Give the Tea Party credit

The Great Payson Candidate Protection Program

The Tea Party deserves credit for one thing: they understand that controlling the message is half the battle.

Last night they hosted what was advertised as a public candidate forum at Ponderosa Bible Church. Calling it a "public forum" is a little like calling a carnival game a scientific experiment. Everyone knows how it's supposed to turn out before it begins.

The first thing attendees saw was a large display promoting the Tea Party favorites. If you didn't know better, you might have thought you had wandered into campaign headquarters rather than a community event. The other candidates seemed to receive roughly the same amount of attention as a potted plant in the corner.

Then there was security.

The Tea Party apparently anticipated a dangerous uprising by the radical forces of senior citizens armed with canes, walkers, and bifocals. Sheriff's deputies were present. Volunteers in bright orange vests patrolled the room. Looking around at the crowd, the greatest immediate threat appeared to be someone losing control of a mobility scooter.

The real security, however, was built into the format.

Questions had to be submitted in advance and screened before being asked. This ensured that no candidate would be exposed to anything hazardous, such as an unexpected question.

The result was a parade of safe, predictable inquiries that produced safe, predictable answers. Every candidate loved the town. Every candidate supported fiscal responsibility. Every candidate favored listening to citizens. Had someone asked whether puppies are good, I suspect there would have been unanimous agreement.

The most entertaining performance came when candidates spoke about accountability and listening to voters. Hearing politicians praise open communication while standing inside a tightly controlled question-filtering operation requires a certain appreciation for irony.

I had hoped to distribute a simple handout asking candidates to answer questions directly from the audience. Not hostile questions. Not trick questions. Just questions from actual voters.

That idea was apparently considered too dangerous.

I was informed that distributing such a handout would not be permitted. The possibility that citizens might ask unscripted questions was treated with roughly the same level of concern usually reserved for an electrical fire.

The message was unmistakable: voters could listen, voters could clap, voters could go home. What voters could not do was participate.

Afterward, I again attempted to ask about previous efforts to defund the library over claims of "pornography." Once again, meaningful discussion proved surprisingly difficult to obtain. It is remarkable how often people who claim to welcome debate suddenly discover pressing appointments when specific questions arise.

The evening provided little new information about the candidates. We learned that everyone loves Payson. We learned that nobody wants bankruptcy. We learned that puppies remain popular.

What we did not learn is how these candidates perform when confronted with a challenging question from an informed citizen.

That is the purpose of a real forum.

Democracy is messy. Democracy is unscripted. Democracy involves citizens asking questions that make politicians uncomfortable.

What occurred last night was not democracy at its finest.

It was candidate bubble wrap.

And judging by the precautions taken, the organizers were terrified that an unscripted question might puncture it.