{"id":18111,"date":"2017-02-28T11:09:36","date_gmt":"2017-02-28T16:09:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=18111"},"modified":"2017-02-28T11:09:36","modified_gmt":"2017-02-28T16:09:36","slug":"assessing-the-congressional-town-meeting-protests-2009-and-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=18111","title":{"rendered":"assessing the congressional town meeting protests, 2009 and 2017"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 2009, when Democratic House members went home to discuss the Affordable Care Act with their constituents, they faced disruptive questions and protests, often from people loosely affiliated with the Tea Party. The protesters cited such supposed evils as Death Panels. This year, when Republican House members go home to discuss repealing<\/em> the same legislation, they face disruptive questions and protests from supporters of the ACA. In at least one case<\/a>, a Member of Congress decried the Death Panels that are supposedly now in existence and was hooted down as a liar by his constituents. In both 2009 and 2017, many Members of Congress have decided not to hold so-called Town Meetings at all because of the prospect of protests that would be covered on mass media.<\/p>\n

2009<\/p><\/div>\n

<\/a>

2017<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I was prone to lament the protests in 2009 but welcome them in 2017. That sounds like hypocrisy, but the comparison is more complicated. First, the same behavior can be appropriate or inappropriate depending on its purpose and content. Making such distinctions requires judgment, but\u00a0judgment is essential in politics<\/a> and is not merely a form of bias. In other words, the right<\/em> judgment may be\u00a0that the protests of 2017 are helpful even though those of 2009 were harmful. One reason may be that the protesters of 2017 are speaking truth, and those of 2009 were repeating lies. I acknowledge that’s a simplification, but it may be roughly correct.<\/p>\n

Second, if we treat a political act (such as organizing or disrupting a public meeting) as a general category, without reference to its purpose or outcome,\u00a0we still must weigh several values. Disrupting a meeting is bad for\u00a0civility but may enhance free speech and agency. Only a purist about civil dialogue would automatically oppose any form of disruption.<\/p>\n

I took a somewhat unusual position<\/a>\u00a0in ’09. I argued that deliberation–i.e., genuinely listening and being open to changing one’s mind–plays an important role in a democracy. When protesters shut down events sponsored by Democrats, or when Democrats stopped holding open meetings in fear of protests, deliberation suffered. This was\u00a0a shame because we are all badly limited, morally and cognitively, and we need opportunities to hear from the other side.<\/p>\n

However, I said then, a major cause of the disruption was the design<\/em> of these events. In a truly deliberative event, such as a classic New England Town Meeting, the\u00a0participants make a collective decision that is not pre-determined by the organizer. To make such a discussion go well requires rules that give people and arguments equal time and organize\u00a0the debate. An event that is billed as a “Town Meeting” is a fake deliberation if the politician-organizer has already made up his or her mind and just wants to persuade the audience. Giving members of the public a chance to react for a\u00a0minute at the mic. is a recipe for angry responses. Such meetings are so predictably bad that they\u00a0provide frequent moments of comedy on Parks & Rec:<\/p>\n