“T
his is what democracy
is all about,” remarked
my
representative,
Dave Trott (R–Mich.), to a room
crowded full of constituents, many
of
whom
had
just
repeatedly
chanted
“shame” in response to
one of his statements. In
many ways, this town
hall was a microcosm of
a larger conflict between
Republican congressmen
and
their
alienated
constituents that has
been happening across
the United States since
Trump’s inauguration.
Trott was elected to
represent the Republican-leaning
and
probably
gerrymandered
District 11 in 2014, and this recent
town hall was his first since 2015.
Since Trump has taken office,
this perceived lack of community
engagement has angered many of
Trott’s constituents, particularly
liberals. Some were even turned
away from his office by police,
leaving them unable to confront
Trott with their concerns and fears
about his support for Trump.
Soon, the negative coverage
revolving around his absence,
including “Trott-less town halls”
where protesters brought a live
chicken to the podium in Trott’s
absence, were too much to bear.
Trott finally held a town hall,
at 8 a.m. the Saturday after St.
Patrick’s Day.
The timing of the town hall
seemed designed to bring the
smallest number of people possible,
but not even the snowy weather
was an effective deterrent. About
1,000 people came to the town hall,
some to voice support, but most to
share their rage. The room was too
small to fit most of the protesters
who came to attend, leaving
hundreds outside in the cold.
The town hall itself was full
of anger and frustration. Many
people screamed, chanted and
raised red cards whenever Trott
said something they disagreed
with. Unsurprisingly, this was
not conducive to a productive
conversation.
It’s easy to understand the
rage these people felt. Politics
can make the average citizen
feel impotent and incapable of
making a difference, which can be
particularly scary when policies
have the power to deprive them
of their health care and ruin their
environment.
Politics
can
be
deeply personal, and emotions are
often unavoidable during political
discussions. This can be amplified
when your representative doesn’t
represent your views and is
unwilling to engage
you.
Trott guaranteed
this response when
he avoided having a
town hall for so long;
he let his frustrated
constituents brew in
their own rage for
weeks before they
got a chance to air
their concerns.
Prior to the town
hall,
Trott
stated,
“If the purpose of the ‘new’
town hall is to be disruptive
and draw attention to people’s
concerns over the replacement
for the Affordable Care Act or
President Trump’s immigration
policies, I don’t know that a town
hall is going to be particularly
productive.”
This
gives
away
Trott’s
mindset: He thinks he knows
that his opinions are right, and no
matter what his constituents say,
he will not change his opinions.
Furthermore, he fails to recognize
the importance of conveying
his message to his constituents.
Trott’s insistence on treating
their demands for a town hall as
a chore, rather than his absolutely
essential civic duty, doomed the
town hall from the beginning.
Representatives
and
their
constituents who have different
opinions shouldn’t just “agree to
disagree” when it comes to policy
— the stakes are too high to avoid
considering opposing views. Trott
needs to listen to his constituents
of all political leanings, and he
must
answer
their
questions
earnestly and honestly. This is hard
to do, though, when the only reason
you’re having a town hall is because
you’ve been publicly shamed into
having one. It doesn’t come across
as particularly genuine.
All of this isn’t to say, though,
that the behavior of the town hall
attendees was acceptable. Trott
has real legislative power, and the
protesters dashed any chance they
had of influencing how he wields
that power when they chose to
angrily yell over his words. This
pattern, unfortunately, has been
playing out across the country as
more and more liberal activists
take to town halls.
Is the point of attending these
town halls to make your legislator
think critically about their political
beliefs and about how their votes
will affect their constituents? Or is
it to shame them? If the goal is to be
constructive and make a difference,
people need to attend these town
halls and make a genuine effort to
engage, not just yell.
This, of course, still won’t
make a difference in the world
if the legislator in question isn’t
willing to listen with an open mind
and answer questions earnestly
and honestly. Legislators can’t
just go through the motions of a
town hall to avoid being publicly
ridiculed.
Democracy
requires
an open exchange of ideas and
representatives who actually care
about all of their constituents, not
just the ones who voted for them.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) is
an example of how effective this
exchange of ideas can be. Cotton,
after much public pressure, hosted
a town hall that was similarly
raucous. His constituents were
equally angry, but they were able
to ultimately achieve a dialogue.
Cotton
was
confronted
with
the realities of how health care
reform would affect some of his
constituents,
and
he
listened
carefully to their concerns. Instead
of treating the town hall as a chore
to get over with, Cotton extended
the event by 30 minutes.
Although the direct effect of
the town hall is difficult to gauge,
Cotton did end up opposing
the American Health Care Act.
Cotton’s statement on the bill said
it did “little to address the core
problem of Obamacare: rising
premiums and deductibles, which
are making insurance unaffordable
for too many Arkansans.” To me,
this language suggests that Cotton
really did listen to his constituents
and take their concerns to heart.
I hope that Trott learns from
Cotton and other legislators who
are making an effort to engage
with their constituents. If Trott
really cares about the people
he represents, he needs to hold
another town hall, and actually
make an effort this time.
I also hope that those attending
the town hall work to contain their
anger and articulately register
their concerns with him. That is,
after all, how minds get changed
and “what democracy is all about.”
M
y dad loves to talk to
taxi drivers. When
family trips would
take us to big cities, sitting in
the back of a taxi was more like
sitting in a living
room, where small
talk easily turned to
real talk. My parents
have long taught me
the
importance
of
talking
to
people,
showing them respect
by
being
curious
about
their
lives,
rather
than
being
silent. With every taxi
driver, my dad would
ask them where they’re from,
and that simple question would
explode into a conversation about
their journey, a journey parallel
to our own, yet one which had
now suddenly and spectacularly
intersected with ours.
While my dad would be
beaming
and
thoroughly
invested in these conversations,
I would feel the opposite.
My
cheeks
would
become
hot, my hands clammy as I
sat, embarrassed of my dad’s
eagerness to talk to the people
who were driving us around.
I would sink lower and lower
in my seat or stare intently out
the window in an effort to avoid
the conversation. Conversations
would include personal stories
about their family and their
aspirations,
and
delve
into
their opinions on everything
happening in the world outside
the yellow cab. Yet, as I grew
older, the embarrassment of
these situations faded. In its
place was curiosity. I began to
listen. And now, like father like
daughter, I talk to my driver.
And as technology progressed
and markets was changed, the
taxi driver is replaced with an
Uber driver.
Despite recent controversies,
Uber is still alive and well. I would
like to point out now that this is
not a praise for Uber, but rather, a
praise for what ride-hailing apps
of the kind have inadvertently
created: a new environment, ripe
for human connection.
On a campus like the University
of Michigan’s, Uber is a life saver
when the journey is
too cold, too late, too
far or, more often, all
of the above. I imagine
all of you have, at
some point, sat in
the back of an Uber,
both alone and with
friends.
Yet,
while
being an innovative
and
efficient
business to make our
lives easier, it has
simultaneously and unknowingly
given us the opportunity to
become more connected.
Last year, before I had the
luxury of my 2003 Acura on
campus, Uber-ing to the Detroit
Metro Airport was frequent.
During one of the many 35-minute
trips to the airport, I had a
conversation I’d never forget. He
was a young, middle-aged Iraqi
immigrant from Baghdad. What
began with the usual “where
are you from” question turned
into him sharing his experience
living in Baghdad in 2003 amid a
tumultuous war.
Ironically, earlier that week I
had been learning about post-9/11
America and the Iraq invasion of
2003 in my “20th Century Wars”
lecture. Our conversation about
his experience living and leaving
a war-torn state was unnerving.
Needless to say, 35 minutes was
not a long time, but it was enough
time. Enough to make me think,
truly think, in a way I couldn’t by
sitting in a lecture hall.
I have learned more in these
short minutes, these brief journeys
with strangers, than you would
believe. It has made me open-
minded and empathetic and altered
my perspective on issues. Now, this
isn’t to say every experience has
been like this, no. But this type of
dialogue between two people who
lead completely different lives is
important. Now I make an effort to
have a conversation with my Uber
drivers. Some don’t go anywhere,
and some go everywhere. The
notes section on my iPhone is
filled with leftovers from my
Uber conversations — from song
recommendations
to
column
ideas, each a tid-bit of an exchange
with
a
stranger.
Sometimes
the
conversations
are
funny,
sometimes they are non-existent
and sometimes they change you.
You may think I’m glorifying
Uber, which, at its core, is a
business venture aiming to make
money. But it’s not the Uber
aspect that’s important; rather,
it’s the idea of talking to people
outside of our bubbles, outside of
our networks, who are different
and who are similar. Everyone
has a story. But understanding
someone
else’s
experience,
listening and reaching out to their
stories can create empathy and
change
perspectives.
Starting
conversations,
especially
the
unlikely ones, can be the pins that
burst the comfortable Michigan
bubbles we live in. And that is
more important now than ever.
Certain words have been used
more and more these days, not
just nationally, but on our own
campus as well — xenophobia,
diversity, racism, inclusion, etc.
Today’s political climate has
been doused in assumptions,
judgement and a basic lack of
understanding of those around us.
News headlines and rhetoric from
certain politicians and groups
show a polarizing atmosphere
where being different is no
longer met with acceptance but
wariness and fear. But, much of
this polarization is in our hands.
Understanding someone’s point
of view, listening to an experience
that is not your own and having
unlikely conversations in unlikely
places (like the back of an Uber)
is what can start to bridge gaps.
Talk to people, listen to people —
it makes all the difference.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Wednesday, April 5, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Talking to strangers
ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY | COLUMN
What democracy is all about
MARY KATE WINN | COLUMN
Mary Kate Winn can be reached at
winnm@umich.edu.
Anu Roy-Chaudhury can be reached
at anuroy@umich.edu.
MARY KATE
WINN
JOE IOVINO | CONTACT JOE AT JIOVINO@UMICH.EDU
I
n my elementary computer
programming
class,
I
watched a lecture led by a
female undergraduate computer
science student about implicit
gender bias. Looking back on it, I
think it is a real shame
that Bill O’Reilly and
Vice President Mike
Pence didn’t get to see
it too. I’m not a fan of
either one of them, but
I could put my feelings
aside if it meant that
they
could
finally
learn
something
about women.
Good
old
Bill
O’Reilly! Back at it
again, saying something he will
later regret. During an episode
of “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday,
instead of going on a tirade about
U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters’s (D–
Calif.) known disapproval of
Trump, or liberals in general, he
shifted his focus to an unexpected
topic: Waters’s hair. Poor O’Reilly
couldn’t focus on what she said
because he “was looking at the
James Brown wig.”
Politics can be a heavy subject
and every once in a while we need
some comic relief, but O’Reilly’s
comments weren’t funny, and they
weren’t even original. He’s just
putting his own spin on the “ape
in heels” insult lobbed at Michelle
Obama, copying what trolls did
in 2012 to Gabby Douglas, and
what Giuliana Rancic did in
2015 when she said Zendaya’s
dreadlocks made it likely the
pop star smelled like weed. On
the few occasions we see Black
women in positions of power
and influence, let’s not follow
the example set by people like
O’Reilly and Rancic of reducing
these women to stereotypes.
Instead of making comments
that blend racism and sexism
into one awful little package,
let’s have conversations that are
meaningful, conversations that
focus on the achievements of
these women and how to give
underrepresented groups a seat at
the table.
But no one can be
surprised by O’Reilly’s
comments — they just
verbalize what many
already know: Racism
and
discrimination
come
in
many
different forms, from
obvious
signs
like
the Confederate flag
to snide comments
passed off as a “jest”
in
O’Reilly’s
case.
Despite the work these women
do, they are still often evaluated
in terms of their looks. These
comments may not seem like a big
deal to many, but our language
when referring to women reflects
the values of our society. If we
only focus on how women look,
then we aren’t placing value on
their ideas, intelligence and other
important characteristics. There’s
no way we can effectively solve
the problems around us if, instead
of being invited to contribute to
discussions of politics, business
and science, half of the population
is being rated on their looks.
O’Reilly “just couldn’t get by
it.” Well you better “get by it,”
Mr. O’Reilly. Maybe you forgot
but you’re not the host of a
beauty pageant. Rep. Waters is
not walking down a runway in
a sparkly dress so that you can
judge her — she has more pressing
concerns than how her hair looks
and what your opinion about it is.
She’s “going to stay on the issues”
and her hair isn’t one of them.
Pence has a similar problem.
According to The Washington
Post, Pence states that he, “never
eats alone with a woman other
than his wife and that he won’t
attend events featuring alcohol
without her by his side, either.”
This may seem like a sweet
gesture, but he didn’t sit and stop
to think how unprofessional it is
and what the implications of this
patronizing practice can be. I’m
sure many of his employees are
dying to get any chance to speak
with him one-on-one, and his
acts clearly favor men. His male
employees have the opportunity
to communicate with him and
work with him during a meal, but
this is not extended to his female
employees. Also, this practice
gives me the sense that he thinks
meeting a woman — besides
his wife — in these settings is
scandalous because women are
dangerous seductresses.
Both of these situations are
attempts to shut women out of
positions of power. Through
childish insults, avoiding their
presence in Pence’s case and
other strategies, women are being
silenced in the workplace and in
society as a whole.
In case O’Reilly and Pence
didn’t get the hint from Rep.
Waters, this will not fly. Like
Waters,
women
“cannot
be
intimidated” and “cannot be
undermined.” They are also more
than their appearance and not
something to be pushed aside
to make room for men. I know
O’Reilly and Pence probably have
a hard time accepting this and
retiring their archaic ideas, but
they’re going to need to get over
it. These attitudes won’t go away
overnight, but if O’Reilly, Pence
and all of us make a conscious
effort to question why we think
the way we do, we won’t have
to hear or deal with so much
stereotypical nonsense.
More than appearances
COREY DULIN | COLUMN
Corey Dulin can be reached at
cydulin@umich.edu.
APPLY TO BE A COLUMNIST OR CARTOONIST
Have opinions? Love to write? Draw? Apply as a
cartoonists or columnist for the Spring/Summer!
Visit http://bit.ly/2o0oVGV to find out more about
where you might fit in this summer.
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Anurima Kumar
Ibrahim Ijaz
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
ANU ROY-
CHAUDHURY
COREY
DULIN