Stifling Debate

An official starts to address a gathering of people to explain his position. Suddenly a protester stands up and starts making a disturbance. Is this a danger to democratic society? Something that must be suppressed? Or is it an example of constitutionally protected free speech?

Not so strangely, it depends on who is being interrupted. Currently the Obama administration is upset because tea party protesters are disrupting town hall meetings on health care. Several points should be considered:

First, this sort of behavior is nothing new. The left has been doing it constantly for decades. Speakers such as David Horowitz can expect that any time he gives a talk on campus, the front row will be filled with hecklers who have no intention of letting him speak.

The left had a blind spot about this. Talking Points Memo recently debated if they ever did this. Some people felt that they had done it during the Bush proposal for Social Security reform. Others felt that it hadn't happened since the 1960s. No one seemed to realize that it happens regularly.

The second point is that the White House is attempting to stifle the debate on their own terms. The whole purpose of the town hall meetings was to put out a controlled message. The President's town hall meetings are stacked with ringers from his campaign. They are trying to keep opponents from being heard. They even set up a special email address for people to forward anything that looks "fishy" to. It is unclear if this will be used to formulate responses or to threaten people who are disseminating the wrong message. Regardless, with the Democrats controlling the White House and Congress and a sympathetic press controlling CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, it is not surprising that people are copying tactics from the left to get their message out.

The third point is that the administration is spreading a lot of misinformation. The protesters are justified in calling them liars when they are not telling the truth. When the President of the United States tells lies on prime time, then what are average citizens to do? (The same thing that they did when no WMDs surfaced in Iraq.)

Finally, the left is insisting that the disruptions are being caused by paid agitators but has so far failed to find any. The closest that they have come is an overlap in volunteers.

For the record, here are a few statements that are being put out:

If you are satisfied with your doctor or health plan then no one will make you change it. Truth - Assuming that your current plan meets the new standards, it is up to your employer whether you will keep it or switch to a different plan or the public one.

Health Care Reform will cut health care costs. Truth - the current proposals are more likely to push future costs up than down.

You will not be forced to pay for abortion. Truth - a news story yesterday said that the public plan probably would include abortion.

This will not lead to single-payer. Truth - Based on other countries such as France, it will probably lead to a de facto single-payer covering 80%-90% of the population.