"Shut Up and Dribble"

The Trickle Down of Sneering Contempt

This blog has repeatedly cautioned progressives and coastal elites to watch their tone when describing the people and politics of "flyover country."   

People don't like being sneered at and called "deplorable." Some 70% of white working class men voted for Trump. They felt dissed.  They voted.

Public sneering serves a purpose.  Sharing a sneer confirms one is part of a group.  One is communicating that one is in on a joke, that the group "gets" something the outsiders do not. 

Click Here for the Video

It is harder to see this behavior when it is ones own people doing the sneering.  People might miss how unlovely and counter-productive it is when one is on the inside. Fortunately there is a text available for progressive sophisticates, Laura Ingraham's two minute commentary on LeBron James and Kevin Durant.

She sneers at the black athletes.  She mocks their grammar.  Her vocal tone confirms the point even when she isn't saying it overtly:  those big stupid black men, uneducated and uneducable, with big undeserved incomes, uppity, not knowing their place, talking politics when all they are good at is "bouncing a ball", they aren't as good as people like us.

That is harsh to say.  Surely I must be exaggerating? See for yourself.  Watch the video. Two minutes well spent.

Communication is amplified through eye-roll and tone, a primary vehicle in political communication.

"Shut up and dribble."    Ingraham, wearing her trademark gold cross, is on Fox News.  She does what Trump has done so successfully, political judo on the political left and coastal elites.  They take resentment of urban sophisticated Democrats and amplify the outrage they feel at being thought deplorable.  They send it back adding to it subtle or not-subtle racism: we white, Christian, heterosexual "normal" Americans can do some sneering of our own. Just look at those black athletes, freakishly big and dumb, talking about stuff they know nothing about, criticizing their betters. Shut up and dribble.

Guest Blog Poem: What would Jesus Do?

What would Jesus do about Health Care for all?

How would Allen Ginsberg write it?  Or an angry Gertrude Stein.  Or Hunter Thompson?

I received the rant-poem from a teacher and videographer who retired, moved to southern Oregon, and, decided that patience and mild talk was for people who had a lot of time, and he didn't.  He decided to stop all pussyfooting around and just write what he feels.

Guest Comment: 

"What Would Jesus Do? First, some tricks to get attention---walk on water, turn water to wine---then get down to walking the highways and byways casting out demons, laying on of hands, commanding people to pick up and walk and not worry about the costs and law suits since he had no money to lose in court. And then he did SNAP by multiplying fishes for the hungry at no cost or worry about bills. And then they crucified him---but then he rose again and went straight up.

So who’s afraid of the costs? Those with money. Those who know how to bilk money from others. Those who have health insurance already. Those who have shoes on their feet and a dentist.

I know what those people think.  Comfortable people. Some people deserve to die. Some people deserve to go bankrupt. Some people deserve to live in the street. Some people are just plain toothless. Some people are just nuts. What can you do? They are all high, breed like rabbits, have so many husbands and little bastards. Lepers. Retarded. Overweight diabetics. Shit humanity living in shitholes. They need to eat more fruit.  

Suffer the little children. And that frigging takes a lot of frigging money."

Kevin Stine and Julian Bell say "Yes.'

They said it clearly and decisively.  Yes.  

They would support the proposed amendment now before the Oregon State Senate:

"It is the obligation of the state to ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right."

Kevin Stine said he would vote yes.  He said the amendment moves forward his agenda to expand health care access to every Oregonian, and the dangers warned about by DeBoer are not valid. It isn't a litigation risk and it won't break the state's budget.

Click: Stine Video. 75 Seconds

"Article VIII Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution states: "The Legislative Assembly shall appropriate in each biennium a sum of money sufficient to ensure that the state's system of public education meets quality goals established by law, and publish a report that either demonstrates the appropriation is sufficient, or identifies the reasons for the insufficiency, its extent, and its impact on the ability of the state's system of public education to meet those goals."

I don't know of anyone that believes that Oregon is sufficiently funding public education, but the State is not being litigated for any violation of the Oregon Constitution, and we get an interesting report every biennium about the education system funding. Placing the healthcare measure on the ballot is harmless. I would vote yes in the State Senate, and recommend a yes vote. I prefer we adopt my plan of Medicaid-for-All, single-payer buy-in system as it gets us much closer to accomplishing the goals of the proposed ballot measure, than the ballot measure does itself."

Stine described his overall plan this way:  

"We can all agree that healthcare should be a right, but I'm focused on solutions. I'm proposing a Medicaid-for-All, single-payer solution. This will allow people that do not otherwise qualify for the Oregon Health Plan to be able to be eligible if they pay to get into the system."

Kevin Stine is currently a Medford City Council Member, and works on behalf of fellow veterans at Access in Medford. At both the Medford City Council and in his campaign for the Oregon Senate, he advocates for affordable housing, saying current local and state laws drive up the cost of housing to crippling levels.

Website:  https://www.drjulianbell.com

Julian Bell said he would support the issue currently before the Oregon Senate.  He observes that it has problems unless the system of health care changes, but that he would vote yes.

"I would support the bill establishing health care as a basic human right - but it will be cripplingly expensive if it is just a beefed up version of the health care system we have at the moment.  For this to work, health insurance has to be state run, no-opt out, and not for profit.  Otherwise it'll kill us."

Click: Video, 92 Seconds

His website outlines his health care goal, reading, in its entirety:  Health Care of All Oregon.  A comprehensive, equitable, high quality, universal health care system serving everyone in Oregon.

The video below gives a bit more detail:

"I am running for office to build an all inclusive, government run, not for profit health insurance system, a single-payer health insurance system for Oregon.  It's the only rational thing to do for our state.  This will contain health insurance costs, and provide insurance for everybody in our state."

Julian Bell is a physician living in Ashland.  He previously ran for Oregon governor became closely identified with the issue of climate change.  The subtitle of his campaign website cites that issue, "It's time for action, not debate, on climate change."

Two other candidates. There are two other Democratic candidates for this seat, and this blog will report on their position on this issue in future posts.  Senator Alan DeBoer, a Republican, is the incumbent.  He opposes the proposed amendment.

"Virtue Signaling" and the Window of Discourse

Oregon Democrats are Virtue Signaling.  The proposed amendment is "primarily aspirational."

They are trying to move the goalposts on what is considered reasonable and possible.   

Democrats are sending a message to their left flank  They are doing competitive signaling of moral virtue to communicate that the Democratic brand is consistent with the vanguard of the progressive movement.  Look at how good we are!

The good is the enemy of the perfect.  We see virtue signaling within political cohorts, particularly those at the vanguard of change, who jostle to greater extremes to prove the purity of their views and to stay on the vanguard.  

NRA--Staying on the vanguard

For example, the NRA does not want some other organization to appear more devoted to the 2nd Amendment and gun freedom than themselves. Planned Parenthood does not want any organization to be a more vigorous spokesperson for reproductive freedom than themselves. Each have turf and a brand to defend.

There is strong pressure for moving to the extremes because the edge of the thinkable goes on the table the moment it is voiced and a vanguard must include the thinkable.

The Democratic Party in Oregon--and nationally--has a problem.  The progressive left flank in American politics, energized by Bernie Sanders, does not trust Democrats.  A national party needs to be a coalition of multiple, somewhat contradictory interests.  Parties are a big tent. They cannot be too pure or narrow.  But a progressive vanguard has a point of view.  They want to move the edge of the possible, not consolidate the muddle in the middle.  

Democrats need the progressive left within their coalition because without them they lose their majority, witness 2000 and 2016.

Virtue signaling. In the Oregon House of Representatives Democrats passed, unanimously among Democrats, a resolution to put on the ballot a constitutional amendment to declare medically appropriate health care a cost effective, affordable right for every resident of the state.  It is a statement to the progressive left saying we really do want single payer health care, just like Bernie did, and you can trust us. Tina Kotek, Democratic Speaker of the House, called it "primarily aspirational." 

Democrats are hoping to move the goalposts of the politically possible. The "window of discourse," described by political scientist Joseph Overton, is the range of plausibility and acceptability of policies: Unthinkable, Radical, Acceptable, Sensible, Popular, Policy.  

Established representative democracy.

That is what pressure groups do: think the unthinkable and claim it to be sensible.  Democrats are moving the idea up the "Overton Window" from crazy to bold to reasonable on the way to policy.

There is a hazard here.  They might win.

Democrats are taking steps to putting a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot. It may look good to voters, and they might vote their instinct and impressions.  If it makes its way to the ballot it will establish a frame that could be dangerous for Democrats: Careless Democrats vs. Prudent Republicans.  Or it might win.  This could be very, very expensive.

Alan DeBoer

DeBoer:  "Just politics.  Just for show."   Incumbent State Senator Alan DeBoer said he thought this was just taken for show.  He thought it might just die in the Senate.

He said Democrats are just looking for something to put on the ballot that will place Democrats as "good guys" concerned about health care and Republicans as stinkers who want people to die. 

He thought it might work as show business--so long as it was certain to fail--but it was another example of what disappointed him about life in Salem.

His view is that it would be a disaster as actual policy, opening up the state to lawsuits from medical tourists demanding whatever medical science might devise.  It would gobble up resources for every other task of the state, he said, and "destroy education."  He said it would make plaintiff lawyers like Guest Post writer Thad Guyer a whole lot of money.

He repeated the statement he made earlier to the press:   "It'l break the state."

Health Care as a Right. (Like everything, it goes back to Trump)

The Oregon legislature is considering making health care a basic right, and putting it into the Oregon Constitution.

Trump portrait

"It is the obligation of the state to ensure that every resident of Oregon has access to cost-effective, medically appropriate and affordable health care as a fundamental right."

Democrats are pushing this because Trump and the GOP have made it politically necessary. They must resist.

The bill has unanimous support from Democrats in the State House of Representatives. Possibly some Democrats have reservations, but if so, they are lying low.  Trump and the GOP have pushed the range of Orthodox Democratic Policy. 

Trump is a compass pointing at limiting health care access, so Democrats point the opposite way. If Trump says it, it must be wrong.  In the bright light of Trump-disgust among Democratic leaders and voters,  Democratic officeholders felt the time was ripe to codify what had been a general sentiment.

Health care as a right is now Orthodox Democratic Position.   A Democratic officeholder in Oregon would have hell to pay to oppose this law. A lawmaker would sound Trump-ish. The lawmaker would have broken ranks, and none did.

Health care is a complex semi-right already. We do not have people left bleeding and dying on hospital doorsteps. They get emergency service as a right.  Emergency crisis service is different from treatment for bronchitis, asthma, diabetes, removal of moles, colonosopies, back pain, arthritis, and all the other things that constitute health care.  

One Democratic Senator called it "a moral decision" and credited his lifesaving treatment to having health insurance.  The Democratic House Speaker Tina Kotek called the Constitutional Amendment "primarily aspirational" and "an important values statement about the importance of health care, particularly as you see at the federal level there are a lot of efforts to scale back Medicaid and Medicare." 

Activists want action.  Obama didn't do enough.  Hillary was too centrist.  Orthodox Democratic Policy wants to see action not aspirational values statements. 

l'estât c'est moi

This is a big deal.  

A constitutional amendment moves this right to the head of every other priority. There could be reasons to attack the proposed amendment as dangerously expensive, and a huge source of litigation.

1. Obligation of the state.  Health care becomes a primary obligation, putting it ahead of the mere day to day obligations of a state. Health care would step to the front of the line.

2. Resident of the state. Not citizen of the state, not two-year resident of the state, but just simply resident.  This is a giant liability.  A resident of a low tax/low service state like Texas, of whatever nationality and legal status, penniless and uninsured and uninsurable, can be driven to Oregon, set up in an apartment, change his driver's license and registers to vote here, and now is now a legal resident of Oregon. Oregon as destination for health refugees.  Expensive.

3. Cost-effective, medially appropriate and affordable.  This is a price guarantee and a medical guarantee, a dangerous combination. Oregon becomes provider of last resort, and giving residents a legal right to demand the service be "affordable" to them, which means that the state essentially guarantees to pick up every tab. There are very, very expensive chronic cases and procedures, perhaps prolonging life, and which now patients and families have a constitutional right to demand.  Plan for lawsuits and complaints of death panels.

Alan DeBoer

Democrats will worry about costs and implications later.

We have battle lines and the issue framed.  The gravitational force of Trump affects Republicans, too. Democrats want an aspirational sentiment locked into the Constitution. Republicans see this as a case of the Republican minority showing fiscal maturity and realism by resisting Democratic excess.   

Local Republican State Senator Alan DeBoer says he supports a single payer system, in theory and in general, but not this constitutional amendment.  "It'll break the state."  

DeBoer pictured here is watching Governor Kate Brown at work. He has progressive instincts, but Democrats have given him a role: watching Democrats, and trying to block and dampen Democratic excess.  

Republicans have a plausible 2018 message:  Elect Republicans to the legislature so that Democrats wont have a big enough majorities to do something that will break the state.

                                 ****     ****    *****

A comment from plaintiff attorney Thad Guyer elaborates on the concerns I outline above. This could be a bad self inflicted wound, created out of the very best of intentions:   

What an exciting new field of litigation against state, county and city governments. Once health care is literally an enforceable "constitutional right", the government must meet it regardless of budget limitations. Like education, the rural, the less affluent and illegal immigrant advocates will be able to sue to even out "unequal distribution" of the health care entitlement. Government regulated and funded "health care districts" can be ordered by the courts, and the legislature can be ordered to fund them. The sick will be able to sue to get education and transportation dollars reallocated to free or subsidized health care, the sick elderly vs. young families with kids. Hospitals and doctors could be named in the same lawsuits against the government to discharge unpaid bills. And best of all, Salem will have to pay for expensive drugs and ecpermental surgeries-- if the rich can buy it, then we will all have a right to it. 

What a litigation bonaza for the national "health care law" lawyer groups. This could be the biggest thing for my profession since tobacco litigation. And you say it's only because of Trump that we are getting this? Awesome! 

Thad Guyer

Attorney

Trump is getting more popular. Democrats are burrowing in.

The poll numbers for Trump should scare Democrats.  It may not be a "wave election" after all.  

Democrats are climbing into a comfortable silo.

Click: 538

The McClatchy headline is grim for Democrats.  "Internal Polling shows Trump on the Rise."  Trump has moved up some 4 points since November.  The generic congressional ballot puts Democrats ahead by only 46% to 42%.  The wave is disappearing. Click: McClatchy

The Gallup poll, and 538.com mix of polls report the same thing. The GOP passed a tax bill.  It balloons the deficit, but it means lower taxes for most people right now.  People like it.

Within Democratic circles this news is simply impossible to believe.

   ***They hear about chaos at the White House.

   ***Female pundits talk about Trump's "shocking" lack of concern over domestic abuse.

   ***Everyone they know is disgusted by Trump.
   ***Russia. Mueller. Emoluments. Michael Flynn. Porn star payoff. Fire and Fury.

None of it matters to Republicans. Republicans and a lot of others know he is vulgar and narcissistic and dishonest but they do not care. Trump gave them Neal Gorsuch on abortion.  He wants to defend the borders.  He says men and white people have grievances, too.  And the economy seems strong. 

Democrats are not particularly visible as the party of jobs and a strong economy.  Trump claims the Obama recovery and Democrats let him do it.  They are instead visible pushing for immigrants and the culture wars. 

Democrats are in a spiral of purity, in which the views that are acceptable have moved in a direction that now Barrack Obama, Chuck Schumer, and Bill Clinton are hissed for their policies.  (Obama is still liked personally.  He isn't Trump.)  

Urban Dictionary Definition

On immigration, the views of the party 10 years ago are now anathema.  Democrats used to like border walls.  Democrats used to deport people who were here illegally, and talk about it.  Democrats used to say that we needed to protect good, regular, taxpaying American workers against under the table competition.  Now those sentiments are anathema.  They seem Trump-ish, i.e. racist.

In being the party disgusted by Trump they became the opposite of Trump, not better than Trump.  Progressive ears are attuned to backsliding or nuance, hunting for intimations of Trump.  They have become politically aware.  They are woke.

David Brooks defines woke this way:

 "To be woke is to be radically aware and justifiably paranoid. It is to be cognizant of the rot pervading the power structures. The woke manner shares cool’s rebel posture, but it is the opposite of cool in certain respects. Cool was politically detached, but being a social activist is required for being woke. Cool was individualistic, but woke is nationalistic and collectivist. Cool was emotionally reserved; woke is angry, passionate and indignant. Cool was morally ambiguous; woke seeks to establish a clear marker for what is unacceptable."^[15]

"What is unacceptable."  Deplorable thoughts.

On health care, nothing except universal health care will do. Wanting to discuss it demonstrates one thinks the issue isn't settled. Same with men discussing MeToo or reproduction; it is settled and none of men's business anyway.  White liberals cannot discuss race; that is for blacks, because whites had their turn, and black lives matter, period, full stop. White liberals cannot discuss guns; after Sandy Hook what's there to say?  Non Latinos cannot discuss Latinos; it is their business.

Click: NPR

There is an acceptable Democratic policy, and not to understand that policy demonstrates ones lack of cultural sensitivity, and therefore sort of Trump-ish.  Anathema.

People don't like being called racist or sexist.  Democratic activists in the Party and the various resist-Trump groups that remain from the Bernie Sanders campaign know improper thought when they encounter it.  It's deplorable.  Democrats did not learn the lesson in 2016 and may need further instruction in 2018 and 2020.

A great many Americans think these issues do have nuance and multiple sides and fair concerns by people of good conscience.  A majority whites think they face discrimination.  Working and middle income whites do not perceive themselves to be in a paradise of privilege.  Coastal elites don't quite believe this, and it doesn't puncture the bubble of thoughts acceptable within the woke community.  The standard Acceptable Democratic Position doesn't incorporate the thoughts of those who are less than fully comfortable with MeToo, or to current immigration policy.  

They don't feel deplorable.  They feel excluded.  So they are open to going to the Party where they are wanted.

Political parties and campaigns serve to adjudicate the pushes and pulls of social and political change, and Democrats appear to be resolving this with a Bernie-compliant MeToo brand of progressive socialism.  Bernie, Warren, Gellibrand, Harris, Booker.  All are on the team.  Same thing in the contested offices closer to my southern Oregon home.  The congressional candidates are all Bernie-compliant, and it is a bright red rural district.  

This leaves a huge opportunity for Trump.  There are a great many people who feel these issues are far from settled, and Trump is talking to them.

That is why Trump's popularity is rising.  That and the economy.

Pick Me! The Persuasive Power of Social Proof

The candidates for Congress are getting out there, making their cases.  

Which one stands out?   

Jamie McLeod-Skinner is using a time honored technique to distinguish herself:  social proof. 

All these people must know something.

Humans are social animals.

A well understood and researched element of human behavior is that people are busy and bombarded by information.  We look for mental shortcuts and rules of thumb to help us make choices, and we are influenced by others without particularly realizing it.  

The candidates for Congress are exercising those persuasive techniques right now.  

Authority

All seven candidates are fully mature, "job ready" candidates.  All seven have essentially indistinguishable positions on the issues.  All are progressive, Bernie-compliant, non-xenophobic, pro-women, pro immigrant, liberal, environmentalists, in favor of progressive taxation, in favor of expanded health care, who are appalled by Trump's vulgarity and temperament, and who disagree with Greg Walden's efforts to repeal and replace the ACA.  

This has become the standard Democratic suite of policies in this District and around the country.  The candidates are not giving people clear policy distinctions, so voters are looking at other things.    

Dr. Jennifer Neahring is appealing to our sense of respect for authority.  The doctor presumably knows more about health care delivery than other people.  Amid confusing and complicated health care legislation it makes sense to look to an expert.  

Michael Byrne is appealing to our sense of liking people who are like ourselves.  He calls himself a regular working man, a person genuinely similar to a big block of voters.  His webpage says ". . . no other candidate has planted trees, fought forest fires, picked fruit, quarried stone. . . . "  

Each of the others have their own assets and point of distinction, and this blog will look into them in future posts.

Commonality

Jamie McLeod-Skinner is using the technique of "Social Proof".  Today's post gives it a closer look.

Jamie McLeod-Skinner is giving people a big cue on whom to choose.  She had lots of people in the room, standing conspicuously, wearing her tee shirt.   Simple as that.

An attendee gets an impression: she has lots of support.  The various choices all have their pros and cons.  Who knows?  Jamie McLeod-Skinner must be a reasonable choice.  Look at all her support.  

They must know something.  

Perhaps they studied the websites in more detail than you did. Perhaps they have heard her speak in the past and learned something that shows that she is way better than the other candidates.  Perhaps they met her earlier.  

When the choices all seem equally reasonable humans grasp at little cues.  McLeod-Skinner is providing one.   

Family and Friends

The fact that some of the people wearing tee shirts might be a wife and son, the fact that some might be campaign workers, is not apparent and none of it matters, because attendees are not doing science or statistical modeling or careful counting.  They are experiencing a crowd, and they are getting a cue. 

She is building on that cue. Her Facebook page reported that she won handily the straw poll among attendees at the Ashland and Medford forums two weeks ago.  Those straw polls did not sample District voters. They sampled people in the room who heard the candidates speak for two hours.  Those attendees included lots of people who wore McLeod-Skinner tee shirts coming in.  Presumably they voted for her.  Their presence may have influenced others, indeed could scarcely have avoided doing so.   

After all she clearly has lots of support.  Lots of tee shirts.  She is probably a reasonable choice.  

Every candidate wants to create widening ripples of influence and support.  McLeod-Skinner's strategy appears to be to demonstrate electability.  It makes her a safe choice.

There is nothing secretive or manipulative about this. It's just a tee shirt. Every candidate could do the same thing.  Candidate still have time to make adjustments, if they choose to.  There are many ways to win friends and influence people.

McLeod-Skinner is selling electability.