At a recent meeting of the Cape Issues Group, we spent nearly an hour grappling with a concern that has slowly, but surely, crept into our civic life: Public meetings aren’t working the way they used to — or the way they were intended to.

We’re a democracy. And at the heart of that democracy is a simple but powerful idea: the people and their elected officials talk with each other. They meet, they listen, they respond, they work things out. Or at least, they used to.

But now, we’re seeing a trend that runs counter to that tradition. Several members of the Cape Issues Group voiced frustration about the lack of transparency in government today. They spoke of how more and more public bodies allow citizens to speak—but only briefly—and then refuse to respond during the meeting.

In one recent example, the new superintendent of Middle Township schools explained that any official response would be posted on its website later. That may sound modern and efficient. But it short-circuits the essential give-and-take of a public forum. When one person speaks, another might respond, and the conversation—sometimes even the consensus—can evolve in real time. When that back-and-forth is denied, public discourse becomes less public.

————

“When one person speaks, another might respond —

and the conversation can evolve in real time.”

————

Now, to be fair, one member of our group suggested we also look at this issue through the eyes of the elected officials. He reminded us that, increasingly, citizens don’t always come to listen or engage respectfully. Some come angry, ready to shout, not to understand. That, too, is a real problem. And that kind of behavior, he said, is what’s pushing some officials to tighten the rules and limit input.

Still, I can’t help but recall something that shocked me a decade or more ago. A well-known politician—someone I won’t name—once told a group that if they heard something they didn’t like in a public forum, they should “shout the speaker down.” I remember how appalling that sounded to me. Sadly, it wasn’t long before we saw that same attitude spill into reality, especially on college campuses, where speakers were shouted down or simply disinvited.

It’s not just government meetings. As a newspaper publisher, I’ve watched this erosion of civil discourse affect our own pages. We used to receive a steady flow of thoughtful letters to the editor. Today, we receive fewer letters to the editor. I’ve spoken with former letter-writers who say they’ve been harassed—yes, harassed—for expressing their views. Some have told me plainly: “I just don’t want to go through that anymore.” That’s why, when we believe a viewpoint deserves public airing, we sometimes print letters using only initials—or no name at all. We want to protect our readers, but we also want to protect and promote the public conversation.

Here’s the bottom line: We are among the most blessed people on earth because we live in a democracy where we the people are sovereign. But as Benjamin Franklin once warned, we have “A Republic—if you can keep it.” Keeping it, though, requires effort. Responsibility. Respect.

George Washington once said that in a nation where the people make the rules, it is up to the people themselves to follow those rules. These days, we seem increasingly comfortable breaking them. I see it in how some disregard traffic laws. I see it in how some shout others down in meetings or online forums.

We are losing the habits that make democracy work.

If we want to preserve this remarkable system of self-government, then both citizens and officials alike must recommit to mutual respect. That means speaking up when we see someone—whether a politician or a neighbor—acting in ways that corrode our democratic culture. It means modeling better behavior ourselves.

Disagreement is not disrespect. Passion need not come with shouting. And silence is not a substitute for honest conversation.

We can do better. For the sake of our democracy, we must.