A recent thread at a discussion forum where I participate in semi-secret fashion got me thinking about the extent to which so much of the voting public has a skewed civic ideal. The thread began with a rambling post about the idea that neither Democrats nor Republicans actually represent the people:

They do NOT care about you. They do NOT care about the lower or middle classes. And they do NOT care what you have to say beyond finding out what you want to hear. I feel like I’m the only sane person in America. The government has never done anymore than keep the people happy. When it fails, we elect new people who do just enough to placate as many idiots as possible. The idiots being us, because we sincerely believe that these people are the best thing for us. We really think that replacing one lizard with another is going to fix our problems. We need PEOPLE in the government. Human Beings. A person who TRULY represents you and your way of thought. Not someone who changes the question to the one THEY want to answer, or moves the conversation away from issues where they actually have to take a firm stance.

… a few posts later …

Like it or not, Bush is one of the most honest politicians, in that regard, that I’ve seen. He actually takes a side and sticks by it. We may not like the side he takes, but regardless he does. Unlike other politicians that change the subject or talk their way out of questions (and perhaps it’s because he’s not bright enough to) he actually says it. And he actually follows through on things too, and you can see where that got him. Meanwhile Clinton didn’t do anything in office except get BJs from interns, and people are singing his praises from the hills.

… followed by a response …

I’m sorry, but I must be missing something. How exactly is Bush the most honest politician? He changes policy with the wind. Remember the 9/11 commission? Bush fought tooth and nail to keep it from forming and doing work. Now he praises it. The Department of Homeland Security? Bush hated the idea, and only changed his mind when it became clear that opposing it wasn’t a politically viable option. He used to be against a marriage amendment. Now he’s for it. He pushed through the No Child Left Behind Act, and then left it unfunded. These are all very, very prominent policies, and Bush was hardly honest about them. So color me confused if you really think he follows through on the things he says he stands for.

It was at this point that I decided to give a response. Now, I do consider my response to be a little uneducated — it’s been years since I’ve taken a Political Science class, and that was the survey class. Sure, I’ve taken Public Policy classes, but I consider that to be at least a little bit different. In any case, I got no response to my post, and I would love to hear something that uses sound reasoned logic (not that “government is the problem” yakity-yak bullhack) to see if there’s something I’m missing. I just don’t really understand why anyone votes for the “less government for the sake of less government” platform.

Here begins my post

There are some policies he did stand for, though, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence standing contrary to his underlying assumptions. The ban on stem cell research is a great example of this.

As far as Jon’s original point goes, the question goes toward implementing policies in a way that is not disingenuous to the political/democratic process or harmful to the public good. None of that has anything to do with whether politicians understand me, feel my pain, or think like I do (though it helps a great deal to have empathy and compassion, not just to talk about it).

There are some practices I understand happened during Clinton’s watch that I don’t agree with: FDA getting a little too close to pharmecuticals, for example (then again, the problem is much worse today than it was under Clinton’s watch). There are other practices under the Clinton administration that I do agree with: HOPE VI was one of the most beneficial programs to come out of HUD; public housing was actually beginning to work in a way to accomplish its ultimate goal (the Bush administration trashed it as quietly as they could with hardly any explanation).

If you really want to know about a better way to run a government, take some classes in public policy. One of the worst concepts to come about in the 20th century is the idea of running government like a business. For a business person to hold public office is like having a patent lawyer become the next district attorney: sure, they have some similarities (two executives vs. two lawyers), but they don’t deal with the same realities by any means.

Business is a great thing to have for meeting the demand for private goods, so that’s what business schools essentially teach (especially marketing): “how can our business meet the demand for said good so that we can make a profit?”

The question that political executives should be asking, however, is different. Government exists to meet the demand for public goods. The demand for public goods is calculated in a different way than the demand for private goods (if you’re looking at a Supply/Demand graph, it’s the difference between adding horizontally and adding vertically). What if government officials are taught to look at the demand for public goods as though they were looking at a private market? Take a moment to think about that.

In any case, I would say that political executives should be asking the question of how the government can best meet the demand for public goods. Once this basic question is asked, the stream of further questions should flow: how to meet that demand at the lowest cost, for example.

Granted, there are a lot of “should” statements, which don’t necessarily reflect reality. Some politicians preach lower taxes for the sake of preaching lower taxes. Such a position is irresponsible because it becomes in that politician’s best interest for government initiatives to fail, whether through under- or overfunding. This is not to say that all government failures occur this way, but I’d at least be more willing to put my trust in someone willing to use objective methods to determine how best to implement public policy. It’s much better than the alternative.

Not that I often read tech mags — not anymore, at least — but I noticed one of the most refreshing comments I’ve seen in a tech mag in some time. Mike Ricciuti, executive editor at CNET wrote about Microsoft’s most recent delays in releasing their second service pack for Windows XP. Part of the problem that has existed for some time, he notes, is that users have been reluctant to download patches. If users would simply download patches like they’re supposed to do, there would not be so many viral problems spreading so quickly around the Windows world.

On the flip side:

But expecting consumers at large to keep up with the blizzard of confusing and sometimes contradictory software patches is ludicrous. Remember, computing is mainstream. Senior citizens shop on eBay. Teenagers chat on instant messaging. Do you think any of these people understand why they should apply an “Update for Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) 2.0 and WinHTTP 5.1 (KB842773)”? You’d have better luck asking them to split an atom. There’s got to be a better way.

So it has been with the underlying problem of technology all along. Not all consumers are gadget freaks or tech nerds, and the real challenge of technology is to appeal to the confused masses. Seriously, why does technology have to be so … technical? Why does it have to be so complicated for me to attach a file to an email? Why should I have to keep track of a gazillion passwords just to operate my life or my work? What makes spammers and spyware vendors believe they’re going to make any money in the course of making my computer even more difficult to use? Why can’t they just leave me alone? Can’t we all just get along?

An interesting email sent to Ga. State students got sent out today, but with a missing attachment:

Subject: BSA and PIKES Appeal Decision

The Black Student Alliance (BSA) and Pi Kappa Alpha (PIKES) were both sanctioned for activities stemming from a black face incident in Spring Semester 2004. Both groups appealed the decisions of their respective judicial proceedings to me and, at my request, participated in a formal mediation process. The BSA and PIKEs were able to reach a mutually-agreeable resolution of their grievances including, in part, removal of the sanctions initially imposed on both organizations as a result of the underlying student organization judicial claims.

The Agreement entered into by both parties to the mediation is attached. In support of their joint Agreement, I am removing the sanctions originally imposed on both organizations. In addition, both the BSA and PIKES are hereby reinstated in accordance with the terms of their Agreement.

Hazel J. Scott
Vice President for Student Services

The agreement was not attached to the email, but it comes at an opportune time, in any case: four days before the start of the fall semester.

Update: Thanks to Brian, you can see the text of the attachment in the comments.

In my previous entry, I mentioned that I’m going to Chattanooga. As it turns out, I’ve now been there and back, with a little to report about the town gone fish.

Chattanooga is in so many ways becoming a New Urbanist’s dream, but without rail transportation (no, the Incline doesn’t count). It’s pedestrian friendly. According to Sunday’s Chattanooga Times Free Press, the downtown area is going through a housing boom. However, much like Atlanta’s own Post Riverside complex, there’s very little sign of any boom going on. Perhaps we went at just the emptiest time of year, but there was hardly anyone on the streets (even the homeless were difficult to find), especially on the nights and weekends. Struggling to find a place to have a reasonably-priced breakfast, we wound up going to a Waffle house sitting a few miles from the downtown area.

One thing that surprised me was the storage room sitting in prime restaurant property. Across the street from the Aquarium, you can find a building that houses the Big River Grille and Thai Smile 3, plus some unoccupied restaurant spaces. We were able to see inside the unoccupied spaces quite clearly only to see that some of those spaces were utilized as storage space. My reaction to this: if the best use of prime real estate is storage space, downtown Chattanooga has some (no pun intended) real problems.

On our last day, we no longer had a parking pass for the hotel, so we parked in one of the downtown lots. Now, the lots there are so plentiful that it will take years before anyone ever has a parking problem in the area. Seriously, the folks who run the lots could certainly afford to charge much lower rates to help attract more folks to the area. We found a surface lot a little out of the way, but relatively cheap compared to the others: $4.00 for the whole day — as opposed to hourly rates, which generally eat wallets for breakfast. The lot we found, like many others, was run by Republic Parking. Given the rates and ubiquity of Repbulic Parking signs, it appears they have a monopoly on parking services in the city. As we found out, they seem to act like a monopoly, too. Upon returning to the car, I found a “Parking Violation” ticket. Thanks to cellular telephone technology, I was able to call the number listed on the ticket and request they void the ticket, which they did. To their credit, the folks from Republic Parking were very courteous and professional to me on the phone, but as I got in the car I had to wonder how many folks out there have gotten tickets and decided it wasn’t worth it to try to fight the ticket — and how much additional revenue Republic generates from their irresponsible ticketing practices.

Having said all that, our trip to Chattanooga was an overall good experience. The people there were very friendly. The food at all the restaurants we visited was very good. The attractions were … well … attractive. When we arrived at the hotel, there happened to be a Veterans for John Kerry rally featuring Max Cleland.

From the reports I saw while we were there, I have little doubt that Chattanooga’s downtown area will see more folks move in. The Tennessee Aquarium is expanding, and this single attraction is clearly at the center of much of downtown’s economic development initiatives. The quality of life there, at least superficially, appears to be enviable, and it will probably remain that way for some time to come.

This past week has been a bit restful. On Tuesday, Holly and I went to the Botanical Garden, among other attractions around town. As much as we walked, toured and actively did nothing in particular, it was certainly one of the most relaxing days I’ve had in quite some time. Summer classes are over, the weather over in these parts has been as close to perfection as I could ask for, and I’ve gotten some much-needed time to read books and engage in some personal reflection. Tomorrow, we’ll be heading off to Chattanooga for a few days, so you might (maybe?) see an entry on the profundities and perils of the town gone fish, once I return.

While we were at the Gardens we witnessed the tail-end of a bit of a frightful incident. We saw a man drop whatever he had and make a mad dash into the reflecting pond. There was barely any time to think before we saw him fish a young boy who had apparently thought it would be fun to try to hop onto one of the gigantic lily pads. The boy was rescued successfully — no CPR needed — with great relief to the parents, who had to run from the opposite side of the lawn. A couple of ladies sitting on a nearby bench applauded for the dashing hero, though they seemingly applauded in a way as to indicate they’ve seen such incidents occur before. Perhaps it was something about the signs they held up that said “9.5″ and “10.0.”

On Thursday I began a two-day-long retreat with the Community Development Council, a sort of president’s council at Georgia State. Though there were fewer folks who showed up than I had ever seen, there was a sort of optimism among everyone that just feels different than in previous years. Just from anecdotal evidence, it appears that many student groups had a very difficult year last year. Some of that may have had to do with the rate of turnover among student life administrators. Today, all of the positions in the Student Life and Leadership office are now finally filled, and the folks there are ready to take on the new school year. I’m optimistic about this coming year, though in a much different way than I was this time last year. We’ll see how it goes.

In the meantime, I’ll be taking only a couple of classes this fall. One is a class on negotiation, and the other is a marketing class on buyer behavior. I’ll still be in the University Singers, where we will once again give a performance at Spivey Hall. Mark your calendars for November 6!