What is the Tea Party?

What is the Tea Party? The movement has been evolving rapidly over the last 18 months. It was a potent force in the Republican primaries, and gets lot of coverage and commentary. But what is it? And where did it come from?

It’s not a party. That’s the first thing Tea Party members and sympathisers will tell you. You may think that with a name like Tea Party that they are, or aspire to be a political party. But they aren’t and don’t. It’s more of an advocacy group (think NRA or MoveOn.org - but less structured) that is loud, vague, and angry and doesn’t actually advocate for any particular polices (other than “not taking it anymore” - which they support).

An early invocation of the term “Tea Party” came from Rick Santelli’s bizarre rant from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Unless you’re setting it on fire, the CME seems a particularly inappropriate place to start a populist movement. But somehow the image of a bunch of post-bailout financial traders (which Santelli calls “a pretty good statistical cross-section of America”) railing against the injustice of federal intervention struck a nerve. Santelli’s complaint was that the government was bailing out homeowners. As millions of former-homeowners learned during their foreclosure, no such program existed. But a movement was born, and with it the rich Tea Party tradition of being incensed over purely imaginary federal programs.

Sensing another opportunity to rally gullible people angry at Democrats, Fox News quickly got in on the act and put its stamp on the young movement. The network sponsored and promoted Glen Beck’s 9/12 project, giving the Tea Party national exposure. The nation was not impressed. The obvious extremism on display gave rise to the impression that Tea Party members tend to be racist or insane.

Since those early outings, the movement has controlled its message a little better. Local groups appear to be somewhat more reasonable. The Tea Party has gained strength an pulled together a powerful coalition.

The Tea Party has been effective at re-branding of the Republican Party. They’ve got all the energy in the party and have had an impressive show of force. Even establishment candidates like John McCain have had to dance to their tune in order to win the primary. They’ve been able to bring back a lot of conservative voters that bailed after the Bush years. Being a ‘Tea Party Patriot’ running as a Republican is much cooler than being a ‘Bush Republican’. And they can rope in and energize the independent conservatives and libertarians.

Andrew Sullivan has described the difference between how the Tea Party members see themselves and conventional Republicans:

I think what the tea-partiers would say is that they are for real - that, unlike Bush, they won't spend the country into oblivion, that they won't bail out the banks, that they won't pass unpaid-for entitlements, that they actually will make sure that abortion is illegal, that they will round up illegal immigrants and enforce the border, and will not pretend that we are not fighting Islam in a civilizational war. And that they will refuse to raise taxes even if it means the most radical dismantlement of the entitlement state since the New Deal. 

This attitude has swept through the Republican party. The question remains whether it will be popular with the rest of America. As much as they’ve been a force in the Republican primaries, it’s not clear they are going to be so helpful in the general election. Any group that thinks the likes of Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann are to be taken seriously is going have hard time getting themselves taken seriously by the American people. In the 2010 mid-term, where energy and base turn-out trump, they’ll be about a wash. After that, it’s not clear what the Tea Party does for a second act.

I would like to hope the Tea Party will pull the Republicans away from meddling in social issues and towards some actual fiscal conservatism. But real deficit reduction means taking on tax policy (and not just cutting taxes), controlling health care costs, and reducing defense. The Tea Party doesn’t offer serious proposals on any of that.

Actually, the Tea Party doesn’t really offer any policy proposals. They mainly like to complain about Democrats, say “freedom” a lot, and talk about the Founding Fathers. It is telling that the few members who seem to have policy ideas got very quiet about those ideas very fast after winning their primary. This suggests they are well aware that their actual plans may not be so popular with the general public.

The issues that motivate the Tea Party- health care reform, TARP, economic stimulus - are not the issues that will be confronting newly elected Tea Party members when they take office in 2011. TARP and the stimulus funds are spent and there seems to be little appetite in either party for more. Health care reform will continue and there may a fight over funding and implementaion. But full repeal will be unpopular and impossible.

The actual battles of the next congress will over deficit reduction, tax policy, immigration, the Defense of Marriage Act, Afghanistan, and corporate campaign disclosure. In theory, a libertarian-aligned Tea Party would be more sympathetic to the President’s positions on these issues than the conventional Republicans. In practice, we’re likely to find that the movement’s contempt for President Obama overrides any (as yet unseen) pragmatic impulse. Gridlock will get worse, even on issues when there is general agreement.

Once a few Tea Party members are elected they’ll have to take votes and support legislation. They won’t be able to stay in the realm of dreamy platitudes. If they want to remain relevant in 2012 they’ll have to do something to improves the lives of the American people. Since they’ve pledged not work with the President on any issue, it’s hard to see how they’ll do that. Unless Democratic voters get energized and vote this November, we’re about to find out.

Tea and Nazis

There was a big teabagger march in DC yesterday, with lots folks carrying creative signs.

One particular sign and sign-holder merit a bit of deconstruction:

Let us pause to admire the unnecessary quotes, and then proceed to consider the message and the messenger.

Does he look like he wants to serve in a Nazi Youth Militia? Yes. He does. He looks like precisely the sort that has conviction without reason and a pack mentality. He jumps right to the persecution of the vile, alien, other and throws out indiscriminate accusations. In a Nazi Youth Militia, he would fit right in.

He's calling for new era of McCarthyism? McCarthyism was a good thing?

I don't know if we're meant to take these people seriously. Presumably, they don't consider themselves to be outrageous fools. Did the people around this kid chastise him for making them all look like extremist idiots? Or did they applaud his creativity and audacity?

Have these people no shame?

The Day I Joined the Tea Party

The Tea Party held a tax day rally in Portsmouth. I went to the rally to see what the fuss is about and check it out for myself. I was surprised more by what it was not, than by what it was. For better and worse, the New Hampshire seacoast chapter of the Tea Party doesn't live up to it's reputation.


There were plenty of signs on display. I didn't see signs with egregious spelling and grammar errors and the messages were relatively tame. Nothing racist. No Nazis. Nothing that seemed overly hysterical. No Fox News references.

I expected the general mood to be one of anger and defiance. But it wasn't really. Cranky, yes. But the partiers seemed to be mostly just enjoying the opportunity to curse big government, complain about onerous taxes and root for freedom.

I didn't see any guns. I thought implied violence might be a theme. But it wasn't really. At one point the MC was explaining a mock tea party bit where costumed reenactors were going to dump "the things we don't like" into the river. When someone yelled out "But Obama's not here!" the MC responded with a jokey agreement. He quickly followed up. "You know that's the one line they'll use in the papers." Big laugh.

Another thing the rally wasn't is large. The newspaper estimated the crowd at 250 which seems about right. Prescott Park has certainly seen bigger events. The annual Chowder Fest, for example, draws crowds more than 15 times that size. And they have delicious chowder.

In addition to talking in the scene, I was there for the speeches. I wanted hear what the fine minds of the Tea Party had to say-- to bathe in their vision of human liberty. There was not a lot of thematic diversity. The speakers struck the same notes again and again. I'll outline their arguments. I had some quibbles.

Founding Fathers

The Tea Partiers are big fans of the Founding Fathers. They are under the impression that the feeling would be mutual. Apparently the Founding Fathers would unanimously support every Tea Party utterance. I'm not so sure.

One memorable sequence was called: "Obama or the Founding Fathers". The speaker was going to say a phrase. We, the audience were supposed to call whether it should be attributed to President Obama or the authors of the Constitution. I was looking forward to this. I was genuinely curious what excerpts from the Federalist Papers or out-of-context Obama quotes might be used in service of the Tea Party thesis. I was disappointed.

Rather than draw material from anything the subjects ever said, the speaker just tossed out slogans. "Honest work", "Government handouts", "Freedom from oppression", "Federal control". A few times the speaker said something like "Projecting American power" and the crowd was genuinely confused about who we were supposed to be calling for.

Some notes on the Founding Fathers: They invented the federal government. The reason they invented the federal government is they had already tried the independent states approach and found it to be a disaster. They knew a strong nation would require a strong central government. So they created one.

The authors of the US Constitution held a diverse set of political views. They didn't agree with each other. No matter what your beliefs are, they would not all agree with you. They did ok despite their differences. So do we. Imagine if, by some miracle, we could resurrect James Madison today. Suppose we could invite him to see what has come from their little experiment in Republic-building. He would be impressed. America today is much more than anything they envisioned. We've build a great nation upon the foundation they established. We've kept their principals intact and inspired the world with our example.

The Founding Fathers would not be joining the calls to tear it all down.

Taxes and Deficits

If I hadn't already known that we had a trillion dollar deficit and that 47% of Americans don't pay federal income tax, I could have learned these facts from the speeches and signs at the rally. They neglected to mention that Obama has lowered our taxes or that income tax rates are now the lowest they have been in 60 years. Many of the people there complaining about the oppressive federal tax burden are among that 47% that pay no income tax at all.

It is no coincidence that we have historically low taxes and historically high deficits. One naturally leads to the other. The TPers claim they want to reduce spending. But their lack of specifics is damning. I want to "eliminate wasteful government spending". Everyone wants to eliminate wasteful government spending.  The problem is there is no consensus on what counts as waste. And you can't build consensus without offering specifics.

An energetic call for tax cuts paired with vague hand-waving in the direction of spending cuts is a clarion call for increased budget deficits.

God

God got number of shout-outs (Jesus Christ, not so much). My favorite: "God was the first entrepreneur. He created the universe with His own toil and His own imagination. He derived the pleasure from His work and reaped the rewards. He would have us live by His example."

No. The first artist? Maybe. But God was not an entrepreneur. He may move in mysterious ways, but we can safely assume that God isn't in it for the money. The universe was not created as one big franchise opportunity (The Almighty Dollar Store?). If that is the altar at which you worship then your faith rests on a very shaky foundation.

Liberals 

Speaking of shaky foundations, much of Tea Party rhetorical edifice is built upon an simplistic house of straw. Each of the speakers was building a bulwark against some imagined, imminent assault on our civil liberties. Apparently, Obama and "the liberals" have some big plans.

I don't claim to speak for all liberals. Like all vaguely-defined labels, liberalism is a many-splendored thing. I am an Obama supporter.

So, to all you Tea Partiers:

I'll happily defend your right to speak your mind. I don't dispute your right to own firearms. I want your employer to thrive, prosper and expand. If you own a business, I wish you luck and hope for your success. I am also deeply concerned about the federal deficit and am concerned that the American people will not support policies that lead to its reduction. I don't believe in federal expansion for it's own sake. I don't like paying taxes. I don't think tax dollars should be spent on initiatives that are unrelated to the public good.

We aren't coming for you. Really.

Politicians

While I was hanging out listening to aspiring Republican senatorial candidate Bill Binnie I was approached by aspiring Republican congressional candidate Bob Bestani. Mr. Bestani was kind enough to entertain a few of my questions. I pressed him on how we'll reduce the deficit, control health care costs, and why American health care costs are vastly higher than those in other countries. His responses were not wildly divergent from typical Republican talking-points. He concluded by suggesting I audit his economics course at Stanford for the full extent of his wisdom.

My encounter with Mr. Bestani left me pondering the fate of Congressional aspirants. What is it like to reach such a position in life? You to put yourself forward. Your quest to be a member of the United States House of Representatives leads to skulking about at the back of a rally, shaking hands, passing out fliers and hoping to score a few votes. The guy at the podium is excoriating the legislative body you hope to join. You're trying to become one of the bums the crowd is demanding to throw out.

By the end of the rally, I had my fill of the New Hampshire chapter of the Tea Party. These people are not part of some formidable, fearsome movement. But nor is it a party I would care to join or in whose hands we can entrust our future.

Me and Scott Brown's Mom: How I Took Down a Fence, Sparked the Tea Party Movement, and Almost Killed Health Care Reform

In the winter of 2003 my wife Christine and I purchased our home from the Brown family. At that time George Bush was President, health care reform was a distant dream, and Scott Brown toiled in obscurity. On that day, as we signed those papers, we had no way of knowing what would transpire in days ahead. We had no way of knowing how our fate would intertwine with that of the Brown family. We could not know how our rash decisions in the years to come might endanger the health of this great nation. Now we know. Only now, can this story be told.

That fateful winter the Brown family was divesting their holdings in Portsmouth following the untimely death of Scott Brown's Grandfather. Their lands were substantial. Standing in what is now our yard, members of the Brown family could look out in any direction and rightly say that everything they laid their eyes upon belonged to them. The houses are in there pretty tight. You can't really see very far. Nonetheless, such a sight must have instilled in the Browns a sense of majesty and pride. Unless they were looking through the window at the pile of black trash bags and the random metal step ladder the tenants kept in the dining room. That was not so majestic.

This corner of Portsmouth was the Land of Brown. It has been thus for many a generation. The sale our home was held up due to a title dispute. Some great ancestor had been willed a portion of the land in the 1860's. The land hadn't been bought or sold since. The lawyers had to locate the papers lost during the Civil War before the sale could proceed.

Proceed it did. We moved into our first home and set about repainting, renovating, and making it our own. This was a time of transition for the Brown family as well. They sold most of the property in the area keeping only the duplex behind our our house as a rental unit. With the substantial income generated by the sale of these homes members of the Brown family would have the opportunity to follow their dreams. An ambitious Brown might have found the means to go into politics, become a nude model in a woman's magazine, or buy a truck.

Looking back now, I can see that the years that followed were, for us, a time of peace and stability. A contributing factor in the neighborhood tranquility was an lovingly constructed but decaying set of white picket fences that ran along each of the property lines, separating all the homes and duplexes. Those who know me best may not be surprised that I purchased a home with a white picket fence. They might also suspect that the painting and maintenance of such a fence is not a task I approach with a lot of energy or enthusiasm.

It was during the fateful spring of 2008 that we decided to take down the back fence. Many have questioned our motivation in this. But our reasons were simple. We had a fence on our property. And we didn't want it. The previous summer, the neighbors had all collaborated on a coordinated fence painting project. The Browns declined to participate claiming the fence was ours to maintain. Considering this and the property line, Christine asked me if we might take down the fence. We would have a more pleasant view from the back porch. Our children would have more space to frolic with their friends and neighbors. I said "Ummm. Sure." The die was cast. Saws and crowbars were deployed. The fence came down. 

For a time the decision to take down the fence seemed like the right one. The new view was an improvement and the neighborhood boys enjoyed multi-family nerf battles. But the good times would not last. Within two weeks Scott Brown's Mom discovered the section of fence had been removed. She was not amused.

Christine observed Scott Brown's Mom examining the space where the fence had been and went outside to confer. My wife was met with a flood accusation. Scott Brown's Grandfather had constructed that fence with his own hand. Why would we tear down a perfectly good fence? Like the Little Tailor confronting an angry giant with a piece of cheese, Christine tore off a chunk of fence remnant with her hand and presented it to Scott Brown's Mom. Scott Brown's Mom was not intimidated by this show of strength. Neither was she convinced of the fence's imperfection. She stormed off cursing our names. We knew she would return.

The men came the next day. They inserted thin metal posts in the ground and attached a 4 foot tall, bright orange, thin, plastic snow fence that ran the full length of the property line. The new fence was an abomination. It came be known as the Fuck You fence. It was a flimsy eyesore that mocked us with it's vastness, it's pointlessness and it's cheapness. It served no aesthetic or protective purpose other than to say "fuck you" to all who gazed upon it.

I placed a call to Scott Brown's Mom seeking to negotiate a settlement between our warring factions. Sadly, the call was not returned and the stand-off continued. For weeks we endured the tyranny of the orange snow fence. Then, one day, we looked out. The Fuck You fence was gone.

That same day, Scott Brown's Mom returned. Christine saw her exploring the fenceless void. Once again she went out in the spirit of inquiry and to extend a neighborly hand. Christine was subject to yet another verbal assault. This one was even more violent, sustained, and expletive laden than the last one. The orange snow fence had not been deliberately taken down by Scott Brown's Mom. It had been dismantled. This was vandalism. Sabotage.

Scott Brown's Mom found the orange fence rolled up on the ground. She tossed it into her car and departed in a storm of rage and recrimination. This would not be the end. This crime would not go unavenged. The police would be looking into this matter.

No doubt the fine officers of Portsmouth Police Department heard about the severed snow fence. They committed all the resources to the investigation that a crime of this severity warranted. And they must have conducted their inquires with great cunning and discretion as their presence went undetected by all.

Within the neighborhood, the case was the subject of intense speculation. Who would dare to perform this brazen deed? Who could have snuck out and struck down the dreaded fence in the dead of night? A thorough canvasing of the neighbors was conducted as well as a full forensic investigation. My son held up a thin strip of orange plastic before me. "Look Dad. This was cut. With scissors." The culprit was never identified.

The new fence was erected within the week. This fence would not be so small or flimsy. Nor would the new fences be constrained by the dimensions of the missing segment. Soon the house behind ours was wrapped end to end in a 9 foot stockade, creating the general impression of a frontier fort meant to repel Apache. But it wasn't quite as ugly as the Fuck You fence.

With the lines of demarcation so firmly established, tranquility returned to the neighborhood. We thought this would the last time we would have to concern ourselves with the Browns. But, of course it wasn't the end. It was just the beginning. 

During the winter of 2010 the nation was embroiled in a great debate about reforming the countries patchwork, expensive health care system. Contributing to that debate was a small but very vocal group of radical right-wing pseudo-revolutionaries that called themselves the Tea Party. At that time Scott Brown was a Massachusetts State Senator. Following the death of Ted Kennedy a special election was being held to determine who would fill the seat of the Lion of the Senate. Scott Brown aimed the win that seat. The Tea Party prepared to rally behind him.

At first glance, it is surprising that hard-line members of the Tea Party would make common cause with a moderate Republican like Scott Brown. The Tea Party was violently opposed to health care reform. Scott Brown has been an advocate and supporter of the Massachusetts health care reforms that had become the model for the national system. What could they possibly have in common?

That winter the Tea Party risked obsolescence. Without an electoral victory they would be forever branded an insignificant fringe movement. They were propped up by partisan media executives that hyped and magnified their every utterance. But their message was incoherent. Their numbers small. And they were seen as beholden to the paranoid ramblings of a crackpot television show host. If they could be seen as crucial to victory in Massachusetts it would catapult them to national prominence. More than anything, the Tea Party was enraged by what they saw as the systemic destruction of the barriers, carefully constructed by the Founding Fathers, between the rights of individuals and the powers of government. They turned to someone who was similarly enraged about the careful dismantling of barriers erected by fathers. They turned to Scott Brown. The Tea Party wanted victory. Scott Brown wanted revenge.

As a state senator Scott Brown's powers dissipated at the New Hampshire border. In the United States Senate he might hold the power to stop health care reform. From this mighty perch he would be able to strike our health, our pocketbook, and our ideals. His formidable will combined with the power of the Tea Party proved unstoppable. He won the election.

But would Scott Brown be too late to stop health care reform? In the weeks before the special election the reform bill had already passed the US Senate with an overwhelming majority. But Scott Brown was sure the Democratic majority would want to try and pass it through the Senate again. This time he would be waiting. With Scott Brown, the Republicans had a 41 seat super-minority. If they stood together they could not be overwhelmed. Heath care reform would be totally impossible. Because lots of people on television said so.

Panic ensued among Democrats and health care reform advocates. Suddenly the dreams of health care reform seemed to be unobtainable. The plan of Scott Brown and the Tea Party was working perfectly.

Just when it seemed that all hope was lost, a Democratic strategist discovered a little-known procedure called "reconciliation". This obscure parliamentary provision has only been used before by every single session of Congress to pass nearly every major piece of legislation in the past 30 years: including the Bush tax cuts, COBRA, and Medicare expansion. It was a bold  gambit but it might just work. They tried it. It worked. Health care reform became law. Scott Brown would not have his revenge.

Are we safe? Or is it just a matter of time before this feud changes form and the battle is joined anew? Even as I write this words, I cannot say what the future will hold. I don't know what fate awaits me, my family, or health care reform. Will we ever be able to extend a hand across the barriers that come between us? I fear there are some rifts that can never be repaired.

On the Care and Feeding for Your Tree of Liberty

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-Thomas Jefferson

The above bit of colorful phrasing first came to my attention on the day the President came to town. President Obama was in Portsmouth for a town hall meeting on health care reform. A gentleman by the name of William Kostric won himself some notoriety by showing up among the crowds of protesters and supporters carrying a sign that read "It Is Time To Water The Tree Of Liberty!" He was also openly carrying a loaded handgun. The incident occurred roughly a mile from my home and maybe 15 feet from my wife, who was there carrying a sign with rather different sentiments. Mr. Kostric caused quite a stir.

I assumed Mr. Kostric was indulging in a bit of performance art to highlight some imagined offenses against the first and second amendments to our constitution. To the best of my knowledge he faced no legal consequences. Whatever tyrannical measures have been implemented by the Obama administration, apparently bringing a loaded weapon to a public event attended by the President of the United States and making a not-very-subtle threat against his life, is still permissible.

I assumed this was the last we would hear on the subject of the of the care and feeding of the Tree of Liberty for a while. But the words of Mr. Jefferson recently reappeared on a Politico post (a site where I am now a semi-regular forum poster).

Geo1342 writes:

Thomas Jefferson has said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants". He recognized that the passion that would have to exist behind such an uprising, regardless of whether driven by intellect or ignorance, was necessary to keep the republic free -- for otherwise, lethargy in the public regarding matters of government would set in, and the Government would grow unchecked.


Today, while it is true people are making a lot of noise about the abhorrent and tyrannical behavior of our government, our representatives view it as just that -- noise. Few, if any, believe the public would rise up violently against them. And thus they are emboldened.


Is it too late? Has the Tree of Liberty already died, it's leaves just waiting for a breeze to carry them away?

This poster seems to be advocating the violent overthrow of our government. Its is generally unwise to impart too much importance to an anonymous internet post. And both sides have their lunatic fringe. But these kinds of sentiments are not hard to find. In the last year, at the local and national level, the extremists and Republican core became increasingly intertwined. An undercurrent of implied violence and revolution is now a common feature of political discussions. What does it all mean?

Perhaps the talk of violent revolution isn't meant to be taken literally. Maybe even those who speak of rising up in the face of "abhorrent and tyrannical behavior" would be disgusted and repulsed by the treasonous idea of actual violence against our elected officials. I don't think the founding fathers advocated for the murder of King George III. And we can assume that Thomas Jefferson did not mean for his bloody arboreal advice to be literally applied to democratically elected presidents of the United States, like say... Thomas Jefferson.

The authors of these sentiments are playing rhetorical dress-up, pretending to be patriots. The attempts to link their grievances to those of the founding fathers is pure artifice. They know nothing of actual tyranny, actual revolution, or actual violence. By claiming equivalence they cheapen the actions those who have fought, and those who are still fighting, for democracy and against dictatorship. They dress up their argument in innuendo and metaphor for effect and talk vaguely of "abhorrent and tyrannical behavior" but decline to offer specifics. Were they do do so, any actual listing of "grievances" and "acts of tyranny" would be laid bare as petty, and partisan, and totally unworthy of the bombast that accompanies them.

Is the talk of revolution just noise? Even if the rhetoric of violence is just rhetoric we should still be appalled by it. Why should anyone who lives in this country, shared in its opportunities, been protected by its laws, and enjoyed its freedoms tolerate an argument advocating for its destruction? What's the difference between a Muslim extremist, or left-wing extremist, or a right wing extremist who calls for for the destruction of this country and the murder of its citizens? Is it Ok to clap along until someone actually pulls a trigger? Any person, any political party, any TV station, anyone who advocates violence against our elected officials should receive our scorn. The are not entitled to call themselves patriots. With threats of violence against it, they disrespect this country, its constitution, it history, and its citizens.

Scenes from Health Care Town Hell

Last Saturday I spent a rainy afternoon attending a Health Care Town Hall, here in Portsmouth, NH. This was my chance to make my voice heard, and to participate in the great debate of our day. In the finest tradition of our republic, I and about 150 of my fellow citizens, gathered to address our Congresswoman and to grapple with the thorny question of how best to insure the future health and well-being of the people of this great nation.

Despite dire warnings, the time spent waiting to get into the event went pleasantly. There was a remarkable lack of screaming, and most of the signs seemed to be of the pre-fab, pro-reform variety. I was tapping my toes to the tunes of the local Leftist Marching Band. Everyone was on their best behavior, and my line-neighbors where in good spirits despite waiting in the rain.

After being searched and wanded and passing through several layers of security I was into the main event. Clearly Congresswoman Shea-Porter was preparing for any contingency. If things to too rowdy we would be subjected a power-point presentation consisting of the artistic works for Norman Rockwell. Fortunately, it never came to that.

As I grabbed an empty chair in the middle section, signs of division began to show. Along the sides of the room there were several photographers. The baseball-cap-equipped man seated in front of me singled out the only one with a dark complexion and demanded to know why he was taking pictures of us. A murmur of approval went up around me. I began to realize that the group I was seated in the midst of, were, perhaps, not Obama voters.

Making the most of my situation, I struck up a conversation with the gentleman next to me and asked for his thoughts on Obama's health care reforms. He was opposed. We agreed that the bill itself did not constitute a government takeover, and came to a rough consensus on the contours of the slippery slope. Still, my neighbor wasn't going to get behind the Obama plan.

"I'm a long-term strategic thinker. Always have been. Maybe this bill won't lead to a government takeover. Maybe it won't happen for another 20 or 30 years. But I won't let them take that first step."

My conversation with the long-term thinker (henceforth to be dubbed L.T.) , would turn out to be very fortuitous. He would be my Virgil, my guide throughout the madness, the key to my understanding the events that followed.

At last, Representative Shea-Porter arrived, and the event could begin. The Congresswoman had been swept into office from relative obscurity in what was probably the biggest upset in the 2006 congressional elections. She had survived a reelection rematch in 2008, but was still relatively new to the job. This was the first time I had really seen her in action.

Shea-Porter welcomed us and established some ground rules. The chance to ask questions would be established by lottery. This upset some people who seemed to think priority should come by order or appearance or ranked by belligerence. Shea-Porter had an actual uniformed boy scout draw the numbers --establishing unassailable fairness of the system.

Before the audience Q&A kicked off, the Congresswoman had some invited guests provide their testimonials. One of her guests was a local woman named Laurie McCray. Laurie told the story of trying to buy insurance for her family, which was a kind of nightmare version of my own. Laurie's family members have some "pre-existing conditions" so their insurance policy, which has an obscene deductible and so covers nothing, costs them $2400 a month. And it still doesn't include their son, who has downs syndrome.

Although we came from all sides the political spectrum, naturally, Laurie's story had a profound effect on all of us. There was a shared sense that if it was impossible for a hard-working middle-class family to even buy insurance, then the system was truly broken. Our humanity united us, and there was collective acknowledgement that something had to be done.

Naw, I'm just kidding. That crowd wasn't going to agree on anything. As Laurie's allotted 2 minutes expired there were outbursts. "Time's up!" "Next!". As the next question would indicate, the extent of our differences extended to the very purpose and nature of the event we were attending.

"I've called your office every day for weeks to find out when you were going to face your constituents, who pay your salary, at a health care town-hall meeting." he announced. "I've been waiting since 8AM" (to get into this health care town-hall meeting). "I've been waiting for my number to be called, so I can ask my question, and now my number has been called, and I'm going to ask my question!" His question... "Why are you afraid to have a health care town hall meeting?!?"

The next questioner took things further down the rabbit hole, jumping right to "This is a Nazi plan." He then stepped back, gave a little smile, looking around the room. Clearly, he was impressed with his own courage and creativity and felt it would lead to YouTube stardom. To the audience's credit, there were more groans than gasps. I watched to see if Shea-Porter would go all Barney Frank on him. She went with "I may detest what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." But her heart wasn't in it. "Nazi" has been done to death.

Judging by the boos and clapping, the room was evenly divided between reform advocates and opponents. The opponents were far more boisterous, better prepared with little speeches, and far more memorable. Advocates tended to just thank the Congresswoman, or ask a real question. I was thinking my question would be something really penetrating like: "Since the current system of ever-escalating costs is bankrupting so many citizens, businesses, states, and our federal government, and we have a vast and ever-growing number of uninsured people falling through the cracks in this failing system, do you support President Obama's modest effort to move to more rational, more competitive system, where everyone might be able to get some health insurance?" Shea-Porter indicated in her opening statement that she did support the current plan. So, I was kind of scrambling to come up with a new question.

Since incisive interlocutor didn't seem to be my role in this little drama, my major contribution was that of anti-heckler heckler. I often found myself shouting at someone who was trying to shout down someone else. My moment of triumph came when a grumpy guy jumped in, for the fourth time, with "I waited in the rain for two hours!" and was met with a chorus of "We all did!". I totally started that.

One woman said this was a socialist plan that was taking away our freedoms. She didn't specify which ones. The next speech came from someone who was going on about how there where 35 czars in the Obama administration, and why did he need so many czars? Shea-Porter actually argued with the guy about the precise number of czars there really were. This seemed a little beside the point. My seat-neighbor, L.T., seemed to find the czar argument compelling. I asked if he was aware that they weren't, actually, real czars. The czar nickname is kind of a joke. L.T. informed me that it was "the media" that called them czars. I was envisioning Glen Beck deciding to dub various bureaucrats as czars and then freaking out because there are so many government czars. It's a perfect, paranoid-delusion, feedback loop.

Apparently, one of the czars is even a communist czar. A guy named Van Jones declared himself a communist in 1992. The speaker was going on about his evil communist ideology. I wasn't familiar with the work of comrade Jones myself. Once again, I turned to L.T. for guidance. I did kind of snort in his face when L.T. informed me Van Jones is a "green jobs advisor", but L.T. took it well. I guess we were supposed to be scared that he's a communist. It seems more a comment on the sorry state of communist infiltration these days. Joseph McCarthy had a list of 200 card-carrying communists in the State Department alone. Obama just has one communist? Does he even carry his card? I think those cards are only good for 10 years.

Congresswoman Shea-Porter stayed pretty calm and patient throughout. She was asked if she had read the bill. Clearly she had. She was on a committee that helped draft it, and she was able to quote specific sections, or point out what had been removed or amended. She seemed committed to real reform without being overly dogmatic. When things got rowdy she was able to calm the room with a school-marmy "I can wait." And then she waited. It worked surprisingly well.

In the end there had been a lot of sound and fury of unclear significance. As we filed out, no doubt most of us left with the same opinion of health care reform we had come in with. We had said our bit, shouted at our congressional representative, or shouted at people shouting at our congressional representative, and participated in the democratic process.

Will we, as a country, overcome what divides us, come together and pass some real health care reform? Apparently the democrats, socialists, fascists, Nazis, czarists, and communists all support reform. If they can agree, there's hope for all of us.