First off, I want to make it clear that I wholeheartedly understand the anger from the left towards these "astroturfers." I also think it's a very legitimate argument. However....
Before we move on and I get angry messages denouncing me for being right-wing, let me also attest to my own legitimacy amongst us kossacks. I have supported Obama all along. I continue to do so, passionately. I completely support a public option and almost broke down on the phone today trying to tell my health care horror stories to my representatives in Congress, while demanding their help.
Back to the "astroturfer" argument. Although I agree with it and it pisses me off, I do have three issues with its efficacy.
- Not all 100% of the people involved in these protests are "astroturfers." So, we are generalizing about a group of people. There are some nuts who passionately feel this way on their own, and others who have been convinced by the media coverage to attend. (This is not an attempted strawman argument. I know that nobody has said that they are 100% fake, but the point is necessary for my second point).
- The goal of these protests, it would seem, is to make it appear, through media coverage, that there is a lot of public anger about Obama's plan (which doesn't really exist, but the right would have everyone think that he is 100% responsible and that it is a disaster, an attack which sadly seems to be sticking). Therefore, it is possible that regardless of how real it ISN'T, even if everyone heard the astroturf argument, the right could always use the above strawman arguemtn and say that it is only a part of the whole in order to "prove" their movement's legitimacy. They can always say that "some of the group is honest and they are against the plan and look how passionate and loud they are and look how everybody in America is getting so worked up over this massive shift. It's because they don't want government controlling their lives. They sure don't want the government to get in them and their doctor! Who would?" See, their idiot arguments will lead away from the astroturfer argument quickly and the media will eat it up.
- Finally, even if my first points are off the mark, I think that the "astroturfer" line is a bit confusing and too "cutesy" for my tastes. I heard it a few times yesterday and didn't quite catch what they meant right away. Once I was told, or figured out myself (not sure which), that it was a play on grassroots, then it made sense, but then I thought to myself, "kinda lame." Imagine an everyday household with the news on in the background with somebody attacking the "crazy astroturfers." If I, as a leftist, took a minute to get it and then scowled at it, imagine what a middle-of-the-roader who probably hasn't gone much past, "Screw government healthcare!" will think. They will perceive smug leftists who are trying to minimize "people with honest concerns."
Another possible side to the third argument is that the fact that it's a new term (it is a new term, or at least not a widespread one, no? if it's in common parlance, whoops, perhaps I'm way off!) will entice people to listen more. They won't make up their minds right away because they'll say, "what the hell are astroturfers?" Maybe it will be a good thing?!
So, I guess I'm asking what everyone thinks on this one. Let me know why you think what you do. If you don't think it will work, what else can we do to gain traction? Does the "mob mentality" angle work? Does the "racist" argument work? Does the "millions of people are suffering" argument work? What works?