Angry Town Hall? Goodbye Congressman!

The news has been full of stories about angry citizens at "Town Hall" meetings hosted by congressmen and senators. The Democrats are claiming that the objections raised by the citizens at these meetings are an "Astroturf" movement (as apposed to "grassroots"). Republicans are replying that the hand-printed signs and well dressed appearance of the protestors is actually a sign that the protests are truly spontaneous.

I believe the protests are spontaneous, but that misses the point: A large portion of the electorate is angry and mobilized. Congress ignores this (and insults this!) at their peril. Let me give an example which illustrates what happens to a congressman who makes his citizens angry.

In the 1980's and 90's I lived near Augusta, Georgia, a fairly conservative southern town. In 1993, the long-standing conservative 10th district Democratic congressman had retired and his open seat had been won by Democratic freshman Don Johnson. At the time, newly elected president Clinton was trying to close a budget shortfall, and had proposed a large increase in taxes. (It was the largest tax increase ever... at that time.) Congressman Johnson had declared that he would vote against the tax increase, but when the vote came, he succumbed to a personal telephone appeal from President Clinton and voted for the new tax. Since the tax bill passed the house by a single vote, everyone who voted for the bill became the "deciding" vote. Congressman Johnson's vote angered me at the time, and I apparently was not alone in this anger.

The Congressman hosted a Town Hall meeting shortly thereafter. I had never been to one before, but I was energized by the crowd of 75 or so citizens, most of whom were mad as hell at what they considered a betrayal by Representative Johnson. Many of the questioners demanded to know what "Slick Willie" had promised the congressman in return for his vote. The Congressman's earnest, almost plaintive, statements that he made his vote in good conscious without any quid-pro-quo of any type were not well received by the hostile crowd.

I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I, and most of the people at that meeting, did not behave respectfully to the congressman. He was interrupted repeatedly by jeers, shouted rebuttals, and cat-calls. He made his points, but there was nothing he could say that could explain away his critical support for a large, unpopular tax increase. In any event, the crowd was not in a conciliatory mood, and let him know this in very direct and personal terms.

A local TV news crew had cameras at the meeting, but in a stunning example of media bias (which at the time I ascribed to simple incompetence by the local field producer), completely minimized the uproar. Their report left viewers with the impression that there was a mild disapproval of the congressman by a few voters. No mention was made of the jeers, angry questions, or loud boos the congressman repeatedly received.

Despite the mild press coverage, the freshman congressman was defeated in the next election by a whopping 31 points. He was defeated by a dentist who had never before run for elected office. Charlie Norwood was the first Republican congressman in this district since reconstruction. That seat is still held by Republicans to this day.

So, Congresspeople, I advise you to pay attention to your constituents. Don't be fooled by Nancy Pelosi and that whole "astroturfing" BS. If you value your job, and your constituents are mad as hell, you better make sure they are not mad at you!