Wed 15 Aug 2007
I just came back from the last of three Defazio town halls in Lane County . He walked to the front of the packed house (lined with anti-war signs) at the EWEB Community Room in Eugene without introduction and began his prepared remarks.
He was quickly interrupted by several extremely frustrated people, demanding an end to the war, impeachment of the President (and Vice President) and a few hits on Alberto Gonzalez. My neighbor was so aggravated by Pete’s (seeming) impotence to change the Bush administration’s international policies (and warrant-less wiretapping) he was literally shaking with anger. Of course, being next to him, I was doomed to an hour of holding my hand up desperately waiting my turn to ask about why the federal government consistently stands in Oregon’s way of real health care reform (Medicare, for one).
This is no way to move our community forward. The emotions were high, but there was no dialogue. No one actually learned from DeFazio or from each other, and Pete didn’t facilitate the meeting to prevent outbursts and individuals hogging air time. He also had no structure to the meeting, which means that there was no way of ensuring that several topics were covered.
So, as a local activist and a policy nerd, I get all wonky when a change to federal policy translates into better (or, lately, worse) circumstances for our community. Like how revisions to Medicaid now require applicants to provide an original birth certificate, a barrier that has excluded at least 1000 Oregon citizens from health coverage who would have received it prior to this law.
I don’t enjoy yelling, particularly not when it fails to achieve a meaningful end. Defazio sponsors much of the good federal policy out there, and pointed out it is the Senate that has slowed or killed many bills the House has passed. But excuses would not satisfy this beast!
Seriously, I hope Pete and the rest of our legislators at all levels learn to promote dialogue rather than permit chaos (there are many facilitation strategies that could have made this a more satisfying experience for everyone) — even the most just cause doesn’t give us the right to take up more social space then our neighbors in a public forum. And I expect a man as smart as Peter DeFazio (a counselor, no less) to know how to get his constituents to remember we are all neighbors.
But I forgave my neighbor for his outburst – he looked like he just needed validation that he wasn’t crazy, and maybe a hug.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
we all feel impotent (especially bob dole, different reasons) when it comes to how to move back society in a positive direction. if you’ve seen peter speak in the house then you’ve seen he has the same fire in his belly as the audience did.
though i think his years of experience give him a pragmatism to know what works and what doesn’t. if we can’t even get gonzales out of there, what chance is there for cheney/bush — or them ousted at the same time. one and a half years left. all this energy and fire should go directly towards things like the jeff merkley campaign, the presidential campaign — as well as any efforts to pull the country up by its bootstraps. and by that i mean grassroots, making changes at the local and state level.
None of us understand what some democrats are doing in congress. pete and wyden aren’t two of them. they are valued, yet practical about moving things forward whenever possible — my own personal definition of a progressive.
August 16th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Amen. It was a madhouse in there for the first half especially. I hate feeling mad with people I generally agree with but I can’t help it when grown adults can’t see that their own behavior is preventing the very change they seek.
There’s a great conversation going on over at BlueOregon about this. I don’t know how to post links but here’s the address: http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/08/making-friends-.html#comments
I think that Peter was right to ask the audience what RESULTS we’re actually seeking with these impeachment conversations. If we impeached AND convicted either Bush or Cheney the immediate result would be for them to name a new vice president (which would be one of the leading Republican presidential candidates) which would then hand them a damn good shot at keeping the white house in 08.
If the result we’re seeking is just to have the whole world know that Bush was wrong, then why do we need the incredible struggle to get a vote of impeachment or censure to do that? Those are just high-level ways of affirming that which history is already going to record.
I completely agree that these people are feeling rightfully powerless, duped, and angry. And I, too, wish they would put all that energy toward making sure we maintain a D congress and win back the White House.
History is written by the victors. Let’s win in 08.
August 16th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Just got back from Wyden’s town hall.
It was WAY more subdued than DeFazio’s town hall yesterday. I was extremely surprised. After hearing about the happenings in Portland yesterday at Wyden’s town hall, I was sure the fire of Eugene’s war protesters would come out wild and strong.
I was wrong.
Wyden’s town hall was extremely organized. You could not speak unless you received a number prior to the beginning of the town hall. There were no outbursts at all. Who knows, maybe it was simply because of the heightened security, camera crews, and 300+ people in attendance.
My favorite part, and Wyden’s too I am sure, was when a fiery red headed 10 year-old stepped up to the mic after waiting a good hour to speak.
Dressed in an pink “Impeach Bush & Cheney” t-shirt and pink camo pants, she confidently captured the audiences attention and said:
“And, Hello. I am wondering why are not in support of Impeachment? I mean, like, Bus and Cheney have done, like, a million things wrong. I mean, come on, don’t you think they should….
Pause. Pause.
…Get a time out or something?”
While DeFazio’s town hall could have been much more structured, I felt that he did his best to push through the outbursts. I too was disappointed that my fellow citizens did not choose to participate in a “community” discussion. As Quizzly said, all of our energy should go “towards making sure we maintain a D congress and win back the White House.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Lynn — i think you meant Bush, not Bus. though very similar and easy to confuse.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Interesting to see someone writing a blog doing the same thing to dissenters that Falafel Bill does to bloggers: attempting to marginalize them for being so rude and failing to maintain proper decorum (as decided by the insiders).
But “excuses would not satisfy this beast” — boy, isn’t that awful? Really, what’s a country coming to when a crowd won’t be placated by excuses?
August 18th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Hey, I just realized that I forgot to turn comments off over at BlueOregon - as we usually do on “elsewhere” posts. So, I’ve done that now - and encourage folks to pick up the thread from BlueO here at LaneBus.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:02 am
And, along those lines…
Tom Civiletti wrote at BlueO: Suppose Germans in the early 1940’s had begun yelling out at public events about the mistreatment of Jews. Would that have been improper because it interrupted civil discourse? When the status quo is an outrage, impolite behavior is often necessary to shake-off lethargy.
Tom, you’re point is correct - but I think it’s inappropriate and inaccurate to compare the Bush Administration to the Nazis.
Not because I’m defending the Bushies, but rather because drawing comparisons between the Bush Administration and Nazis cheapens the Nazis - and suggests that their atrocities are within the range of typical badness from governments.
There are very reasonable comparisons to the Nazis - Stalin, Khmer Rouge, etc. - but not the Republican Party and its present leadership.
I continue to be impressed by how many folks are taking the calls for civility, dialogue, and discourse as a call for acquiescence or rollover.
Not only that, but I’m also impressed by how many folks think that the best approach is to rage against the biggest opponents of the Bush Adminstration - including DeFazio and Wyden - rather than at their enablers, like Walden and Smith.
Why is that?
August 18th, 2007 at 11:41 am
When you start off those calls for “civility, dialogue, and discourse” start off with a characterization of protestors as a “lynchmob” as you did at Blue Oregon, you kind of blow your point, though.
It sort of reminded me of Clarence Thomas characterizing opposition to his Supreme Court confirmation as a “high tech lynching”.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
I usually like my town hall meetings to follow this format:
Rabble
Rabble
Rabble…
Constructive debate
Good point
Progress
A plan…
Rabble
Rabble
Rabble…
Drinks after.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Kari, I want to address your point above about why the left (and I count myself as a leftist) “rages against” (your word . . . I would say “seeks to hold accountable”) Democrats, even those who have been to some degree or another against the war.
I can think of two arguments offhand, the first pragmatic and the second emotional.
Pragmatically, the Democrats have been actively complicit (to put it mildly) in crafting a system where the left has nowhere else to go. Is it not true that they have generally opposed fusion voting, instant runoff voting, even marginalizing the reforms of someone who manages to get elected from the inside, e.g. Kucinich? The apotheosis of this is, of course, the vitriol directed against Nader & company. Even the opposition that you mention to the Iraq war is not only literally inconsequential, but also maddeningly off target. The war is “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” says Senator Clinton. No - the war is a morally bankrupt transparent lunge at imperial hegemony, a scab of American manifest destiny that we allowed ourselves to think we had left in our past, the rape, pillage, and murder of a part of the world that had the misfortune to be sitting on large oil deposits when we Really Wanted Them. Where is the unified voice of the Democratic party simply saying that this is not a strategic mistake, but the latest episode of a tragic flaw that needs to be healed? But we are left with these unsatisfactory Democrats because, like Richard Gere in An Officer and a Gentleman, we “got nowhere else to go.”
The second reason is emotional. We expect Republicans to act like Republicans. Tom DeLay has never hidden who he was. I think that a reasonable person might have known who Dick Cheney was, what Karl Rove stood for, the past record of Wolfowitz, the detritus of the Iran Contra crowd, the agenda of the fundamentalist Christian right, etc. These are not surprises.
Speaking strictly for myself, I do, however, expect a different standard of conduct on the part of those who claim that they are, however mercurially, part of the agenda for peace and justice. So: when Senator Clinton says that “lobbyists represent people too,” when Obama talks about striking Pakistan and supporting “merit pay” for teachers (a key part of the right wing goal to privatize public education), when only Kucinich and Gravel can bring themselves to say that they support the right of two men or two women to marry . . . well, that is disappointing on a different level.
Kari, it should go without saying that I respect your work. The bus project is also wonderful. There are lots of other positive things happening. Nevertheless, the Democratic party, as an institution, has been maddeningly disappointing. There is a bigger change that needs to happen.
August 18th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Kari, you’ve dropped this line of reasing on my blog as well.
Speaking only for myself, when i compare the Bush regime to the Hilter administration, hyperbole is neither my intention nor a fair accusation. Bush’s signing statements combined with a supine Congress are quite comparable to the quasi legal power grab of the National Socialist political party.
August 18th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Do not be afraid to let them have it!
That is why Wyden and Defazio got into the game, to play it.
Hard. Rough.
Like the Founding Fathers liked it.
August 18th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Joe Hill wrote… I want to address your point above about why the left “rages against” Democrats, even those who have been to some degree or another against the war. … So: when Senator Clinton says … when Obama talks…
Yeah, but Joe, we’re not talking here about Democrats in general, or Hillary, or Obama.
We’re talking here about Peter DeFazio and Ron Wyden.
It’s pretty hard to find two guys who have been more outspoken in their opposition to the Bush Administration on the war and civil liberties — especially for a pair that are on, respectively, the Homeland Security Committee and the Intelligence Committee.
I get it — Hillary Clinton isn’t doing town halls in Eugene or Portland — but I just wish people would give credit where credit is due, acknowledge that there’s no such thing as a monolithic “Democrats”, and that our representatives here in Oregon have largely opposed the Bushies at every turn.
Yeah, they’re not “perfect” like Kucinich - but they’re not perfectly wrong, as many of these screamers in the town halls would have us believe.
August 18th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Thom, you may be right on parallels between specific elements of particular legislation… but that’s not the case that most “Bush=Nazis” commenters are doing.
They’re just trying to say “super-ultra-bad” as opposed to the “just-kinda-bad” of, say, Bob Dole.
But here’s the problem: References to Nazis marginalizes and minimizes everything else we’re doing here in the netroots. There’s no surer way to get ignored by the media… well, unless the bad guys use those comments to explicitly marginalize us.
And this isn’t some vague concern; it’s a very real concern. It’s not just Bill O’Reilly ranting about these comments in the blogosphere, it’s Democrats like Harold Ford.
When someone’s looking to stab you, don’t hand ‘em a knife.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Thanks for reading my post and taking an interest! It’s my first post to get any attention, so I appreciate it.
And I gotta say that I’ve certainly learned to be more precise with my words. What I wanted to convey is I thought that our elected leaders should use their power to create a process that encourages participatory democracy. Civil dialog can also be passionate an principled. But you can’t have dialog at all if you don’t have a forum that grants all an opportunity.
And sometimes people just have the same thing to say — could the facilitator ask “does anyone else feel that way?”, note the numbers, and then ask if anyone has a different comment? I compare this to what often happens in poorly facilitated meetings, which is interruptions and disorganization.
I’ve heard it said that participatory democracy is the most effective and just way to solve complex problems — like wars and health care!
So, while I believe passion is crucial for all activists and civil disobedience is sometimes necessary, I also remember learning in school that everyone has a right to some air time.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
oh, and I didn’t really mean anyone was a beast for being frustrated… just a little smart-aleckiness to keep the conversation lively. I absolutely do understand the frustration many feel about the war, impeachment, and the rest. I’ve just found a way to do something constructive locally, knowing I’m building a movement in Oregon that will catch the nation on fire with democracy, justice, and compassion.
August 18th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
“Yeah, they’re not “perfect” like Kucinich - but they’re not perfectly wrong, as many of these screamers in the town halls would have us believe.”
Is anyone saying they’re perfectly wrong, or worthless? I don’t think so? What’s being said is that they’re not doing enough, and they’re wrong on impeachment. (Why do I think they’re wrong? Let me cite another commenter to explain why:)
“I think that Peter was right to ask the audience what RESULTS we’re actually seeking with these impeachment conversations. If we impeached AND convicted either Bush or Cheney the immediate result would be for them to name a new vice president (which would be one of the leading Republican presidential candidates) which would then hand them a damn good shot at keeping the white house in 08.”
The results being sought are an arrest not of Bush or Cheney, but the saliently unconstitutional actions emanating from their offices. Without formal rebuke of their expressions of unitary executive, future Presidents will be understandably emboldened to try the same things.
There is no Republican I know of who would give the GOP “a damn good shot” at recapturing the White House. But even if there was, who cares? It seems pretty clear that the saving of the country won’t come simply as a result of electing Democrats in 2008.
And let’s not confuse Iraq and impeachment. Our reps are doing a much better job on the former than the latter.
August 18th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Actually, with regard to Wyden, it’s pretty hard to find anything on the record during the first several years of the war where he said anything about whether it was a good idea or a bad idea.
As I pointed out at Blue Oregon, his news releases for 2003 say nothing about the war except to point out that he was against wasteful spending in government contracts. I didn’t see anything in his news releases for 2004 or 2005 either.
So while there haven’t exactly been a lot of senators “more outspoken in their opposition” to the war, that’s largely because most of the senators who were saying anything were supporting the war. Wyden said very little on the record opposing the war until it entered its fourth year that I’ve been able to find. Do you have a reference between his vote against the AUMF and the beginning of 2006 where he said the war was wrong and should be brought to a halt? Not votes for other people’s amendments for more oversight into the conduct of the war or criticism about how Bush is mishandling the war, but actions or statements by Wyden opposing the very intent of the war? That’s what it means to oppose something.
August 19th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Shout out to rose for sparking this conversation. the core of this is when to move from being polite about what you believe to civil disobedience, mob style.
DeFazio doesn’t deserve the mob style from dems. maybe to be greeted with flowers for the battle he is waging though. the mob has formed of pure disgust of bush and cheney and the current direction of the country — a very well found disgust. taking back and enshrining the precedents that they have stepped on might well take decades if even possible. But defazio is doing this and doing it well. no civil disobedience necessary. and possibly a better process to allow those people to really feel like they are being heard.
August 19th, 2007 at 4:37 am
The immaturity of citizens who are out of control, who can’t or won’t maintain control of their emotions and behavior, who are so grandiose and so righteous that they shout down anyone who opposes or frustrates them should not be tolerated in a public forum. They simply damage a righteous cause and forfeit the right of dissent and public speech.
August 19th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Yes, all access to public forums with political leaders should be restricted to those who will not express dissent or protest. Attendance should be strictly controlled. After all, that’s what President Bush has done so successfully in his public meetings over the past few years.
August 19th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
darrelplant — i think you are mixing apples and oranges. dissent is good. strong dissent is better. and there’s plenty to be dissent-full about.
But you can display that dissent in an appropriate manner. or you can shout others down, be rude to them, and name call.
This is not about censorship, it is about function. Strongly vocalizing your dissent makes people listen and much more likely to agree than when one loses all control and embarrasses not just themselves but the cause they fight for.
August 19th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Who determines what is appropriate, Mike?
At the Portland meeting with Wyden, people weren’t shouting each other down. They were shouting at Wyden when he made a statement they disagreed with. Presumably to register their disagreement in much the same way they registered agreement by clapping for Wyden or other people making statements.
It wasn’t like a brawl broke out between people in attendance. Pretty much all of the disagreement was aimed directly at Wyden, and specifically for things he was saying at a particular time that people found objectionable. Was it different in Eugene with either him or DeFazio? Did different factions of the audience fight with each other?
August 19th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Interesting stuff. I agree with the need for better facilitation and group participation skills (one other way that person-to-person democracy needs to improve).
I’ve seen a good model for an Impeachment conversation — which let many more people talk, express anger, be encouraging etc. — and got more ideas, more ideological tensions, etc. on the table. So I think Rose caring about this stuff is dealing with something really important. And if we want from Government is SERVICE (rather than rulership), then getting better and better at taking input is really important.
At the same time, Defazio probably also merits some kudos for having the meeting (and taking some licks) at all — and for his relative courage in general.
The episode also raises a reminder for our communications: my sense is the Bus should be a relentlessly and brutally positive force in politics. (Particularly when speaking re: fellow progressive stuff and particularly when in broad public.)
Such positivity might not draw as much instant attention, but over time it’ll unite progressives rather than carving schisms (and it’ll draw fewer bullets).
This has been a principle we have worked pretty hard to fight for for the past 5-6 years. (And a hard and muddy principle…of course there needs to be allowance for criticism and honesty. But the principle can guide good action. If “forward” means anything, it means that.) And I think a good torch to carry.
In any event, this is my first post here — (a bit late, and maybe lame). Still, neat to have some more digital democracy in Lane!
August 19th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Well, I don’t know what is worth doing to discourage anyone from ever acting anti-social at a political meeting (however you want to define it, we all have expectations of “civil” conversation).
We can influence the behavior of those who show up for a public meeting by setting up expectations by following a meeting format. Recognizing speakers in turn, using facilitation methods to prioritize topics, making sure minority voices are heard.
Good facilitation can transform an angry mob into a lean, mean, change-making machine that moves us all forward. I still think (well facilitated) democracy yields the most elegant solutions to complex problems.
August 20th, 2007 at 12:50 am
The Wyden meeting in Portland was set up with checkins for people to ask questions (no more than two minutes) and for Wyden to respond. And that’s a nice way to set these types of things up.
But it doesn’t allow for a true dialogue. It doesn’t allow for follow-up or challenging a portion of the respondent’s answer. You may think it anti-social for an audience to boo a response they disagree with, but the corrolary is that they shouldn’t applaud or cheer with remarks they agree with. Unless outbursts of positive enthusiasm are deemed unacceptable in a meeting, outbursts of disdain should be allowed. You may not like them, but that’s simple fairness.
Unless your intention is that legislators should live in a world where they hear only the music of angels applauding their glorious achievements and that they should be coccooned away from mass criticism (i.e. jeering and booing) to protect their fragile minds.