`Deficient in truth.”
“Innuendo and falsehood.”
No, those are not descriptions of various incredible claims the Clintons have made for their health plan.
No, these accusations came from John Dingell, the very senior Democrat from Michigan. At the time, he was gunning for the insurance industry. Apparently it had dared tell its side of the story.
It’s because of the 1st Amendment and such bothersome details that dissent isn’t usually suppressed by calling out the troops and seizing newspapers. Here the methods may be more subtle, like congressional inquisitions. But not so subtle that it wasn’t immediately apparent just what Dingell was up to. As he put it, threateningly: “I’m beginning to think we might have to have an inquiry into this advertising. . . .”
Uh-oh. Congressional hearings. For the investigated, they can mean trouble, intimidation, legal expenses, harassment and everything else that goes with being made an official public scapegoat.
There’s a standard American term for what John Dingell was practicing: McCarthyism. That technique still appeals to those who would rather suppress an argument than respond to it.
Did the insurance industry get the message?
Harry and Louise are the fictional characters in the television commercials who have raised some gentle questions about the Clinton Health Plan and Economic Elixir. They certainly have been gentler than Hillary Clinton, who accused the insurance companies of spreading “great lies” about her health plan. The insurance industry had concluded its commercial with the civil, and reasonable, conclusion: “There has to be a better way.”
Nevertheless, the industry’s daring to raise some obvious questions about the health plan was enough for Dingell to start talking congressional investigation.
McCarthyism never did need much of an excuse.