Placing politics and positive in the same phrase or breath
seems like an oxymoron. Why is that? Why do the words ‘political’ or
‘politician’ carry a negative connotation? Why are all elected officials
considered politicians by many people?
First, a definition: from a Google search, politician refers to a person who is
professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate
for an elected office. Synonyms include legislator, elected official, statesman,
stateswoman, public servant and more. A further definition is offered: “a
person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain
advancement within an organization.”
Second, a definition of political
found on Google is: of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or
affairs of government, politics or the state; relating to involving, or
characteristic of politics or politicians; relating to or involving acts
regarded as damaging to a government or state; interested or active in politics;
having or influenced by partisan interests; based on or motivated by partisan
or self-serving objectives.
From these two definitions the weight of the terms appears
to be leaning toward the negative. Insert the word ‘manipulative’ or
‘self-serving’ and you get my meaning. And theirs. Sad but true, or maybe you don’t agree with
me.
I don’t have a better word to suggest at this point. I do
think matters of government and public policy are important arenas for public
thought and action. But logic is very much a part of this arena, too.
A lot of data is needed to make good decisions about
anything. In the public arena such as government, a clear objective is
important to have in mind when doing the public’s work. The public ought to be
involved in defining those objectives. They also should be conversant about the
operations of government. Government needs to work transparently as well if the
public is to have confidence in it.
Confidence. In the government, their government. I think
this is an important point.
I have confidence in government in general. At times it is
difficult to maintain that confidence because some decisions, policies and
programs seem poor or sloppy. Each time that is encountered confidence is
reduced. Overall, though, I have confidence in government.
This is especially true of local government. It is easy to
observe in most of its workings. A public record exists and complications are
rare. It takes time to observe local government operations. I do that
frequently and thus the source of my confidence.
I trust as well that the operations of the local Fire
District and Library District are doing as well. Having served for several
years on the Park District board I have full confidence that it is working very
well and in the interests of its public.
Moving up the governmental chain to county, state and
federal levels, operations become much more complex to watch all the time.
That’s where the news media enter the picture. To be effective in their jobs,
however, two things have to happen: first media personnel must be stationed and
assigned to keep watch over the operations of those government levels, enough
so that they fully understand what they are observing and reporting on. Second,
consumers of the news need to read what the reporters have written and
comprehend their reports fully.
Obviously it is hard work to both report on the happenings
and keep up with those reports. If it is to be done well on both parts the
media and public must share a partnership. Both parties have work to do if the
operation is to be successful.
In the past news media were plentiful and supported by large
news organizations. Their product was reported and printed in major newspapers
and news journals throughout the nation. Today that is not true. News organizations
are much smaller and much weaker. Their reach is much smaller, too.
In its place is electronic news media. Much more scattered
and much more competitive with the other electronic news outlets. Rather than
increasing coverage is lessening. Without the depth and breadth of coverage
observations of government operations are scant, incomplete and disjointed. It
is questionable whether the public has access to a solid understanding of how
well the governments are working in the public interest.
With fading observation and understanding, two things
result. The first is a growing distrust in government overall. The second is
self reliance of government doing the right thing when not observed. The latter
is not guaranteed and needs a watchdog. The former leads to nonsensical beliefs
of skullduggery in government and an irrational belief that all government is
bad.
In the wake of this dissolution of news media is the
formation of fringe reporters and pundits who create news by reporting non
factual material. Thus Rush Limbaugh thrives. So do Glen Beck and Bill
O’Reilly. These three alone have become an industry unto themselves.
Is government doing poorly? I don’t know if any of us can
answer that accurately. News reporting has grown so scant as to preclude
knowing the answer to that question. And
that’s the public’s bad. It is we who need the news organizations, but we also
must be smart consumers of their product, not accepting everything they say
just because they say it.
I have confidence in my local government entities. That’s
because I've working within them and observed their operations closely. The
other government levels I do not profess a close understanding. That is
something we need to address. It will take a professional news organization and
a well-read consumer to make it work at a level in which we can have
confidence. Then and only then can we
expect government to be of the quality we
demand, expect and support.
You see, it is not only government that needs a watchful
eye; it is the media. And you and I should be watching. Only then can we remove
the ‘manipulation’ from ‘politician’.
November 19, 2014