Empty-chair town hall turns into political Rorschach test

Buddy Carter’s refusal to hold an open, in-person town hall in Coastal Georgia’s largest city and county has fueled frustration and anger among the area’s residents, Democrats and even some Republicans alike.

Now, even a stage prop intended to illustrate Carter’s absence at a public forum in Savannah last week, has sparked controversy, showing that even so-called empty-chair town halls can be become perilous in today’s politically toxic environment.

The gathering came after Carter, through an aide, turned down an invitation from a Savannah-based group to hold an open-door, in-person town hall to field comments and questions about the Trump administration’s slashing of federal government programs and the federal workforce.

The recently formed group, Coastal Georgia for Democracy, then decided to hold an empty-chair town hall to give residents of the 1^st Congressional District an opportunity to air their views, worries and fears about the administration’s cuts.

It was not the comments of the speakers or any of the least 200 attendees, however, that resonated most with some members of the audience gathered in a conference room at the Georgia Coastal Center. Rather, it was a hastily cobbled together dummy meant to illustrate Carter’s no-show.

Costumed in blue jeans and a red-striped shirt and hat, its bespectacled face consisted of a photo of a flush-faced Carter, the mannequin was propped in front of a stack of chairs, off to the side of the speaker’s table. Around its neck hung a sign reading, “Buddy Carter.”

Next to it, resting in the seat of a chair, was a sign reading, “Where’s Buddy Carter?” followed by “We want Buddy to: See us! Hear us! Represent us!”

Kristopher Mecholsky, chair of Coastal Georgia for Democracy, later said the dummy and its costume were inspired by the 2019 animated series “Where’s Waldo?” and based on a popular set of children’s puzzle books that challenged readers to find the elusive, bespectacled Waldo in large crowds.

‘Awful’

At least one influential local Republican, however, saw more sinister imagery at work.

A few days after the forum, the prominent Republican, a regular reader of The Current, emailed us to decry what she said was the event organizers’ appalling depiction of Carter.

The red tint of the photo representing Carter’s face suggested blood, she said. That portrayed him in such a way as to incite violence against the six-term congressman.  

“The dummy of Buddy Carter with a bloody face is awful whether you like him or not,” she wrote.

The high-profile Republican later said in an interview that she did not attend the forum herself. Her comments about the portrayal of Carter came from a military veteran who did.

“If it looked bloody to him, I believe him,” she told The Current on condition of anonymity to discuss her email. “He’s an outstanding young man and a veteran who went to war and he was disturbed by it.”

Mecholsky, the chair of Coastal Georgia Democracy, called the assertion that the mannequin was made up in such a way to suggest blood is “categorically, absolutely false.”

“We haven’t suggested any violence against Carter. We don’t wish violence upon him. We weren’t trying to insinuate that in any way whatsoever. We don’t wish violence upon him,” he said. “The entire point of the ‘Where’s Waldo?’ character was to point out that he’s not around.”

‘Further justification’

Differences over what the red tint on a mannequin’s face really meant — or whether it was simply a poor printer used to reproduce Carter’s photograph — might be easily overlooked, even be laughable, were it not for its obvious political repercussions.

Most directly, the inference that an in-person town hall would pose a threat to Carter serves as a further justification for him to refuse to participate in one.

Carter of course needs no additional pretext to shun open-door, in-person town halls in Coastal Georgia.

While Carter has held several telephone town halls, during which callers’ questions are screened, his aversion to such forums predates the second Trump administration. He hasn’t held any in the region since 2018, according to a search of media outlets in the region.

Although U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and other Republican members Georgia’s congressional delegation have held open door, in-person town halls in recent months, Carter and his office do not view them as “productive.”

The congressman has also said police have encouraged him not to hold town halls in Savannah, though he has refused to say which police gave him that counsel and when.

Harley Adsit, Carter’s communications director, did not return a phone call seeking details and comment about the advice by police to the congressman.

‘Not surprised’

Violence wasn’t mentioned by any member of the audience or by any of the speakers, which included Adot Whitely, chair of the Democratic Committee of Chatham County; Savannah-Chatham County school board member Denise Grabowski, former Democratic congressional candidate Patti Hewitt; and Savannah realtor Randy Zurcher.

Still, however strenuously organizers of last Monday’s forum insist that they were not depicting Carter with a bloody face and thus not inciting violence against him, it may not matter.

The notion that the U.S. is at war over the fate of President Trump’s agenda pervades the airwaves and animates social media, which in turn seeps through all local political discussion.

“If I asked you if you have ever been in a war, most would say ‘no’ but you would be wrong,” former Republican state Senate candidate Beth Majeroni, chair of the local Ladies on the Right, wrote on Facebook.

Majeroni was responding to a post whose author asserted that “many traitors remain in office” following a rigged election in 2020 and that “we’re in the middle of World War III.”

At least to Mecholsky, it’s not shocking, then, that last week’s mannequin incident became a political Rorschach test for critics, who saw in the organizers’ rendering of Carter what they expect or want to see or fear: political violence.

“I would’ve been surprised in 2000, but in a world where the January 6 participants have been pardoned, and where there’s even discussion of compensating them for their imprisonment, I’m ashamed to say I’m not surprised.”