Positive Politics?

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