Does anyone else see an irony in Congressmen who are taking their case to the people complaining about mob rule?
Congress’s normally lax August recess is shaping up to be a tumultuous time this year as a deluge of protesters, fueled by political parties and interest groups, greet lawmakers in their home states.
The showdowns between lawmakers and constituents have not only fueled the high-stakes battle over healthcare reform but also started a debate over the authenticity of the interruptions.
With websites like EmbarrassYourCongressman.com encouraging activists to upload video and pictures from the heated meetings, Democratic members are asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) whether they should continue holding town hall meetings with large numbers of people, according to leadership aides.
The Speaker has advised her rank and file to do what they deem appropriate. She said scheduled town hall meetings should go ahead as planned.There are other ways to get the message out, including tele-town halls, interviews, one-on-one meetings with constituents and news conferences, leadership aides said.
Above-the-fold headlines of the disruptive protests caused the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to accuse Republicans of fueling the anti-Democratic healthcare activists in an attempt to institute “mob rule.â€
But Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele denied on Wednesday that the GOP somehow coordinated the protests.
“To sit back and say this is some sort of Republican cabal is some baloney,†Steele said on a conference call with reporters. “And you can substitute [baloney] with something else if you want.â€
I think there’s a more basic problem with the tactic of these so-called “town hall meetings”: when you take your case to the people, you must be willing to surrender the initiative to the people. This is the reason we have representative government rather than direct democracy.
Let me be very clear about my position. I believe in civil discourse, civil used in both its primary and secondary meanings. I think that anybody trying to prevent anybody else from speaking is wrong and that it’s significantly more wrong than allowing the other person to say anything he or she could conceivably say.
Additionally, I don’t believe in protests, guerrilla theater, or the like in a society in which there is a viable political process. We have a viable political process, corrupt as it may be. Trying to influence political choice by disorderly conduct is a form of tyranny.
However, when you’ve turned a blind eye for decades on various disorderly forms of symbolic protest, you should be prepared to take what you get.
The very smallest conclusion that should be drawn is that there is no strong consensus in the matter and it behooves our elected representatives to seek consensus rather than getting their way through power politics.
Don’t get me wrong: I think the position that the Congressional Republican leadership has staked out (do nothing) is ridiculous, counter-productive, and, frankly, not what they were sent to Washington to do. But Potemkin townhall meetings are equally ridiculous.
Dave, have you seen the videos of what’s going on? Republicans aren’t going to these town hall meetings and asking tough questions. They’re yelling and screaming and not allowing anybody to talk at all, including the Congressperson. Some Congresspersons have received death threats. What do you the Congress to do?
Basically, I want them to stop having town meetings.
I think the well’s been poisoned and there’s no use complaining about it now.
Payback’s a bitch, eh, Alex?
Dave,
Well, I think that’s what the consequence will be, but that’s a pretty shitty outcome. I think that politicians really need to listen to their constituents.
Drew,
Ah yes, the famous “He started it!” defense…
This is a subject that would be worth exploring at length some time. I think that the number of constituents per representative has reached a point at which the relationship between representative and constituent must necessarily change.
Mind you, I’m in favor of increasing the size of the Congress substantially—at least treble its current size, possibly ten-fold. I don’t care if it’s less efficient. We also need steps to eliminate Congressional representatives’ being lobbied by non-constituents and to reduce the power of staff.
I’d put what we’re seeing now somewhat more grandiosely as a foreseeable consequence of tolerating unacceptable free speech-suppressing conduct in the name of free speech. I don’t believe that all conduct is speech but that ship has sailed. Check out how many of today’s Senators and Representatives started as student activists. The number isn’t small.
BTW, Alex, I think the evidence that these unruly people are paid agitators is extremely slim. My view is that there’s genuine opposition to increased taxation and the Democratic Congressional majority’s agenda. Stupid opposition mostly (I think that opposition to taxation without practical suggestions on reducing spending is stupid) but genuine nonetheless.
I’m not certain they’re aware of it but Congressmen represent people they disagree with, too.
Dave,
I’m with you WRT the constiuent/congressperson relationship. But I’m sad to see the town meetings go. It’s a de facto victory for lobbyists.
I don’t think that the folks showing up are paid agitators, either.
Its not a defense, Alex, its an observation.
And as Dave noted, this ship sailed long ago.
I’m sure you have a rich history of handwringing posts over the issue of coarse political discourse, like when Code Pink or Cindy Sheehan did their thing. Or when Republicans are accused of heartlessness towards children, or throwing Grandma out in the snow, as the left is want to do every time there is opposition to yet another spending binge.
Are you at this moment composing an essay on coarseness in the political aren re: Nancy Pelosi and “swastikas?”
Re: Speaker Pelosi. I think that might be a case of subjective reality. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if she saw swastikas every time she looked at Republicans. That’s more a reflection of her perception of the inner reality than it is of external, verifiable events.
Or hearsay that’s just too good to verify.
Drew,
You’re right, I’ve never defended Republicans from such things. (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/a_gop_bigot_eruption/). Nope, never at all. (http://hereticalideas.com/blog/?p=5001) It’s completely alien to my usual postings. (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/palin_africacontinent_statements_prove_to_be_a_hoax/ ; http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/a_little_too_much_credulity/).
Alex –
I didn’t even go to your links. I take your point and trust you that they reflect a history of a balanced view.
So I have to ask: what caused you to make your comment, in light of the bombastic claims of “brown shirts” and “swastikas” from the left. This is an ugly cat fight, and neither side is exposing their better side. What, then, motivated your comment?