Yesterday my wife and I braved the heat and sun to stand in line for over an hour for a chance to participate in Congressman Martin Heinrich’s town hall. The line outside the University of New Mexico Continuing Education Center snaked around and around the parking lot. We frequently heard perplexed voices asking, “Where is the end of the line?”

I was surprised to observe that the preponderance of signs appeared to support a public option for health care. I’ve grown accustomed to seeing mass media images and other coverage that give the impression that a vast majority violently oppose a public option. Seeing it first hand made it clear that such representations may be wildly misleading. It is true that Albuquerque has a relatively strong liberal base, but that is nearly matched by a strong conservative and libertarian presence. This is, after all, the same population that kept Pete Dominici and Heather Wilson, both right-of-center Republicans, in office for many years.

While inching along in the line, we had a pleasant, civil conversation with a woman who holds a view that differs from ours regarding what health care in the U.S. should be like. Behind us, another woman, claiming to be an experienced Republican policy analyst, an attorney, and a woman I recognized as a former fund raiser for former congresswoman Heather Wilson, participated in another civil conversation. The attorney raised several points refuting right-wing media misrepresentation of the public option concept. The Republican ladies raised no direct challenges, but one repeated a form of the much abused slippery slope argument — the logical fallacy that any small step sets in motion an inexorable, deterministic chain of events that results in an unavoidable extreme outcome. The illogical implication to which the woman was alluding was the much-repeated baseless claim that if any form of public option were included, the nation would fall over a precipice to become an absolute socialist state (in which no form of private ownership, commerce, or self-determination would be tolerated and individuals would have zero say in their own care and end-of-life decisions). This rhetorical tactic also employs the false dilemma fallacy, in which two (sometimes three) discrete states are presented as the only possible alternatives, when such a claim is not substantiated by relevant, verifiable facts.

As we slowly wound around closer to the door, discussion turned to our odds of getting inside. A sweaty, fair-skinned young fellow in a black suit came around a couple of times to provide updates on how many of those ahead of us had made it into the facility. The last time he came by, he said the main room was filled and the overflow room was now filling. There still appeared to be several hundred people ahead of us, and behind. Once we finally arrived near the entrance, the guards were permitting only a few people at a time to enter, based on the overflow room approaching the fire marshal’s maximum stated capacity. After calling for one final unaccompanied person, a guard allowed the woman behind us to enter, and then told us, “That’s it. No more room. Sorry.”

I turned to Deb and said, “Well, at least we tried.” Deb said, “Can you believe it?” We both were smiling at the irony of the situation. A cameraman for Albuquerque’s channel 7 asked if we minded answering a few questions. I said, “Okay. Why not.” As he was bringing his shoulder camera up to our faces, the guard came back out and said to me, “We have one more seat. Does one of you want to come in?” I told Deb to go in, that I would find a shady spot to wait. She insisted I go. Not wanting to draw out the moment, I said, “Alright,” and darted inside. My cargo pants’ pockets were filled with our cell phones (Deb had to leave her purse in the car), a packet of tissues (the pollen count was moderately high), my large water bottle, keys, a pen, and other necessities. I had to empty everything to pass through the xray machine. On the other side, the guard said, “Sir, your wife asked me to bring her your car keys and her cell phone.” In my haste, I had forgotten to leave those for her. As I was handing them over, another guard escorted Deb inside and said, “She can come too. There’s another seat.” As it turned out, we were the last two people allowed inside.

Throughout the 90-minute town hall, the moderator drew written questions from a bin, in batches of five at a time, and then called on each submitter to stand and ask his or her question. Each was given two minutes. Only questions submitted in the main room were included in the bin. I was pleased that most of the questioners actually asked the questions they had written and permitted the congressman and his panel (a pro-public-option emergency room doctor, an anti-option doctor, and an anti-option libertarian) to respond to the questioner and to each other.

There were three or four right-wing agitators who attempted to derail the civil conversation, but their influence was minor, due to the largely effective format and the appropriate presence of law enforcement officers who were prepared to eject disruptors. A couple of disingenuous questioners, both anti-public-option, used their moment at the microphone to yell accusations and epithets and otherwise generally discredit themselves, rather than to ask sincere, meaningful questions.

I found the last speaker a particular embarrassment to himself and his cause. Mr Pritt identified himself as an active duty Air Force member. He then yelled out a string of ignorant claims and accusations, never presenting a true (non-rhetorical) question.  Congressman Heinrich countered nicely that the public option being drafted should be modeled on the excellent socialized health care system that military members like the speaker, retirees, and their dependents enjoy today.

Having myself retired from the Air Force, the slamming of any Government-provided option as intolerable, anti-constitutional socialism struck me as particularly hypocritical. Active duty military members, retirees, and their dependents benefit from a comprehensive socialized health care system that — while not perfect  —is actually quite effective and, compared to commercial options, cost effective as well. Perhaps Mr Pritt would like to have to option to opt himself and his dependents out of the system and pay out of pocket for direct care or private health insurance. In fact, nothing stops him now from choosing to spend his own resources on private health care. Other than his mandatory annual check up and dental exam, he shouldn’t have to darken the door of a military or VA clinic again, except perhaps for a commander-directed anger-management evaluation.

All in all, the event was a decent example of the potential to engage citizens and elected officials in sincere, respectful conversations about topics that matter to all. Aside from the few ill-mannered grandstanders, the town hall demonstrated that people with variant views and concerns can express themselves respectfully and get relevant responses, both pro and con, from others. Of course, an event of this format, with so many attendees, cannot fully explore any complex topic. Other venues and approaches are needed to flesh out all of the issues, alternatives, and considerations. Still, this was an encouraging event.