Wrong Strategy at the Town Halls -- In Other Words, They Want You to Get Angry!

The Town Hall Meetings show a population angry about what the government is trying to ram down taxpayers' throats. But the strategy of angry shouting is a loser. I always advise people: "When you get mad, smile and lower your voice."

The Alinskyites love people to get angry. It's part of the "freeze" 'em strategy. ("They're an angry lynch mob who need to be controlled by reasonable government bureaucrats like us.") Wes Pruden talked about that in his editorial, Recycling the Contempt, a few days ago. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

The conservative American taxpayer is the target and liberals have us in their sights. Getting angry and allowing the situation to escalate to violence serves their purposes. Alinskyites use the Delphi technique to manipulate a perceived "consensus" for their agenda when none really exists. Read about the Delphi Technique in this article by Lynn Stuter. I'll give a brief overview of the contents with a few suggestions of my own mixed in. (Thanks to Catherine of Siena at Threshing Grain for the reminder.)

1) There's a preset outcome; the "dialogue" is just for show. The meeting is geared to give participants a sense of ownership of the result and the feeling that they were heard, but the organizers manipulate it from start to finish to get what they want. It is essential to the method that the facilitator be liked. (This obviously isn't working with the town hall meetings since many people distrust and dislike their members of Congress. However, Barack Obama, the figurehead, is still relatively popular; people want to like him.)

2) The meeting facilitator is trained to identify factions in the group and use a divide and conquer strategy. Tension and conflict are desired and used to introduce the "reasonable" compromise. The Delphi managers target members in the group who disagree, make them angry or appear ridiculous, etc. Once the group is polarized the Delphi managers become the consensus builders recommending their ideas as the compromise position.

3) Often the group is divided for discussion with Delphi members "reporting" what each group says, but conveniently leaving out or diluting opinions that differ with their goal.

"This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well­trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes 'sensible' whether such is warranted or not."

So how do you fight the Delphi Technique? You can disrupt it in a number of ways.

1) Never get mad! Smile, be charming. Don't play into their tactic of increasing tension. Bring a group who recognizes the Delphi and disperse them through the room. Meet ahead of time to plan your strategy. For example, develop questions you want answered with the goal of forcing the facilitator to respond.

2) Stay focused. Have your questions written down and be persistent in sweetly asking for an answer. Often they will rephrase or distort questions to make them negative or hostile. Correct them sweetly. Often they will try to avoid answering the question altogether by going off on a long tangent. Listen politely. When they finish say, "You didn't answer my question" and repeat it. Allies can also say, "You didn't answer her question." Be polite and persistent.

3) If you have an organized group, never congregate in the room. Delphi managers are trained to spot organized dissent and will "freeze" you out. Rather, go to them and listen to what they are saying as they "work" the room and attempt to disrupt their activities by polite questioning. Talk to other participants making observations about how the facilitator is "unresponsive" and won't address concerns. Ask whether people feel manipulated in the process. Don't accuse; put it in the form of a question.

Lynn Stuter closes her article with this question:

So why have the meetings at all if the outcome is already established? Because it is imperative to the continued well­being of the agenda that the people be facilitated into ownership of the preset outcome. If people believe the idea is theirs, they support it: If the people believe the idea is being foisted on them, they will resist. Likewise, it is imperative to the continued well­being of the agenda that the people perceive that their input counts. This scenario is being used very effectively to move meetings to a preset conclusion, effectively changing our form of government from a representative form of government in which individuals are elected to represent the people. to a 'participatory democracy' in which citizens, selected at large, are facilitated into ownership of preset outcomes, perceiving that their input resulted therein, when the reality is that the outcome was already established by people not apparent to the citizen participants.

The Delphi Technique is being used, not only at town hall meetings, but in the larger "meeting" in the press. Pelosi, Reid, the liberal talking heads, etc. are all "freezing" and "polarizing" the opposition. Note that the concerns of Americans are dismissed as misrepresentations of the plan. The very real concerns are treated as ridiculous and "fishy" and questions are never answered.

Consider just two examples - abortion and protecting the conscience rights of medical personnel. The organizers will NOT ensure that taxpayers won't be forced to fund abortion. In fact, Planned Parenthood and NARAL demand it since it's in many private insurance plans now. There is no doubt that abortion will be mandated by government insurance. By the same token, health care professionals will be forced to participate in killing children. Obama has made it clear that abortion is a centerpiece of his administration. He will not be deterred.

The American people need to fight and fight smart. "Be as wise as serpents, and as gentle as doves," says the Lord. It's a winning strategy even if we end up on the cross.