Although I had never heard it before, this quote in Utah Policy really captured the essence of some of what I have been trying to convey in posts and comments on what makes an ideal legislator:
“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives”. James Madison
We are supposed to have a popular government (government of and by the people) and it must have popular information (information from the people) if it is to function properly. This is one of the reasons that backroom politics is so undesirable. In this age of hyper-communication every elected official (or even candidate) has the means of acquiring popular information and they must do everything in their power to acquire that information.
It is not an easy task because it takes lots of work to put together a coherent picture from all the available sources of information, but it is a task that can be done more with effort than with capital and thus it is possible for anyone who is determined to acquire that popular information to do so.
The second half of the quotation is equally potent. “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance” – that’s simply a statement of fact. Those who would seek to keep others uninformed are simply trying to rule over them, not to represent them. If “we the people” want government by the people then we must insist on having knowledge available to the people.
We cannot afford to work behind closed doors because, whatever our intentions, that process leads directly to ignorance among the grassroots which promotes the growth of a ruling class like a fungus. Like the good legislator that must work hard to piece together a coherent picture from many sources of information, a people who wish to have a popular government where their voice matters must work hard to make sense of the vast sea of information in which we all sail.
Interesting comments on transparency. How do you square this with the fact that the 1787 Constitutional Convention was conducted under a vow of complete secrecy?
I consider arguments about the secrecy of the 1787 Constitutional Convention to be missing the mark. The Constitution was drafted in secret, but it had no force without being ratified by the people – that is the ultimate in transparency – the people had months to review the proposed Constitution and decide if the proposal was acceptable. While I am a strong advocate for transparency and communication that does not mean that I cannot accept a legislator working in secret to produce a draft of legislation before presenting it to the public (specifically constituents and fellow legislators) for their consideration and input. That’s very different from drafting and voting on a law without allowing the input of constituents and without allowing sufficient time for review and debate among the legislative body.
My understanding is that the silence pact was also to prevent lobbying outside of the groups represented by the representatives present. Today we have bills written by lobbyists.
I had understood that to be the case as well. Bills written by lobbyists that are properly disclosed to the public with sufficient time for debate within Congress and among the public are preferable to bills written by members of Congress without any input from lobbyists and then rushed through to a vote with minimal debate.