Opinion Topic: Town Hall Meetings

On June 4th, Senator McCain invited Senator Obama to take part in a series of 10 town hall meetings. Since the proposal fell through, Senator McCain has often referenced his plan as a way the negative tone of the campaign could have been avoided, making it seem as if it was Senator Obama's fault the campaign was going in the direction it was. Beyond that fuzzy logic (see: http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/john-mccain-town-hall-stalker-let-us.html for a good analogy) I wanted to know more specifics about why the proposal was flawed and why the Obama campaign rejected it. After all, the idea is certainly intriguing.

Here are excerpts directly from the McCain campaign's formal proposal.

"I propose these town hall meetings be as free from the regimented trappings, rules and spectacle of formal debates as possible" 

This first statement seems to encapsulate the spirit of the entire proposal. But as I'll later underscore, the "deregulated" theme of the proposed town hall meetings is a carefully crafted fish hook that favors Senator McCain.

"and that we pledge to the American people we will not allow the idea to die on the negotiation table as our campaigns work out the details."

While not relevant to the format, I wanted to point out that the Obama campaign's counter-proposal of five meetings with various formats was rejected by the McCain campaign, and then never brought back to the table for discussion again with a counter-counter proposal.

"These town halls should be attended by an audience of between two to four hundred selected by an independent polling agency,"

The devil is in the details. What "independent polling agency"? Why so few people? Why two to four hundred? Analysis below.

"could be sixty to ninety minutes in length, have very limited moderation by an independent local moderator, take blind questions from the audience selected by the moderator and allow for equally proportional time for answers by each of us." 

Say "Independent Local Moderator" to yourself ten times fast. I don't really feel the need to deconstruct that one. Blind questions from the audience? Why not questions on topics that are guaranteed relevant to the American people, carefully crafted and well-thought out?

Here are the bullet point reasons why it would have been a terrible idea:

• At the time of this proposal, Senator Obama hadn't even slept it off after officially declaring victory over Senator Clinton. He had plenty of work to de re-uniting the Democratic Party all over the country before he turned his attention to McCain, while McCain has wrapped up the nomination months previous.

• Regular debates would have helped McCain compensate for Obama's fundraising advantage by providing him with regular, free media exposure. McCain even pseudo-joked about it- "Given our expenses, I know my campaign would agree to it," You would too if you were being outraised 10:1 at the time.

• Given his 50 state strategy, why would Obama want to use his valuable time speaking to 200 when he can easily speak to crowds of 5,000, 10,000, or more?

Further, the Obama counter-proposal of five joint meetings would have actually been the most of any presidential campaign in the modern era. Harkening back to Lincoln-Douglas and the Kennedy debates is a ploy that endears McCain to those wanting to return to a simpler time as the Guardian puts it, "The press sure eats it up, playing it as a charming artifact of pre-modern Americana, an outgrowth of flinty self-governing New England.". 

Unfortunately for him, this is the age of fervent media sensationalism and the internet. Given the state of our culture and media, I don't think it will ever be possible to return to a time where town-hall meetings are a viable presidential vetting process. The ratings for the presidential debates in 2004 weren't much to write home about, and there were only three of them. The Guardian directly follows the quote above with: "There is but one problem: it is nothing of the sort. The town hall meeting that is a staple of the McCain campaign and may well partially replace this fall's debates is instead ersatz and hollow, a grotesque parody of a venerable institution, the New England town meeting." The Brits can really give a zinger. What the article goes on to explain is that an actual town hall meeting (such as those still used in Vermont) is, for the modern politician, absolutely terrifying.

• The mayor is the moderator.

• The entire town is invited.

• Absolutely anyone can ask a question.

Yikes. By contrast, a Rovian-Bush and now McCain "town-hall" meeting is a hand-picked group of supporters where dissidents are forcibly removed:

Not quite the town hall meetings of our forefathers.