In today’s political environment, a smart politician quickly learns that using the right language is more important than doing the right thing. In most cases, the electorate won’t know the difference, because the real business of government is done through that most boring, least-understood, least reported-on mechanism—the budget. If we really want to know what is going on, we have to follow the money.
Democratic accountability is a lot easier in small communities where everyone knows everyone else, and where the implications of decisions made by elected officials are apparent to anyone interested enough to look. When governing decisions are being made at the state or federal level, it is far more difficult for citizen-spectators to see through the rhetoric and figure out what is really going on.
The increased amounts of information available via all-news networks and the internet haven’t helped. To the contrary, the need to fill an ever-expanding “news hole” has led to an obsession with crime and celebrity, and the eclipse of serious journalism by political pundits, talk radio and an explosion of blogs has overwhelmed unbiased reporting. Growing numbers of us get our political information almost entirely from partisans whose livelihoods depend upon reinforcing that day’s talking points. The result is that we are increasingly dependent upon sound-bites and campaign slogans, all carefully tested in polls and focus groups and perhaps tempered by our impressions of the likeability of this or that candidate or elected official.
In today’s political environment, a smart politician quickly learns that using the right language is more important than doing the right thing. In most cases, the electorate won’t know the difference, because the real business of government is done through that most boring, least-understood, least reported-on mechanism—the budget. If we really want to know what is going on, we have to follow the money.
A reminder of that political truism came in my mail last week.
For several years, I have served on the Indiana Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Each state has such a committee, which must contain a balance of Republicans and Democrats. Efforts are made to ensure that these unpaid volunteers represent that state’s population—geographically and ethnically. State committees function as sounding boards—bringing local issues to the attention of the Commission staff. The staff in turn will conduct research on the issues, and follow that research with public education efforts.
The letter was short and to the point. It began “Please be advised that on Friday, April 8, 2005, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights voted to close two of the six regional offices.” It then reported that all remaining regional civil rights analysts would be terminated on July 1st. The four regional offices that remain will be expected to serve all fifty states. They will be allowed two staff members each.
Perhaps there are good reasons to eliminate the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which is essentially what has occurred. Perhaps it is no longer necessary or not performing adequately. But shouldn’t that decision have been made publicly, with discussion and an opportunity for debate, rather than through budget cuts?
Ironically, on the same day I received this notice, the media was filled with accounts of the President’s moving speech to Vladimir Putin about the importance of protecting minority rights in democratic societies. I must have missed the reports about de-funding the Civil Rights Commission.