That’s the question some Washington hands and veteran journalists are asking in the wake of last Thursday’s day-long “health care summit” at Blair House between President Obama and about forty leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress. They’re saying that between Obama’s first spontaneous encounter with House Republicans back on January 29th, his televised appearance at the Senate Democratic caucus a few days later, and now this, a new expectation of public engagement is being created, in the same way that we now expect to see the opposition party give a response to the State of the Union speech, or to the President’s weekly radio address.

For example, here’s NPR’s Guy Raz talking with presidential historian Robert Dallek last Saturday, referring to the health care summit:

RAZ: Robert Dallek, can you recall a time when legislators were able to interact with the president in such an informal way? I mean, it’s almost like the way they do in Britain

Prof. DALLEK: Yes.

RAZ: with the Prime Minister.

Prof. DALLEK: Yes, that’s what I was thinking. That it’s like question and answer session in the parliament.
….
RAZ: Ronald Reagan made God bless America or God bless the United States of America an almost compulsory signoff in presidential speeches. All presidents use it now. He was really the one who started using it regularly.

Prof. DALLEK: Mm-hmm.

RAZ: George W. Bush introduced the flag lapel pin.

Prof. DALLEK: Yes.

RAZ: Has President Obama brought in a new tradition that every subsequent president will have to take part in? I mean, a televised Q and A session with the opposition.

Prof. DALLEK: Yeah. This may well be a development that future presidents are going to feel compelled

RAZ: I mean, the public is going to expect it, right?

Prof. DALLEK: They might. Well, you see, the way they expect debates. John Kennedy and Richard Nixon first televised presidential debate, and ever since then, you can’t escape having debates. So this may have created a standard, a precedent, and I think its fine. This is what democracy is and too much of it in the past has been done behind closed doors.

Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter has a similar view.

Now, when Congress seems hopelessly out of date, we’ve adapted a fresh approach from abroad. After C-Span began airing the British Parliament’s Question Time, many people asked why we couldn’t do something similar here. To his credit, John McCain proposed just that in 2008. Obama wouldn’t embrace it publicly, but he liked the idea of mixing it up with Republicans, and in the early days of his presidency he met with the House GOP caucus. When Obama learned that Minority Leader John Boehner had instructed members to vote against the stimulus bill before the president showed up, Obama felt played. Instead of fulfilling his campaign promise to negotiate health care in front of the cameras, he handed it to surrogates, who cut backroom deals. But after the Massachusetts fiasco, Obama adapted Question Time for his own purposes. He routed Republican lawmakers at a televised retreat in January, a success that convinced him he could make a public summit on health care work.

The reason the Blair House summit will likely be repeated (on terrorism, perhaps, or jobs) is that, this time, the GOP looked good, too. The win-win event gave the party a chance to move beyond obstruction and showcase some of its lesser-known leaders. Even when they and others assaulted the truth, there was time for the record to be set straight. The tone remained civil.

So when the Republican presidential campaign gets going in 2011, expect Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin & Co. to squabble over who would best handle congressional leaders in bipartisan summits. And expect Obama backers to point to his performances as proof that their man can already do the job.

What do you think? Can we build on these events–which each side may be trying to use for partisan advantage? Speaking for myself, I certainly think so.

In case you missed it, last week Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL) wrote a guest post on FiveThirtyEight.com explaining his support for making Question Time between the President and Congress a regular tradition. Here’s what he said:

On the occasion of today’s White House Health Care Summit, I would like to offer my full support for Question Time – a bipartisan effort to hold regular, unmediated, and open exchanges between the President and members of Congress, the direct representatives of the people.

Over 18,000 Americans, representing all political stripes, have joined the online movement for Question Time and many young supporters have approached me about getting behind the idea. After seeing the success of the President’s appearance last month at the House Republican retreat in Baltimore and his subsequent Q&A with Senate Democrats, I’ve become convinced that Question Time will both strengthen our governance and help revitalize our political process.

Democracy doesn’t take place in a vacuum. It requires commitment, energy, and openness. And, most importantly, it is not a solo act. Too often, we think of politics in a top-down, hierarchical sense instead of treating it as a two-way street. Holding regular, publicly-televised and webcasted conversations between the President and the people’s representatives has the potential to combat hyper-partisanship and political stagnation.

The President’s open dialogue with House Republicans afforded Americans a valuable opportunity to see their elected policymakers in action, debating the great issues of the day in a meaningful and civil manner. For an entire day, the 24-hour cable news cycle stood at a virtual standstill, transfixed by what they saw. Gone were the sound bites and political sniping. For once, ideology took a back seat to substance.

Given its success, why not make Question Time a permanent fixture of our democracy?

Today, our nation stands at a crossroads. We can continue down a dangerous path toward increased partisanship and polarization or we can choose to place trust in our system of governance. As an American, I have faith in our democracy. If we institute a regular, open forum for our elected leaders to publicly air and debate their ideas, we all win.

Ideally, Question Time would be both bipartisan and bicameral. However, I’m not interested in advancing a specific proposal so much as building momentum behind the idea. I’m far from the first member of Congress to call for this type of forum. As some may recall, Senator McCain endorsed Question Time as a presidential candidate. At the time, some pundits mocked the suggestion, but it was actually quite an innovative and bold proposal. Simply put, it was a good idea.

Even the White House has dismissed the idea of instituting Question Time, claiming it is “going to be hard to recreate the spontaneity that happened.” However, is “spontaneity” really the end goal? Or is it something much greater, a deepening of our democracy and renewal of our basic governing process?

Politicians today are heavily scripted and risk-adverse. Too many are unwilling to reach across the aisle and forge a bipartisan consensus for the good of the country. Question Time would have a healthy effect on me as an elected leader by providing a regular opportunity to hear views that differ from my own.

I understand that Question Time is no panacea to our country’s challenges. There is no magic wand that will suddenly break our political impasse. I do think, however, that it’s worth a shot. I would be curious to know what you think @KendrickMeek on Twitter or via Facebook at facebook.com/kendrickmeek.

If you have a minute, go to the Congressman’s Twitter or Facebook page and thank him for his support!

Supporters of Demand Question Time are a very politically active, passionate, liberal-leaning group that is ready to push Washington in all kinds of creative ways to get the President and both parties talking to each other in a direct way. Those are the takeaways of the survey we did last week of the first 17,500 people to sign the Demand Question Time petition. Frankly, I’ve been blown away by how many people took the time to not only take the survey–2,338 responses and counting, a whopping 13.3% response rate–but also by the comments and suggestions people gave us. Not only have there been more than 100 comments here on the blog, we got well over 2,000 written responses to our questions about why people were supporting Question Time.

In the interests of transparency, I’m pasting in the full survey report below (sans the written responses, which we’re still digesting). But here are the two major conclusions I think we should focus on:

First, our little movement has some real muscle. Not only do we have the ability to get media attention for the Question Time idea, we have thousands of people who are ready to call their Members of Congress, write letters to the editor, get on the phone with supporters from a different political party to jointly call their elected representatives, and so on. That’s a real vote of confidence in what we’re doing and we’re going to follow up soon with some calls to action along those lines. When asked what actions people were willing to take, the responses broke down as follows:

Call my representatives in Congress to ask them if they support Question Time: 72.71%
Write a letter to the editor: 46.27%
Get on the phone with another Question Time supporter from a different party than my own and then call our representatives together: 24.28%
Donate money to pay for advertising: 20.66%
Help spread the word by tabling or sign-holding/waving/posting: 19.04%
Make an online video: 6.33%

The second obvious highlight of the survey, and one that frankly surprised some of us on the steering committee, is how much the survey responses tilt towards the left. Asked what political party “you identify with,” respondents said:

Democrat: 60.52%
independent: 24.73%
None of the above: 5.12%
Republican: 4.34%
Green: 2.02%
Libertarian: 1.89%
I’d rather not say: 1.38%

Some of us think this could be just because the petition got early attention from the Huffington Post, MSNBC and NPR, all outlets with a liberal-leaning audience. Others think it may be because liberals supposedly prefer “kumbaya”-why-can’t-we-all-get-along politics more than conservatives. And others think it’s because conservatives may feel that the original, spontaneous Question Time session between President Obama and the House Republican caucus helped Obama more than the Republicans, and therefore are wary of making the encounter a regular event.

We don’t know whether any of these conclusions are right (and certainly don’t mind you adding your two cents to the discussion), but whatever the reasons, we’re convinced that Question Time won’t succeed as a movement unless it flies with two wings, equally balanced. That’s why our steering committee and core group of signers is evenly divided between right and left (with a smattering of uncategorizables). So, here’s what we hope you will do:

If you have a friend, a relative, a co-worker who is a Republican or a conservative or a rightwinger of any stripe, ask them to sign the Demand Question Time petition. Liberals, get in touch with that uncle who you usually never talk to at Thanksgiving. Conservatives, talk to your pals. Let’s grow our base of support so we’re balanced. If we want the President and the opposing party to engage in regular dialogue, we have to do it too.

The full survey is below. My apologies for the messy formatting.

1. How old are you?

18-29 31.66%
50-64 25.48%
30-39 18.23%
40-49 12.27%
65 and up 11.15%
Under 18 0.99%
I’d rather not say 0.21%

2. If you identify with a political party, are you:

Democrat 60.52%
independent 24.73%
None of the above 5.12%
Republican 4.34%
Green 2.02%
Libertarian 1.89%
I’d rather not say 1.38%

3. Check which political labels describe you best (you may choose more than one):

liberal 55.67%
progressive 54.51%
moderate 30.22%
independent 25.97%
libertarian 13.84%
populist 8.90%
conservative 7.48%
apolitical 1.98%
tea party 1.93%
I’d rather not say 0.69%

4. Are you registered to vote?

Yes 96.69%
No 2.61%
I’d rather not say 0.48%
Don’t know 0.22%

5. Did you vote in the 2008 election?

Yes 93.58%
No 5.99%
I’d rather not say 0.43%

6. Are you planning to vote in the 2010 election?

Yes 93.50%
Don’t know 4.09%
No 2.07%
I’d rather not say 0.34%

7. Which, if any, of the following activities are you interested in taking in support of Question Time? (Check as many as apply.)

Call my representatives in Congress to ask them if they support Question Time 72.71%
Write a letter to the editor 46.27%
Get on the phone with another Question Time supporter from a different party than my own and then call our representatives together 24.28%
Donate money to pay for advertising 20.66%
Help spread the word by tabling or sign-holding/waving/posting 19.04%
Make an online video 6.33%

Welcome to the Demand Question Time blog.

Two weeks ago, we watched as President Obama and the Republican members of the House of Representatives engaged in a frank and respectful question-and-answer session, unmoderated and live on television. It was a moment of constructive civility and substantial debate at a time when the national conversation often seems to consist of politicians and pundits talking past each other or sloganeering. And so we started the Demand Question Time petition a few days later, determined to push both sides to make this a regular tradition.

To our amazement, nearly 20,000 people have signed up already. We’ve never seen such a diverse coalition: Respected leaders from the right to the left, activists from the Tea Party movement to the anti-Iraq War movement, campaign strategists for the Democrats and the Republicans, and many leading journalists, bloggers, academics and regular folks have joined the Demand Question Time call. Judging from all the press we’ve earned, we’ve started a lively and important national conversation.

We’re working on a range of steps that we can take together to build support for Question Time, and plan to roll those out soon. The first step is this: we’re asking you to help us figure out how we build this effort. Use the comment thread below to introduce yourself, say a bit about why you signed the petition, and offer your thoughts on how to grow the movement. We’ll be listening! In the meantime, spread the word and share your ideas.

Micah Sifry, Mike Moffo, David Corn, Mindy Finn, Jon Henke, Glenn Reynolds
Steering committee, Demand Question Time