizers. The New York Times reports a “sea of protesters” composed of “tens of thousands” that far exceeded the expectations of authorities. The tens of thousands figure is also carried by the Washington Post and Washington Times. It is safe to say that the tens of thousands value really means a “a lot of people and we really don’t know how many.”

Matthew Hemingway of National Review on the scene believes the numbers were in the hundreds of thousands. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin headlines a 2 million crowd estimate, based on a barrage of tweets and posts but apparently no authoritative sources. Many crowd estimates cross-referenced each other in a information-lacking echo chamber. Inflating crowd estimates from supporters and minimizing estimates from those opposed to a demonstration are a traditional Washington DC sport. Here is a link to a time lapse movie of the march taking from a high building, documenting that there was quite a crowd.

Like any crowd, there are a few at the fringes. Both the NY Times, Huffington Post, and Think Progress  found what thety were looking for and noticed several tasteless pre-printed signs that read “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy.”  This is milk toast tasteless compared to the vicious anti-Bush attacks during antiwar rallies.  The Washington Post noted that most signs were hand printed and from the pictures posted by the Washington Post, most people appeared to be hard working middle class people for whom public protests were a new experience. The NY Times notes that, “many came on their own and were not part of an organization or group.”

However, the Huffington Post and Think Progress feel necessary to demonize the protesters by focusing on a few oddballs . These sites  cannot even acknowledge that the honest concerns of the protesters. Even if you believe, as the Huffington Post and Think Progress that these protesters are wrong, confused or used, only the angriest and most partisan perspective would group  all  the demonstrators together and assign the worst motives.

We should perhaps forgive the Left. The seem to be a bit disoriented, unaccustomed to the fact that there is a President and Congress sympathetic to their views. Public protests and marches are their preferred tactics. Shouting chants is a Left wing sword wheeled in service of the people. How dare Conservatives usurp the means of the Left? They are for the exclusive use of the Left, the true representatives of the people. Perhaps, in a couple of years the Left will grow acclimated to dissent — but don’t bet on it.

It is an old political ploy to associate political adversaries with extremists at the ends of the political spectrum. Mainstream political persons should not be appropriately held hostage to the rantings of those who happen to reside the same side of the political divide. Indeed, the political space is composed of more than one dimension. Although similar people cluster in local  regions of political space, there are occasions when people find themselves close to those they might normally disagree with.

While no one is responsible for the behavior of others, we are responsible for our reaction to the behavior of others. Are we willing to excuse or at least ignore outrageous behavior on the part of political allies. In some measure, the people we directly choose to associate with says something important about who we are.

This brings us to the interesting case of  Van Jones, the Obama Administration appointment  as Green Jobs Czar.  Unfortunately, Jones is a person who is burdened with noxious baggage, offensive to most Americans.

• Although he claims ignorance now , jones signed the 9//1 1 “Truth Statement” asserting that the Bush Administration “had foreknowledge of impending 9/11 attacks and `consciously failed’ to act”
• Jones participated in a recording complaining about “Israeli occupation,” asserting the Palestinian “right of return” which would end Israeli as a Jewish state. Jones argues that “This is now a global struggle against a U.S.-led security apparatus and military agenda.”
• Jones believes that “the true terrorists are made in the U.S.”
• Jones’s political erudite political assessments can be summarized by the statement: Republicans are “assholes.”

The reaction of the Obama Administration has been interesting and perhaps illuminating. When Jones’s radical past came to light, the Obama Administration did not immediately request Jones’s resignation. They seemed reluctant to do anything in the hopes that the issue would fade. After all they have managed to keep a tax scofflaw as Treasury Secretary. Certainly, there has not been the same press pressure as would have been applied to George Bush if his Administration have appointed a similarly radical individual. This morning, Jones finally resigned without repudiating his past and painting a picture of himself as the victim of a smear campaign.

There are several possible explanations with regard to this failed appointment.

1. It was a major vetting mistake, where the Administration was sloppy in its selection. If this were true, one would expect that Jones would have been gone at the first hint of this embarrassment. It has taken too long for the Administration to dump Jones.
2. The Administration is generally sympathetic with Jones’s views, pretends to be more moderate than it really is, and was reluctant to dismiss a like-minded soul. It finally allowed Jones to resign when the political costs grew too large.
3. The Administration does not have a particular affinity  with Jones or his positions (though not a visceral aversion them either), but the appointment was jobs patronage for Jones and a political payoff for the far-Left. Like possibility (2), Jones was dumped when the costs were no longer worth any possible benefit.

Possibility (1) is the most benign signifying only incompetence on the part of some. Possibility (3) is slightly more damning, suggesting only Machiavellian political manipulations. Possibility (2) is the most damning. If true, itsuggests radicals in power, with a habit of mendacity.

Like all groups, the Left is sustained by its myths. These myths serve a crucible into which all facts are grounded and  the resulting powder is rendered into the appropriate narrative. Consider just a couple of these myths.

The Left believes that President Bush was not elected in 2000, but rather “appointed” by a partisan Supreme Court. According to this myth, the re-count that was proceeding at the time should have been allowed to continue. What is often forgotten is that under the re-count rules then issued by the Florida Supreme Court, in a count conducted by Florida newspapers, Bush still won. However, evidence is often insufficient to overcome stubborn myths.

The Left believes that Senator John Kerry lost his bid for the presidency in 2004  because of “lies” told by the Swift Boat Veterans about his Vietnam service. However, the election was really lost when John Kerry stood up before the Democratic National Convention and “report[ed] for duty” with a smart salute to a cheering partisan crowd. The gesture was meant to overcome the perception that Democrats were anti-military, but the salute made the details of Kerry’s service a legitimate subject for scrutiny. This, coupled with the clumsy effort of Dan Rather and 60 Minutes to run a story critical of Bush’s service in the Texas National Guard based on apparently forged documents, discredited much of the pro-Kerry national media and actually made the Swift Boat Veterans appear more credible.

A new myth is emerging now. If President Barack Obama is unable to create a medical care plan with a “public  option,” we will be told that the proposal was buried under the weight of Republican lies. While there is a lot of misinformation floating around — some of it perpetuated by Obama himself — the political hurtles impeding the Obama health care plan were erected early in the year.

The stimulus package passed early in 2009 exploded the long-term deficit prospects making any new initiatives suspect. Moreover, Obama’s original, ostensible reason for a new health care arrangement was to reduce health care costs that he described as economically “unsustainable.” When the history is written of this time, the death blow to ambitious health care reform may have come from the Congressional Budget Office. This non-partisan arm of Congress scored the cost (not savings) of the plan to be over $1 trillion. If previous spending is unsustainable, adding more costs seems less sustainable.

Facts are unimportant in the face of myth. Expect that the myth of the Republican lies to sustain the Left in their cold nights of discontent.

Whole Foods Market is one of those stores that conscientious and affluent liberals shop to maintain their health and  assuage their collective guilt. The store offers organically-grown vegetables, biodegradable washing agents, as well as catering to those who prefer specialized diets from diary-free to vegetarian to gluten-free. It would be unfair to assume anything about all Whole Foods Shoppers, but it is not unreasonable to assert that on average they are further to the Left than the average shopper.

Recently, Whole Foods CEO. John Mackey, wrote a op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare,” opposing the Obama health care plan and the socialization of health care provision. The article offered a list of mostly free-market policy options that he believes could mitigate health care concerns. Interestingly, he notes that when given a choice, Whole Foods employees in Canada and the UK, models of health care policy often held up  by the Left, prefer:

“…supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments.”

Mackey’s particular recommendations can and ought to be debated. What it is interesting in this case is the response of some on the Left. Rather than engaging the issues raised in the the op-ed piece directly, the reaction was to boycott Whole Foods.  Of course, no one is or ought to be forced to patronize Whole Foods. Anyone can decide to not shop there for any reason and even try to persuade others not to. What makes this case relatively unique is that no one is arguing about Whole Food practices.  Those who are want to boycott Whole Foods want to punish the company for the expression of an honest opinion. Mackey’s op-ed was thoughtful and not mean-spirited, descriptions that do not apply to all those who are trying to boycott Whole Foods.

The next time, we hear complaints about town hall participants shouting others down,  remember those who use their dollars to punish those who have different ideas.