"Well said, Rep. Scott Taylor (R-Va.)!" However, I do think that you, and the rest of your Congressional colleagues, have been confronted with the very-new fact that "your role, as Members of the US Congress, has just now become a great deal more complicated."

No matter what you might personally feel about "internet-based groups such as Indivisible™," the simple fact of the matter is that, from now on, "you will face them."

But, do not be surprised, and do not feel ill-used: "they are, in fact, 'representative of your district!'"

... and therefore, "it is 'your job'(!)" to be fully-prepared to deal with all of them!

• "Yes, these are 'your customers.' These are, in fact, "the people who hired you."
• Yes, [almost ...] every single one of their complaints are legitimate.
• Yes, it is your job to 'take it.'" (Whoever said that 'politics' was easy?!)
• But, it is especially "your job" to turn their discontent into positive action!
• (Huh? You're not yet sure how to do that? Welcome to the job!)

Pragmatically speaking, you are going to need to find a way to turn their angry protests into change-effecting conversation that will in turn lead to consensus. But I will freely acknowledge that you might (as yet ...) have no experience whatsoever in doing that sort of thing.

I suggest, therefore, that you learn ... and that you do so very quickly. Because, "your job description has changed." Forever. "Welcome to the 21st Century!" From now on, you should quite-frankly expect your constituents bosses to be holding your feet to the flame. (And if you find that you just can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Go ahead, take your retirement, and be gone ...)

If you're gonna succeed in this job, you're gonna have to master the fine art of: "diplomacy, under fire."

That is my Congressman you're talking about (and, frankly, you are welcome to him).

My local rag had a good editorial about this today. http://pilotonline.com/opinion/edito...a37efc698.html

I will give him credit for this: He didn't run away from his town hall meetings as many of his fellows have done.

Oh, I think that Members of Congress generally are serious about what they do ... but they become very complacent and very insulated. They're used to being treated with deference. (And to a certain extent, they should be: being a Member of Congress is a very high honor.)

But – for whatever reason – the constituency is now fully awake. "Hiring the executive President that they did" is only the start. The public isn't a bunch of zombies anymore. ("Brainnnzzz-z-z-zz!")

And what these Members are now going to have to master the art of doing ... is to harness that anger, turn it towards creating a positive course to a solution, and then implement that solution and sell the public on it. (And, the media, which really just wants a headline and doesn't give a damn if you are that headline.)

As Billy Joel observed in his song, Angry Young Man, it's very easy to "be angry," but in the end it doesn't do any good. It is much, much harder to implement a solution that works and to successfully deploy it. Still, I think it's a very good thing if Members of Congress go into their workplace with a lot more awareness of the impact of what they are doing. Make them work in a very hot kitchen. They'll do better work, and they'll do it faster.

I think that part of the issue is that Taylor and his fellows isolate themselves in a bubble of news and views that agrees with their preconceptions. Consequently, when they confront large groups of persons who disagree with them, they are taken aback and resort to fables as a defense against the cognitive dissonance.

I will give Taylor this: He attended all three of his scheduled town halls and did not try to squelch persons who disagreed with him; he allowed discourse to be discoursed. I still wouldn't vote for him on a bet, but I can respect him for how he conducted himself at those gatherings.

As an aside, I [get a kick out of|am mystified by] persons who write letters to the editor of my local rag accusing it of being liberal (there have been numerous such letters this week). The rag is relentlessly moderate and has been since I was a little one. It appears that their definition of "liberal" is "not as far right as us."

My local rag got its reputation for being "liberal" by being the only newspaper in Virginia to oppose Massive Resistance. (You can draw your own conclusions of what that says about its critics definition of "liberal.")

Just some musings.

Could someone please tell us ignorant Brits what this thread is all about?

"It's"? What? "they're"? Who? I feel more and more that these American political threads are taking place in an echo chamber.

This should give you plenty of reading material.

The short version is that it's a relatively recent tradition that US Congresscritters during extended recesses hold open meetings for constituents. These are commonly referred to as "town halls," though they are not town halls in any sense related to municipal governance.

During the February recess (which can be recognized by the fact that Congresscritters are doing nothing in their districts, as opposed to doing nothing in Washington, D. C.), these meetings have not been going well for some Congresscritters, particularly those who have committed to the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Some have ducked out of, restricted attendance to, or cancelled these meetings because they do not want to converse with or be confronted by constituents opposed to their points of view.

In the US, this is referred to as "representative government."

Yes, I gathered that these were what we would call constituency open meetings. But I had no idea who was actually protesting and who was trying to talk them down or ignore them.

It's good that there is real political debate in America now. It's good to hear actual poor people who are affected by the proposed repeal of Obamacare having their say, and not just rich liberals who claim to speak for the poor but are really just using them to feed their own political ambitions.

So far Trump and the Republicans have had the monopoly of claiming to represent angry and alienated voters. Let's hear it for the other side too and maybe we'll get some real democracy!

Yawwn.
I'm sick to bloody death of having to hear about US politics. 12 months of incomprehensible voting shenanigans to elect ... who cares ???.

Like they say, you get the politicians you deserve.

I'm not only sick of U. S. politics today.

I'm frightened by them.

But, apart from too many people not seeing voting as a necessary civic duty, what has the US done to deserve the choice they had?

Voted for them.
Not stood againsted them.