The "Myth of Openness" or "Government isn't always trying to hide everything from You"

In my new quest for a more realistic view of politics I want to dive into the "myth of openness" in politics. Now, before I go into any depth of this "myth," it is imperative to frame this. The art of politics, at least in my short time in the field, is the art of framing ones arguments and messaging that framing relentlessly. Now these terms just feel clichéd, in non-political terms I mean this: the art of politics is who can make their particular position known and then yell it the loudest so the greatest numbers of people believe them. This is obvious on both major spectrums of the political divide today. Just look at the messaging about Governor Walker from the left and messaging about President Obama from the right. Obviously these are the most up to date examples, but this messaging has gone on since our founding and exploded with the birth of the modern campaign cycle.


With that in mind, how then would I frame this “myth;” first I would say that all politicians, whether I agree with them or not, mean well. Of course they do, otherwise they wouldn’t serve the people in the capacities that they do. However, there comes a paradox and the typical voter and citizen essentially misses it; that is that government clamors to be more “open” but it will always effectively be “closed.” I put these terms in quotes because my definition will vary from someone elses’ and in the grander scheme of things my definition of open doesn’t particularly matter. This isn’t to be cynical or cast myself as a skeptic or overly negative, but my definition of open will vary greatly from the 535 members of Congress or the thousands of Federal employees or the millions of people serving in state and local governments all over the country; mine is one opinion of millions and all opinions clash individually but become convoluted in the sea of millions. Yes, I’m sounding very philosophical, but really politics is such a charged subject for many and I want to change the lens with which we deal with it, or at least how I deal with it.


Before I get too lost in my own philosophical musings on opinion and the like (maybe another blog post?), back to the “myth of openness.” We live in a very self serving idea that all functions of government must be presented to the Public; and today there is no shortage of ways to demand such openness: there’s cable news, blogs, social media, traditional media and the convergence of the populace and media coming together and being able to pick up stories and run wild with them. Elected officials and and candidates HAVE to have some for of an online presence, whether they are running the feeds themselves or not, government officials are more “open” today than ever before. Yet, they’re not, as open as Government appears, that is simply face value. As much as we get to see the political process through C-SPAN or the web or on cable news, the majority of deals struck in governments throughout the country are done largely behind close doors or out of the public eye. This process is not uncommon, nor should it be disrupted, there is a point in governance where compromise and striking an actual deal is better than the continued posturing and gamesmanship of gaining the upper hand. Now, before you start thinking I believe that Government should be “closed,” I absolutely don’t. However, there needs to be a balance.


It’s my belief that government needs to improve upon the “Openness” it exhibits: the tweets, the exposure on C-SPAN and everything officials do now is great and doesn’t inhibit on their jobs. The human aspect of government “openness” should get relatively high marks; they are doing the best jobs they can. I shouldn’t expect a Senator or Congressman to ever tweet or write a status update on Facebook about an intelligence briefing or the Conference Committee they’re taking part in, which to me would very publically breach the trust of the offending Congressperson’s colleagues. This would be a bad thing, and not at all what I’m aiming for in an improvement of “openness.” Instead I’d prefer to see language of legislation posted for public consumption and commentary to be digestible and in an easier to understand format and language. If lawmakers expect to hear from the public the language of the Bills or policy posted should be done so in a way that anyone capable of casting a vote can understand. If this means taking a 600 page bill and converting it into a 20 page summation written in concise prose, that at least would be an olive branch of “openness” to the public.


I’ve only just scratched the surface of “openness,” and you can go on and on with just about any subject: Presidential intelligence of a given situation, fiscal policy, closed door meetings within any branch of government, the court system; how state and local governance REALLY happen. These are all worthwhile discussions, but where do you even realistically begin on any of those? All, except the intelligence (executive privilege is a slippery slope at best), can be potentially assisted with better communication in any number of ways.


Superficial “openness” in politics today is at an all-time high, but the actual openness of government is still susceptible to scrutiny. However, tempered expectations of how open government can and will be can help us better understand government and form a better opinion of it.