10/08/2009 11:53:10 AM EST

How Alan Grayson and Michael Moore Changed the Conversation

posted by Cenk

It's not the answer that matters, it's the question. So when Alan Grayson suggested that the Republican's health care plan was for people to die quickly, he began a conversation that the Democratic Party couldn't lose and the Republicans couldn't win. Because then the question being debated was: Do Republicans want people to die quickly?

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
For the whole summer, the Republicans had managed to shift the debate from "should we reform the health care system in this country?" to "is the Democratic plan to reform health care a government takeover?" So, instead of the onus being on the health care industry and their Republican lovers to prove that we should maintain the status quo, the onus shifted to Democrats to prove that their plan was perfect.

This is an old trick of lobbyists (really well demonstrated in Thank You For Smoking). You change the conversation to a battle you can win. So, Rep. Grayson used their methods against them. And now the conversation we're having is whether the health care system is acceptable or if it leads to killing people for profit. Mission accomplished.

Michael Moore is doing the same in his move Capitalism. First, he is changing the conversation on who caused the financial collapse in the first place. Most people are acutely aware that it was the bankers, but not the Fox News audience. So, when he went on Sean Hannity's show the other night, he introduced that idea to them and then Hannity was stuck in the position of defending the bankers and blatantly blaming the victims and the poor. Instead of discussing how government was at fault, Moore started a conversation on how deregulation might have led to this mess.

But more importantly, he started a battle for the heart and soul of Christianity. He proposed in the movie and in his debate with Hannity that being on the side of the rapacious rich is un-Christian. He claimed his position is the more Christian position. For so long, the Republicans have simply claimed that they are more Christian without anything to back them up. They just shouted louder. Now, Moore is shouting just as loud.

By putting them on the defensive on how they are not good Christians if they help the rich crush the poor, he has once again changed the conversation. Are the Republicans bad Christians? It doesn't matter what the answer is, that's a question you can't lose with.

What the conservative movement has understood for a long time is sometimes it takes something a little inflammatory to change the conversation. You have to draw attention to you, so people can start discussing the topic you want.

This was perfectly demonstrated by the wild and angry town hall crowds. They were sometimes saying hideous things about Obama but they succeeded in shifting the burden of proof on to the Democrats. Now, it looks like we have a couple of guys that know how to play this game. And they have succeeded in shifting the focus back to where it should be. It's refreshing to have people who know what they're doing on your side.

Watch The Young Turks Here

< Moore vs Hannity | Right-Wing Caller: "We Will Overthrow The Government" >
 Display:
How Alan Grayson and Michael Moore Changed the Conversation | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
Amen (none / 0)
Framing is at least half the battle and sometimes it's the entire battle. Although along those lines, I think Moore made a mistake in attacking capitalism generically rather than making a more nuanced argument that the true 'evil' is un or under-regulated capitalism coupled with very low tax rates on the rich.

Restore and enforce good regulations and top marginal tax rates. Throw in single payer and a focus on rebuilding our broken infrastructure using the funds from the increased rates and there you go.

by ihavenobias on 10/08/2009 03:19:10 PM EST

lowering the bar (none / 0)
I am concerned that it had to come to this. I'll put it this way. politically it's the right thing to do, but politics haven't been about morality until someones being caught doing something wrong. morally, this is terrible for america. its defending libel and slander all in the name of a political party. that doesn't bode well for us as a nation. my only hope is that the dems end that conversation here by proving to the right that they too can throw their morallity in their face (easily considering they are the most hypocritical people since the kkk).

I think now that they have people questioning the GOP they can get more ferverent, but to repeat the facts about their health bill versus the bill which the GOP put forth (meaning, something vs. jack shit). the focus needs to be on whether or not the politicians that give into the dirty political tricks and take the lobbyist side are just bad politicians with no one elses concerns in mind except for their own. ask the question "what was the last good thing that the republicans have done thats worked and benefited this country?" that question is less dirty, but just as powerful.

by Mutt1126 on 10/08/2009 03:59:34 PM EST

Just Imagine (none / 0)

What would have been the effect on US history if Mike Dukakis had slugged that question about Willie Horton assaulting his wife out of the park instead of whiffing it in 1988 during that debate. In terms of Christianity, I mean. Something like "my opponent claims to be the Christian candidate, but there's some difficult stuff in that New Testament. Jesus would want me to forgive that person, that much I'm sure of." A huge opportunity to redirect the debate gone to waste.

 

 

by MayorHardin on 10/08/2009 04:47:32 PM EST

I totally hear you! (none / 0)

 I love that the shoe is on the other foot now.

It reminds me of a conversation with a conservative friend I had a few days ago.  She is a devout Catholic who said to me, "paying taxes does not make you moral".  I agreed.  But wanting to help other people and the community at large, is.  It is all about morality.  I think, for the first time, she is starting to see that in order to help more people, we need government intervention.  I don't think she would admit it but there is a change.

by pam on 10/08/2009 11:05:52 PM EST

I know why Moore doesn't come on TYT (none / 0)
He doesn't even know how to spell Cenk:

"Are the Republicans bad Christians?" - Craig Uygur, Huffington Post

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."

by opposition on 10/10/2009 03:42:57 AM EST

This is not a football game; this is a war. (none / 0)
I'm not 100% in favor of Rep. Grayson's tactics, though I do catch his drift. If he's implying that Republicans want to kill grandma and such, and we heard all those "death panel" b.s., then two wrongs don't make a right.

I always contend that politics is not sports, and war should never be waged for sport. Usually that means that in any real-world conflict, winning should be the goal, but rather peaceful resolution, unless the enemy has demonstrated a total lack of an ability to reason and compromise, and winning decisively is the only thing that'll prevent something horrible to happen to your side. The hard right, those who have seized control of the GOP and marginialized the center-right (which explains why the party is shrinking while the percentage of independents is growing) has had enough olive branches offered to them only to refuse them, and to compromise with anyone unwilling to compromise is to guarantee defeat.

This is not a football game because there is no referee. We don't need to resort to vicious slander against anyone or ruin anyone, but it's way past time to kick some ass.

Rep. Grayson has fired a warning shot, which has caught the other side off guard. As ugly as it was, I'm afraid it was necessary. If I was in Congress, I don't think I could do that; I'm too much of the "take the high road" kind of guy, not a polemicist. But if a shot across the bow is needed, then so be it. At least it forced the Right to have to answer a question--do they really want over 40 thousand Americans to die needlessly every year because of lack of health insurance? (Not that they tried to answer the question... they just continue whine and continue to claim Obama is a secret Muslim socialist homosexual or whatever.)

As for Michael Moore... I'm not a fan of his, and I'm not anti-capitalist. I'm more for social capitalism, I guess.

by LudwigVan on 10/10/2009 08:05:22 PM EST

How Alan Grayson and Michael Moore Changed the Conversation | 6 comments (6 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: