In August, 2009, town hall meetings across the US were transformed into circus side shows of blind panic and rage. People descended on hapless members of Congress, fueled by imaginary terrors, ready to rant at anyone they could find - and rant and scream and carry on they did with abandon. That month was predictably followed by calls for "civility" - namely that we should all be nice to one another. Many members of Congress, including my own Rep. Jim Matheson, were sufficiently cowed that they found ways to make the already superficial and banal town hall even less effective; he now does "telephone town halls." In recent weeks, Dems have enjoyed a case of schadenfreude as Republicans have faced their own angry town halls over the Ryan plan to gut Social Security and Medicare. Such antics degrade public discourse and progressives can take a lead in making a change for the better.
The problem lies in the basic setup and assumptions of the usual congressional town hall meeting. The chairs are arranged auditorium style facing a podium in the front of the room; there are maybe two microphones, one on the podium and one wireless. Everything about the physical arrangement of the room sends the message that the congressperson is the sage on the stage there to dispense wisdom and information will flow from the podium to the audience. Even the question and answer process assumes that fundamental communication model. Members of congress don't ask questions and the format is set up in such a way that attendees aren't encouraged to communicate information - either to the congressperson or with each other.
What happens at the typical town hall is predictable: The congresscritter arrives and delivers prepared, opening remarks lauding his/her latest accomplishment for the district. Then, a staffer schleps a microphone around and people ask questions while the congressman keeps an eye on the time, offering prepackaged answers. After taking a few questions, the congresscritter thanks the crowd, offers anodyne closing remarks and then leaves. The audience files out into the night. The experience is somewhere between a college lecture and a press conference. Whatever this is, it isn't the town hall of yore and it sure as hell isn't democracy.
The basic instinct is a good one - allowing time and space for voters and members of congress to come face to face, in public, and discuss issues that congress is working on and issues that matter to voters.
Transforming town halls into models of participatory democracy requires transforming the way in which both members of Congress and the public regard such events. As voters, we need to demand better of our elected officials - these sterile, staged photo op events are not good enough for American democracy. Our elected officials also need to think more highly of voters, to place trust in voters to be able to name the issues facing them. The usual and customary way of holding these town halls assumes a level of distrust between voters and elected officials.
Most Americans go to town halls and public hearings make our voices heard, to actively participate in democracy.
In August 2009, Jeffrey Feldman observed:
The problem is that these same Democratic Party leaders are the people who long-ago decided that passing a health care bill depends 101% on making anodyne arguments that persuade people who (1) already have health care, (2) are too self-interested to want reform to help others, and (3) only care about reducing their monthly expenses. That means the organizers of the town halls see these meetings more like open enrollment information sessions than historic battles in the push for reform.
In other words, it is the Senate, Congressional, and White House Democratic Party communication teams that have created the ideal, quiet conditions for a half-dozen fever-pitched teabaggers to shout "tyranny!" and disrupt the hushed sessions.
If, by contrast, the Democrats leading these sessions had gone into them with more passion, the political stage available to the teabag protesters would have been radically diminished, if not eliminated altogether. Beyond just inviting people to kick off the town halls with a story of how their families have suffered as a result of the health insurance industry, Democrats could have followed communications strategy where the overall goal was to control the emotional symbolism of the town halls--wherein everyone who attended would be so shouting mad and teary-eyed in favor of reform that there would be no silent vacuum that could have been filled by protesters.
Because the Democrats treated the town halls as information sessions rather than symbolic stages, they left the emotional terrain wide open for a few voices to exploit, which is exactly what the teabaggers have done.
Feldman's symbolic stage is the stage on which the real political battles are lost and won. The 2008 election invoked powerful symbolism and delivered an unmistakable mandate; after the election, however, Democrats almost immediatley ceded the symbolic stage to Republicans. Reclaiming that symbolic stage is central to Democratic political success.
The problem with town halls and most other public fora is the way in which they fail to invoke the symbolism, language and process of citizens talking with citizens - it's easier to disrupt a meeting at which its a congressperson speaking than when it's your neighbor speaking. But, the real transformation requires more than giving the microphone to speakers other than elected officials. Instead, town halls need to become enviable models of participatory democracy, invoking not only the symbolism of public discourse but the substance of it.
Critics of participatory models point out, correctly, that very likely most voters are unclear on policy, that they lack the basic understanding necessary to arrive at informed conclusions. As we know from two years of polling, even people who are out protesting and very active are often deeply confused (call it the "keep the government's hands off my medicare" argument). People have a difficult time grasping the true scale of the government budgets. A program that costs $500 million a year is marginal in the federal budget, but to most of us that kind of money is vast. So you hear proposals to cut government spending on things like PBS and Planned Parenthood which would have no meaningful impact on the federal budget. Critics of participatory models also point out, correctly, that there are actual policy experts in a host of areas and that these individuals dedicate their lives to studying and understanding the intricacies of policy - that such wisdom should not be excluded. Your GP may be a great doctor, but that doesn't necessarily mean he or she is an expert in health care policy. Such distinctions are important and need to be recognized but shouldn't scare us of trying to do better.
Structuring a public gathering to provide people an opportunity to contribute to policy in a meaningful way requires a careful thought and planning. Anyone leading such a gathering needs to change their assumptions and attitudes toward such gatherings.
-
- You aren't leading or facilitating - you are hosting. If a beloved family member stops by without calling, they are a guest - it's not that you aren't happy to see them, it's just that you aren't really prepared to offer hospitality. OTOH, if you invited them for dinner, you would prepare very differently, you would concern yourself with making them feel comfortable and welcomed, with meeting their needs. Hosting a public gathering is about finding ways to empower the people who attend to contribute meaningfully and to harvest something positive for the larger community of people who could not or did not attend.
-
- Everyone who attends has something valuable to contribute - sometimes the most powerful thing a person can do is actively listen to someone else's story. Everyone has something to give that is worth receiving; honor their contributions and treat them with respect and you'll find it comes back to you.
-
- We may not understand policy but almost all of us have had an experience relevant to policy. A good host finds way to make it possible for us to connect our experience to the overarching issue.
-
- Specific processes are always and only a means to an end; don't get caught up in doing it "right" or following the rules. Trust that you are smart enough to make the changes you need to make when you need to make them.
-
- People want to feel a sense of accomplishment - finding ways to harvest their contributions and share them is a powerful symbol that you take them and their contributions seriously.
-
- We are story telling creatures - having a place and an opportunity to share our story is powerful.
-
- The space in which you meet shapes the ways in which you meet and you can shape the space to support what you want.
At the end of the day, the progression is simple: first you talk to the people, then you talk about talking to the people, then you share what the people said. The dynamic creates a powerful forces that can move the public conversation forward. Suddenly, you own the symbolic stage Jeffrey Feldman talked about.
Facing a host of problems, President Jimmy Carter did something unexpected. He spent ten days talking with people, listening to their stories. Rather than deliver an "issues" speech, Carter delivered a speech about values - a speech in which he identified and articulated the moral crisis in which Americans found themselves. The speech, though much maligned today, was extremely popular and well received. In that speech, Carter talked about talking to the people, he then relayed what the people said, and then issued a challenge, a call to Americans to listen to the better angels of their nature. It would have worked - except the follow up was bungled and gave the impression of an administration in disarray rather than one ready to lead Americans to a new era of confidence and success.
The spiritual crisis Carter discerned then has only worsened in recent decades. Progressives can and must address it - by reclaiming the tradition and practice of participative democracy.
Now, if you've made it this far, you are no doubt wondering, "Okay Mr. Smartypants, how do you do it?"
I'm glad you asked.
About a year ago, I attended a conference and one particular workshop the facilitators began by saying, "We want this to be interactive." They then proceeded to lecture; the space was a host of desks arranged facing the front of the room, there was a screen onto which they projected a Keynote presentation and when they were done with their presentation, they took questions. Afterwards, I heard one of the facilitators say, "I hoped people would get more engaged." The intent was there, they missed the opportunity by not doing a few, crucial things.
The first thing any one organizing a public gathering needs to examine is the space in which they're meeting. Are the chairs bolted to the floor and arranged auditorium style? Well maybe that's not where you want to meet. Flexible spaces where people can move around abound - there's no reason to meet in the high school auditorium when two doors down, you can meet in the cafeteria where you can arrange the chairs and tables as you wish. Most high schools can also provide a decent portable sound system, and these days most of them have wifi as well. When people walk into a room in which there are chairs arranged in a circle, they enter the room differently and prepare for discussion differently. A while back, I watched as people walked into a room for a meeting; several women took out knitting, at least one man did as well; when they realized the chairs were in a circle and they were being asked to talk to one another, the knitting disappeared and didn't reappear all day. Another time, I arrived for a workshop to find soft music playing, drinks to one side of the room, tables for four set up around the room with flowers and brightly colored table cloths. My expectations for the workshop changed as I saw the space in which it would happen.
Figure out how many people you expect and figure out which particular process will work to get you where you want to go. A personal favorite - World Cafe - is adaptable for all different sizes of groups and captures the positive aspects of large and small group discussions. There's no shortage of options, though; Open Space, Future Search, PeerSpirit, Conversation Cafe, Bohmian Dialogue, Appreciative Inquiry and more. Depending on what you're doing, you can adjust and adapt according to your needs. Depending on how long you're meeting and the size of your group, you might even use multiple methods at a single event.
Respect people's time but don't be afraid to ask people to commit enough time to do what you need to do. If you say you're planning on being done in two hours, by god you better be done in two hours. Don't be afraid to tell people "This is a four hour meeting, we'll talke plenty of breaks, but what we have to work on is serious and needs your commitment of time" We often think that people are so busy that asking them to commit an evening or a saturday afternoon is unreasonable; but we're doing serious work and we should not be ashamed to ask for sufficient time to do the work we need to do.
Learn to ask to good questions. Discussion and dialogue spring from good questions - "What do you believe is the most pressing problem in your community right now?" will spark a very different conversation than "Thinking about our community, what areas do you believe are most in need of public resources and attention?" Yes and no questions are bad questions for participation. Learn the art of questions. But, sometimes you don't need questions - I said before we're story telling creatures. Asking someone, "Tell the person sitting next to you a story of a time you did something that you're proud of," well create a very different experience. There's a difference between "How should we fix the health care system?" and "Tell a story about a time you interacted with the health care system."
Finally, plan a good harvest. As a good host, you welcomed everyone to the gathering, made them feel comfortable, welcomed and valued; you want to send them away something as well. Harvesting is the means by which you collect and share the stories, insights, ideas and contributions people made at your public gathering.
The overall process, then, is simple: plan ahead (where, how, what), host at the time, and plan for a way to record and distribute people's contributions. Imagine, if you can, a town hall meeting with a member of congress at which most of the talking is done by constituents, where the congressperson sees his/her job as asking powerful questions. At this town hall, people talk with one another, generate ideas and insights and ultimately, share with the community at large their ideas. The outcomes may not be specific policy changes, but they will be an increase of trust and investment in the political process.
That's at least worth a try.