Why "Town Hall" meetings in the first place?

There's something intrinsically contrived about the various "town hall" format political events that have taken place in recent years. I understand the inspiration of the fabled New England town halls, but "town hall" events in election campaigns or focused on national issues like health care are nothing more than political theater.

Now there's good theater and bad theater, and I will say that the Democrats' "town hall" theater is far truer to the original than the Bush-era pre-screened audience farces we saw for 8 years. But what we've seen is the invasion of the Astroturf infantry, subverting the events to create the illusion of a widespread, angry grassroots opposition to meaningful reform. The worst part is that the more outrageous the disruption, the more media attention it draws, and whether that attention is critical of the disruptors or not it serves the goals of the disruptors. For them, all publicity is good publicity.

So why do this at all? There are other ways to solicit public input on the ideas in play. We can't stop Republicans from holding events but why provide a stage and media for people who have no interest in honest dialogue?

What makes the original New England Town Hall meeting work is that everyone present is a member of the community. Participants are expected to disagree, passionately at times, but they are also expected to be honest about who they are and why they are there, and they are known to all participants. They will see each other face to face on a daily basis and do business, cultivate friendships and rivalries, etc. and outrageous behavior will reflect poorly on individuals in their everyday life. There will be consequences.

Staged "town hall" events lack this crucial component of genuine community. Without that element, they are no more than political theater. There is no element of democracy that requires the regular performance of theater like this, and the moment doing so becomes disadvantageous to good government elected officials should abandon this kind of forum.

Other politicians latched on to it, and like Britney Spears, it was a fad that just lasted a little too long.

Unlike lobbyists the public has few chances to see their elected officials. The term "Town Hall" is an ambiguous one as it can be conducted in many forms. It can be as simple as a Q & A at a local rotary club or town garden club to a formal meeting like the one's we're seeing held by many Democrats. It's an important part of democracy where the elected and see and speak with those chosen to represent us and however the forum, it's a rare opportunity.

I've seen "town halls" work...where a representative has learned from the voters the mood of the constituents and those who supported that candidate. And for the few town halls that are being targeted and disrupted, there are many others that have proven to be valuable to both the congresscritter and his/her constituents. Check around the posts here and you'll read about them.

The GOOP would love to shut the town halls and other meetigns down. If this tactic is successful there won't be a candidate who isn't hounded next year or the corporate media framing that these gangs have true influence. Instead, these incidents are showing a majority of the tyranny of the minority and to get some people off their asses to support real health reform.

What is the purpose of these so-called "Town halls"? To sell a pre-packaged healthcare plan. Not to solicit input, but to build support. Basically, this is astroturfers vs. astroturfers.

And it's important to maintain that element.

Sure, there are downsides, and we're seeing some of them now, but it's always been the case, from the Agora in Athens to the present day. You can see something about a politician in these settings that's not get-attable from an e-mail, a position paper, or an advertisement. Everyone involved knows that at one of these Town Meetings there's no real input being received from the floor -- it's all one-to-many, it's all presentational. But that doesn't mean the exercise is unimportant.

The problem with the traditional New England Town Meeting as a form of government is that it doesn't actually work. We have a referendum coming up toabolish ours. Often only fifteen to twenty people come to them -- in a town of seven thousand.

If people "play fair" I see how they can be a good thing and let the folks in Peoria know they have a voice. And certainly stagecraft is always a part of politics.

But when I see how much energy is going into trying to manage the people whose marching orders are to "rattle" legislators and not to engage in any kind of debate or intellectual exchange, I can't help but think the answer is to stop holding them and find other ways to hear the voices of genuinely concerned citizens.