Memo

To: Date: Re: Sky Blackwater 4/22/2013 The Problem of Short-Sighted Public Officials From: RGW

Public officials at all levels of government are frequently criticized for making shortsighted decisions. As a result of these decisions, many elected officials are often accused of looking forward only as far as the next election, and carry a reputation of placing narrow parochial interests above the general welfare. Although they may dispute such claims, the relevant literature seems to justify such a belief. THE PROBLEM Belonsky (2011) summing up public sentiment, writes that the eyes of voters everywhere need to be opened to how elected officials too often vote for the ballot box, remaining focused on winning for themselves, rather than their constituents. The general idea is that elected officials vote with public opinion, yet at the same time they try to shape public opinion with what they do and do not share with the voting public. Many public officials use misinformation as a way of staying in office, focusing on what others have not or would not do, instead of standing on the merits of their own records. Part of what seems to perpetuate claims of public officials as short-sighted and placing narrow public interests above the general welfare is that so many public officials remain out of the realm of the general public, refusing to involve or educate them on any level regarding decisions to be made that will directly impact their lives. Garson (2005) writes that most elected officials believe that seeking public input only complicates the process of making decisions, falsely increases public expectations of what may result, and results in decisions that are delayed and often not as good as when the public were not consulted in the first place. Grossman and Helpman (1996) argue that this kind of thinking trickles down to elected officials from the philosophies of the two primary political parties. In seeking to maximize campaign funds and seats in government, the party that is expected to win a majority of seats caters more to the special interests (Grossman & Helpman, 1996). If this is the philosophy of the parties then it would have to be the philosophy of a majority of its members. They only way that any system can thrive is if the members buy into and perpetuate its underlying philosophy. Once an elected official buys into the notion that the party catering more to

Sky Blackwater October 12, 2011 Page 2 special interests will win more elections, he or she is destined to become an elected official catering more to special interests to remain elected. The reason that this stance continues to win votes has to do with the pool of impressionable voters who choose not to become well-informed regarding the issues or the histories of elected officials. Grossman and Helpman (1996) argue that by setting a platform that serves the general interest, a party can attract votes from the portion of the electorate that is wellinformed about the issues. But by choosing policies that cater to the special interest it may be able to elicit greater contributions that then can be used to influence the voting of lessinformed or impressionable voters. If this policy is indeed the reason that elected officials are able to remain in office even while demonstrating that they place special interests over the well-being of the general public, then it highlights the possibility that the size of the less-informed or impressionable voters is larger than previously imagined. This kind of situation only reinforces that public officials should pay more attention to the special interests and less to the general public. Focusing on electability means developing relationships with special interest groups whose funding is necessary to sway popular opinion. As long as this equilibrium remains, there is no need for an elected official to worry about negative consequences. The problem is that this kind of thinking undermines the fundamental nature of democratic theory. While the country is run by those elected from the people, they are increasingly showing that they are not thinking of the people. In fact, the information appears to indicate that the focus of many elected officials has shifted from the people who elected them to the structure of the electoral processes that put them in the position. Given this, the only solution to the problem of short-sighted elected officials would be a series of policies aimed at educating the general public regarding the nature of their elected officials and what they do while they are in office. THE SOLUTION If the daily workings of government were recorded by the media as much as the daily activities of certain celebrities, then the general public would be too well-educated to allow elected officials to remain in office only by working towards the next campaign. There needs to be regular inclusion of the voting patterns of elected officials on the news and in newspapers, and not solely during election campaigns. The voting public needs to be made aware of how they are being represented by their elected officials at all times, not just during the voting season. More than just exposure in traditional media outlets, the government needs to take the initiative and reach the public where they are, with target digital exposure, facilitating the process of information-gathering and reducing the distance between the general public and elected officials.

Page 2

Sky Blackwater October 12, 2011 Page 3 The data shows that where government has tried to increase citizen participation, citizens have taken advantage of the outletsBulletin boards, electronic town meetings, chat rooms, e-mail lists, threaded discussions and so forth have all become popular ways for citizens to communicate among themselves and with government officials (Garson, 2005). What this kind of outreach does is keep citizens informed about the regular actions, thoughts and voting patterns of their elected officials, and where it has been implemented, elected officials have had no choice but to cease being short-sighted because the voter base is now familiar with their actions outside of election campaigns. An informed voting public more in touch with the routine of their elected officials is less likely to be swayed by what Grossman and Helpman (1996) term pliable policies, or policies about which [public officials] have no explicit preferences and so are willing to tailor their positions to further their election prospects. Interest groups are composed of people who prefer elected officials to have pliable policies so that the official can be convinced to support their particular interest. The only party hurt in such a relationship is the voting public, who believe that they elected an official with a certain stance only to discover that he or she had no preference at all. Special interest groups fund both major political parties. They annually contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to federal, state and local campaigns, trying to increase the electability of the candidates willing to represent their particular interest even at the expense of the general public. This situation only occurs because of the number of voters who are less-informed about the voting histories and stances of their elected officials and are thus more impressionable to the ads they are exposed to during election campaigns. The only way to combat this self-perpetuating problem is with the increased distribution of information to the general public. The data has shown that where the information is readily available it has been accepted, and citizen participation has subsequently increased. It should be said that increasing citizen participation is not a guaranteed way to prevent the short-sightedness of all elected officials. It will not prevent some officials from placing certain special interests over that of the general public. There will always be those who will focus more on votes than on progress. However, it will make it harder for these officials to distort and obscure the truth, and there is hope that they will not remain in office long enough to cause too much damage. Of those who do remain, they can elicit no complaints from their voters, as an informed electorate should have been aware of the potentially pliable policies of their officials before they cast a repeat vote.

Page 3

References Belonsky, A. (2011). Is gov. beverly purdue right about suspending congressional elections? Death and Taxes Website. September 27, 2011. Garson, G. D. (2005) Handbook of public information systems. Second Edition. NC: CRC Press. Grossman, G. M. & Helpman, E. (1996). Electoral Competition and Special Interest Politics. Review of Economic Studies. Vol. 63, pp. 265-286.

Page 4