The Process Of Setting Our Public Policy Course
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
The public clash of ideas, exemplified during the highly publicized August recess, drew the response from elected representatives (at least those who were supporting and promoting an agenda of implementing a government-controlled health insurance program) that civil exchange and open discussion had fallen apart. Numerous examples of past perspectives shed a different light on the exchange -- when similar loud discourse was acceptable because the elected representative agreed with the boisterous advocates.
Dealing with those who might not agree, Nevada’s U.S. Senator Harry Reid took the approach of holding a town hall meeting for those predetermined to be of like mind thereby avoiding the problem of not getting the feedback which wouldn’t fit with his point of view.
During the past Nevada legislative session various rallies were held outside the state legislative building, focusing on a number of different topics (not the least of which involved state spending and taxes). Elected representatives who tended to agree with the views of those doing the rallying went outside to interact with the public…those who didn’t agree stayed inside and worked to pay no attention. Given the controlling party’s frame of mind on increasing state spending and paying for it with about $1 Billion in new taxes, there weren’t any of those who would press the green buttons for increases participating in the two Tea Party rallies held to promote the “No Tax Increase” message.
Given the apparent polar divisions between those who believe that government needs to be more directly involved in problems and those who believe that government already is too much of a participant – where or maybe more appropriately “how” do we go forward from here?
First, this should be a discussion (which means anyone who has any thoughts should take full advantage of the “comment” button below and weigh in with those thoughts)…
Further, I would suggest that much of the shrillness we saw in August came from representatives not wanting to listen and constituents not willing to go unheard. Those who held open forums, accepting input, didn’t seem to have had the problems that those who sought to avoid being told what citizens were thinking. It should also be noted that there is nothing wrong with being loud and being unwilling to back down to having yourself be heard when not being allowed to have the opportunity for the input you’d like to give. From personal experience, for the most part, the circumstances speak for themselves and an individual’s credibility is weighed on their appropriateness of delivery methods given the situation.
Beyond that though attention needs to be given to the overall concept of how public involvement is conducted to start, develop and decide critical policy issues.
There are many such topics, especially those which interject a difference in the current direction taken by the majority party, controlling the legislative operations of both Washington, D.C. and the Nevada legislature. It would seem that the campaign process for the 2010 election provides the forum in which to surface concepts for development as policy or legislative initiatives.
Those who wish to build the concepts for meaningful reform of government need to be bold in promoting and crafting their working agenda. Using the 2010 election process (including the pre-campaign, primary and general election activities) allows for building necessary commitment from those who we hope will be our elected representatives as well as shifting the attention from a reactionary push-back to a proactive effort.
The public clash of ideas, exemplified during the highly publicized August recess, drew the response from elected representatives (at least those who were supporting and promoting an agenda of implementing a government-controlled health insurance program) that civil exchange and open discussion had fallen apart. Numerous examples of past perspectives shed a different light on the exchange -- when similar loud discourse was acceptable because the elected representative agreed with the boisterous advocates.
Dealing with those who might not agree, Nevada’s U.S. Senator Harry Reid took the approach of holding a town hall meeting for those predetermined to be of like mind thereby avoiding the problem of not getting the feedback which wouldn’t fit with his point of view.
During the past Nevada legislative session various rallies were held outside the state legislative building, focusing on a number of different topics (not the least of which involved state spending and taxes). Elected representatives who tended to agree with the views of those doing the rallying went outside to interact with the public…those who didn’t agree stayed inside and worked to pay no attention. Given the controlling party’s frame of mind on increasing state spending and paying for it with about $1 Billion in new taxes, there weren’t any of those who would press the green buttons for increases participating in the two Tea Party rallies held to promote the “No Tax Increase” message.
Given the apparent polar divisions between those who believe that government needs to be more directly involved in problems and those who believe that government already is too much of a participant – where or maybe more appropriately “how” do we go forward from here?
First, this should be a discussion (which means anyone who has any thoughts should take full advantage of the “comment” button below and weigh in with those thoughts)…
Further, I would suggest that much of the shrillness we saw in August came from representatives not wanting to listen and constituents not willing to go unheard. Those who held open forums, accepting input, didn’t seem to have had the problems that those who sought to avoid being told what citizens were thinking. It should also be noted that there is nothing wrong with being loud and being unwilling to back down to having yourself be heard when not being allowed to have the opportunity for the input you’d like to give. From personal experience, for the most part, the circumstances speak for themselves and an individual’s credibility is weighed on their appropriateness of delivery methods given the situation.
Beyond that though attention needs to be given to the overall concept of how public involvement is conducted to start, develop and decide critical policy issues.
There are many such topics, especially those which interject a difference in the current direction taken by the majority party, controlling the legislative operations of both Washington, D.C. and the Nevada legislature. It would seem that the campaign process for the 2010 election provides the forum in which to surface concepts for development as policy or legislative initiatives.
Those who wish to build the concepts for meaningful reform of government need to be bold in promoting and crafting their working agenda. Using the 2010 election process (including the pre-campaign, primary and general election activities) allows for building necessary commitment from those who we hope will be our elected representatives as well as shifting the attention from a reactionary push-back to a proactive effort.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 9/3/2009 9:32 AM 
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Public discussion of issues Nevada 2010 election campaigns
Categories: 2010 Elections
Tags: Public discussion of issues Nevada 2010 election campaigns
Comments