I may be slow on the uptake, but I finally figured out why progressives are so determined to portray town-hall participants as terrorists, mobsters, Nazis, lunatics, or shills for the insurance industry. Tell me what you think. President Obama's nationalization of the health-care industry depends on the votes of Blue Dog Democrats. These, by definition, are Democrats who have comparatively conservative constituencies (alliteration alert!), and therefore "unsafe" seats. If they anger their constituents, they could find themselves out of work in November 2010.
If the people who show up at town-hall meetings are representative of people in the district, then Blue Dogs know that they are in trouble next year, because the people who show up are vehemently opposed to ObamaCare. This makes the Blue Dogs less likely to support their president on health care. But what if the people who show up are unrepresentative? Then Blue Dogs have little or nothing to fear. They can support their president on health care without fear of repercussion.
Still with me? It all comes down to whether the people at the town-hall meetings are representative of people in the district. Naturally, progressives, who are determined to ram the so-called public option down people's throats, want Blue Dogs to believe that the people at their town-hall meetings are unrepresentative. To induce this belief, they keep repeating the mantra that the people are terrorists, mobsters, Nazis, lunatics, or shills—anything but ordinary, hard-working people who believe, after duly considering the matter, that nationalizing health care is a bad idea!
Please note that the progressives who spread these lies about town-hall participants don't care about Blue Dogs. They are using Blue Dogs as mere means to their ends. (Remember: To progressives, the end justifies the means.) They are willing to allow Blue Dogs to go down to defeat (to Republicans) as long as they get their socialized medicine. I hope Blue Dogs are intelligent enough to understand what is happening. Progressives are not their friends. They should listen to—and represent the interests of—their constitutents.
Addendum: Another thing my theory explains is why progressives risk antagonizing ordinary Americans by calling them despicable names. Progressives aren't addressing themselves to ordinary Americans. They're addressing themselves to Blue Dogs. Antagonizing ordinary Americans is an unintended bad effect of their actions, one that they are willing to allow in order to ram their favored legislation through. Nationalized health care has been a progressive dream since at least the early days of the first Clinton administration. To some progressives, this is the most important issue of all, one to which all else may (indeed, must) be sacrificed. Why do you think progressives are incensed that President Obama seems to be taking the public option off the table? If he doesn't insist on nationalized health care, in their view, then he's not really a progressive.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 