Healthcare, Right-Wing Populism, & Civil Society
The aggressive public protests against Obama’s healthcare plan are an example of right-wing populism, a type of mass movement that periodically sweeps across the United States. Since the late 1800s, right-wing populist movements led primarily by angry White men have demonized and scapegoated people of color, immigrants, Jews, and other marginalized groups.
Populism on the right does not necessarily represent the policies or practices of traditional conservatism or economic libertarianism. In right-wing populist movements, anger, fear, and resentment are often mobilized by cynical rightist political elites as part of an orchestrated response in defense of unfair power, wealth, or privilege (and sometimes all three).
This does not mean, however, that the individual persons currently disrupting the town meetings have no right to participate in the public square.
Calling these protestors 'extremists' or 'wingnuts'; suggesting they are only Astroturf or mere puppets of elite rightist spinmasters; or demanding they be silenced; undercuts basic concepts of the democratic process.
Democracy is not a spectator sport and it can get loud and boisterous. Protestors and dissidents have a right to demand answers from elected officials, but they have no right to be bullies or attempt to silence their opposition. No matter what our political viewpoint, we all have a stake in ensuring that these public events are not marred by intimidation and mob rule. People need to stand up and defend democracy.
Anger and shouting are part of the chaos of real democratic struggles over policy. People who support a government role in providing health care need to step up. We need to be focusing our anger and doing some shouting ourselves. Not to disrupt, not to shout other people down, but to show Democrats that they need to develop some backbone. People who support serious reform of healthcare in our country need to attend town halls and public meetings, contact their elected officials, and rally their neighbors and to get involved in the public square. We need to be in the streets and suites raising a ruckus. We are being out-organized.
At the same time, being aware of how historic right-wing populism has played out in ways that promote scapegoating of immigrants, people of color, Jews and other targets is vital to protect the democratic process. The right-wing populism movement is dangerous and the people in it are scared, fed with misinformation and lies by right-wing demagogues, and genuinely scared. The individual people and the rightist movement are two different things. Anyone who has spent more than a few weeks as a community organize knows that you don’t belittle or attack scared and anxious people at public events.
This is a difficult balancing act, but a necessary skill set for those who want to defend and extend democracy as a system built on informed consent.
In the short run, people scheduling public meetings need to set the ground rules for participation up front, and enforce them with courtesy and without political bias.
In the long run, the Obama administration and the Democratic Party need to learn how to rebut false and misleading statements and beliefs without name-calling; calmly rebuke those national figures spreading the misinformation as harming civil society; and develop strong and clear arguments to defend their proposed programs.
These are the Three R’s of Civil Society: Rebut, Rebuke, Re-Affirm. The tendencies found within right-wing populism are toxic to democracy. The solution is not to short-circuit the democratic process, but to ensure that questions are fully answered and all voices are heard.
While keeping our eyes on the prize of universal quality health care for all, we must also prevent right-wing populism as a social movement from spinning out of control and into more violence. This is what happened in the mid-1990s when the Patriot and Militia movements—the most recent prior examples of mass right-wing populism—helped spread conspiracy theories and false allegations about President Clinton and blocked his policy initiatives. As anger and resentment spread through the heartland, fed by media demagogues and opportunistic politicians, Timothy McVeigh and his accomplices blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, resulting in 168 deaths, in a failed attempt to provoke an insurrection from the right.
Since the Inauguration of Barack Obama as President, there have been nine murders tied to White supremacist ideology laced with conspiracy theories. It is already happening here. Decent people across the political spectrum need to take action to preserve pluralist civil society.
More Resources:
HuffPost: Barney Frank Slams LaRouchite Fascism at Healthcare Meeting
HuffPost: Rightists Call Obama & FDR Socialist Traitors
HuffPost: Bigotry, Demonizing Rhetoric, and Right-Wing Violence
Report: Toxic to Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, and Scapegoating
Book: Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort
p.s. If the LaRouchites show up, give them the Barney Frank response. Vicious right-wing neofascist thugs with a 35 year record of disruption and smears are an exception to the 3R rule.
Chip Berlet is senior analyst of Political Research Associates, co-author (with Matthew N. Lyons) of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort, and author of the recent report, Toxic to Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, and Scapegoating.
Follow Chip Berlet on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cberlet
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have no problem with people expressing their opinions, however, when they are extremely aggressive (don't even start on the gun stuff, having guns at a public forum is absolutely insane) and don't allow others to speak, they are then a mob. It drowns out REAL discussion.
I was at 3 public health care events. In 2 of them were obviously paid shills. In one, they tried to disrupt a panel, but were unable to because of the forum. They left in a huff midway. In the second one, 7 of us were meeting somewhere to have a phone bank. The opposition bothered to send two paid people to disrupt it and tell people the management wouldn't allow it to be held there, a total lie. For 7 people!! You can tell they are paid, they are dressed like actors and just look off.
When there are public forums, I want real people discussing it, not corporations.
There is not doubt that some of the folks protesting the Obama legislation are being organized, but it is still not clear there is a corporate link. I hiope someone finds one. Ideological shills are the more common form. The Dittoheads who follow Limbaugh for example. The corporations are playing at higher levels, with campaign donations, expensive advertising campaigns, etc.
Once again, great piece and great points! I think that sometimes those of us on the left can engage in tactics that we argue are problematic and reprehensible. The biggest issue I have about the right coming out so aggressively is the show of weaponry that some feel is so necessary at these events (including ones where our President is speaking). I cannot wrap my mind around how gun rights (or just carrying a gun for that matter) relate to health care? It doesn't. Given the disconnect, this seems to be an intimidation tactic to incite fear and silence alternative voices. Sure, some say it's their constitutional right to bear arms (which admittedly I have my own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment), but why then and there? I digress...
The issue is not that others are vocal, the point of focus ought to be that those of us on the side of health care reform (and a public option!) need to be MORE vocal! At the same time, we need to be passionate, vocal AND rational! We need to counter misinformation and irrationality with facts and calm, rational talk about our points. I am going to counter-protest a gathering of anti-health care reformers tomorrow in Denver. I will remember these points. Admittedly, the catty side of me wants to make signs about right-wing extremism but instead of placating them, I should just go with my positive message of helping all Americans live happy, healthy lives.
Thanks for a great post. Good luck at the protest.
Postwar right wing populism is different from right wing populism of decades past in several respects, notably the fact that contemporary rwp tends to be antistatist and hyperindividualist, whereas rwp of the Depression era and earlier tended to have a strong distributionist or guildist element in addition to the usual laundry list of nativism etc. The stark contrast between modern 'libertarian' rwp and older rwp suggests that that rwp is not a single evolving phenomenon but rather that different forms of rwp are the products of a more complex process of ideological splintering and realignments.
OK, I agree RWP is a constantly evolving form of social movement. But wasn't the syndicalis
Certainly there was that influence, although I think there is a much deeper history to the cooperative tendency in rwp. Consistent with that, in some ways Andrew Jackson is a progressive while in others he fits the bill of right wing populism, including white nationalism.
As for why postwar rwp is so antistatist, I suspect that one catalyst was federal enforcement of desegregation. And that antifedera
There is a growing disconnect in America. You really need to stop, look and listen. Maybe you are out of touch with the disenfranchised persons you see venting anger. Too many persons are isolated from America to see the real anger growing. I drive back and forth in the USA. Stop at a truck stop and hear the background conversations. There is anger. Deep anger. Stop in for the early bird special and listen to the seniors talking. There is fear and anger. These conversations are very different than those I hear sitting in an upscale restaurant in Chicago, NY or Washington. Don't make too many excuses and stick your head in the sand too long. There is real anger out there and it scares me.
OK, so I hear you say that there is anger out there. Who is angry exactly? And more important who are they angry at? And what are they angry about? Let me guess. Middle aged white men are angry that we have a black president? Middle aged white men with a high school education are angry about a health care bill that will benefit them even though they have not read it to see that? Middle aged white men are angry about the government trying to reign in the excesses of the for profit insurance industry because they like rich people to get richer on their backs? What exactly did I miss?
There is widespread suspicion and distrust of the federal government in this country, and the perceived direction it is veering off to.
That is what you missed, exactly.
Please do not assume I have never driven a truck or run a printing press for wages, or that I have never lived outside of the east coast, or that I do not go across the country interviewing people. I know there is real anger out there, and write about it. How it is focused. What are the mechanisms of resentment. How the frames and narratives gain a mass base.
The point is that the anger and resentment of many in the White middle class is directed at scapegoats. To understand the process is to help craft more effective responses. That's why I argue againt just name calling them all "wingnuts.
Take that Chip off your shoulder.
The disconnect is nothing new. Many people on the left were angry for eight years. What did we do (apart from demonstrate), we voted. We wanted change and turns out, though sometimes people are frustrated now (like me), I am definitely not angry or bitter. I am very saddened that this anger seems to come from a dark place of fanaticism
In the words of an impassioned Jon Stewart: "Pace your rage."
http://www
We may be looking at the wrong problem and therefore coming up with the wrong solutions. Here's a VERY interesting take on the issue:
http://www
What an amazing piece of journalism to read. Thank you!
The dilemma for me at this point is that I don't believe anything other than single payer is reform. Feeding the for-profit monster is not something that I'm going to support. The Dems are not even talking about single payer.
I totally get where you are coming from. I am SOOOOO frustrated,. But in political organizing it is a chess game. And i really thing that pushing back NOW will have enough of an affect that the balance will tip in favor of a policy formulation that will pave the way for single payer.
I don't agree. I don't believe the way can be paved. It will just make the insurance companies stronger.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
