by Columbus Hecklers for a Healthy Democracy, Feb 23, 1998

The town meeting that took place in Columbus on February 18, 1998 was called "Showdown With Iraq" -- an obvious ploy to rally the American public against the nation of Iraq. It was a publicity stunt, an effort to build consensus (or appearance of consensus) to go to war. It was a pep rally that the Clinton administration, in collusion with CNN, staged in an unprecedented campaign to sell us two products that no American household needs: a war with Iraq and a media monopoly. Selling war on American TV to an international audience implies an acceptance by the American public for the war, marginalizing and alienating those who may disagree. They expected silence from this cross-section of the American public -- a silence they could package and sell on the international marketplace as American public complicity to the murder of Iraqi people. This is unacceptable.

This so-called town meeting was not democratic or representative. Those on the lower level of the arena, those who were visible, were hand picked and were the only ones who could submit questions for consideration and the pre-screening process. Places please everyone: if it looks like a TV studio set, they're probably trying to sell you something you don't want. With the skill of a psychoanalyst asking "How do you feel about that?" (already having made a diagnosis) Madeleine Albright rose with confidence and grace to address the audience. Her part had been well scripted, as the top public relations advisors in the country had worked extensively on this event. She delivered -- she had the power to dispel any demons that might arise in the minds of her audience. What she did not know is that the fears and concerns of the public are not so easily banished with glamour and doublet.

The administration was surely not naive enough to believe that this town meeting would change our minds about the war. It was their intention to portray a picture of public support so strong that it would marginalize dissent. The purpose of this publicity stunt was not to convince a cross section of middle American society to support the war, it was to convince the rest of the world that middle America already did support it. The administration/media team expected to accomplish this by our silence, expected us to politely abstain from expressing ourselves unless we did so within the pre-set format. What we found, and what was not exposed to the international community, was that the authorized format left no room for dissent.

Even at the metal detector point, the detection and security of ideas was of the highest priority. People entering the arena who were not conservatively dressed were targeted and pulled aside. Anti-war stickers were removed from their clothing, T-shirts were read, removed and discarded if they contained political content. One woman was required to strip to her bra and another woman was left topless during the security check. The "No War" banner so prominently shown in the media was not allowed in; it had to be smuggled in under a conservatively dressed heckler's skirt.

The town meeting was not designed to be democracy in action. It was a setup. They counted on our respect for authority and convention to save them from a genuine dialogue and airing of local concerns. They counted on the intimidation factor of uniformed officials who had already shown their commitment to the suppression of ideas at the door. What they could not understand was that tactics used to produce consumers of breakfast cereal do not work to produce consumers of mass-manufactured, Clinton-brand warfare. Americans, the international community, and the Columbus hecklers, take foreign policy decisions much more seriously.

So what happened during the commercials? What did CNN and the administration, in their infinite wisdom, decide was not "good (enough) television"? When Rick Theis tried to use the public microphone to make his statement near the beginning of the question period, CNN cut to a ten-minute commercial break while he was physically manhandled off-stage and out the door. The media reported that Theis was "led away" and later "allowed" back in to the arena to say his piece. They did not show the impassioned cries of the hecklers chanting "LET HIM SPEAK" as Theis was dragged away. Nor did they reveal to anyone, as far as we have seen, that bringing him back in and allowing him to speak was a direct concession to the demands of the hecklers. Neither was Jon Strange, a pre-screened questioner in the section of audience not allowed to speak -- permitting his question was another concession to those who threatened to upset the delicate balance of this carefully planned public relations campaign. This was not democracy granted, this was democracy taken, in the finest American tradition.

Why were concessions made to the hecklers? Additional concessions included a meeting between the hecklers and Madam Albright, and a promise to Jon Strange for a "50 minute discussion" with Madam Albright. We were, predictably, stood up. At the time, we saw these bargaining chips as the desperate attempt of a flailing public relations committee to save face when confronted with discontent and an unexpected demand for democratic process.

The TV cameras filmed the arrest of Joshua Paulson who was charged with criminal trespass for refusing to rise from his seat when asked. But where were those cameras when T.J. Nesser was forcibly removed and searched in the hallway (indicating to us that he was under arrest)? Where were the cameras when two hecklers attempted to legally and respectfully observe this "arrest" and were threatened with arrest themselves and driven out of the building? Where were the cameras when two other hecklers were told they would have an opportunity to confer with a police guard and then were forcibly thrust out the door? Where were you, CNN? It is no wonder the administration insisted on a hearing closed to all other media -- media who may have been more responsible to their viewers and to the truth.

Once the "12" discontents established a forum for dissent, it was taken up with zeal all over the arena. There were pockets of unplanned disruption: once the right to disagree had been established, it erupted spontaneously throughout the town meeting. This was not an isolated example of disruptive behavior. This was democracy by process and example. This example was so eagerly followed that it became an unstoppable force that was conceded to. It may have been a good day for democracy but it was not a good day for the Clinton administration.

What we did was by its very nature a radical act, which was the only effective means of expression available to us. That in seizing this opportunity we sacrificed "politeness" was of no consequence to us at the time. Since this "event," one of the main media focuses has been on the method of delivery rather than the message itself. The fact that non-violent disruptive vocalization has been of such concern to the American media at a time when we are at the brink of war has disgusted us. It seems that state sanctioned murder of innocents has come in second place to rudeness as a social sin.

Our immediate motivation for expressing our outrage against the war is simply that we were outraged. The surprise at our expression is bewildering to us.

What made it natural to speak our truth was simply that we do not have respect for illegitimate authority. We will not be polite to those who take the lives of others into their hands and choose to sacrifice those lives. It is not merely that we believe that an unethical decision has been made; we question the legitimacy of American heads of state to make those decisions at all. These decisions must be made by those who will be most affected, or by their freely chosen agents. The Clinton administration has not been granted this authority by those who will be most affected by the bombing of Iraq: the citizenry of Iraq and their neighbors. There may be things worth dying for, but the decision to do so should be a personal one. The critical reason we oppose these bombings is that the people who will be affected most by them don't want them.

Generally, who is it that heckles? Well, of course, it's the audience. But wait -- this was supposed to be a town hall meeting. You don't have an audience in a town hall meeting, you have participants. Unless this was not a democratic town meeting, we were participating! We are not interested in spectator democracy. We will not be shushed by three of the most powerful people in the country, nor by an administration with almost unlimited access to the media. We will not be labeled anti-democratic for our 18-minute statement to the most privileged voices in society. Our statement was an honest representation of our opinions, albeit unwelcome. What they heard was our anguish and shame at these policy decisions, and our frustration that our dissent, our refusal to support the bombing of Iraqi people, has no reasonably effective venue for polite expression. The score was not settled in that arena. After the broadcast, we returned to our lives as opposed to the war as ever. After the broadcast, the administration returned to their war council and operation Desert Thunder. How, Madam Albright, are those dissenting views to be expressed? Where and when, Mr. President? And truly: how effective are those avenues? Outside the arena, off camera, there are many members of our public, the American democracy, heartsick at the thought of Iraqi people killed by our own country.

We consider our action a complete success and we greatly appreciate the support we have received as well as the continuing discussion of the meaning of fairness and self-determination, of speech and democracy in the media and our community. We are overjoyed that the opposition to the bombing of Iraq has been brought to the table and is being discussed and that acts of dissent are being practiced on an international level. Individuals standing up and speaking out for what they believe is all too rare and it is heartwarming to see others around the world seizing opportunities to have their say, rude or otherwise.

The White House is reporting conflicting statements to the media. On the one hand, they are pointing to our radical action as democracy at work. At the same time, they are stating that a disaster like this town meeting will never be "allowed" to happen again. What is it, Mr. President, democracy or disaster? And to what lengths are you willing to go to make sure that dissent never happens again? Somehow, we don't think those measures will be enough.

The message is loud and clear: The people of the world do not wish to see the Iraqi people pay with their lives for the improprieties of the governments of the world. We must remember that this is not an argument with the Iraqi people but with their government. Now it is up to us as the citizens of the world to do something about it.

More Iraq Crisis Articles
Back to Front Page