Obama signals he will tap his rivals
Many presidents have vowed to end partisanship. Few succeed.
(Page 2 of 2)
“With a click of a mouse, you can find out who is getting how much money and for what programs,” says Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a nonpartisan group dedicated to improving accountability in government. “Never before has anything like that happened. It suggests that this is really something that people are looking for – and that Obama can build on that as a model.”Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
To get through Congress, the bill had to clear hurdles in the Senate. Its backers for a time appeared to be stymied by a maneuver called an anonymous hold, in which an unknown senator can privately block a bill he or she doesn’t like. When it appeared that the transparency bill would pass in the Senate – making it easier for people to see which senators sneaked how many pet projects, or “earmarks,” into bills without public discussion – someone put an anonymous hold on the bill.
“So the right and left bloggers out there suddenly took over and went headhunting for the senator who was the anonymous hold, and it turned out to be the king of earmarks, Sen. [Ted] Stevens of Alaska,” says Mr. Bass. “When he took it off, there was another anonymous hold. So they went checking, and it was the other earmark king, Sen. [Robert] Byrd [of West Virginia]. And so they, in a left-right kind of way, got both of the holds off, and the bill went through unanimously.”
A push to involve the public
Obama has signaled that he’ll use the Internet to reach out to average Americans.
His agenda to make government more transparent, already announced, includes publicizing earmarks, putting legislation on the Internet for comment before he signs it, reining in lobbyist influence, and having cabinet secretaries regularly take questions from the public. Some he can do from the White House, but much of it will require congressional action.
“If Obama does want to push that kind of an agenda, the biggest roadblocks will be some of the old bulls in Congress,” says Chris Edwards, director of tax policy at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington.
While people generally like the notion of open government, Mr. Edwards notes, they also like the pet projects their congressmen bring home, from library renovations to bridges.
There are also concerns that more public forums concerning legislation and regulations could negatively affect the quality of decisionmaking. For instance, the loudest voices that post the most tend to take over the Web’s public forums.
“You’ve got to set up controls to stop that from happening,” says Ari Schwartz, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a pro-transparency group based in Washington. Lobbyists have more resources and can hire people to follow these forums, where they post a lot of responses that reflect their partisan views, he says. That could mask the real beliefs of the public. “You’ve got to be able to sense that,” says Mr. Schwartz.
“It can’t just be a popularity contest,” he says. “There still have to be people in government who can make judgments based on the quality of the ideas, not just what gets the most people onto a [Web] page.”
Many remain optimistic about the impact of increasing transparency on government’s efficiency, its ability to overcome partisan differences, and its ability to connect with average Americans.
“It sends a very good message that the government is taking steps to do this,” says Robert Bluey, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Media and Public Policy. “That’s the way the government is going to win back some trust.”