Policy Discussion: Public versus private talks

[RogerFGay]

Thought this would be an interesting article to share. Perhaps you're not aware of it, but there has been a distinct difference between Republicans and Democrats regarding participation in Congressional hearings. Democrats opened it up. Republicans shut it down - inviting participation only from those who support their agenda versus inviting people who have a strong interest. Of course, the Demos can get some opposition in as well.

Obama vs. Clinton: Public vs. Private Talks (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/04/obama-vs-clinton-%e2%80%93-public-vs-private-talks/)

[DesertFox]

The article nowhere even hints that the best thing may be to leave alone vast swaths of what are now considered public-interest items such as health care. The writer appears to be one of those who can only conceive of public policy in terms of everyone-gets-involved in the discussions and then everyone is bound by the decision. The beauty of laissez faire is that everyone gets to decide for himself what he wants to do. You do as you wish and I as I wish.

Your comment afterwards notes that the Swedes invite everyone to public policy discussions, even foreigners such as yourself. You didn't mention that Sweden has gone further backwards than any modern country in terms of quality of life, since going purely socialist decades ago. Hers is not an example we want to follow.

[Kathekon]

Thought this would be an interesting article to share. Perhaps you're not aware of it, but there has been a distinct difference between Republicans and Democrats regarding participation in Congressional hearings. Democrats opened it up. Republicans shut it down - inviting participation only from those who support their agenda verses inviting people who have a strong interest. Of course, the Demos can get some opposition in as well.

Obama vs. Clinton: Public vs. Private Talks (http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/02/04/obama-vs-clinton-%e2%80%93-public-vs-private-talks/)

I think it is simply wrong to say that one party is open and the other not as a matter of governing style. Whichever party controls Congress loves to have hearings when the better witnesses, facts and public mood are on their side. Democrats are usually more fond of inquisitional hearings--the GOP has nobody like Dingell or Waxman. Neither party is open when the contents of proposed legislation is unpopular (or sleazy). Neither party openly goes after their own side's miscues and misdeeds.

In fairness to Democrats, Hillary's botched health care "process" was an aberration from which Democratic members of Congress were expressly excluded. It was also illegal--when you are part of the Executive Branch (or acting under its aegis) making policy that will have the force of law via regulation, you have to follow the Federal Advisory Committee Act and/or Administrative Procedures Act and include the public in a very defined way. Hillary never intended to listen to any of the people invited to her wonkfest or anybody else. Once Ira Magaziner finished writing the plan (perhaps translated from the original Swedish regulatory language) in total isolation, the wonks were supposed to just say "yes, ma'am" and cheer.

The notion that a President Obama will have an open and transparent administration is an illusion that would last about a week after inauguration until the first White House PR mistakes and policy goofs make the news. Then he would close up like everybody else has. Clinton shut off the press in his first term after it became clear he could not duck scandal questions. Bill Clinton's policy-making style was just as closed as Bush is routinely accused of being. If anything, the Clinton Administration had fewer adverse leaks from career government employees and disgruntled appointees and a tighter rein on the government. They deep-sixed computer records and defied doc requests and got away with it.

Democrats in Congress bitched about being excluded from the process after 1995 but they have short memories. Under Tip O'Neill, the majority was not all that concerned about minority sensibilities. George Mitchell was more of a hardball partisan than LBJ was as majority leader. The idea that they were more "open" to public concerns or the other side is a crock. They were "open" to people who (a) gave them campaign money (b) made them look good by supporting stuff they already wanted to do (c) gave them campaign money (d) were useful for PR and media reasons or (e) gave them campaign money.

The key is to listen to who is complaining about "openness". Liberal activist groups don't get to showboat at hearings called for their benefit on legislation they write when Republicans are in control. Industries about to be regulated or newly taxed often think they did not get a fair shake from Democratic majorities.

The idea that one party or candidate will be more "open" is an illusion.

"Openness" in Washington is a pretty flexible word. Liberal groups calling for "openness" tend to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as a "special interest." If you speak for tens of thousands of stock holders and employees or for right-to-life or second amendment rights, you are a "special interest" whose participation contaminates the "process" of government. If you speak for union bosses or George Soros, you are a "public interest" and the system needs to be responsive to your concerns or else the dark night of fascism has descended upon us.

[RogerFGay]

The article nowhere even hints that the best thing may be to leave alone vast swaths of what are now considered public-interest items such as health care. The writer appears to be one of those who can only conceive of public policy in terms of everyone-gets-involved in the discussions and then everyone is bound by the decision. The beauty of laissez faire is that everyone gets to decide for himself what he wants to do. You do as you wish and I as I wish.

Your comment afterwards notes that the Swedes invite everyone to public policy discussions, even foreigners such as yourself. You didn't mention that Sweden has gone further backwards than any modern country in terms of quality of life, since going purely socialist decades ago. Hers is not an example we want to follow.



I feel your pain. And really, I've been posting here for such a long time that you should know I'm not being sarcastic.

I have responded around the internet to what seems the same unfounded complaint re: a relationship between socialism / instability and participation / proportional representation. Participation in political discussion does not equal socialism. If it did, one would have to include that you're a raving socialist because you engage in political discussion in this forum.

Consider also that it isn't "decades ago" anymore - the left has had a harder and harder time holding power in Sweden, and just now there's a right - center coalition in power. I really don't know how imporant that is. It doesn't seem to me that a real discussion about something in the US would turn it into Sweden, nor would it cause instability (I think just the opposite).

Note also that without real citizen involvement, there's pretty much been nobody in the public discussion (in a way you'd notice) pointing out that maybe it's not such a good idea for the bipartisan Congress to turn every thought into a multi-billion dollar program.

[RogerFGay]

I think it is simply wrong to say that one party is open and the other not as a matter of governing style. .....

I'm just sayin' --- Democrats published my testimony every time I submitted. Republicans hid my stuff in a filing cabinet and promised to provide a copy to anyone who agreed with me and asked for a copy. There was a distinct difference in that, as well as the number of opportunities people I know had to sit at the table to testify and interact.

[DesertFox]

Participation in political discussion does not equal socialism. No, it isn't. But requiring everyone to go along with whatever's decided IS socialism. That was the big problem with Hillarycare -- you had to participate whether or not you wanted to.

[RogerFGay]

No, it isn't. But requiring everyone to go along with whatever's decided IS socialism. That was the big problem with Hillarycare -- you had to participate whether or not you wanted to.

Oh. You caught me by surprise there. I wasn't thinking about forcing anyone to do something .... etc. I was just imagining how great it would be for you to be in every discussion, reminding people how great it would be if people have some kind of freedom.