Last Thursday evening, my daughter got her first exposure to political engagement in a raucous “listening session” with our congressman, John Moolenaar on the campus of Central Michigan University. With some 900 people in attendance — many of them voicing considerable displeasure with Donald Trump and the Republican majority — the atmosphere was stifling, warm, and loud (though we managed a relatively sedate position in the auditorium’s upper balcony). During a needed break, my wife carefully explained to our daughter that it was very rude to shout down a person talking… but also quite rude to evade, repeatedly, the point of a direct question (as she’s 4 months old, the lesson might not yet take).
Attendees — selected for questions by a raffle draw — confronted Moolenaar on 4 central topics:
Protection of Medicare and (to a lesser degree) Social Security. The first questioner specifically called attention to the idea of broadening the Medicare pool of patients as a means of lowering costs, and followed up by pointing it out when Moolenaar ignored the suggestion entirely. He instead pointed to the anticipated “insolvency” of Medicare in 2028 (one audience member gave him a big “liar” shout on this statement — not strictly inaccurate but certainly disingenuous). To a later questioner he would not commit to full social security benefits for anyone not facing retirement within a few years.
Tax reform and releasing Trump’s taxes. Moolenaar was repeatedly challenged to support measures to reveal Trump’s potential conflicts of interest, but would only respond with variations on the theme of “I support compliance with the law” and “I support tax reform that is fair for all Americans. It took a fifth questioner for him to confirm that he would not, in fact, support a specific bill compelling tax document disclosure.
Climate change and environmental protection. Moolenaar represents himself as a chemist on the basis of a B.A. and a background with the business side of Dow Chemical, and alluded to this background when questioned on the science of global warming. His lame statement that “we exhale carbon dioxide” put the lie to any robust scientific underpinnings (if his previous support for Intelligent-Design driven legislation in the MI state legislature had left any doubt).
A couple attendees selected for questions yielded their time on climate to local videographer Peter Sinclair, who pointed out the flawed thinking in claiming biosphere cycling has anything to do with the precipitous rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (Sinclair blogged on the event here). On environmental protection in general, Moolenaar will rattle off a list of local investments he nominally supports (e.g. current efforts in Flint, or Great Lakes Research) in that they bring national funds to Michigan… but he notably has earned a 3% rating from the League of Conservation Voters.
Health care was the most prominent topic, and I think the most revealing. One questioner, a physician, stated that many of her patients only have insurance thanks to the ACA. Another asked him to support a single-payer system. Another mentioned her fears for her son born with a chronic medical condition. On each occasion, Moolenaar responded with statements of allowing people brought in with the ACA’s Medicaid expansion to retain coverage, and support of covering pre-existing conditions (a position somewhat belied by his previous support for blanket ACA repeal). He didn’t have practical suggestions for accomplishing anything of the sort, lamely suggesting opening up markets to lower the costs for high-risk pools, and rejecting a single-payer system out of hand.
I call these interactions revealing because MI-4 is not a remotely competitive district. The area has been represented by a Republican since the 1930s (with redistricting shifts here and there), and generally given slightly more than 60% of the vote to the winner (even in 2008, when Obama edged the district in the Presidential vote). Although Moolenaar can scarely have missed the motivation and anger of the audience, his lack of responsiveness largely reflects how little threat he feels from liberal challenge. Indeed, when one questioner asked late in the evening whether his mind had been changed on any topic, he brought up one topic where a questioner had asked to consider the potential negative impact of environmental restoration efforts on Great Lakes Salmon (yes, he singled out enhanced support for a sportfishing species introduced to area 50 years ago).
Moolenaar nevertheless went out of his way to maintain a pretense of allowing those Americans most vulnerable to ACA repeal to retain their coverage. It is the desperate hope of even the safest House Republicans that the woefully inadequate replacement measures under discussion will pass for coverage in the public eye. It is their desperate fear that the media and public will recognize the starvation of half the country to feed the wealthiest few.