An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Is The Town Hall Meeting Now A Political Antique?

iohpuioygouyfyitd.jpg

Isn’t it time to ask the question? Isn’t it perhaps time to consider deep sixing the traditional big-issue Town Hall meetings held by elected officials? Haven’t these meetings now become little more than media events, events literally begging to be manipulated by interest groups on each side?

Aren’t traditional Town Halls now overwhelmed by the power and impact of new media, increasingly strident talk radio and far left and right special interest groups to flood the venue in a never-ending, increasingly bitter, escalating struggle to gain media footage for their political purposes that fits their particular narrative?

Hasn’t the Town Hall meeting where the word is put out by an elected official who hopes to answer questions in a sedate, thoughtful or even traditionally spirited C-Span like setting — and therefore perhaps garnering some good news coverage and future campaign advertising footage out of it to boot — now truly going the way of the pay phone?

Isn’t it silly to think that such a venue can any longer be an authentic way to exchange information, answer concerns and get constituent ideas?

The bottom line is that this August, we’re seeing new precedents being set for big-issue Town Hall meetings. And what we see now will be cloned in the future.

It isn’t as if some things haven’t ever changed in America.

Once upon a time, Americans could walk right into their airplane with a minimal time devoted to luggage search.

Once upon a time, Presidents met with Americans on the White House lawn.

Once upon a time the words “grand” and swell were used often in conversations…. newspapers thrived and were hiring more people… Detroit was not just motor but profit city…it was considered unseemly for lawyers to advertise…rock was considered kids music (REAL adults listened to Sinatra)…people got milk their milk delivered by “the milkman.”…video cassettes were the big thing.

Things change, and it’s a more dangerous — and polarized — world out there. It’s the era of not just “road rage” but even ” shopping cart rage” (if you don’t believe me, just visit a CostCo).

Meanwhile, the kinds of “inputs” that influence our nation’s nation’s polity have changed: add weblogs; people on the right and left devoting three hours a day to listening to a talk show host who becomes their trusted and credible friend demonize the other political party (only their side is good, only their side is sincere, only their side tells the truth and the rest are corrupt, totalitarian charlatans); once dominant unions try to regain their clout diminished by years of Republican rule; the political culture celebrates admires outrageousness, punchy sound bytes and glorifies verbal aggressiveness and rudeness on a scales as large the national media or as narrow as on weblogs, email lists and even Twitter.

Healthcare proponents are upset about conservatives trying to drown out discussion. Death threats are increasing; a Twitter from a protester suggests carrying guns; conservatives say union thugs roughed up conservatives and won’t let health care opponents speak or enter.

Each side points to the other.

But the name of the game now is to use a Town Hall as a device — to push the event into becoming a symbol.

It’s less the content; it’s the image that the media, You Tube, and weblogs project that matter.

To be sure, there are different kinds of Town Halls.

Town Halls held by Presidential candidates are more carefully screened. Due to Secret Service protection any group that rushed the doors or tried to shout down a Presidential candidate would be quickly ejected from the premises.

But these are traditional August-recess Town Halls — where citizens are supposed can get together and discuss issues with their elected representatives — just as they did in an America when there was no Rush Limbaugh, no Randi Rhodes, no television, no movies or even electric light.

A possible solution?

Deep six a forum that may be traditional but is now far too vulnerable by political manipulation by one side or another and too attractive for a media that still believes “if it bleeds it leads…” — a saying that could become literally true if the Town Halls continue on their present path.

And do what some elected officials are doing: move towards online townhalls.

But that alone won’t do.

Elected officials should also make a point of stepping up their visits to groups of constituents to get their feedback.

What’s better and more authentic and accurate gauge of what “the people” think: a town hall packed with rightists and leftists and people aligned to political interest groups and/or trying to help their respective parties, or the kind of drop in campaigning that politicos do during elections?

During election season, politicos tirelessly go out to press the flesh (in a political not Mark Sanders kind of way) with voters.

They need to do that again — and to go online.

Wouldn’t politicians get a better feel for their home bases and also better advance their agenda if they meet with “real” groups of people — not a room with a large number of people who turned out because their favorite talk radio host gave out the address or their union decided to counter the other side by making sure they had a presence in the room?

So will elected officials of both parties continue to let Town Halls be used as political hockey pucks, using a venue that is now an antique in an age where broadcast, cyberspace and rapid response special interest group actions dominate?

The Town Hall is now oh, so 20th century.

But what seems to be the wave of the future of this:

It is truly getting ugly out there in political land, where he who says what someone else disagrees with is immediately evil, ill-intentioned, or a hypocrite.

If Lincoln Douglas debated today, the hall would probably be packed with people from both sides pushing and yelling at the debaters — and LIncoln and Douglas would probably call each other wingnuts.

Here’s a truly harrowing thought:

If this is how this is trending, just exactly where do we think we’re heading ?

OF RELATED INTEREST:
Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Remember when protest was patriotic?
Death threats cancel local town hall health care meetings
No angry mobs, but tough questions at Maryland town hall
No health care town halls in Vancouver after threats
Town hall protests on health care are American, too
Two town halls turn into near-riots
Red State: Democratic Congressman Fears ‘Ambush’ by ‘Brown Shirt’ ‘Extremists’
Democrats avoid health care town halls amid disruptions
Town hall meetings new front in U.S. health care reform battle
Editorial: Don’t demonize health care protests, listen to them
Editorial: Can mobs derail health care battle?
Right Wing S**T Storm Tries to Stop Health Care Reform
What’s up with rowdy town hall meetings?

  • superdestroyer
    The left has now become the unthinking apologist that they used to accuse the Republicans of being. When President Bush controlled his public appearances, the howls from the left were very loud and clear. Now that the left is getting a taste of activist, the progressives, as they usually do, want to establish a different ethic for themselves.

    One would think that the Democrats in Congress would learn how to answer the questions about excluding themselves from the program, about how they are going to control costs while increasing enrollment, and what they are going to do about illegal aliens.

    Since the real goal of the healthcare debate is a single payer system (for all but the very rich), open borders, unlimited immigraiton, and the destruction of healthcare as a good career field, I would say that the progressives are too afriad to answer real questions.
  • DaGoat
    The trouble with the town halls is that no one seems to be going there for discussion or learning, which was the original intent. The politicians mainly want to give speeches and talking points, the attendees are there to protest or to show support.

    I don't see how online town halls would be effective unless questions were screened by a disinterested third party (if there any of those left), otherwise the politician's staff would just cherry pick the questions.

    My idea, and maybe this is off-the-wall, is to have more town halls and not less. If politicians repeatedly refuse to answer questions it will become apparent and eventually they will be more open and engaging. Any attention-seeking behavior by protesters will eventually be diluted and less newsworthy, ie they will become old news and will have less motivation to be disruptive.
  • The idea that the crowd would never react to what a politician says is relatively new, and entirely manufactured by the media. The reason we have no great orators anymore is that speakers are afraid of crowd reactions - so instead we have planned applause lines and numbskulls who can't answer a question off the top of their head without sounding like...well, a numbskull.

    But there is a vast difference between someone booing because the speaker said something they didn't agree with, and organizing a group to disrupt a meeting so that no one can even hear what is being said. The first can be defended as simply letting the representatives really hear what the people think. The second cannot. It is nothing more than being a bully - and it doesn't matter which side does it.

    My Representative holds a meeting in every town in his district every year. I've attended dozens in several different towns, and I've never seen any news media cover one of them (other than a single reporter leaning on the wall, bored out of his or her skull). But I've never been to one where he wasn't challenged on what he said, either. I've also seen a large number of people who would simply be left out of an online meeting. What, exactly, would be different in an "online townhall" and simply emailing the office? People go to townhall meetings because they want the personal touch. I've been able to personally deliver research and petitions at townhall meetings. Whether or not they did any good, I can't say - but they got to the man they were intended to reach.

    This is a long way of saying, no one should be afraid to express their opinions, and no one should be afraid to hear them. But let's not confuse organized thuggery for anything other than what it is.
  • I find Joe's proposition to be depressing but realistic. I've been going to these meetings for ages when our reps have them in our area. And yes, they used to be a lot better. There would be talking points, to be sure, and spin from the rep, but people mostly stayed polite and there were open Q&A sessions where the locals could bring up all manner of issues, some of which were never in the papers and might not have reached the rep's ears otherwise. Now they do truly seem to be nothing more than dog and pony shows where the greatest manufactured outrage steals the show and the media spotlight.

    If we're not going to cancel them, here's another suggestion. Let anyone in who is a resident of the applicable district (or state, in the case of Senators) but completely bar the media and don't permit the attendees to bring in cell phones, recorders, video cameras, etc. Just make it a personal, one on one discussion between the voters and their elected representative. If they can't make it onto the headline of the news for weeks on end, let's see how many of these "concerned activists" still show up.
  • jkremmers
    Jazz is onto something here. Check your egos and all electronic devises at the door before entering.
  • kevinschmidt1
    superdestroyer,

    Please stop lying. You have no proof for anything you said in your comment.

    First of all, there were no "howls from the left" because they were not allowed into Bush town halls. If by chance one of them did infiltrate the meeting and by miracle got to ask a question, that person was immediately shouted down, or worse, physically removed from the meeting.

    The rest of your comment is pure nonsense and requires no additional rebuttal.
  • kevinschmidt1
    Jazz,

    Great strategy. If the town hall meetings get canceled then the rabid right wins, because their goal is to break down communications between the public and our representatives.

    The job of our representatives is to defend the Constitution, not WE THE PEOPLE. Allowing town hall meetings to continue, even in the face of threatened violence, is defending the Constitution. WE THE PEOPLE can defend ourselves, and if we can't, then we can call the police.

    You forgot one more item to prohibit from town hall meetings... GUNS!
  • superdestroyer
    I see you have the moveon.org line down that anyone that disagrees with the left is lying. Are you claiming that no one of the left ever criticized former President Bush for limiting the audience at his public appearances. Are you claiming that the Code Pink or Act Up or ACORN would not have tried to disrupt any appearance by President Bush that they could have attended?

    Unions members and professional activist are now trying to shout down the people attending the town halls. Are you really claiming that Congressman are not asked at every appearance about why they are exempting themselves from the program? Are you really claiming that no one asks about benefits from illegal aliens.

    You should try reading the progressing bloggers such as Matthew Yglesias or Ezra Klein. They are very open about using the proposals to move the U.S. to a single payer, government run sysytem. They are also very open that the U.S. is spending too much on end of life care and that the government should be in charge of deciding whether it is cost effective or not. Or all the claiming that the current proposal is not single payer, everyone of the left seems to support single payer and centralize control much more than what Congress is proposing.

    Also, no one in the Obama Administration is bothering to explain how they will maintain open borders (also know as comprehensive immigration reform) and maintain a public funded option. Democrats and progressives seem to refuse to decide whether they want a high level of government services (like the small, white Nordic countries) or to have open immigraiton. No country has managed to produce both. David Axelrod and President Obama know this but still seem intent of trying to be the first.

    If the government is successful in cutting costs while expanding demand, that means that healthcare workers will have to work harder while receiving less in pay. My guess is that since none of the elite, white progressives work in healthcare or really know anyone who works in health care, that they just do not care.
  • jdouglas
    Right-wingers can't carry guns into online discussion forums.
  • Pug
    Unions members and professional activist are now trying to shout down the people attending the town halls.

    That's a lie. The shouters are all right-wingers, mostly old, mostly fat and all white.

    My guess is that since none of the elite, white progressives work in healthcare or really know anyone who works in health care, that they just do not care.

    Completey stupid statement unsupported by even a shred of evidence, but at least he said it was a guess.

    If the government is successful in cutting costs while expanding demand, that means that healthcare workers will have to work harder while receiving less in pay.

    Your dumb opinion only. Nothing to support such a claim.

    You should try reading the progressing bloggers such as Matthew Yglesias or Ezra Klein. They are very open about using the proposals to move the U.S. to a single payer, government run sysytem.

    And, of course, the proposed legislation turns the entire US health care system over to Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias. You also provide no evidence of your claim about Klein and Yglesias and I don't believe anything you say, so prove it..

    Are you claiming that the Code Pink or Act Up or ACORN would not have tried to disrupt any appearance by President Bush that they could have attended?

    This is how you run four right-wing boogey men into one sentence. Very clever, actually. President Bush didn't allow those who disagreed with him into his town hall meetings.
  • Leonidas
    Town Halls will be fine as long as they are genuine efforts to listen to the voters, when instead they are used to be sales pitches for bills being worked on in the Senate, a new dynamic applies.Labeling these sales pitches as townhalls was a fraud and a big mistake because it was so easy to see through. They should have called them Presentations instead,

    Townhalls only work if your trying to actually get feedback from the public, or you are trying to get elected. During election townhalls the other party really isn't much interested in attending, and if its to get honest feedback, the politician really does not have to talk and give speeches, just listen and give a short, direct answer or promise to make the answer along with the question that was asked available later on his/her website for everyone to see after they have had time to ponder it. Having some Congress member and support staff get on a stage and try to yammer their sales pitch isn't what a townhall meeting is.
  • superdestroyer
    I see you have the liberal nitpick activism down. You demand references so that you can nitpick them but provide none yourselves. Are you really doing to claim that no one has ever tried to disrupt a right of center speaker. Maybe you remember the Macaca moment. Maybe you remember pies being thrown at people.

    You also do not know anything about health care. The U. S. cannot produce enough nurses now and has to import them from the Philippines. All nationalized healthcare means is that more nurses will be from the Phillipines and fewer native born nurses. The rich white boys have been pissed for years that nurse anesthetist or pharmacy make more money than they do while attending second tier public university.

    One of the dirving forces in health care reform is the hatred of the science illiterate elite has for those middle class people who have found well paying careers in health care.

    Maybe you should try read DailyKos or the Huffington Post. The posters are uniform in their hated of well paid physicians and their love of nationalized healthcare. And many realize that what the Dailykos is proposing todayis what the Democratic Party will be supporting tomorrow.

    And last, look up the protesters from the first Bush Inaugural. It took over 5,000 police to keep the ANSWER protesters off of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  • darker
    Town Hall meetings turned out to be opportunities for THE REPUBLICAN PROPAGANDA MACHINE and publicity-seeing DRAMA QUEENS, and nothing more. Because THAT'S how "the media" wants
    to report them.

    Common sense is dead and SENSATIONALISM rules everything in the RUBBERNECKER APPROACH
    of today's Media kings.
  • ddearborn
    Hmm

    Town hall meeting have traditionally been reserved for the legal residents of the town and their representatives. I don't believe that system is broken. However once you allow outsiders to dominate
    and in many cases take over "local" meetings; well then the concept collapses and you have the staged
    crap being broadcast all over the media. I believe that that Washington would love to ride itself of town hall meetings. It is one of the few venues left in many communities where locals have a RIGHT to speak their mind. Funny how the right to assembly and the right to free speech is being swept under the carpet. Apply common sense and limit non resident attendees at meetings. However if a resident wants to rage at town meeting, well so be it. If the town fathers don't like the idea of citizens speaking their mind; then I suggest those town "fathers" find something else to do.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC