Tag: civic participation

Senator Bennett Breakfast

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 went to the breakfast conversation with Senator Bennett in Bountiful this morning before work. Overall I have to say that I am more impressed with the senator after meeting him than before I had met him. Having said that, here are a couple of things I took away from the meeting.

There were very few people at the meeting younger than the senator’s campaign manager (his son) – I counted 5 including myself. I know how hard it can be to cut into a work schedule to participate in a political event like this, but we really do need more people under 35 being more actively involved in politics if we are to penetrate the echo chamber of candidates who have cultivated decades-long relationships with one segment of the population.

One young gentleman there asked a question based on a quote that the Sentaor had referenced from Newt Gingrich:

Walmart does not get ahead by attacking Sears, but by offering better value than Sears.

This young man asked Senator Bennett what value he had to offer us as constituents. Predictably, but disappointingly, Senator Bennett had nothing to offer except seniority. He either does not recognize, or would hate to admit that his seniority is virtually useless now and that if we replace him in 2010 we can have a new senator gaining seniority while the party is out of power in preparation for the time when the Democrats have less than 51 votes again. If we give him another six years we will be electing a new senator in 2016 or possibly as late as 2022 when he will likely no longer have the physical capacity to represent us – and when some seniority would more likely have real value.

I got to talk to the senator after the conversation was officially over and ask my first question for any candidate – what are the two or three most important job functions of the position you are seeking? His answers were – in order:

Try to see the future clearly.
Listen to constituents.
Do your homework.

If I were grading those answers (and I am here) the senator failed a very elementary question. Passing answers would have had the primary job function of a senator as being to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." After that the order of answers might vary somewhat from one person to another but I would have the next one as "communicate with constituents" (that’s communication both ways).

The senator said at the breakfast that a new senator could do nothing more than offer fiery speeches on the Senate floor and that many people in Utah would like that. I think he underestimates the people of Utah and the potential of a new senator. We need someone who has the Constitution at the center of their job description. Such a person can still work with others to do more than offer fiery speeches.

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, civic participation, senate

technology

Track Voting Records

The Voting Record plugin I mentioned last week is ready for an early release. You can download it here and give it a try. I have not added the function to allow users to search the votes yet, but the votes can be entered and edited by blog authors and displayed on your blog. Instructions etc. are at the plugin page.

Tags civic participation, plugin, tools

culture

Public Journalism

After an entire book showing the disappointing aspects of what effects we are seeing in our society from journalism it was bittsweet to read about the push toward a more constructive approach to journalism called public journalism. (The bitter being that this was written in the mid 1990’s and things seem no better – if not worse – now than they were then.) The essence of public journalism is encapsulated in the idea that the media organizations embrace the reality that they are not imply observers and reporters in society, but also participants. It is the admission that what they do matters and makes a difference. The controversy come through differing views on what it means to participate positively. Those who misunderstand the idea of public journalism might easily interpret that proactive stance as meddling by the media. On the other hand, defenders of the idea view this approach as the best form of journalism because the approach is no longer apathetic about the effects that come from the reporting that they do.

Personally I can see the objections to the idea of active meddling but I feel that objection is misplaced. Even the best reporters and news organizations will have biases in what they cover and how they cover things. Most observers can see this easily, but anyone who is serious about using the news will be better able to compensate for those biases when those biases are not hidden by an exaggerated guise of objectivity. The best in journalism would acknowledge the perspective that the reporter or organization subscribes to but would also report facts that disagree with their perspective. Not only that, but they would seek to develop their perspectives in accordance with the facts that they are able to find. If they are actively seeking to make a positive impact in their community they would find it beneficial to go beyond the easy reporting and dig into the facts that are not so easily obtained.

I found the description of the efforts of various papers around the country to actively engage citizens in the process of developing public policy and exploring social issues in their areas to be encouraging. Sadly I see no evidence that those efforts have continued to develop inthe years since this was written. Perhaps that is a result of where I am, or perhaps the movement has lost its momentum. I hope it is only the first option.

Tags civic participation, discourse, media, public service

Local State

Legislative Accountability

Post author By David
Post date January 5, 2009
2 Comments on Legislative Accountability

John Florez has a good perspective on what constitutes True government accountability and the forces that work against citizens from receiving the benefits of that accountability. I thought his comparison of the legislature to a corporate board of directors was very apt. My thoughts were sparked by the following statement:

This year, with new legislative leadership, might be a good one to spend more time holding oversight hearings on how effective certain state departments are in solving the problems they were created to resolve — their legislative mandate. . .

For legislators to start asking the tough questions to hold state departments accountable puts their political seat at risk because they threaten and have to fend off special-interest groups that benefit from maintaining the agency status quo. Therefore, it’s critical that legislators, in very real ways, know the public will support them when they hold oversight hearings regarding agencies’ effectiveness and demonstrate what returns taxpayers are getting on their investment. For legislators, those are tough calls but vital in keeping our government working in the public’s interest.

Oversight hearings would provide the openness and accountability in our government that we all want.

Bureaucratic momentum is a powerful force and tends to discourage any real accountability. The first priority of any institution is survival, not the fulfilling of any legislative mandate. Because of that, government bureaucracies have become very adept at promoting their own survival and continuation. In fact, they have learned how to turn failure and ineffectiveness into a tool for budgetary and institutional growth. Bureaucrats have long practice at befriending legislators and promoting their perspectives so that those legislators will be disposed to grant them their budgetary and policy requests. The fact that government jobs are considered to be a very safe area of employment is a testament to how effective their survival tactics usually are.

Despite all these advantages for institutional continuance, I see a glimmer of hope. If legislators will actively seek to cultivate their relationships with the group of voters that they represent they can preempt the ability of any special interest groups to unseat them for asking tough questions when holding real oversight hearings.

Constituents can show that they will support their legislators by being vocal in requesting real accountability and in vocally supporting their legislators through the legislative process. If they do so the legislators should have confidence that they can ask tough questions and demand accountability without fear that doing so will cost them their seats.

As constituents it is to our advantage to focus our efforts on those who represent us. If we voted for our representatives we should have done so because we believe in what they are said they would do, and if we did not vote for them we should be letting them know what we want from our representative. Many politicians say that they intend to represent those who opposed them as well as those who voted for them, but if we do not communicate with our representatives, whether we voted for them or not, they are not able to accurately represent us.

I have found that my efforts are much more rewarded by contacting my representatives, whether I voted for them or not, than if I spend my time shouting into space about what the legislature as a whole should be doing.

Tags civic participation, Deseret News, House 20, legislation, Utah

culture

Federalist No. 46

The subject and position of Federalist No. 46 is not substantially different from Federalist No. 45 and my reaction is largely the same as before. On the other hand, Madison makes an important point that expands the scope of my reaction.

Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. . . The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.

My initial reaction was that, like the states, the people in general are no longer guarding their liberty so much as their financial security. Some further consideration convinced me that Madison was right and that my reaction was actually an indication of the fundamental problem.

The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed {the federal and state governments}, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone

Although it is easy to feel that the government has gone out of control we must remember that we still have relatively free, fair, and regular elections. The fundamental problem which allows the government to exced their constitutional bounds is not that there are no reins, but that we the people have let go of the reins (this is especially true in places like Utah where the participation in even the most basic civic functions like voting is abysmal). The result is that our runaway horse of government is sometimes staffed by officials elected to virtually hereditary positions and while we may yell about the dangers of the course being taken by our uncontrolled stagecoach, the actual solution is for us to undertake the challenging task of grasping the reins once more and asserting our control over the horse of government. Only after we have tried our hands at the reins can the horse truly be said to be a runaway – prior to a serious attempt at control it is our own failure and not the fault of the horse.

One final quote that I really appreciated:

Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest;

Interestingly, the final protection against a federal takeover of the lives of the citizens (as cited by Madison) is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. An alarmist would be quick to take every attempt to regulate the keeping of arms by private individuals as a fundamental threat to individual liberty – and their alarm would not be without legitimate foundation.

Tags civic participation, documents, federalist, government, history

culture State

Get Your Hands Dirty

As I have been making contacts and working to get more actively involved in party politics I have started to gain a new appreciation for what government by the people really is. When I learned about our government in school I was left with the understanding that government by the people meant that we have the opportunity to elect representatives as well as the opportunity to replace them in subsequent elections. All of that is technically true but I am concluding that government py the people is really government by those who choose to involve themselves in the process. Being an informed voter is important, as I have stressed for a long time, but your vote at the ballot box is too crude a tool to expect to fix problems if you see things in the political system that you would change.

Our freedom of speech is also important, but exposing problems and speeking up is not enough. If you really care about this country and you see things that need to be fixed there is only one way to go about it. You have to roll up your shirtsleeves and dig in to the political dirt if you want to clean something up.

I have been verbose about my desire to see a good mix of the two parties here in Utah and yet when I chose what party to participate in I chose the dominant party. The reason for that choice is that I realized that more important than balance is accountability. I can’t make the Republican party accountable to the people if I am working in the Democratic party. Since all the attractive ideals of the Democratic party (meaning those that are attractive to me) are compatible with the positions of the Republican party I chose to work within the Republican party to ensure (as much as I am able) that the Republican party is being held accountable for the ideals that they espouse.

if there are things you want to see change – get your hands dirty, that’s the real meaning of government by the people.

Tags civic participation, Davis County, parties, Utah

life National State

Loyalty . . . Right or Wrong

Post author By David
Post date November 24, 2008
4 Comments on Loyalty . . . Right or Wrong

I have been thinking about the sentiment “my country, right or wrong” as well as many potential variations (e.g. “my party, right or wrong,” “my parents, right or wrong,” or “my company, right or wrong”). What I have been thinking is that such a statement of unquestioning loyalty is ripe for abuse and manipulation.

I took the time to look up the origin of that statement and found that the actual toast by Stephen Decatur that it is supposed to be quoting was “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!” This statement is still loaded with loyalty or patriotism, but it contains an important sentiment that is left out of the popular remnant “may she always be in the right.” I think that phrase is overshadowed by the statement of ownership that follows – “right or wrong, our country.”

As right as that true statement of loyalty is, a more dependable variation was uttered by Carl Schurz which he calls “the watchword of true patriotism”- “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” This is truly my brand of loyalty, whether to my country or to any other organization.

It is the sentiment of the original statement of unconditional ownership that convinced me to avoid party affiliation. I did not wish to allow any perception that I was dedicated to anything that was changeable. At least with my country it is arguable that my citizenship, and living here make it mine even when I disagree whereas with a party my disagreement while maintaining membership might seem incongruous.

As I came to realize that my strident independence was hobbling my ability to contribute to the actual work of government I had to reconcile myself to the idea of participating with one party or another. I have already expressed the fact that I was seeking to decide what party to work with. Now, having come to the conclusions of Schurz’ true patriotism (even before I found his statement of it) I am able to join a party without reservation.

I have chosen the Republican party as my political vehicle not because it is without fault, but where there are faults I will strive to set it right. Likewise my choice not to join the Democratic party – despite my ardent desire for a healthy balance of parties in this state – is not because that party lacks virtues in its members or its stated goals. My conclusion is that the stated positions of the Republican party more closely align with my own internal values overall than the stated positions of the Democratic party. I have also come to the conclusion that the Democratic party, locally and nationally, has stayed closer to their core values in recent years than the Republican party has to their core values (especially nationally).

I will be working to help the Republican party live up to its ideals and I will hope to see others working to build up a strong and vibrant Democratic party in our state – especially in areas like Davis and Utah counties – which will challenge the Republican party and push us to stay true to our principles because I honestly believe that regardless of the policy differences between the parties each party is built up mainly of people who love their country and want what is best for their fellow citizens.

Tags civic participation, Democrat, Elevated, parties, patriotism, Republican, Utah

life

Pursuit of Liberty Forum

Maybe I should call this a "pre-announcement" but I wanted to let everyone know that I am setting up a forum where anyone who is interested in talking politics is welcome to help shape my political thinking. The forum exists but will be taking real shape as I have time to shape it to meet my needs. I will have forums based on the governments over me and will not object if others want to create forums for other states, counties, cities, etc. I also plan to have forums on specific topics where we discuss the topic independent of a specific political entity. Feel free to register now.

I would heartily encourage anyone who reads and comments here to participate and help me shape my perspectives on issues I have not, and in some cases will not end up writing about on this blog. I admit that I start this with the selfish aim of taking advantage of the wisdom of this crowd, but I hope that it can become a useful resource for other as well. I will be encouraging people to participate here from groups that I get involved with such as a party or a citizens group (I hope to be involved in more such groups as I was before I moved).

Tags civic participation, connections, debates, discourse, forum, meta, site

life meta

Speaking My Native Language

Post author By David
Post date November 12, 2008
13 Comments on Speaking My Native Language

I have always tried to maintain a very civilized and respectful tone here when discussing issues that are sometimes charged with emotion in the public arena. I have been reading the book Why We Whisper and I began to recognize that my efforts to be civil had resulted in my speaking a dialect that is not native to me – secularism. I recognize that my effort not to shout had resulted in a timid whispering of my opinions for which I would not like to be known. The result is that my declared stances are weakened by an often apologetic tone when I take a position on some issues. I have determined that I can no longer do that. From now on I will be more willing to state my positions without apology and without an effort to articulate my position using secular terminology.

I still intend to be civil in manner, but by abandoning the secular terminology I will not avoid taking positions that are considered politically incorrect. As I have in the past, I will still be open to changing my positions in the future when I have been convinced of an error but I will try to avoid situations where people might mistake my true position based on my whispered stances and open declarations of uncertainty.

I appologize in advance to any of my readers who might perceive my writing as becoming more partisan than it has been in the past. I don’t know where this will take me, but I know that I cannot bear to think of myself as one who whispers the truth as if I am afraid to offend anyone or afraid that my positions may come back to haunt me in the future.

In addition to this change to a less wavering voice, I have also determined that it is time for me to find a party to affilite with in order to become more engaged in the political process as a participant rather than just as a pundit. I am still in the process of deciding what party would most closely align with my goals because I intend to make a difference in shaping the way we actually conduct the business of government. I do not intend to participate only in order to say that "I’m a delegate" (or whatever level of participation I actually achieve). In other words, if I were a delegate, I would be active in shaping the party platform and holding elected officials accountable to that platform not simply attending and casting a vote at the convention.

Tags civic participation, discourse, parties, position

Local State

A Step Backwards in Utah

Some people might think that Tuesday was a step backwards because Obama won. Others might consider it a step backwards because Chris Buttars won again. The real step backwards was that 59,000 fewer people voted in Utah this year than in 2004. That is not just lower percentage turnout, that’s lower numbers.

Mark Thomas with the Lieutenant Governor’s Office says . . . the ballot generally lacked hotly contested local races.

“There are people who feel that this is a Republican state and my vote won’t make a difference,” Thomas says. “But I think that’s not a very good attitude in the sense that there are a lot of other races that do affect you, and perhaps even more so in your day to day life, on a local level.”

We need hotly contested local races on a consistent basis to bring people out to the polls. Too many of our elected officials are chosen at the state and county Republican Party conventions where only the elected delegates get to vote. It cannot be considered anything like a democracy when our officials are chosen by the votes of less than 1% of the population (the delegates) who were given the chance to vote based on the support of the 2% of our population who attended their neighborhood caucus meetings.

I’m almost tempted to suggest that the Republicans be allowed (required?) to place two candidates for every office in Davis and Utah counties just so that the general election will have some real meaning. Perhaps better would be a general rule that in a county where more than 70% of the elected officials come from a single party that party be required to field two candidates in the general election. After all, the first Tuesday in November was supposed to be a choice, not a ratification.

Tags 2008, civic participation, Davis County, elections, Utah, Utah County