Month: January 2009

Meeting the Mayor

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I was invited to a blogger breakfast this morning with Mayor Becker. After digesting the surprise and wondering how they decided who to invite (there were only 7 bloggers there) I was excited to see what it would be like. Early on the question was asked if anyone present took a conservative perspective on their blog – I felt a bit lonely but I sure enjoyed meeting some of the bloggers that I have been interacting with for quite a while.

Three things really stuck out to me during the course of the morning. First (and least importantly), it’s nice to have someone else paying for breakfast. Second, I sat next to Glen Warchol and because of my recent interest in journalism and the interaction between reporters and politics, it was fascinating to watch as Glen fired off a number of questions and followups to the mayor to start things off. My respect for the art and skill of the information gathering side of reporting increased noticeably (nothing this morning really touched on the synthesizing and word-crafting side of reporting, but my blogging has already built up my appreciation for that aspect of the process). And the third thing that really stuck out to me? That’s what this is really all about . . .

One of the major topics this morning was the issue of transparency. I really think that this blogger breakfast is a part of the mayor’s transparency initiative – it’s another way for him to try to engage people and get them invoved and connected wtih their city government. Towards the end of the meeting Glen asked all of the bloggers if any of us had sought press credentials at the capital. It occurs to me that part of transparency is making sure that we make use of the options to get information that are already available to us. None of us had sought press credentials at the capital and Glen said we should give it a try. A few of us decided to look into it.

I called Ric Cantrel this afternoon to inquire and was told that the capital was pretty open to anyone who cared to visit, the meetings were generally open to the public and the elected officials wanted to get information out in any way that they could, and finally that they don’t have a policy one way or another on giving press credentials to bloggers. Ric expressed an interest in figuring out a manageable and reasonable policy on granting credentials to bloggers and suggested that it might be useful to meet with a group of bloggers to start hammering out such a policy. I trust that Ric is genuinely interested because he has been a significant force behind The Senate Site blog which is a good source for information – especially during the legislative session.

If anyone else is interested in taking part in the discussion let me know – I’ll keep you updated as I try to set things up.

Tags blogging, connections, government, media, policy, Press Bloggers, Salt Lake City, transparency

State

Legislative Guide

I just picked up a copy of The Utah State Legislative Guide for 2009. It has a bunch of information that most people never think about (like the seating assignments for the house and senate) and then some information that could prove very valuable despite the fact that many people never think about it – such as committee assignments for each legislator.

I have never before seen such a guide (perhaps they existed in previous years, but I don’t know) so I will see if it proves useful for me. I just wondered if anyone else had ideas of how to make use of the guide during the legislative session.

I’m discovering that it’s almost aggravating to work this close to the state capitol during the legislative session without actually being there. I may have to take a day off and go up on the hill.

Tags 2009, government, Utah

culture

Lippmann vs Dewey

In his final chapter, James Fallows introduces the argument between Walter Lippmann and John Dewey that took place through their writings in the 1920’s regarding what constituted the most desirable form of representative government. I would like to read more of their original writing, but for now let me react to what Fallows has covered.

Lippmann argued that the world was too large and complex to allow for an expectation that the common citizen could be sufficiently informed to make wise decisions on many policy issues. Government, with it’s ability to draw upon the knowledge of experts should therefore have a relatively free hand in creating the policies that would best serve the nation. The extension to this attitude was that the journalist was expected to play the role of expert in explaining the expert government actions to the people.

Dewey argued that without a healthy democratic process no government could be expected to consistently make wise choices for the nation, no matter how much expert information they had available to them. The implications of this would be that the journalist should play the role of examiner and fact finder (as should the elected official), but that the decision should generally play out in the court of public opinion.

The arguments of Lippmann certainly are accurate in describing the complexity of the world – a world that is even more complex when it is not tempered by the moderating influence of broad democratic participation based on broadly disseminated information. However, my own biases have me leaning in favor of the perspective of Dewey that the very process of public democracy has benefits which we cannot afford to set aside.

Journalists have a special role in society in that they have the opportunity to study an issue and dig beneath the surface to examine the realities that escape the surface understanding of that issue. I believe the real problem lies in cases where a journalist, acting as an expert, not only tells their readers what they believe, but fails to report facts contrary to their own beliefs thus preventing the consumers from making an informed choice.

Does anyone else know more about Dewey or Lippmann?

Tags democracy, discourse, media, questions

State

Daily Updates from Rep. Edwards

Post author By David
Post date January 27, 2009
No Comments on Daily Updates from Rep. Edwards

What an exciting promise from my state representative, Becky Edwards, she intends to blog every day of the session.

We certainly have a lot of work ahead of us and I’ll be blogging each day of the session and sending out an official legislative update each Friday of the session.

(emphasis added)

Because she is new to blogging I won’t fault her if she misses a day but I look forward to regular updates. How many people can hope for that much communication from their representative? (At least 20,000 here in her district if they will take advantageof it.)

Tags Davis County, House 20, Utah

National

Orrin at the Bully Pulpit

As soon as I read the title, D.C. voting act is best way to ensure that Utah gets its 4th seat, I knew we were in for more misinformation. To then go to the article and find that it was written by Senator Hatch was a pleasant surprise – I had been afraid that it was another editorial board capitulating to his "expertise."

Most of the article reiterates the arguments that got me writing last time but there are a few new twists that should be corrected. Many, like me, argue that due to our high growth Utah is assured of another seat after the 2010 census. Orrin answers that "Utah is the fastest-growing state since 2007, but not since the last census." That is damning to the very bill he’s peddling. Look at the language of the bill – it adds an extra seat for D.C. and for "the state next in line for a seat." That was Utah in 2000, but since we are not the fastest growing state since 2000 maybe it’s not Utah in 2010 – we could immediately lose our extra seat after the census if Utah really was not growing as fast as we thought.

America’s founders did what the bill would do today. Virginia and Maryland ceded land for the District in 1788. Until the District was formally established in 1800, Congress treated Americans living on that land as if they still lived in a state so they could be represented in Congress.

We should clarify that between 1788 and 1800 the founders treated Americans living in those ceded lands as if they still lived in the state which had ceded the land – not as an independent political entity – so they could be represented in Congress. That’s more like the idea being promoted by Rep. Chaffetz.

Apparently Orrin thinks that Congress has authority over the Constitution:

. . . the courts have ruled that Congress can use its legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever" to accomplish there what the Constitution accomplishes for states.

It is true that Congress has legislative authority over the District "in all cases whatsoever" but Congress does not have authority to redefine the Constitution simply because it involves the District. The Constitution talks about apportioning tazes among the citizens of the states, but it does not prohibit Congress from taxing the district over which they have exclusive legislative authority. It does not allow Congress, however, to stipulate the nature of Congress – that requires a Constitutional Amendment. That’s what we need, an amendment removing the cap on the size of Congress and stipulating a maximum size (in population) for a Congressional District. At the same time this amendment could grant voting representation to the citizens of any territory which pays federal taxes (or any other generic designation that would encompass D.C.).

Tags amendments, change congress, Deseret News, fourth seat, issues, Orrin Hatch

General

Federalist No. 49

Federalist No. 49 really surprised me. The topic is keeping the proper balance of powers in check through the use of constitutional conventions when the balance of powers were out of bounds. I expected a favorable opinion from the paper. In theory I agree except that I keep thinking that the same people who were part of the problem were also the most likely to be sent to the convention to correct the problem. Just look at 90% of incumbents winning reelection at the same time as Congress has a 9% approval rating.

Interestingly the paper cites this very reason as cause to be wary of placing too much trust in such a mechanism to correct encroachments in the balance of power. That leaves me wondering – how do we fix our current impalance of power?

Tags documents, federalist, history

culture

Hillarycare and the Media

Post author By David
Post date January 23, 2009
No Comments on Hillarycare and the Media

This post is not intended to mock or even evaluate the positions espoused by Hillary Clinton now or in the past. I chose the title to be short and to grab attention. The purpose of this post is to summarize and evaluate how the news media covered the issue of health care reform during the presidency of Bill Clinton. I think that the fact that the proposal is now known as Hillarycare is as telling about the media coverage as anything else I will say here.

James Fallows calls the health care debate of the mid 1990’s “The Press’s Vietnam War.” The image being that there could be no winners in the debate, only combatants. I will follow the format of his coverage – as a seven act drama – to show how the media coverage of the day served to hinder the average citizen from ever getting a clear view of what what being discussed and what might be best for the country.

Emerging Issue

Health Care as a political issue began to be noticed during the Democratic primary. Rather than evaluate the proposals by Bill Clinton and Robert Kerrey (the candidates most closely tied to that issue) the media coverage focused on how the differences in their proposals (whether to try a single-payer approach or not) would play in the primary race. People could gain no understanding of the issue from the coverage, all they could learn (if anything) was the potential political fallout. Once Kerrey dropped out the coverage ended because there was no political confrontation involved anymore.

Crafting the Bill

The Clinton team had been studying the issue of health care reform long before the presidential election and when Bill became president they intended to hit the ground running – and they did. In doing so the press later complained that they were operating in the dark because they spent their time communicating with congressional leaders etc. rather than running their work past the press for public vetting of their ideas.

Scandal Reigns

When the plan was first unveiled the uniform reaction was positive but positive does not make for exciting press coverage. Fate stepped in to make the lives of reportes more exciting. Just when President Clinton was starting a tour to promote the Health Care Bill a crisis erupted in Somalia which diverted his attention and gave the press more exciting things to cover. At the same time this provided an opportunity for opponents of the bill (notably the insurance industry) to stage a counter-attack. By the time the news coverage focused on health care again the president was plagued with more energized opposition and a number of scandals.

Fear-Mongering

I was excited to read about the work of Robert Pear who carefully delved into issues and provided in depth reporting. What interested me however was the effect of his work. Neither Mr. Pear, nor anyone else in journalism took the time to consider the whole health care proposal. Mr. Pear focused on one item, one leak at a time and evaluated it. Each time he would show who stood to lose over that particular aspect of the plan. The result was something like the reverse of Hitler’s ethnic cleansing in Germany – instead of one ruling group peeling off layers of “undesirable” elements of society each aspect of the plan reported by Pear drew the attention of a small group who stood to lose on that particular facet of the bill. As the groups combined, each focused on their pet issue, they grew to the point that they stopped the final bill. It may be that none of them realized or considered the potential positive effects of the whole bill.

Focus on Conflict

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the dean of the Annenberg School for Communication relates an interesting experience of attending a presentation by Hillary Clinton on the health care reform bill.

She went into the substance of the plan, and took on virtually every argument that had been raised against it. . . When she was talking about her plan, the reporters had clearly heard all of this before and found it completely uninteresting. They talked to each other passing notes around.

But as soon as she made a brief attack on the Republicans, there was a physiological reaction, this surge of adrenaline, all around me. The pens moved. The reporters arched forward. They wrote everything down rapidly. As soon as this part was over, they clearly weren’t paying attention anymore. They were writing on their laptops as they began constructing the story of how the First Lady had attacked her opponents.

(emphasis added)

The press would always prefer to talk about alternate bills and problems with the current idea than actually talk about the whole issue and have people work towards a solution. Solutions make for a day of coverage while problems can be exploited day after day.

Misinformation

Eventually there was someone who read the whole bill and attempted to put it into perspective. Her name was Elizabeth McCaughey (pronounced “McCoy”). When she did so, whether she intended to or not, she included some crucial pieces of misinformation that made the bill sound draconian. The difference between her evaluation of the bill and the actual text of the bill is similar to the difference between what the people behind fightfoca.com say about the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) and what the actual bill says. (I discussed this difference last week.) No journalist ever explored the accuracy of her statements.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

When the health care bill died the news coverage of the health care issue died as well until about 2006 when it was again a central issue for a presidential campaign season. During all that time the issue of affordable heath care has been at least as important as it was when it first started garnering media attention during the Democratic primaries for 1992.

Tags health care, issues, media

National

Federalist Nos. 47 – 48

I had never really considered the interplay between the concept of separation of powers and the concept of checks and balances between branches of government. Here Madison explores the limits on the separation of powers (Federalist No. 47) and the necessity of robust checks and balances (Federalist No. 48). Having read these papers I have a greater respect for the delicate balance that the founders were attempting to strike.

Madison also provides some input into the perspective of the people of his time as he discusses their propensity to fear the power of the Executive branch over the power of the Legislative branch. He argues that the unchecked legislature was as dangerous (and more likely in the government of the United States) as an absolute monarch:

In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.

Given our current experience it might be very easy for us to think that he was wrong and that the people were right to have more fear of their executive branch than of their legislative branch. We would do well to remember that the recent and pervasive abuses of the executive branch, and the expansion of power within that branch were facilitated by a Congress that was complicit at worst and neglectful of their own duties at best. While it is certainly time to curtail the authority of the executive branch we should be mindful that these abuses were less a failing of the Constitution than they were a failure on the part of our other elected representatives. In fact, Madison discuses a similar situation in the government of Pennsylvania:

It appears, also, that the executive department had not been innocent of frequent breaches of the constitution. There are three observations, however, which ought to be made on this head: FIRST, a great proportion of the instances were either immediately produced by the necessities of the war, or recommended by Congress or the commander-in-chief; SECONDLY, in most of the other instances, they conformed either to the declared or the known sentiments of the legislative department; THIRDLY, the executive department of Pennsylvania is distinguished from that of the other States by the number of members composing it. In this respect, it has as much affinity to a legislative assembly as to an executive council. And being at once exempt from the restraint of an individual responsibility for the acts of the body, and deriving confidence from mutual example and joint influence, unauthorized measures would, of course, be more freely hazarded, than where the executive department is administered by a single hand

The executive branch of Pennsylvania at that time was composed of a thirteen-member Supreme Executive Council.

It’s time for our Congress to stand up and do their job of checking the executive branch. Once they do that they should follow it up by mandating that the president reduce the footprint of the federal government by shrinking or eliminating government agencies or departments that are not essential to providing the services that are appropriate to the federal government.

Tags checks and balances, documents, federalist, history, Pennsylvania, separation of powers, State Constitution

State

Score One for Buttars

I was surprised this morning to see an article that showed Senator Buttars in a positive light.

Eric Ethington and Elaine Ball, founders of the grass-roots, service-oriented Pride in Your Community, stopped Republican Sen. Chris Buttars in his driveway on Saturday morning to share some home-baked bread and conversation.

Buttars invited Ball, Ethington and two other gay activists inside his home for what turned into an hourlong chat about Equality Utah’s Common Ground Initiative, a collection of Democratic-backed bills that would provide some legal protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Utahns.

"I don’t think we were expecting such a warm welcome," Ball said. "It was nice to be invited in."

The bread-and-Buttars discussion chipped away some stereotypes on both sides.

"That group has been hostile to me for many years," Buttars said Tuesday. "They said, ‘Hi,’ and it was easy to recognize they weren’t there to argue or to condemn me. They were there to talk."

I’m sure the senator is very happy to see an article that does not cast him in a bad light.

Tags media, Salt Lake Tribune, Utah

culture National

Inauguration Day

After reading/hearing news coverage of today’s activities I have come to a couple of conclusions. First, I have made a goal to attend a presidential inauguration – not just the parade, but the actual swearing-in ceremony with the inaugural address. I will not be picky about what president it is because for me it will be a celebration of the office and the government of this great nation. Second, I’m sick of the news coverage. The inauguration is certainly newsworthy but aside from some brief description of the crowds, the weather, and possibly some background about previous inaugurations the only coverage that the media can really offer of any value is the text of the inaugural address. (Here’s the official copy.) Besides that nothing that is planned is particularly newsworthy out of these events.

The fact is that this very important celebration is not made more real or valuable to me by all the extra commentary (beyond what I listed above). If the media wants to cover it all day that’s fine, just roll the cameras and stream the audio but get the talking heads off the screen – they have nothing to add.

So, congratulations to President Obama. I hope he enjoys this day and then gets right to work preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution. And if I’m very lucky I could attend an inauguration as early as 2013.

Tags holidays, media, Obama