4 ms·

I've worked with legislators in a variety of capacities. In my view, this is a good thing. In order to compromise, politicians need to be able to speak freely

I've worked with legislators in a variety of capacities. In my view, this is a good thing. In order to compromise, politicians need to be able to speak freely with one-another and with the public about matters that may not on their face be terribly politic. I attribute a great deal of the current polarization to the fact that politicians cannot have private conversations. Personally, I would favor more exemptions. The open government/pure democracy types hammer on their right to know everything their elected representatives are doing, but I don't see it that way. I send them to get the best outcomes they can for their constituents. I'll judge them on the end result and either send them back, or send somebody else. But the idea that I need to see all their texts and emails is, in my view, ridiculous. Worse, it means nobody can take nuanced/compromising positions. And that's bad for America.

thinking4real 4y ago
“The government doesn’t respect your privacy, but you should respect its privacy” Seriously?
ancientworldnow 4y ago
It is in fact possible to communicate outside of email or other digitally recorded mediums.
- SamReidHughes 4y ago
  That adds another hurdle and is generally just undermining ability of legislators to communicate.
  - irrational 4y ago
    Getting up and walking down the hall is a hurdle?
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    Public servants should have nothing to hide if they're actually representing the public's interests.
it_citizen 4y ago
The more opaque, the harder it is to judge on results. Results are rarely black or white and less transparency makes it easier to create fake narratives.
parentheses 4y ago
Free private speech is naturally protected. Beyond that, if a legislature is going to publicly discuss anything, it should be part of a record visible to all voters. What you’re saying is that voters can’t handle politicians saying certain things that are necessary. Tough conversations are part of the world we live in. This is a natural constraint on politics. The idea that you or anyone judges outcomes is also a tough one to argue. Results in politics are complex to the point of being opaque. If you figure out a way to judge politicians accurately, do tell.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  Yes but the problem is that idealistic demagogues start to become preferred by the voters over people that are able to effectively create change, and suddenly getting things done is less effective than roasting your opponent or saying the right things. As long as the votes are still public we know what the legislator ultimately did, which in my mind is much for valuable than listening to the bluster they said.
inetknght 4y ago
> I'll judge them on the end result So your argument basically boil down to: the end justifies the means. Do I understand correctly?
- andreareina 4y ago
  Consider all the ends (e.g. lost public trust) and there’s no problem with the sentiment.
  - LastTrain 4y ago
    In this case, that is the means.
    - xboxnolifes 4y ago
      The means is the action, not the effect.
LastTrain 4y ago
There might be a reason for this legislation in particular and privacy in government communications in general, but the fact that legislators might lack the courage to compromise without it isn't one of them. You mention "open government types" in the pejorative - which strikes me as very odd indeed. I wonder what is the /opposite/ of that in your view?
bmitc 4y ago
Their job is to, in the most literal sense possible, create public documents that govern. There isn't a world where I see it as a positive that legislators can further bury their actions and communications behind veils of secrecy while the government has the utmost access to our communications. > I attribute a great deal of the current polarization to the fact that politicians cannot have private conversations. This really does not make any sense. You seem to be arguing for less polarized discourse, but I cannot see how that is accomplished by hiding discourse. By hiding it, you create little pockets of extremism, not to mention opening up the doors for illegal and traitorous behavior. Politicians can speak freely right now. What they want to do is further game the system, and I'm not sure how you can interpret these actions as otherwise. > I'll judge them on the end result You can already do that, and in Arizona, the end results don't look so good. Arizona, despite having a lot of potential and having beautiful natural landscape, seems to be consistently listed as one of the worst states to live in. Even the mere fact of Arizona being livable in the coming century is debatable due to climate change.
- Idk__Throwaway 4y ago
  I imagine what they mean is that any time a politician speaks, they must adjust what they say to agree with core voter demographic if they want re-election. Perhaps if they spoke privately they could concede on certain topics and reach a middle ground, then plan a way for each to explain the compromise to their voters. In a public forum people would likely view the compromise as one or both politicians "losing" and a mixture of ego and fear of not getting re-elected would prevent either party from giving ground and taking more measured approach.

thinking4real 4y ago

“The government doesn’t respect your privacy, but you should respect its privacy” Seriously?

ancientworldnow 4y ago

It is in fact possible to communicate outside of email or other digitally recorded mediums.

SamReidHughes 4y ago
That adds another hurdle and is generally just undermining ability of legislators to communicate.
- irrational 4y ago
  Getting up and walking down the hall is a hurdle?
- miguelazo 4y ago
  Public servants should have nothing to hide if they're actually representing the public's interests.

it_citizen 4y ago

The more opaque, the harder it is to judge on results. Results are rarely black or white and less transparency makes it easier to create fake narratives.

parentheses 4y ago

Free private speech is naturally protected. Beyond that, if a legislature is going to publicly discuss anything, it should be part of a record visible to all voters. What you’re saying is that voters can’t handle politicians saying certain things that are necessary. Tough conversations are part of the world we live in. This is a natural constraint on politics. The idea that you or anyone judges outcomes is also a tough one to argue. Results in politics are complex to the point of being opaque. If you figure out a way to judge politicians accurately, do tell.

kneebonian 4y ago
Yes but the problem is that idealistic demagogues start to become preferred by the voters over people that are able to effectively create change, and suddenly getting things done is less effective than roasting your opponent or saying the right things. As long as the votes are still public we know what the legislator ultimately did, which in my mind is much for valuable than listening to the bluster they said.

inetknght 4y ago

> I'll judge them on the end result So your argument basically boil down to: the end justifies the means. Do I understand correctly?

andreareina 4y ago
Consider all the ends (e.g. lost public trust) and there’s no problem with the sentiment.
- LastTrain 4y ago
  In this case, that is the means.
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    The means is the action, not the effect.

LastTrain 4y ago

There might be a reason for this legislation in particular and privacy in government communications in general, but the fact that legislators might lack the courage to compromise without it isn't one of them. You mention "open government types" in the pejorative - which strikes me as very odd indeed. I wonder what is the /opposite/ of that in your view?

bmitc 4y ago

Their job is to, in the most literal sense possible, create public documents that govern. There isn't a world where I see it as a positive that legislators can further bury their actions and communications behind veils of secrecy while the government has the utmost access to our communications. > I attribute a great deal of the current polarization to the fact that politicians cannot have private conversations. This really does not make any sense. You seem to be arguing for less polarized discourse, but I cannot see how that is accomplished by hiding discourse. By hiding it, you create little pockets of extremism, not to mention opening up the doors for illegal and traitorous behavior. Politicians can speak freely right now. What they want to do is further game the system, and I'm not sure how you can interpret these actions as otherwise. > I'll judge them on the end result You can already do that, and in Arizona, the end results don't look so good. Arizona, despite having a lot of potential and having beautiful natural landscape, seems to be consistently listed as one of the worst states to live in. Even the mere fact of Arizona being livable in the coming century is debatable due to climate change.

Idk__Throwaway 4y ago
I imagine what they mean is that any time a politician speaks, they must adjust what they say to agree with core voter demographic if they want re-election. Perhaps if they spoke privately they could concede on certain topics and reach a middle ground, then plan a way for each to explain the compromise to their voters. In a public forum people would likely view the compromise as one or both politicians "losing" and a mixture of ego and fear of not getting re-elected would prevent either party from giving ground and taking more measured approach.