Subscribe RH Love

We need to safeguard the ‘public’ in public office

by | Jun 7, 2017 | Opinion

By Lee Hamilton

 

Our representative democracy depends on voters developing discriminating judgments about policies and politicians. They can’t do that if vital information is withheld from them.

For the last few years, I’ve been keeping a file of clippings about the erosion of transparency and candor in government. I’m sorry to report that it’s getting rather full.

This is not a good thing. Public officials should feel strongly obliged to do their business in an open and upfront manner. When you hold public office, the presumption ought always to be in favor of the people’s right to know what’s going on. If you don’t want to be open to scrutiny, then the burden surely has to be on you to say specifically why that’s necessary.

This doesn’t seem to be a commonly held view in Washington these days, though the precedent for non-disclosure is bipartisan. News conferences have been rare for Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump. During the George W. Bush administration the NSA was wiretapping Americans’ overseas communications based on legal justifications that were withheld from the public. Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department pushed to compromise a fundamental principle under which federal agencies made public their rationale for how they interpreted and administered the law.

The current administration has made policy-making more secretive than ever. President Trump refuses to release his tax returns, making it impossible for Americans to know whether his actions also happen to affect his financial bottom line. There have been constant attempts to draw a curtain over possible ties between Trump aides and Russia. The secretary of state talks about shifting policy toward North Korea — but gives no indication of what that policy is. The President has promised to rip up the Iran nuclear agreement, but has not done it and doesn’t tell us what his policy toward Iran is.

Vice President Pence has said all options are on the table with regard to Syria and that its conduct “cannot be tolerated,” but the administration is mum on what that actually means for strategy. Indeed, when asked his Syria intentions by reporters, President Trump responded, “I’m not going to tell you.”

This attitude is especially worrisome when it comes to foreign policy — where robust public debate over policy serves our national interests. Yet Secretary of State Rex Tillerson traveled to Beijing, Seoul and Tokyo for key meetings without a press accompaniment, went for weeks without holding a press conference, and has yet to deliver a speech outlining U.S. policy in any detail. He says, “I’m not a big media press access person.” Yet, he is officially our face both at home and abroad on relations with allies and rivals, and we don’t actually know what policies he’s pursuing.

There are legitimate secrets and reasons for non-disclosure, of course, and I’m confident that most Americans understand that they’re sometimes necessary. When public officials state occasionally that they cannot speak to a given question and lay out the reasons why, people tend to accept it.

All too often, though, classification and obfuscation are used to avoid debate and scrutiny for political reasons — or to protect bureaucrats or public officials whose actions simply could not hold up under the light of rigorous scrutiny. That’s why leaks, as much as presidents and cabinet members decry them, can be so important: that’s how we learned about the Watergate scandal; about the sale of weapons to Iran in Iran-Contra; about the torture we conducted at Abu Ghraib; about the NSA’s spying. And it’s why financial disclosure at every level, from the presidency to city hall, matters.

For in the end, people need to know what policymakers are doing and why. And policy makers need to respect the interest and the intelligence of the voters, and heed their obligation to the voter for candor and disclosure. Our representative democracy depends on voters developing discriminating judgments about policies and politicians, and they can’t do it if vital information is withheld from them. In a democracy like ours, it’s the height of disrespect for public officials to keep their actions and thinking cloaked.

There’s no reason for the public to brook such disrespect. We need to demand open communication, straight talk, and more complete disclosure of information. We need to expect that our public officials will do their business in public — and that if they can’t, they’ll explain clearly to us why not. This is our democracy. Let’s treat it that way.

Lee Hamilton is a Senior Advisor for the Indiana University Center on Representative Government; a Distinguished Scholar, IU School of Global and International Studies; and a Professor of Practice, IU School of Public and Environmental Affairs. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

 

For more columns each week subscribe to our print and e-edition here.

Subscribe RH Love

0 Comments

Subscribe RH Love

Related News

Kitsch me if you can

Kitsch me if you can

Columnist John Moore grew up with yard art, and still proudly displays a concrete gargoyle out on the front porch. Photo: John Moore Pink flamingos. Chalk and concrete figures. Cast iron pots with flowers. Old school bells. Cars on blocks. The yard art of yesterday....

read more
Put a pencil to it

Put a pencil to it

Columnist John Moore loves pencils. Even pencils that cost $30. Courtesy John Moore They call it, “click bait.” It’s when you come across something online that sounds amazing, so you click on it to learn more. Click bait is something that turns out to be nothing as...

read more
Time for a Change

Time for a Change

Last weekend, I did something I don’t think I’ve ever done before—I forgot to discuss the time change with my husband, the chief clock changer in our house. So when I woke up at 7:30 a.m. Sunday, I approached the day as “business as usual” and went downstairs to let...

read more
House proposes $7.5 billion in new school funding

House proposes $7.5 billion in new school funding

Critics say a House bill proposing $7.5 billion in new funding for public education doesn’t go far enough, The Dallas Morning News reported. House Bill 2 would raise the per-student allotment by $220, to $6,360 a year. It would also invest $750 million in teacher pay...

read more
Voucher bill has backing of House majority

Voucher bill has backing of House majority

A slim majority of Texas House members have indicated they will back House Bill 3, which creates education savings accounts that allow families to use taxpayer money for private school education. The Dallas Morning News reported that 75 Republican legislators have...

read more
House unveils its voucher version

House unveils its voucher version

Texas House members filed a bevy of education bills last week, including a proposed $8 billion investment in public education and a voucher bill that ties the amount of money spent for private schooling to the dollar amount provided to public schools. The Austin...

read more
Door number one

Door number one

Columnist John Moore has some milk bottles to return, but the milkman no longer stops by his home. Courtesy John Moore Social media, for all of its faults, every now and then offers something worthwhile. I’m a member of a group on Facebook called, “Dull Men.” The only...

read more
Voucher bill passes Senate, arrives in House

Voucher bill passes Senate, arrives in House

A bill to implement school vouchers in Texas sailed through the Senate largely on party lines last week and now awaits consideration in the House, the Austin American-Statesman reported. House Speaker Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, said he believes there are enough votes...

read more
Order photos