From the beginning, Democrats needed to come up with a viable explanation for the anger and frustration exhibited at town halls. That's because if that outrage was rooted in down right disapproval for their health care bill that would indicate a wholesale rejection of the bill in general. So, immediately, this was called a "mob". It was insinuated that nefarious forces were behind the demonstrations. On top of this, people claimed that the protesters were acting with poor manners. Instead, they should ask their questions quietly so that everyone has a chance to ask a question, it was inferred. The town halls were turned into a mob instead of a polite meeting it was said.
Here's why the town hall protesters shouted down their politicians. No one likes to be propagandized. They don't want to be used as props for talking points. People come to town halls to ask questions and get honest answers. Politicians rarely give honest answers. All their answers are carefully thought out so that they sound exactly right. The people didn't come to the town halls to hear spin, talking points, and propaganda. When that's what they got, they weren't just going to sit there and listen to it. Instead, they shouted down the politicians because they weren't going to stand to be props in a carefully scripted propaganda machine.
Just think about when the crowds would raise a fuss. It was following a politicians' pronouncement that this health care reform package will NOT add to the deficit, won't cover abortions, and won't cause people to lose their health insurance. It's when a politician would proclaim that this health care reform package is NOT a government takeover, the public option is merely about adding choice, and it will bend the cost curve.
The people simply don't believe any of these talking points. So, to them, this is rank propaganda. No one likes being propagandized and so the town hall attendees don't just sit there and listen patiently while they are propagandized. Instead, they shout down the propaganda. How is someone supposed to respond when they know they are being propagandized. I was once at a town hall meeting in which a new Cook County Commissioner was being chosen. At this town hall the same person, Michele Smith, was running for the office, asking her competitors questions, and on the committee to vote on the replacement. At the same time, she asked each candidate how they would end the culture of conflict of interest. Really, knowing her oscene conflicts, she dared to ask others how they would end this culture. Now, I raised this question to the person that sat next to me, and I was told to be quiet. They wanted to listen to the speakers. This was not a meeting in which the public was allowed to challenge the pols. As such, this rank propaganda went on and no voter challenged it.
Now, which meeting would you rather attend? Would you rather sit while a politician runs for an office, asks questions of their competitor, and chooses the candidate all while asking how to end a culture of conflicts? All the while, you're told that you need to remain quiet as part of proper decorum. Or, would you rather go to a town and when you hear propaganda you challenge it?
Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"