Osler's Razor

It does not work if your goal is to engage in intelligent discussion for the purpose of fostering well reasoned decision making. It also does not work if your goal is persuade anyone to your way of thinking. If your goal is simply to stop the conversation altogether, then I suppose it works pretty well.

Since it's my guess that many of these shouters claim to be Bible believing Christians, a verse for them:

"Urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us" (Titus 2:6-8).

I know that the apostle Paul isn't talking about the health care discussion, but his advice seems to apply - carry yourself in such a way that your actions don't betray your arguments.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Yes, I think it is an effective tactic, which is not to say that it is intellectually honest.

When President Obama took office, polls indicated that a majority of Americans favored a government health insurance option.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/

That held as recently as June.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/
opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml

Now, polls show something different. And I can't think of anything driving the debate other than the town hall shouters.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
public_content/politics/current_events/
healthcare/august_2009/
32_favor_single_payer_health_care_57_oppose
 

These "town hall meetings" are in many cases staged events where the politicians invite supporters who will cheer and wave flags in support of the position advocated. They're not traditional New England Town meetings where everyone shows up. The questions are written ahead of time and handed to people in the audience.

The shouters are trying to call attention to their point of view. Its rude and its often silly.

But so are the staged events that are supposed to look spontaneous and unscripted. They're often not.
 

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/shocker-little-girl-who-asked-obama.html


--And yes, I am well aware that this is a highly partisan anti-Obama website that I got this from. Apply grains of salt if you wish.
 

Hooray! Osler's back! Although it was nice of you to share the blog with your friends, I think the change wasn't necessarily for the best. The Razor loses some of its edge when trivial things like some celebrity quitting are given the spotlight.
-Brennan
 

Plus, as Nancy Pelosi in all of her infinite wisdom has pointed out, these people are unpatriotic!

_B_ says: "I can't think of anything driving the debate other than the town hall shouters."

Really? I mean, there is a debate going on out there in the media, in press releases by various health organizations, etc. about the bill that has passed the House, and Obama's plans for health reform in this country. I don't think that people are being driven to disapprove of increased government involvement in health care by thirty second clips of shouting being played on cable news programs.

Don't you think it is at least slightly possible that as people learn more about the President's plan they find that they disagree with it?

I think these people are silly, but I don't think they are any more silly than the reporter that threw his shoes at Bush, and websites like Huffington Post and Daily Kos spent days and weeks lionizing that guy.

However, I think if they have any effect on stopping the government from getting more involved in health care then I'm all for them. No matter how unpatriotic they are.
 

I personally think NO it does not work.. its is just a dumb thing to do. ALso I LOVE the razor while Osler is gone. It will be good when he gets back too but I commend all the Razorites who helped in this effort!!! I think they are doing a BANG UP JOB!!!!!!

FINALLY there are posts where I know what the hell everyone is talking about. Cocaine sentences I don't always get, but Paula Abdul? now that I get.
 

A related article from the Dallas Morning News...
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-healthdebate_0813edi.State.Edition1.29a9e17.html
 

One more try... If this doesn't work, it is on the Opinion page at dallasnews.com and is titled "Drowning Democracy in Emotional Drama"
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-healthdebate_0813edi.State.Edition1.29a9e17.html
 

I can think of two rational reasons one might shout down a response:

1. The response doesn't actually answer the question or includes blatant lies, and you want to make sure the speaker knows that the evasion/deception isn't working, so you can rattle him/her and keep him/her from doing the same as the meeting progresses, or

2. The shouter realizes that his position on the issue has been (and continues to be) marginalized by the mainstream media, and he/she wants to make sure that the media cannot simply play recordings of the response without acknowledging the opposition.

And then, of course, there's the possibility of the "irrational" reason: You're angry at what the government's doing, and the shouting is an emotional response, not a "tactic," as you describe it.

I doubt that most of these outbursts are the result of tactical thought. They're the result of regular people who don't have a legal education and who don't protest things on a regular basis. They aren't shouting because it's the best strategy; they're shouting because they think it's the only way they can be heard.
 

I think the shouters are scared: of what, I'm not sure. I don't necessarily think it's government involvement in health care. It seems like it's something deeper than that, and I'n not sure what. Maybe their lives are teetering on some balance as it is, and they're afraid of change.

I certainly felt scared, maybe in the same way they are or maybe more profoundly, the night before George W. invaded Iraq. The rhetoric at that point was absolutely chilling. Would I have gone to a town meeting by my then-representative Virgil Goode (by then a Republican) and shouted him down about the war? I don't know. Probably not shouted . . . I don't think that solves anything.

As a tactic, though, I think the shouters are achieving their goal of getting across extreme dissatisfaction or fear of the Obama administration, because they're getting on TV, and they make great TV and blog chatter. They're incredibly successful, in that regard.
 

I honeslty think that the simplest answer is the right one here: they're frustrated. There has not been much transparency in DC of late. The stimulous package was passed without anyone so much a reading it, cap-and-trade was passed over strong public opposition, and now a big healthcare push with more spending and talk of increased taxes? People feel that their voices and opinions are being ignored, so the response is to wratchet up the volume. A constructive dialogue for the healthcare debate? Certainly not, but it does assure that their voice is being heard. And maybe that's all the needs to happen right now.
 

Well, yeah, the side that lost an election is "having it's voice ignored" in the sense that they aren't getting their way. That's what happens when you lose elections.
 

The comment that no one will read:

Rather than shouting over the representatives, I think you are seeing the frustration at the stock answers that always emanate from these professional politicians.

Once Arlen Specter or one of those guys starts into his template response you have heard so many times before, you don't really need to hear the whole spiel to know what he is saying.

I am all for civility--but the natives are restless. The national debt is out of control--and no one in power really seems to give a hoot.

So, pols should spare us the talking points. If these guys try to get by us with the facile party line, cue the derision.

From what I see, none of our public servants seem willing to address health care in a serious way.

Until they get serious, we are probably going to stay hostile, mobile, and agile.
 

It doesn't have to work. Frankly, I'd argue that even maintaining that goal would be ill-advised. You want to control the debate, the issues themselves are irrelevant. All that matters is the conversation, or rather in this instance insuring that one does not occur.

It just has to eat up time on the news everyday. The goal isn't to 'work' it's to end the debate, or at least obscure it. For that, so far it's proved quite effective. So kudos to them for that.

For example, we're discussing their protests rather than health care reform as a subject today.
 

Farmer--

What is it you would like to see happen with health care?
 

Prof. Osler,

Health Care is a knotty problem for which I have no neat solution. The basic problem is cost; that is, our current system (quite wonderful for people like the Oslers and Cruseturners) is unsustainable for a number of reasons--none of which having to do with relatively healthy families.

But there are three basic changes we need to make at some point:

1. Rationing in some form. No one has the stomach for this--but basic math tells us that we cannot ALL have ALL the care that technology can produce. This is why socialized medicine may be the eventual answer. Government health care necessarily means rationing through bureaucratic inefficiency. But no politician in America is willing to address this basic point.

2. Portability. We need to buy our own insurance and pay for it and keep it with us regardless of where we work or who we work for.

3. Increased government regulation of insurance companies to reduce the underwriting/"previous condition" gauntlet. To do business, insurance companies are going to have to be willing to underwrite people who may get sick. This may or may not turn out to be less profitable--but it will be the price they pay to stay alive. Especially when the alternative is one-payer.

--------

4. I said three--but I will give you this one as the lagniappe: we need to find a more efficient way of treating the uninsured. That is a tough nut to crack--but it is one of those things that doesn't have to be done today. We currently have a safety net; it is just very expensive. We need to make it better.

What has me so sour about all this is mostly process. I am disgusted by the way the President has conducted this national discussion. I am severely disappointed at the missed opportunity to deal with this in a straightforward and bipartisan basis. Instead of solutions we have mainly gotten slogans, strong-arm politics, and boilerplate rhetoric driven by an ideology now fifty years out of date.
 

Farmer--

I agree with you. But, aren't you articulating precisely the positions that the screamers are so "frustrated" with? You say rationing is necessary (and you are right), but that seems to be the biggest hot-button issue for the Limbaugh-fueled scream squads at town hall meetings (even though the proposed legislation seems to do almost nothing related to this goal).

And I'm not sure how this national discussion was supposed to proceed. What would be a better way? Is there a national debate preceding legislation you can hold out as a model?
 

Prof. Osler,

There are no precedents for this particular moment because we have never willingly and consciously attempted a remaking of American society on this scale.

The screamers are effective because of the vacuum of leadership and the palpable lack of honesty. Because everybody senses that the President and his forces are not being straight with the facts, the populist revolt runs on the massive reserves of apprehension.

People are going into these town halls and screaming their lungs out because something gargantuan is happening and they have no idea what it is. But they know it is something--and they know Democratic leadership is using every trick in the book to hide the ball.

The way to go here is to put aside the temptation for legacy: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Obama. The President ought to take a smaller bite out of the apple and (for the first time in his political career) actually reach out to the other side. Most of what needs to be done would be consensus.

Check out the Wyden-Bennet bipartisan compromise plan.
 

FYI: the President dropping the public option probably signals a return to sanity.

Kudos to him for this. I am anxious for the pragmatic Obama to reassert himself over the liberal ideologue.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. A good reform is possible--but the President needs to include Republicans of good will.