Karl Rove is leaving the Bush administration. This proves that dreams can come true. I would have liked to see this happen years ago, but I commented positively on the first reports that Rove had lost his iron grip on the GOP. I have always viewed his approach to politics as being destructive for society. I doubt that anybody who fills his vacancy could have a negative impact on the administration.
The results of the straw poll in Ames were just what I would have wanted. Mitt Romney won, as predicted, but Mike Huckabee came in second as I had hoped. His second place finish was called a surprise, but I can’t imagine a better candidate in that spot. Unlike many better known candidates I would have no reservations with seeing Huckabee in the White House. The only thing I could have hoped for in Ames that didn’t happen would have been if Huckabee had garnered all the votes from those candidates who received less than 5% so that there was more distance between him and Sam Brownback in third place.
I went to a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last night and learned a whole lot about communication between government and citizens. I also found it interesting this morning to see that some similar lessons were learned by a Tyler who attended a Truth in Taxation hearing in Davis County last night. The lessons that Tyler talks about are good for citizens and officials. I would like to list some other lessons that I learned – which may be a result of the fact that the meeting I attended was really a different type of meeting than the hearing he attended.
Citizens: Take yourself seriously
There was a group of neighborhood residents who came to present their concerns with elements of a specific development near them. Unfortunately many of those residents were attired in shorts, sandals, and baseball hats. While I accept the fact that we live in a very laid-back society these residents combined their casual dress with with a casual and subtly belligerent attitude which left them looking sophomoric when contrasted with the professionalism of the developer as he addressed their concerns. His professionalism is almost certainly the kind of professionalism that most of them display in their places of work. I don’t know if they really did not expect to accomplish anything or if they really did not understand that their cocksure demeanor would make it less likely that their concerns would be fairly considered.
Officials: Make meeting format flexible
The basic meeting format was to have an overview of the issue, any comments by the proposing party, and then public comment followed by response by the proposing party concluding with committee action. This format was adequate for most items, but there were two items where I noticed myself and others of the public who might have comments come to mind based on the response of the proposing party or the committee after the committee or proposing party responds to the initial public comments. The format of the meeting should be flexible enough to allow the committee to open up a second period of brief public comment as appropriate prior to committee action.
Citizens: Come prepared
The same group of residents who had been too casual had appointed a spokesperson (who was more appropriately attired) and had done their homework before the meeting. They knew their concerns and made sure that they got a say. Others who came for various issues were not so well prepared. When questioned by the committee they were left saying “I think . . .” or “I’ll have to get back to you on that” which could only result in their requests being tabled or else ignored. Certainly you cannot be prepared for every contingency that might arise, but doing your homework will make a big difference.
Officials: Make it possible for us to prepare
I think that officials do a lot of work to make this happen most of the time but on an issue of a new zoning category being proposed there was a resident who had concerns but who was unable to prepare adequately for the meeting because the committee had not made the text of the proposed ordinance available for review. Citizens do not need to have everything available to them that the committee members have to prepare for a meeting, but on a proposed ordinance they should have access to the proposed content of the ordinance even if it will undergo revision before it is passed. A one sentence description on the agenda is not usually sufficient for that kind of issue.
I sincerely believe that most involved citizens and most public officials are trying to work together in a positive way. This is not meant to be a criticizm against those efforts, but merely an effort to add my insights into the process.
I’m looking forward to the results of the Ames, Iowa straw poll this weekend. Because of the candidates who are skipping it I am not sure if it will have much effect on the top tier of the Republican field, but I am hoping that it will be beneficial to my favorite second tier candidtae among the Republicans, Mike Huckabee. In an interview for the Washington Post he took my preferred position on one issue where I disagree with Mitt Romney by endorsing John McCain’s stance regarding torture (or enhanced interrogation).
I would love to see Governor Huckabee in the top tier instead of someone like Rudy Giuliani who is well known but has not convinced me that he has anything more going for him than being in the right position at the right time to gain that fame. If the Ames straw poll plays out right for Huckabee, he might have a shot at breaking into the top tier and getting the exposure that he deserves in the media.
The bill to give Utah a fourth seat in the House of Representatives has been hanging around for quite some time. It has not had too much coverage lately because very little has been happening with it. Yesterday I was surprised to see two editorials on the issue in Utah newspapers (Deseret News, Daily Herald). What really surprised me was that both editorials were against the bill. Back when this bill was getting more attention I was constantly disappointed that most of the coverage of the issue was supportive of the bill.
The reasons given for opposing the bill are that the other half of the legislation (giving Washington D.C. a voting member of the house) was unconstitutional. As the Deseret News pointed out, the goal of giving D.C. a voting member of the house is not without merit, but it is outside the scope of legislation. The proper way to accomplish this is to change the constitution, or make D.C. a state or part of a state. These are the same arguments I have been making on blog posts and comment boards ever since the issue was first raised. (Surprisingly, I discovered today that I have never talked about it here.)
The Deseret News offers one other reason to oppose the bill – timing. I have always argued that Utah should just wait until we get a new seat – we’re growing much faster than the country as a whole so we’ll gain new seats as the census gets updated. The editorial argues that the time is getting short enough now (only 3 years or less before we get new seats anyway) that Utah has nothing to gain by pushing legislation for a provisional seat in exchange for a (currently unconstitutional) permanent seat for D.C.
My series of endorsements for 2008 was very enlightening. I learned a lot about my political leanings and what I thought was required of a president. I hope to capture some of what I learned here.
One thing that I learned was the value of time. When I began the endorsement process I had different expectations for what I was looking for than when I finished. There were a number of candidates who I did not reach the conclusion on endorsement that I had anticipated. I noticed how my own attitudes and perceptions about the political health of our country affected my perceptions about where different candidates stood as far as how I perceived their ability to lead the country. Also, as I continued to look at the candidates I found that my perceptions of them changed over time. I was no longer making judgments based on a snapshot of their positions, but I was also able to determine the trajectory of their positions and adjust my judgments accordingly.
I learned that timing is important. There were a number of candidates I could not endorse simply because they were not a fit for the needs of the day.
My appreciation grew for the work that is required of citizens if they are to make informed choices. making informed choices requires being informed about the candidates and the issues as well as understanding your own assumptions and values.
I have come to believe through this process that the rigors of campaigning are good exercise for a potential president. They are seeking a position that is challenging and unpredictable. The job requires them to consider the present as well as the future, knowing that their decisions can affect the lives of people everywhere. It makes more and more sense to me why we frequently select men (so far) who have been governors and generals, and less frequently select men who have spent time as legislators.
I posted in June about the voucher debate exemplifying the worst of political discourse. Apparently Frank had similar thoughts about the voucher debate while reading The Audacity of Hope. I really liked Frank’s post because it illustrates one of the root causes of our unhealthy levels of partisanship that we currently have in Washington (and around the country). It also serves as a good illustration of why I consider Obama to be a top tier candidate even though I disagree with him on a range of issues. He understands the root cause of our political problems.
Frank has also written a second post about where he, as a conservative, agrees with Barak Obama.
I think I recognize one of the major reasons why UDOT leans so heavily on building roads rather than transit. It has to do with perspective:
Why is it that transit funding is a subsidy but highway funding isn’t? Why do some people complain about seeing empty trains or buses in off-peak hours, but they won’t complain about freeways that are empty or nearly empty during the same hours? Why do some people never consider that, by funding highways much more than transit through the years, we are forcing people, even ones of meager means, to buy expensive cars and to fill them with expensive gasoline? Why do we consider Americans to be car-crazy, when they really have few other options? (Deseret News article – Thumbs Up to Funding Mass Transit 7/1/07)
That really makes you take a second look at all the arguments against transit solutions. I still don’t think that government should subsidize fares for mass transit any more than they should send citizens vouchers for gas. However, it may be that building and maintaining a transit rail line should be of equal importance to building and maintaining a road (which government does all the time). Operating costs for a transit system should be covered by fares, but maintenance should be subsidized similar to maintenance on roads. Perhaps a tax on fares that covers the same percentage of line maintenance as is covered for road maintenance by gas taxes.
To conclude from the same article:
Of course we need to keep subsidizing cars through highway construction. But we need to subsidize transit, as well. If one of government’s legitimate functions is to provide the infrastructure to help commerce thrive, this makes sense. It even makes sense from a conservative point of view.
It doesn’t take much thought to realize that a hot, dry summer does not mix well with fireworks. Governor Hunstman called on cities to ban personal fireworks because of our conditions this year. The Deseret News Editorial on the idea notes that legal fireworks seldom create problems. The fact that we make laws which we don’t enforce encourages unlawful behavior. We should not be waiting for the government to tell us what is smart.
This situation, and my personal feelings leave me in a bind. Tomorrow all the cousins are getting together to celebrate and the families decided that we would purchase fireworks jointly instead of individually. None of us take the time to purchase illegal fireworks (which are expensive and pale in comparison to the professional displays anyway) but with the extreme fire season we are having this year I believe that it is irresponsible to act as if personal fireworks are some inalienable right. If it were not for the fact that our family has already agreed to do fireworks together I would choose not to do any personal fireworks this year – I’d just stick to the professional displays.
