Town Hall "Protesters" Not Conservatives But Reactionary Political Hacks

Don't Let Inflammatory Rhetoric, Meeting Disruptions Escalate to Violence

August 5, 2009
By: Dave Rogers

A true political conservative would never be caught dead causing a ruckus at a public meeting.

No doubt Bill Buckley is rolling over in his grave at the antics of today's maniacs working under the banner of "conservatism."

A true conservative is a thoughtful portrayer of less government and restrained spending, a fiscal moderate while showing concern for the less fortunate through philanthropy and support of social justice.

The fruitcakes now making fools of themselves opposing health care by what amounts to violence all over the country have no trace of thoughtfulness and reason. No recollection that while the U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech it gives no right to restrict others from the same. They want to win political points with a smash-mouth approach -- disrupt and defeat.

The health care needs of the American people are the last consideration of these ideological bullies; beating President Obama, marching him to his "Waterloo," are their aims. Reverse the results of the last election, trash the country, all be danged as long as we prevail -- that's their game.

And a nasty one it is. If the response by reasonable folks is confrontation, guess what? We have anarchy! The only recourse will be police power. Otherwise, our American experiment fails of unlimited free speech and rule of the minority takes over.

We certainly would not allow the same tactics to be perpetrated by left wing operatives, would we?

Here's what President Obama himself says: "Passing comprehensive health insurance reform will not be easy. Every President since Harry Truman has talked about it, and the most powerful and experienced lobbyists in Washington stand in the way.

"But every day we don't act, Americans watch their premiums rise three times faster than wages, small businesses and families are pushed towards bankruptcy, and 14,000 people lose their coverage entirely. The cost of inaction is simply too much for the people of this nation to bear.

"So yes, fixing this crisis will not be easy. Our opponents will attack us every day for daring to try. It will require time, and hard work, and there will be days when we don't know if we have anything more to give. But there comes a moment when we all have to choose between doing what's easy, and doing what's right."

A friend from Colorado writes that I am advocating "censorship" by urging reasonable people to turn off twisted talk show hosts. No, not really, I am continuing to be concerned about the takeover of America's airwaves by ideological fanatics funded by billionaires who spew what amounts to anti-American propaganda. In fact, that is what has happened since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1989.

What to do? We refer them all to FactCheck.org, to Snopes.com, or other websites that research the truth. But why is this all necessary, why should these folks become incensed because our system allows the total corruption of the media, especially the public airwaves?

It is not censorship, in my opinion, to offer an alternative to information served up with acerbic, politically-motivated intent by paid propagandists for right wing manipulators.

The danger is that this one-sided dialogue inflames good-hearted but intellectually unsophisticated folks like my friend from Colorado, a woman from Gladwin we know, a pal from Tennessee, a relative from Pittsburgh who sends vicious negative erroneous e-mails continually, and on and on.

The concept behind the Fairness Doctrine is that there is only so much bandwidth and the public should be served by not allowing monopolization. We can see now the good sense behind that idea, I believe.

The free speech disrupters are whipped into a frenzy by maniacal radio and television "talk show" hosts. The so-called talk shows are nothing but blatant propaganda rallies for the lunatic fringe, right wing reactionaries marching in the footsteps of jackbooted thugs of the 1930s in several countries.

Make no mistake, Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy were not the only place the right wing ruled by violence; Henry Ford and his "police" at the Battle of the Overpass in Dearborn and, earlier, Andrew Carnegie with machine guns on rail flatcars in Pennsylvania mowed down the Molly Maguires. The Black Legion in Detroit made death the penalty for failing to be "one of the boys."

And the left wing was no less guilty of such violent tactics in America. Farmers in the Midwest turned to rioting and set up blockades to keep milk from being delivered to cities. Asserting they were re-enacting the Boston Tea Party (sound familiar?) they dumped milk on the highway.

Of course, all this had a predictable consequence: right wing reaction and violence. In San Francisco, Minneapolis and Flint, opponents of union organizing claimed to be protecting America from Communists.

Mick Hume, writing in the website "Spiked" says: "One thing that clearly distinguishes this financial disruption from earlier capitalist crises is the complete absence of any political alternatives. Unlike in the 1930s or 1970s, there is no Soviet Union or parties of Western state socialism to offer even the illusion of an alternative to capitalism. Society is widely described as facing a crisis, a crossroads, yet there is no serious debate about which road to take into a different future. The Conservative opposition in the UK has managed the considerable achievement of looking even more paralyzed than the government. Meanwhile, we are warned by the authorities that this is 'no time' for idle talk, as if we were facing a foreign invasion. But if now is not the time to raise questions about the direction of our society, when is?"

So what is free speech under the U.S. Constitution? Does it protect the right of self-interested financial giants to foist their views on everyone else by dominating the radio airwaves nearly around the clock? Does it include the right of fringe political groups to disrupt the free flow of ideas in public meetings by what amounts to violence?

Do we want to go down the road laid out by Karl Rove, Dick Armey and their cronies? Do we really want to tolerate violence, the disruption of the free flow of ideas by paid political operatives? Do we really want to allow the American system to be corrupted by fascist tactics?

I don't think so!

What do you think? ###