Representative" Hageman's "Town Hall"

Tonight Maggie and I went to a "town hall" event with Wyoming's sole national "representative," Harriet Hageman. I have to put both "town hall" and "representative" in quotes because, in the 20 minutes before we walked out, it wsa clear that Hageman was neither interested in actually hearing from citizens who are raising concerns nor in representing those concerns.

After a fifteenish-minute overview of some recent national activity, Hageman opened the floor for questions. Incredibly--at a session apparently meant to leave a good bit of time for Q&A -- there was no mic for audience questions. It appeared that Hageman's mic might've been wireless, meaning that she or a staffer could've allowed speakers to ask their question in a way that would've allowed the whole audience -- an entirely packed house, with dozens standing in the back of the space -- to hear the question. 

HERE'S THE THING.

There can not be a civic dialogue when there is one voice in the room. In an environment where I am very, very skeptical of the Trump administration's interest in maintaining democratic process, the lack of a mic seems a perfect illustration of the non-engagement with opposing views. Not only did Hageman have control over who got to ask questions (including a clear "supporting Coloradan" plant for the very first question), but by rephrasing questions as she wanted to hear them, she entirely controlled the rhetorical grounds for discussion. Any nuance in a critical question was rephrased to simplify, partially to allow a simplified answer. "Am I worried about DOGE? No am I not." Question asked and answered.

This is not really much of a surprise. Or, I suppose: I should not have been surprised by such non-engagement. 

HERE'S THE SECOND THING.

What is more worrisome is the open disdain Hageman displayed towards opposition. She certainly expected disagreement, as she has already experienced in Jackson and Rock Springs. But her response was to patronize and to dismiss, especially using language of "incivility" and "disrespect," which are of course slippery-slope terms that are used to equate everything from cussing and disruptive shouting to broader anti-Americanism. Rather than engaging in any meaningful way with complexity, Hageman instead resorted to sarcastic, dismissive patronizing. She will certainly walk away from the event with more smug certainty in her position, not with any greater appreciation for the concerns of the people she is supposed to represent. 

The part that drove Maggie most crazy was Hageman's infantalizing, passive aggressive musing: "I don't understand why so many of you seem to be obsessed about the federal government." As Maggie yelled out in anger: "YOU ARE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!" And, more to the point: democracy depends on citizens paying attention to the government, not simply handing over the reins. This is a point that Hageman seems not to understand, or maybe she just doesn't care.

In creating a public space for people to express dissent, Hageman is not creating space for dialogue, but rather an opportunity to demonstrate that some (disrespectful) (misbehaving) people are a threat to "those of us Patriots" who just want America to be great. This event (like so many other Trumpist rallies) is about whipping up division, not dialogue. Others of my friends who were there take some solace in the strong turnout of locals willing to voice their dissent to executive action. I am less optimistic; I worry that the strength of the turnout will be used as "evidence" for increasing action against dissent. 

Dark days for democracy.