Recently in class we have been looking at the free software movement and other open movements, such as open government, that have recently come about and seem to parallel the movement of the Enlightenment and Renaissance in that they challenge the long-held authorities and call for free men everywhere to think for them selves. While I am in favor of free men thinking for themselves, I believe this is how we find truth in our lives, I'm not to sure about all of these open movements.
Take the open government movement for example, according to what I have read about the open government the main goal is, similar to that of the free software movement, in that it wants to open up all of the government to the people in order to help fix it, and inform the people. In essence to find all the "bugs" as if government was Linux, being opened up to the world to fix. Primarily I disagree with this approach to the government on the basis of security. How secure could we make our nation if we told all of our secrets to everyone? A bank owner doesn't tell the world the combination to his safe, that's an invitation to be robbed, and therefore bad banking. But secondarily, I disagree that "opening" the government to the people will get the people more involved and thereby fix what's wrong in government.
In my humble opinion if people want to get involved in their government, particularly our government, here in the US, they ought to vote. Currently America has horrific voter turn out, approximately 50%, but only every four years, at the time of a presidential election. What is the other half of America, that could vote, doing?? How can we advocate a possibly dangerous route for open government to get more involved when we don't even get involved when we have the chance currently?
I recently attended a lecture held here at BYU given by Norman Ornstein on the broken US government. The essence of what he said was that there are two interrelated reasons for the dysfunction found in the US government today. One is the affects of the mass media that have turned nearly every year into an election year, which has led to less cooperation among the parties because of fear of the voters. The second, which is tied to it, is poor voter turn out. According to Dr. Orstein because of poor voter turn out, politicians focus their attention on so-called "wedge" issues to get voters out to vote for them. As a result of this Congressmen, women, and Senators had come to make enemies across party lines, which stalled progress on important issues such as economic reform. His solution? Go Australian, and have mandatory voting, in this case the politicians can focus less on the voters, because they know the voters will be there, and can focus on the truly important issues. Personally, I agree with this, if the people want to live in a society where the government is for the people and by the people then the people ought to participate, we are what gives the government its power.
The bottom line is this, why are we looking for a more open government, when we don't even participate in the open government we have?
Take the open government movement for example, according to what I have read about the open government the main goal is, similar to that of the free software movement, in that it wants to open up all of the government to the people in order to help fix it, and inform the people. In essence to find all the "bugs" as if government was Linux, being opened up to the world to fix. Primarily I disagree with this approach to the government on the basis of security. How secure could we make our nation if we told all of our secrets to everyone? A bank owner doesn't tell the world the combination to his safe, that's an invitation to be robbed, and therefore bad banking. But secondarily, I disagree that "opening" the government to the people will get the people more involved and thereby fix what's wrong in government.
In my humble opinion if people want to get involved in their government, particularly our government, here in the US, they ought to vote. Currently America has horrific voter turn out, approximately 50%, but only every four years, at the time of a presidential election. What is the other half of America, that could vote, doing?? How can we advocate a possibly dangerous route for open government to get more involved when we don't even get involved when we have the chance currently?
I recently attended a lecture held here at BYU given by Norman Ornstein on the broken US government. The essence of what he said was that there are two interrelated reasons for the dysfunction found in the US government today. One is the affects of the mass media that have turned nearly every year into an election year, which has led to less cooperation among the parties because of fear of the voters. The second, which is tied to it, is poor voter turn out. According to Dr. Orstein because of poor voter turn out, politicians focus their attention on so-called "wedge" issues to get voters out to vote for them. As a result of this Congressmen, women, and Senators had come to make enemies across party lines, which stalled progress on important issues such as economic reform. His solution? Go Australian, and have mandatory voting, in this case the politicians can focus less on the voters, because they know the voters will be there, and can focus on the truly important issues. Personally, I agree with this, if the people want to live in a society where the government is for the people and by the people then the people ought to participate, we are what gives the government its power.
The bottom line is this, why are we looking for a more open government, when we don't even participate in the open government we have?
Yaay Australian. There is a tidy summary -- with points for and against -- about compulsory voting at http://aec.gov.au/Voting/Compulsory_Voting.htm It is seen more as your civic duty in Australia than compulsion. I believe that one impediment to a more open government in the US is the horrendous cost associated with being elected. To my mind, this skews the results to be less representative of the entire population. Finally, it may be possible to have a more "linux-like" government without giving away the combination to the lock. Meaning, open source security software is still freely viewable and it's security isn't derived from its secrecy. Of course, this analogy may not apply to all national security arguments but applying it where possible would, I believe, lead to stronger security.
ReplyDeleteI agree we need more voter participation. But if we set aside the issue of security -- I think most people agree we don't want too much openness there -- do you otherwise agree that open government is a good thing? Here I'm talking about transparency in departments such as Energy and Education. Or on a local level, openness with roads and transportation.
ReplyDeleteRecently we had a problem in Utah where UDOT changed their bidding formula for the I-15 project, favoring one company over another by a single point. The losing company threatened to sue, and UDOT paid them $13 million. It only came out recently, and the legislature and governor didn't know about it.
It seems to me that openness and transparency ought to be the default behavior of government, with restrictions only when security is involved. Would you agree?
Security is simple. Just make all secrets have time limits, preferably ones that are short enough to allow for criminal prosecution in the lifetime of the people who did whatever it was that needed to be kept a secret.
ReplyDeleteFenton, I believe that compulsory voting might help with campaign cost issues, because less time/effort/money would be spent simply trying to get people out to vote, and the votes would, therefore, be more representative of the people.
ReplyDeleteAlso, what sort of information would become more secure if available to everyone?
Prof. Zappala, I can see openness in the government as being beneficial to the people, especially as it directly affects people in their daily lives. My question with openness at this level is, how do you get the information out to the people?
ReplyDeleteAnd more importantly, how do you help them to understand what is being said? Because the purpose of openness would be to inform the masses, but the masses don't have Phds in English and Law.
Robert, if the answer to security is time, how do you prevent lobbyists from extending, or manipulating time-lines to fit their agendas?
ReplyDeleteMy brother Fenton lead me to this post. I agree with you! Very rational! =)
ReplyDeleteThanks! Now if only I could take all of my reason and transfer it to the American public!
ReplyDelete