crossposted at five before chaos.

One of the many things that helped bring the conservative movement into power was the ability of the operatives to give the illusion of broad grassroots support of a particular issue, when in actuality, it was basically a coordinated illusion. It’s still a rather popular technique today, hence we have front groups such as Working Families for Wal-Mart, or the power utilities-funded Citizens For Sensible Energy Choices. Since so much of that the cons try to do would fall flat on its face were it laid out for the public to see clearly, this is one of the most effective ways of getting support for an issue – giving the illusion that one’s fellow citizens support some toxic policy position.

RJ Eskow has a great piece over at Smirking Chimp that lays out a history of the war against universal health coverage, something that goes way back, complete with red-baiting from of all places, the American Medical Association (AMA). And this shouldn’t come as a surprise, but one of the pivotal figures responsible for laying down the foundations of this conservative nightmare we’ve been living through for the past two decades, Ronald Reagan himself, had a vital role in the initial fake grassroots campaign which eventual led to the demonization of ‘socialized medicine’ which is still a major impediment to serious healcare reform in this country.

As Eskow reports, the AMA has had a long history of opposing any sort of stet-funded medical system, all the way back to 1939. Harry Truman started to take action, but had to retreat due to a successful anti-Socialist campaign. So as the 1960’s started, a few programs were incrementally added. It was at this point that the powers that be started to get worried.

Enter Reagan and what was known as ‘Operation Coffeecup’, the original ‘front group”. As Eskow reports:

Enter the AMA. As Skidmore and Larry de Witt recount, Ronald Reagan was hired as part of a covert campaign to undermine support for Medicare and Medicaid. “Operation Coffeecup” was born.

Reagan recorded an LP (or “long playing” record), “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine.” The AMA sent it to the “ladies’ auxiliary” of the Medical Association in each county (unthinkable as it is now, medicine was so male and gender roles so different that each county had a “ladies’ auxiliary” for doctors’ wives.)

The “ladies” were instructed to “put on the coffeepot,” play the record for their friends and fellow physicians’ wives, and then get out the stationery (scented, no doubt) so that each of them could write personalized letters to their Senators and Congressmen. (Yes, they were called “Congressmen” then, even if there had already been some heroic women among them.)

There was no public announcement of the recording, or of “Operation Coffeecup.” The idea was to make it seem as if the letters were spontaneously written by distressed citizens. Portions of the recording were also reportedly broadcast as radio commentary.

Needless to say it was successful, and brought the term ‘socialized medicine’ into the public consciousness, replete with visions of Stalin wearing a stethoscope, and today the healthcare crisis is worse than ever. Not to mention the other horrible result of all of this:

The “Socialized Medicine” record was Ronald Reagan’s first venture into political speech. It didn’t just represent smart, well-funded political strategy. It also launched a career that in turn brought about the conservative revolution. Reagan’s efforts in “Operation Coffeecup” were so well-received that he was invited to give a speech for Barry Goldwater at the 1964 GOP Convention.

When I moved to Vermont in the 1980’s and started paying attention to state and Burlington politics I developed the view that in Burlington the Democratic Party had pretty much become the tool of the Republicans, and that the only idea they hated worse than losing power for themselves was having the Progs get it (they were called the Progressive Coalition, a/k/a the Sanderistas, back then). It seemed to me at the time that in fighting their rearguard action against the insurgency they made common cause with the R’s more often than not.

Fast forward twenty-four years. The old days are gone, the D’s have elected some genuine left-wingers to the State House (such as my old friend and fellow Winooski 44 defense counsel Sandy Baird), and Progressive Pete ran for Gov. as a Democrat.

So what’s going on here? If the D’s and P’s had stuck together they could have elected a P City Council President, but no, one Democratic Councilor crossed over, and together with all the R’s, ensured the election of Republican Councilor and State Rep Kurt Wright as City Council President.

I don’t have anything against Kurt Wright, but I can’t help be struck by the contrast. In Montpelier our newly appointed representative Jon Anderson is roundly excoriated by local Democrats by crossing over and siding with the Republicans in his first important vote, while in Burlington there hasn’t been much outcry at the prospect of the Democrats failing to hold together to support someone who should be their political and ideological ally.

So I ask you: WTF?

The Times Argus is fronting the impeachment effort today.

It’s also the topic of Switchboard tonight on VPR.

Finally, Doonesbury continues with its six-day story arc on the impeachment effort in Vermont.

So tune in tonight and hit the phones! 800-639-2192.CORRECTION: (800) 639-2211.

Philip has a good piece up today (or is it tomorrow?) about his reaction to John Edwards. I definitely don’t agree with everything he has to say, although he captures, in not quite the same way I would, a bit of what I characterize as Edwards’ being “too shiny”.

I think Edwards has the potential to be a great candidate, and possibly a great president. I know he never really closed the deal in 2004, but he’s a great speaker and he really seems to connect well with voters. This is probably mostly natural, but he honed the skill over years of connecting with people twelve at a time, and being really good at it.

His reaction to his wife’s cancer doesn’t strike me the same as it strikes some people, and I may be more prepared to say that if Elizabeth Edwards wants him to run, as she seems to, who are we to second guess that? I do think he makes a good point, though, when he says that Edwards seems to be long on expectations and short on resume.

If Edwards is the nominee I’ll gladly work hard for him. If he doesn’t win, however, I wonder if he will have a harder time in the future. It makes me think he might be better off to do some other things, build up his resume, and take his shot in four or eight years.