5 ms·
"Transparency" in Congress has lead to grandstanding and posturing to cameras, at the expense of the necessary compromises and deals that could otherwise happen
by dcsommer 3y ago
"Transparency" in Congress has lead to grandstanding and posturing to cameras, at the expense of the necessary compromises and deals that could otherwise happen.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoTransparency would be transcripts of every communication the politician has. At the golf courses, at the bar, on vacation, etc. See Clarence Thomas for example. Internet/bandwidth creating cost free video channels for politicians to advertise themselves is not transparency.
- Eumenes 3y agoSounds like something a Corporation would say. You can have compromise and transparency, it doesn't have to be one or the other.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- master-lincoln 3y agoIf that is true, the issue is in the egos of people making deals
- coldtea 3y agoThe don't grandstand because of "egos" but because they have things to win from that (like press coverage, voter sympathies, money and deals from opponents of the issues they grandstand against, and so on).
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- manicennui 3y agoYou are either being disingenuous or incredibly oblivious. People want to know what our elected officials are saying in private with lobbyists and campaign contributors.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> "Transparency" in Congress has lead to grandstanding and posturing to cameras, at the expense of the necessary compromises and deals that could otherwise happen. What transparency in Congress? Congress lacks even the transparency requirements many state legislatures have and is essentially completely opaque, with virtually everything substantive happening out of the public eye. The absence of compromise has to do with certain factions preferring to scheme for achieving total government control and preferring to making things worse in the short term if it can be leveraged to help advance that cause, not to transparency.