“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

