Should politicians be representatives or rulers? The decision is up to us

This should serve as a wakeup call to Americans not only to oppose attempts to take lawmaking into the shadows, but also to reestablish our appreciation of open dialogue and consideration of others’ opinions.

In a government of the people, by the people and for the people, all Americans deserve to watch how our lawmaking is done. The idea that the process should be conducted transparently and in full view of the public is a core principle of our form of self-governance.

But Americans’ ability to see government conducted in the open isn’t guaranteed to last. It requires citizens to demand that the lawmaking process is carried out openly, and to be vigilant for any attempts to shield it from the public. If we back off of that demand, we open the door to bad actors in office to damage us all.

This bears mentioning in light of recent attempts by Republicans to limit access to media covering legislatures in at least three states: Iowa, Kansas and next door in Utah.

As reported by The Associated Press, GOP lawmakers in those states have proposed steps such as barring reporters from sitting on the floor of House and/or Senate chambers, prohibiting them from approaching lawmakers with questions without written consent and eliminating free access to committee meetings.

These are the actions of politicians who want to rule, not represent. These are the actions of politicians who have despicable intentions for all of us, and want to do them in the dark.

All of these restrictions run counter to open, transparent government. They impede reporters’ efforts to provide accurate and thorough information to the public, and therefore leave the public more in the dark about what’s happening in their statehouses. They also reduce the public’s ability to hold leaders accountable by giving cover to lawmakers who want to avoid reporters’ questions.

In what is often a fast-paced and chaotic environment in statehouses, it’s critical for news media to be able to watch the action from close-up and approach lawmakers quickly in order to explain what’s going on.

Steve Morris, a Republican who served as Senate president in Kansas, spoke to this need in a column for the Kansas Reflector (see reprint on page 3) and in an interview.

“Reporters are our avenue to see what’s going on,” he told the AP. “Especially when there’s something controversial. The session adjourns and members skedaddle out of there rapidly so it’s hard for journalists to get to them, unlike when they’re on the floor they can immediately get to them.”

GOP lawmakers say these proposed restrictions are needed to maintain decorum, and to limit access among nonprofessional bloggers or newsletter providers. But there are ways to address these issues — we think our counterparts in the Salt Lake Tribune’s editorial staff offered a good solution in saying lawmakers and media organizations there should work together in a “manner similar to national correspondent associations that cover the White House and Congress” … “to facilitate conversations, negotiate rules and help credential reporters.”

“More critically, they preserve transparency while upholding a professional code of conduct,” the Tribune wrote in a Feb. 7 editorial.

On a more fundamental level, though, it’s up to Americans to maintain transparency in government. And to do that, it will be necessary for us to address a larger issue of people retreating to communication siloes where they don’t have to defend their stances or field uncomfortable questions.

We’re seeing this across our culture. It’s part of what’s driving laws in several states to bar teaching about racism that would make students — white students, though that’s unspoken — feel “discomfort.” An example of the other end of the spectrum came with a recent survey among college students in which 71% of Democrats said they wouldn’t consider dating someone with an opposite view, versus 31% of Republicans.

The underlying issue is a weakening of our national character caused by social media, where people crouch behind a wall of their biases and where those biases are guaranteed to be validated.

This is corrosive to our national dialogue and our collective strength. Americans once believed in dialogue — in testing their viewpoint against differing perspectives and hashing out a mix of ideas as a means of coming to the best collective answer.

That’s increasingly no longer the case. Debate has given way to an expectation of constant affirmation, with even the most delusional and paranoid among us being able to find communities accepting their unhinged ideas.

This is the impulse driving the proposed media restrictions by the GOP. They know a portion of the public may be receptive to the idea of walling off.

Republican leaders weren’t always this way. In fact, in a classic case of politics making for strange bedfellows, Tea Party Republicans were particularly supportive of open meetings and open records — part of their crusade to make government more accountable – and as a result found themselves aligned with Democrats on the issue.

Now, in a changed environment, the GOP is going the other way on the issue. This should serve as a wake-up call to Americans not only to oppose attempts to take lawmaking into the shadows, but also to reestablish our appreciation of open dialogue and consideration of others’ opinions.

Fortunately for Nevadans, our state lawmakers aren’t pursuing such restrictions on media access. But it’s disconcerting to see other states going down this road.

When Abraham Lincoln spoke of government of, by and for the people in his Gettysburg Address, he did so as part of a call for Americans to do their part to ensure that democracy “shall not perish from the earth.”

Nearly 160 years later, the job of protecting our rights and freedoms still belongs to us. The right to know what government is doing belongs to the people, and thus the people can squander that right either by choice or through inaction. It’s up to us not to let that happen.