In this situation, the astroturfing charge is probably not the strongest response that liberals/reform supporters could make. It’s not likely to resonate with a broad swath of the public. And if reformers cast town-hallers as pawns of the healthcare-industrial complex, it might even legitimize them among legislators who think their job is to cut deals with insurers. Probably more persuasive to say that town-hall loudmouths are, well, loudmouths who generally don’t know what they’re talking about, don’t have serious criticisms or a substantive set of demands. My sense is that reform supporters have abandoned the first response and are getting more mileage from this latter route.

More broadly, though, I’m not convinced that the difference between astroturf and grassroots mvmts is evaporating. Certainly, organizational strategies are changing relative to technology—Bill McKibben’s efforts around climate change being notable examples. But being organized, whether by an activist, a blogger, or other prominent public figure, does not equal astroturf. As long as you have a public that accepts a distinction between private and public interests, the charge of astroturfing is a resource that is always available for attempting to skewer the credibility of your opponents.

Gingrich defends Palin’s ‘death panel’

People do believe this stuff (which is absurd on its face) because the national leaders of the conservative movement and the Republican party say this stuff for the purpose of making people believe it or giving people an authority to cite when they say it, regardless of what they believe. And the national media provides a forum for them to do it, thus legitimating the patently absurd as one pole in the political discourse. Legitimate political debate is thus rendered impossible because of the deliberate tactics of those that call themselves Republicans and conservatives. America is a country where the rich manipulate the passions of the foolish in order to obstruct the good.

I do not suggest Palin or Gingrich believe what they say. I do suggest they are moral cretins who will happily destroy republican democracy in order to preserve the economic privileges of the corporate elite. And though, like Diogenes, I read many conservative and libertarian and Republican blogs and though I watch the news and read the papers, hoping to find such tactics condemned by elected leaders, party notables and the media commentariat, with the exception of Frum and occasionally Brooks, I read and watch in vain.

You should consider how your analysis of the question would change if you discovered that members of the “base” in fact believe this stuff, or whether belief in this stuff has ceased to be relevant (i.e., what is relevant is forcing opponents to debate against an absurd point – cf., evolution, global climate change, etc.)

Though “grassroots” surely implies “from the ground up” (small, unorganized, local, amateur, etc.), it has always allowed for growth and formalization. What makes something distinctly “astroturf” is fabrication, misreporting, and outright lying. There’s nothing wrong with being big and organized. But it is wrong to pretend to be a small unorganized underdog when in reality you have letterhead and get fat checks from some sponsor for lying.

Using this definition, a relatively sharp line is still possible: misrepresentations are astroturf. Honest promotion isn’t. (At which point it hardly matters whether it’s “grassroots” or has become “a movement.”)

But if the “focal points” are outright lies by Republican party leaders (Palin’s death panels for example) designed to foster fear and confusion at the grass roots level, aren’t the efforts of Dick Armey (former Republican congressman and current lobbiest for corporate interests) more disturbing than your analysis would seem to allow.

For example, if Palin and Armey were urging Republican party faithful to beware the horror of insurance for pre-existing conditions, you’re analysis would make sense. But they’re not. They’re telling the party faithful that insurance coverage for discussion of a living will with your doctor is the same as government compelled euthanasia.

In other words, the “genuine, strong sentiment ” you applauds is authored by deceit. That’s the stuff mobs are made of. IOKIYAR, I suppose.