Let the Sun Shine In!!
The Sunlight Foundation announced the public launch of The Open House Project. The Open House Project will publicly advise the U.S. House of Representatives on ways in which it can use the Internet to open government to the people. I've been part of the beta working group, and it's been killing me to not blog about this.
Speaker Pelosi needs to be commended for entertaining a dialogue on how the people can better participate in their government. This is a good development.
The quickened pace toward open government might herald a few changes:
1. Stakeholders will outwork and outperform puppets. The party that does a better job of bringing people into the political process will win -- for a while. (see point 4).
2. Transparency will remedy much of the disconnect between campaigning and governing. Because job performance will be more visible, an official's job performance will be a greater part of the campaign, as opposed to today's unrivaled currency of celebrity.
3. Related to point 2, with increased transparency, incumbency will have polar value. Anything a politician says or does can and will be used against (or for) him/her.
4. There will be less distinction between insiders and outsiders. As people become more involved in the political process, parties – the ultimate political intermediaries – will become less important. With greater participation, the process will not require a group of party insiders to filter potential candidates before outsiders have a chance to make the final selection.
5. If points 1 through 4 happen, the dialogue will move more toward the middle, where most Americans are (but their leaders currently are not).
Speaker Pelosi needs to be commended for entertaining a dialogue on how the people can better participate in their government. This is a good development.
The quickened pace toward open government might herald a few changes:
1. Stakeholders will outwork and outperform puppets. The party that does a better job of bringing people into the political process will win -- for a while. (see point 4).
2. Transparency will remedy much of the disconnect between campaigning and governing. Because job performance will be more visible, an official's job performance will be a greater part of the campaign, as opposed to today's unrivaled currency of celebrity.
3. Related to point 2, with increased transparency, incumbency will have polar value. Anything a politician says or does can and will be used against (or for) him/her.
4. There will be less distinction between insiders and outsiders. As people become more involved in the political process, parties – the ultimate political intermediaries – will become less important. With greater participation, the process will not require a group of party insiders to filter potential candidates before outsiders have a chance to make the final selection.
5. If points 1 through 4 happen, the dialogue will move more toward the middle, where most Americans are (but their leaders currently are not).
posted by steve u. at 2/14/2007
Subscribe
6 Comments:
This could actually save the Republican Party in Utah. As the demographics change here, the Utah County style of Republicanism will drive people past the center over to the left just in order to be a moderate. I'm seriously considering making the switch after being disenfranchised by my own party this Legislative session. Abortion bans, vouchers, Sen. Buttars, The Eagle Forum...the Dems are looking better and better. I hope both our state and federal leaders will listen to us if they do create a forum.
This is interesting, especially point No. 4 about the detriment of political parties, "the ultimate intermediaries," filtering political candidates. My question, then, is why is the Utah Legislature considering politicizing the public education process? This material seems to back up the point that there are much better ways to involve people in the process then attaching party labels, which could actually create more harm by
dividing "insiders" and "outsiders," according to this.
Anon. 2.,
You make a very good point. I’ll have to give that bill another look.
I think the issue there comes down to a battle between points 2 and 4. The concern driving the push for making school board elections partisan is whether transparency exists and, based on the answer to that issue, whether we the voters can be adequately informed in board elections or whether a lack of transparency allows elections to be too easily controlled by special interests (on either side of the aisle).
I’m not against parties. I think a system based around partisan elections is preferable to a system based around special interest selections. The former is more transparent than the latter. Because members of parties tend to believe in similar things, parties serve as an informational sorting system for voters. If someone were to self identify as a Republican or a Democrat in a school board election, certain assumptions would be made (though the candidate might want to work to disprove some of those assumptions that are erroneous in specific cases).
In the voucher debate, for example, (sorry to bring it up again) 70% of Republican legislators voted for vouchers – and a few more Rs favor them, but chose not to vote for them. By comparison, no Democratic legislator voted for vouchers – though at least one D favors them, but chose not to vote for them. Party affiliation would give voters an indication where a school board candidate likely would stand on that issue. Similar indications would exist for many other issues (e.g., merit pay, sex ed., performance-based accountability measures, etc.).
Parties, per se, are not the problem, because they fill a demand. Rather, the problem is that such an informational sorting system is so strongly needed in our political process. Why is it needed? Because people largely lack the tools to (1) access unfiltered political information and (2) to effectively organize. Correct those 2 deficiencies, and you’ve cured our political woes.
And that brings us full circle to the reason I helped create Politicopia and am so anxious for it and other sites like it to work.
Rep. Urquhart,
Thank you for your response. This is anon 2. The points you make are exactly mine. You mention vouchers, merit pay, sex ed -- these are all issues the partisan Legislature deals with, not nonpartisan school boards. Local school boards should have the power to focus on their students and how well their schools are doing without being side-tracked by these political issues. Local school boards are dealing with boundary matters, student travel, diploma appeals, staffing levels, test scores, school security, facility needs including renovations and building of new schools. These are not partisan matters.
If you politicize the process, it is politics that will drive it. Political issues such as the aforementioned vouchers, sex ed, merit pay will become the focus -- and of course, party loyalty.
In fact, I would argue that political parties are the ultimate special interest groups. By politicizing the public education process you are inviting more control by special interests, not less. Under the current system, local school board members are accountable only to the voters and patrons who elected them. Transparency already exists as they are required to file financial disclosure forms and publicly campaign for their elected positions. It also is the responsibility of school board members to inform voters about what is important to them -- whether that be partisan issues or none at all.
I have to agree w/ anon#2. I find that most of the "partisan" issues have little to do with the primary function of a school board.
Yes, "fringe" issues, such as vouchers (over which the school board had no say in approving/disapproving), or the ID v. evolution discussion. I'm not saying these issues aren't important, but I don't consider them "core." The biggest concern is raising the achievement of a significant number of our struggling students, and providing a strong and relevant education for everyone. Adding (R) or (D) after names doesn't adequately describe how one might address it.
In speaking with members of partisan boards in other states--and other Utah board members have shared the same experience--every one mentions how partisan politics has disrupted the efficacy of their board.
If more transparency is the way to get people interested, then I'd certainly choose that over partisanship. State board members answer emails, some write blogs, many have had letters published in state newspapers. There is a strong effort to be transparent.
Do you have suggestions re how improved transparency could be used to generate interest in running for school board office?
I would have to agree.
The new wikipedia for Utah called Politicopia is a great way to interact with government. i would also recommend viewers read my latest addition, on the need to resubmit SB101 to the House and finally abolish corporal punishment in public and private schools:
http://www.socialtext.net/utah-politicopia/index.cgi?action=display_html;page_name=s_b_101_to_abolish_corporal_punishment_in_public_schools
Post a Comment
<< Home