Interested Citizen or Political Hack?
The League of Women Voters, the offspring of the suffrage movement, has worked for over a century to educate Americans on their rights and duties as voters. A bipartisan, nonprofit group, organized in every community, county, and state in the union, the mainstay of American politics has held rallies, moderated presidential debates, and lobbied for and against congressional legislation. But the atrocities and attacks on the Constitution and human rights of recent times have caused the League to go further than ever before, and yet, the term, political hack, does not seem an appropriate label for this organization. Why?
In the past several weeks, citizens’ groups, some bipartisan, others derived from local political parties, have organized town meetings hoping to have the opportunity of an unfiltered and direct conversation with their local congressional representative. Many of the early gatherings were disastrous for the elected official. The expression “We reap what we sow” has become the norm in politics now, and no one should be surprised at the level of incivility and vitriol. Trust seems as antiquated as the nail files candidates used to hand out at events.
After jeering crowds and images of besuited congressmen in their red ties making a hasty retreat from their podiums, the Speaker of the House strongly suggested that the members of his party refuse to take part in citizen-initiated events. So, some ingenious bipartisan voters organized empty chair town halls with you guessed it—lots of audience members but no one on stage occupying that empty chair. In Lexington, Kentucky, 1200 people gathered at a local historic theatre to ask their absent representative questions. He was unable to engage in a civil conversation because he was down the street at a fundraiser. Were the 1200 attendees political hacks? Why not?
Some observers might believe that these events were organized only to embarrass and ridicule the elected official—that the audience was going to cheer as the guillotine blade dropped. It would have been a very different story in the 1990s if organized by a chapter of the League of Women Voters. I participated in one of those in a different state in what seems like a different life. We were polite and were there to exchange information and make civilly minded decisions. We took tough questions and didn’t please everyone but that wasn’t the point. No one was worried about percentage points and potential donors. We were our constituents’ representatives.
In Maine we have two representatives from opposite sides of the Democratic Party. In some ways that is ideal, covering the spectrum of opinion as it does. But because of its geography and settlement patterns, Maine’s political districts have vast differences. Jared Golden, representing District 2 must walk a tightrope. He tiptoes barefoot along a picket fence between factions. He often votes with Republicans in Congress, but the Dems need him to build up their numbers. He strongly supports military measures having served after 9/11, but he often appears not to trust Democrats. The latest incident occurred recently when he refused to take part in a town hall meeting. Following the advice of Speaker Johnson, he utilized the “duck and cover” maneuver and escaped. Too bad. Once again, one must wonder, would his audience have been interested and concerned citizens or political hacks? Would the Representative and members of his constituency have learned and looked at information differently if they had met? And maybe, a couple of those “political hacks” would have become Golden “voters”?
To surround ourselves with only those who agree with us is a huge mistake. And maybe even more importantly, to label every interested political constituent as a political hack feeds into the ugliness and distrust of public life.
— Margaret Spratt, Ph.D.