Moot Points

I still say "town hall" meetings are a bad idea. They're obviously related to allthings, or entmoots, or something — but the blithe assumption that a majority of votes at a "town hall" will carry anybody's day is absurd, except, obviously, somewhere in New England where the Town Meeting actually is a form of non-representative self-government (non-representative because each participant represents only themselves.)

What seems abundantly clear is that the blithering idiots who attend such meetings with the intent to disrupt and shout down and occupy time haven't got the foggiest idea how their democracy actually works, or the finer points of being gulled into pawnship.

Actually, "town hall meetings" are an old bit of coy political theater intended to give voters the illusion of participatory democracy (especially on the local 10 o'clock news), when in fact nothing of the sort is happening. I give full marks to the disrupters on this point — by which I mean, of course, the right wing health insurance fascisti who dreamed this tactic up. As a way of calling bluffs and exposing a deep and drowsy seam of meaningless political chaff for what it is, masterfully done.

The question arises, why aren't these things run like old-time Iowa caucuses? The whole idea of a caucus, for years on end, was to prevent public participation in party business. In the old days, county chairmen refused to advertise the caucus calendar altogether; if you didn't already know it was happening, you didn't need to know.

Unfortunately, the ambush fol-de-rol takes time away from actual policy building, and Americans need public option, single payer health reform immediately. Shame on Harkin, Loebsack, et al, for allowing themselves to be snookered at a game about as complicated as Go Fish.

Focus, maroons!