Hall of Shame | Illumination

Stories:

Hall of Shame

The annual town meeting, that venerable gathering of citizens convened to elect local officials, levy taxes and pass new laws, has long been a staple of New England civic life. Such meetings, characterized by neighbor debating neighbor over issues of common concern, are justifiably regarded as one of our nation's great traditions, a practice allowing participants to come as close as any modern-day American can to pure democracy.

For those of us living with less direct forms of governance, the idea of a town meeting represents a pleasant echo from our nation's heroic past: Samuel Adams rallying patriots at Boston's Old South Meeting House, Henry Thoreau denouncing the poll tax at Concord. Is it any wonder, then, that today's presidential aspirants have eagerly embraced town-meeting-style debates in their attempt to reach an increasingly unengaged electorate? Or that these politicians have, at the same time, sought to shield themselves from the unpleasant reality of dealing directly with this less-than-adoring public?

Mitchell McKinney, an assistant professor of communication at MU, is an expert in presidential campaigns. He's not at all shocked that the presidential version of the town meeting debate, although a relatively new phenomenon, has already ceased to be either "debate" or "meeting."

"A devolution of the presidential town hall debate as public sphere has occurred," wrote McKinney last fall in the journal American Behavioral Scientist, "whereby every four years citizens' freedom to participate in their debate -- as they see fit --has been seriously restricted."

Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign team is generally credited with popularizing the "town hall" debates. After pushing the format on a reluctant President George H. W. Bush, Clinton used his exchanges with the live audience to effectively showcase his empathy with voters' concerns. An uncomfortable President Bush, meanwhile, spent his time impatiently shifting from foot to foot and, most famously, stealing glances at his watch.

Despite being a rather one-sided affair, most regarded the town hall format as an exciting rejuvenation of public involvement in presidential politics. Among those who approved were members of the Commission on Presidential Debates, the non-partisan organization that in 1988 inherited the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters. Thanks to the commission's endorsement, the town hall format has made appearances in the 1996, 2000 and 2004 elections.

Unfortunately, says McKinney, each four-year cycle has seen a marked decline in public involvement. "Close scrutiny of the 'evolution' of town hall debates suggests that our presidential candidates have maneuvered to gain nearly complete control over the town hall exchange since the debate was first introduced," he says.

For his Behavioral Scientist study, McKinney compared the issues discussed in the 1992 debate to the 2004 town hall tussle between Sen. John Kerry and President George W. Bush. In 1992, he found, 61 percent of the debate focused on what Gallup pollsters identified as the public's top five issues: health care, budget deficits, education, crime and the environment. In addition, the public's top three concerns turned out to be the top three issues discussed.

What's more, the 1992 debate followed time-honored town hall conventions: citizens stood up, asked unrehearsed questions directly to the candidates, and then posed follow-ups. By 2004, however, things had changed, McKinney says. Those in the venue were required to abide by a strict code of conduct crafted by the Bush and Kerry campaigns. Interaction with the candidates was forbidden. Participants instead were required to submit their questions to Charles Gibson, the debate's moderator, who screened the queries and allowed only those he liked to be asked of the candidates.

Predictably, only half of the debate focused on what Gallup said were the public's top five concerns. Jobs and the economy, the No. 1 issue, was among the least discussed. "Once the political candidates and their handlers realized the dangers of allowing citizens to actually participate freely in their debate, we ended up with a debate dialogue that has very little relationship to the public's agenda," McKinney says. Sam Adams would be appalled.

Untitled Document

Published by the Office of Research.