Defending and debunking = losing the perception battle

"If you’re defending, you’re losing".


And in the battle of public perception, that is what progressives are up against. This isn’t much different from the 2004 election, where Kerry was always on the defensive against utter nonsense and crap. But in reality, it forced him (and all others who supported him) to waste valuable time that could otherwise be spent talking about the positives, or giving a clear and concise message about the positives. And sadly, it holds true again here with the health care reform debate.


clammyc's diary :: :: I’ve seen more utter and sheer crap flung from the right, pretending to be from a "research group", which is a wholly owned subsidiary of insurance company giants. I’ve heard the most ridiculous points being made all across the airwaves, through emails and in conversations about "forced counseling of seniors on dying" or about "government takeover of healthcare" or about "paying for abortions on demand" (and I bet Viagra would be covered, but that is a different argument) "how many people are happy with their current insurance" or whatever other crap is being flung each day that is as mind numbingly stupid as it is expected.


The problem, of course, is that (in addition to all of this getting air time, validation and consideration) way too much time is spent pointing out all of the reasons why all of these ridiculous claims are wrong – leaving little to no part of the discussion for actually "selling" all that is right with the plan - after all, it is hundreds of pages long, and there are a number of versions out at any given time. Can we really describe this in as basic and easily understandable terms to someone who either (1) wants to know or (2) says that they heard this or that or the other and is nervous about the plan?


The right is expert at throwing shit out there. But "we" should know better – it happens ALL the time. The answer to all of this crap being flung is one of two things: (1) bullshit, liar, utter nonsense, and (2) prove it, show me the proof in the bill (not some study done by a United Health Care subsidiary). Oh wait, what’s that – you can’t find where the bill says that? Then maybe a heaping serving of STFU is in order.


I won’t even get into the argument about why health care is any different from the fire department, which is government run, or why Federal employees should give up their single payer government run health care if they don’t like the system for the rest of Americans or why health care should even be a for-profit industry in the only western country that has this ass backwards system. Because, while those also get the health care status quo-ers on their heels, only supplements why this is needed now.


This is a major uphill battle just on the legislative side, and it has been painfully obvious that the "other side" never deals in good faith. But too many people have too little time to sort through the nonsense, or to know that Michelle Malkin is a blowhard who likes to pose with people holding Obama signs with swastikas. Or that "nonpartisan" reports are only nonpartisan because they represent and are financially supported by the insurance industry. There is a diary on the rec. list now – actually there are 2 – that go into detail about the lengths that republicans and health care status quo-ers will go to make sure that things stay as fucked up for the many to the benefit of the rich few as they are now. And while all of that is very good and very necessary, there is another issue that is huge – that whole "hearts and minds thing".


And right now, our side is defending. Which is not where we need to or want to be.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/3/761311/-Defending-and-debunkinglosing-the-perception-battle