[QUOTE=Kimstu]
I don’t agree with this at all, and I’m shocked that so many of my fellow liberals here seem willing to let it pass.
Ordinary individuals who merely contribute personal anecdotes to particular political causes are certainly not “volunteering for scrutiny”, and it is not “legitimate” to broadcast personal information about their incomes or where they live, etc. It’s an unwarrantable intrusion on their privacy.
[/quote]
Well, as one of those fellow liberals, i guess i should respond.
This family didn’t simply “contribute personal anecdotes.” They agreed to let their son read out a statement, prepared by Democratic senate staffers, over the radio during a time reserved for a political Democratic radio address. If a political party with access to the airwaves cedes its radio time to me so that i can read out a statement supporting the party’s position on an important piece of legislation, then i’ve made myself part of the public political debate, and should be as liable to scrutiny as anyone else in that debate.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
If you’re concerned about fraud in a particular government entitlement program, you should be investigating that overall, not digging around in the personal lives of individual “poster children” for the program. Ordinary citizens are not public figures, and providing a personal story to a political group or cause shouldn’t expose one to the kind of prying scrutiny that public figures have to endure.
[/quote]
But it wasn’t just about fraud. It was a question of whether the SCHIP program is helping the right people. As far as i can tell, the conservatives who are focusing on the Frosts are NOT arguing that they defrauded the system, but that they are an example of what is wrong with the system because they are too wealthy to need government help. I happen to disagree with that argument, as i’ve made clear in this thread already, but that argument is not the same as alleging fraud.
Also, the whole"poster children" aspect of the Frost’s exposure invites public scrutiny. What the Democrats, and the Frosts themselves, are saying is, in effect, “Look at this family. This is the type of people that the SCHIP program helps. How could anyone deny the benefits of a program that helps people like this?” I think that, in a case like this, it’s not unreasonable to ask whether those people really needed help. I happen to believe that they did, and that the people who are saying they are too “rich” for the program are a bunch of whiny bitches who are, in many cases, distorting the picture of the Frosts’ financial position.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
I can well imagine the outrage that conservatives would express if liberals tried a similar public investigation campaign on private individuals who lent their names and personal histories to a PR event for a Republican cause. Consider, for example, the touching story told by one Robert McFadden at a press conference for Bush’s Social Security privatization plan:
Did anybody chase down Mr. McFadden’s family history to verify that his father did in fact die at age 57? Or that Mr. McFadden was there to see it? Or that Mr. McFadden’s family did not in fact qualify for SS survivor benefits? Did liberal pundits discuss his widowed mother’s financial circumstances in editorial columns or blogs?
[/quote]
I don’t know, but if they had i would also think it a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
I’m sure you’re right that many conservatives would express outrage at such a thing, but i’ve come to accept that many conservatives are worthless hypocrites who are happy to say one thing and do another, depending on what serves their cause. But just because they are hypocrites doesn’t mean i have to be. I think that scrutinizing people who voluntarily enter the public sphere is legitimate, no matter which political party they support.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
No, because that would be fucking disgusting. When an ordinary individual is recruited to tell their personal story for a political cause, the story is nothing more than an illustration, an advertisement. If you don’t think that illustration/advertisement correctly reflects the general facts about the cause, what you should do is expose those general facts, and confront the politicians who are trying to spin them. E.g., it’s fair game to point out something like “In contrast to Mr. McFadden’s anecdotal evidence, over 98% of families whose breadwinner dies at age 57 qualify for survivor benefits” [statistics made up for purposes of illustration].
[/quote]
But, if making a general rather than a specific argument is the more desirable course of action, why doesn’t that also apply to the whole use of “poster children”?
If the SCHIP program is a good one, for example (and i think it is), then why can’t the Democrats convince us of that using general arguments about the overall program, rather than parading a 12-year-old child on national radio? If social security privatization is a good thing, why can’t Bush make that argument without parading the son of a dead father at a press conference?
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
But you shouldn’t go digging for falsehoods in the private citizen’s anecdote itself, because it’s just one story, and its factuality has very little bearing on the overall validity of the cause. To pry into a private citizen’s personal life and make the details public in the hopes of catching them in a falsehood, just so you can embarrass the politicians and the political cause that recruited them, is, as I said, fucking disgusting.
[/quote]
Well, again, i’ll ask: if the individual story’s “factuality has very little bearing on the overall validity of the cause,” why do political parties constantly trot out these poster children? They do it because it works as a political strategy, and as such i believe that it should be as open to public and journalistic scrutiny as any other political strategy.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
In the case of this OP, it is fucking disgusting that conservative media vultures undertook a public “scrutiny” of the Frosts’ financial circumstances. Not just that some of them told lies about it; not just that some wingnuts intruded on the Frosts with emails and phone calls; not just that anonymous nutjobs spewed hatred and contempt at them on the internet; but the very fact that the Frosts’ personal circumstances were publicly “scrutinized” at all is absolutely despicable. I think everybody who participated in or condoned this sneaky, stalky, sordid endeavor should be ashamed of themselves.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The lies and misrepresentations are wrong, but the scrutiny itself is not, IMO.
