Town Hall Meetings and Democracy
It is difficult to watch the video of the various “town hall meetings” and constituent listening sessions that have taken place during the current congressional recess. The overwhelming feeling engendered by these scenes of screaming faces is a feeling of despair for the future of democracy itself. After all, town hall meetings hold an important place in our nation’s history as a symbol of the general public’s continuing participation in their own democratic government.
We are very far removed from the time when the residents of a small New England town could gather together on an occasional basis and make communal decisions that governed their daily lives. Today, members of congress are expected to use these forums to report back to their constituents, to answer questions and solicit concerns, and then to return to Washington, D.C. with a greater sense of the priorities of the voters. This is not exactly direct democracy in action, along the classic New England model, but it is the closest that most of us can claim to actually participating in the machinery of our own government.
At many of these town hall meetings, ostensibly intended to address the topic of health care reform, the proceedings have been anything but an exemplar of participatory democracy. I am not referring to the “exaggerations and extrapolations” of the pending health care reform legislation that some attendees and some Republican opponents of the bill have espoused. Trying to prove that something is a lie is like chasing your tail. The task of separating truth from fiction is simply a never ending part of the human condition. Nor am I particularly concerned over the shouting and the ill manners of many attendees. I cannot think of any period in our nation’s history when politeness was the norm in political debate.
Instead, my concern is with the future of democracy itself. In 1922, in his book Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann presented a pessimistic view of the public’s ability to govern itself through our nation’s democratic process. Three years later, he followed up his critique in the book The Phantom Public. If anything, the sequel held out even less hope for the meaningful participation of the general public in the shaping of the government policies that have such a dramatic impact on their lives.