Huh? This is an observation about the people who are showing up to shout down members of Congress and prevent any rational argument. You, of course, are not part of any mob.
As for moronic arguments, here are some from the right:
- "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" and many similar variants (Medicare is government program, and is very popular with its recipients)
- The plan is to euthanize old people (No, that's just encouraging people to draft living wills, which we've been doing for years already)
- It will pay for abortions (No, the Hyde Amendment is still law, and none of the current plans repeals it)
These blatant lies and others are being pushed in the right-wing broadcast media. That's a position of power, at least over opinions.

Sure -- my point is that both sides engage in this sort of moronic argument. What I'm saying here is that Krugman and NPR are arguing that all people who oppose Obama's health care platform agree with the nutty positions you're ascribing to "the right". Not all people who disagree with Obama hold to the positions you're stating there.

It's more dangerous when the people in power are pressing moronic arguments to get people to follow them. For example, it was more dangerous for Bush/Cheney supporters to say that being against the Iraq war is treasonous than it was for wackos on the left to say that Bush/Cheney trained the terrorists to fly planes into the Trade Center & Pentagon in order to steal Iraqi oil. So, when Obama supporters say, "Opposition to Obama is racist," it's much more dangerous than when Rush Limbaugh says something stupid to oppose Obama. It is much more dangerous for a society to unswervingly follow a "Great Leader" than for one to have a knee-jerk reaction to oppose one. This is why squelching discontent with the President is much more dangerous than mindless, moronic discontent. The unquestioned leader can do much more damage. (I suspect if we were having this discussion 5 years ago, we would agree )

"People sometimes seek the truth, but most prefer like-minded views
July 1st, 2009 in Medicine & Health / Psychology & Psychiatry


University of Illinois psychology professor Dolores Albarracin and her colleagues found that people who are unsure of their own beliefs are less likely to entertain opposing views. Credit: Photo by L. Brian Stauffer, U. of I. News Bureau.

We swim in a sea of information, but filter out most of what we see and hear. A new analysis of data from dozens of studies sheds new light on how we choose what we do and do not hear. The study found that while people tend to avoid information that contradicts what they already think or believe, certain factors can cause them to seek out, or at least consider, other points of view.

The analysis, reported this month in Psychological Bulletin, published by the American Psychological Association, was led by researchers at the University of Illinois and the University of Florida, and included data from 91 studies involving nearly 8,000 participants. It puts to rest a longstanding debate over whether people actively avoid information that contradicts what they believe, or whether they are simply exposed more often to ideas that conform to their own because they tend to be surrounded by like-minded people.

"We wanted to see exactly across the board to what extent people are willing to seek out the truth versus just stay comfortable with what they know," said University of Illinois psychology professor Dolores Albarracín, who led the study with University of Florida researcher William Hart. The team also included researchers from Northwestern University and Ohio University..."

People sometimes seek the truth, but most prefer like-minded views

That explains some of Krugman's and Limbaugh's popularity, for sure.

To be clear, jmerry, it's not Krugman's distaste for unruly crowds that I find offensive, it's his reaching for the "racist" label, which is a label meant to squelch dissent, just as Bush followers used the "unpatriotic" label. For sure, the (very, very few) people who are acting like thugs at these meetings are rude and unproductive. But I don't think it's fair to throw "racist" on top of it, which is a much stronger charge (at least in this country).

What is "dangerous"? Left-wing wackos, at their worst, destroy property. Right-wing wackos, at their worst, kill people.
This is dangerous, and it's part of this dangerous pattern.

I'm afraid we're talking past each other now, but your claim that leftist wackos don't kill people would be a surprise to tens of millions of Chinese, North Koreans, Ukranians, . . . shall I continue? (Yes, yes, right-wing wackos have killed many, too -- my point is that the leftist side of the tally sheet is not even remotely empty, and is at least on the same order as the people killed by right-wing murderers.)

My point is not that following leftists blindly is more dangerous than following rightists is. It's that following people in power blindly is dangerous.

In talking about wackos, I'm implicitly restricting it to people not in power. Murderous governments are outside the scope of my thoughts, which were basically about domestic terrorism here.

Historically speaking, there is plenty of domestic terrorism on both sides of the political divide. The last Presidential election featured a pretty good example of violent leftist terrorism in William Ayers.

Besides, terrorism so far has been pretty penny-ante stuff on the scale of human misery next to demagogue leaders. So far, at least.

Bringing up terrorism in the context of objecting to Obama at town hall meetings is exactly the sort of argument tactic I'm lamenting in my original post... You can get specific and complain about the very, very small number of people actually crossing the line in their objections, but most people complaining about the people opposing Obama aren't that careful -- I believe they intentionally paint with a broad brush in an attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with them. Again, I don't mean to say it's only Obama supporters who do this. It just happens to be Obama supporters doing it now, and they sound a lot like Bush supporters did 5 years ago (particularly when comparing people who disagree with them to terrorists!)

Could it be that extremism at both ends of the political spectrum is a function of the power government has over every aspect of our lives? If the stakes weren't so high under the rule of either party perhaps the discourse could be more civil.

You know, we have a fundamentally different attitude towards words. For you, words like "racism" or "terrorism" or "fascism" automatically shut down the discussion, even when they're likely to be accurate. For me, they don't. People are free to object to a plan, and they're even free to object based on stupid lies. When they gather in a mob to shout down the supporters and prevent any real discussion, that's bad. When they move on to violence, as has already happened on a small scale, that's worse. If they start shooting -and there has already been at least one call to bring guns- that's terrorism.

There are still places where you can find reasonable discussion of the plan, based on facts. Most of them are online. These town halls could have been one, but they're not now that the mobs have started coming.

I think its a mistake to think of town halls as forums for rational dialogue, particularly when hosted by congress people who aren't bothered to read the bills they endorse. Legislators are primarily concerned with re-election and stage these sessions of political theater as part of the perpetual campaign and to show that "they are listening."

Protesters (of either party) are staging their own bit of theater. The only thing a politician cares about is the number and passion (turn out) of their opposition. Protesters aim to be numerous and loud to communicate a obvious threat to turn out in the next election.

The kabuki theater we see on YouTube isn't a distraction from the point of town halls, they are the point.