The hypocrisy of political parties is never so evident as it is when they speak out about something that they once condemned or did themselves.  The recent surge of emotion and political interest at legislators’ town hall meetings, normally a boring gathering of a handful of constituents, is a shining example of the switch in attitudes in both the Republican and Democrat parties.

When anti-war protesters disrupted speeches or Congressional testimony, Republicans, by and large, cast them as either whackos or professional agitators who were being financed and encouraged to organizations who seem to exist solely to oppose George W Bush or the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.   Currently, many Republicans welcome the chants and protests as signs of discontent over President Obama’s  spending and policy visions.

  (Note: Personally, I apply a bit of nuance to differentiating those protesting war and those protesting a political figure.  It is well within the rights of citizens to do either, regardless of the constructive impact of either.  I part ways a bit on protesting wars.  I prefer that robust discussion and debate happen prior to a nation and her army get committed to the most destructive and debilitating of tasks.  To do so with troops in the field is not treasonous, but those who do so must realize that their actions do impact the morale of soldiers, regardless of how much they claim to support them.  It is the equivalent of booing at a sporting event. The individual athlete may or may not be affected by it but it is certainly less encouraging than being cheered.)

Likewise, Democrats who not long ago not only encouraged dissent but frequently called it the highest form of patriotism, citing Howard Zinn’s (or Thomas Jefferson, if you prefer).  As the faces of those who protested changed, many leading Democrats have labeled town hall participants (as they did the Tea Party attendants) as malcontents, rubes, gun-toting nutjobs or criticized conservative group’s efforts to organize them, apparently forgetting how much liberal organizations did much the same thing during the Bush years.

Here is my take.

 Participants in town hall meetings should be courteous and civil. Passion is fine as long as it does not reflect poorly on the speaker, thus undermining his point or cause, nor should it disrupt the event or inhibit others from speaking.   Booing and cheering and making speeches is for sports crowds and debaters.  Concerned citizens should adopt what I was told in the Army when giving briefings: be brief, be brilliant, be gone.

Personally, I would not bring a firearm to a demonstration, much less one that was near a presidential event, but I can see the merit of someone making a political point by exercising his right to carry one openly.  While guns can induce fear in some, the trepidation it causes is not so much a commentary on the owner as it is on those who are so unfamiliar with firearms.  We rightly criticize people who fear people who are ethnically different than them and do not understand and we should also criticize those who are so opposed to an device about which they know very little about.

Republicans should be very careful about how much they get into bed with unruly town hall participants.  While their frustration level is indicative of legitimate gripes with Congress’ spending habits and pending bills, shrill voices and uninformed voices will add little to the debate and will ultimately be put in an unfavorable light by the visual media.

As for Democrats, they are on thin ice denouncing the rowdy crowds. Not only do they come off as hypocrites but they run the risk of misinterpreting that chorus of discontent as the vocal few.  While some are no doubt professional activists or individuals far outside the mainstream,  I think they are indicative of a growing concern over massive spending during the worst possible time to conduct such spending.   Democrats should realize that many of these people who are taking time out of their lives to attend a political event (itself somewhat, shall we say, un-American) are probably the people that will make the difference in the next Congressional and presidential elections.

 Finally, for the administration I would only advise the President to take heed of what is going on in these town halls.  Acknowledge that the very fact that people are turning out in large numbers for these events is a sign that people are troubled.  Complaining about misinformation is legitimate but a waste of time. In all the speeches and town halls, President Obama has done very little to define what is ultimately a complex problem.  And it is not necessarily his fault just for the fact that there is no true “Obama Health Care” because it is a Frankenstein of sorts, a conglomeration of disparate and enormous bills in two Houses.  How does one inform about and define something which does not really exist?

 I am reminded of comments of both one of my college economics professors and my favorite math teachers in high school.  The former reminded us that, “The market is never wrong.”  You can complain until you are blue in the face that a product is good, or should sell well, or has a certain value but it is all pissing in the wind.  Either the timing is wrong, the product is wrong or the marketing is wrong but the market is not the problem.  Mr Goss, my math teacher frequently said, in a slyly self deprecating way, “If the student has failed to learn, the teacher has failed to teach.”