A View from Hawk Hill: Gov’t inner workings not for casual consumption

My family can never decide on a summer vacation locale.  Even with just four people, we usually end up in a deadlock between two who dream of beaches and pina coladas and two who would rather hike and raft all day.

When this occurs, the secret deals begin. Recently, my dad and I secretly plotted the ultimate vacation unbeknownst to my mother and sister. After my dad spent hours foiling agendas, checking Trip Advisor, and comparing airfare, we created the perfect presentation strategy that masked our work and made it appear as though we simply just stumbled over this relaxing yet adventurous location. In the end, my mom and sister both eagerly agreed to join this vacation even though they may have to trade their bikinis for backpacks and water bottles.

Although this may be a silly story, the same types of disagreements arise within our political society as well. If you think compromising between the views of four people from the same family is hard, try weaving the wants and needs of 300 million people. That is a challenge every president has had to tackle throughout our country's history. The Founding Fathers had enough foresight to predict this eventuality and created a democratic republic which removed the common man from the legislative process. But even those wise men had to meet privately, without the influence of the public or press, at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to decide on this important tenet.

Our country was not built on transparency but rather trust. We elect officials we hope will carry out our intentions because we do not have the same governmental access. Yet, our view of transparency has morphed into an entitlement that the American people may not totally understand (thanks to numerous years of campaign rhetoric).

Over time, there has been an erosion of trust within our society towards government. It is hard to mesh the ideas of a diverse nation. This is particularly true during events like the recent health care debate. Because the issue is so large and affects so many people, no legislation will ever totally please doctors, insurers, drug makers, the uninsured, and the insured. In order to come close to some sort of agreement, closed door meetings and deals are practicalities and sometimes necessities. 

So why are millions of Americans demanding more transparency, particularly during this divisive debate?  Americans want a seat with the top leaders and special interest groups because they were promised one by their elected leaders. Back in 2008, President Obama campaigned on change, transparency, and bipartisanship. He has accomplished the former but has yet to act on the latter two initiatives. Not only did Americans lend their vote to Obama, they also lent their trust.

Unfortunately, I feel as though Obama has either miscalculated or manipulated this trust. Despite the institutional formality of his recent State of the Union address, Obama made one remarkable point. For decades, presidents have pushed off initiatives that could transform America (like health care) because it simply was not the "right time." Obama questioned when the right time was if not now—in an era when 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every day. Despite hardship, Obama insisted we continue this debate. I believe in this type of ideology and rhetoric, but this type of dream will require lots of work that should not include the common man for the sake of the common man. By promising transparency and bipartisanship during this debate, Obama is undermining his own political agenda.

Stories of the president's private meetings exclusively with Democratic leadership, as well as reports of a private $80 billion deal with the pharmaceutical industry (in which they would cut costs in return for White House opposition to drug re-importation and drug price negotiation) directly conflict with his promises. When Americans read these stories, they grow distraught and confused. They question their trust and are forced to choose between transparency and reform, even though they have been promised both.

Instead of promising transparency in the open and privately dealing in the opaque, Obama should have addressed this issue from a different angle. He could have guaranteed health care reform but with a price. The cost would be that of transparency in an effort for change. As Obama pointed out last week, when he campaigned for change, he never said he could do it alone. Obama cannot single-handedly reform health care and he should explain to Americans that health care reform requires the help of special interests and closed-door meetings.  It is impossible to pass legislation without the aid of special interests in today's world.  To think otherwise is naïve and too idealistic.

Governmental transparency is a complicated matter. American input is essential and also an underlying principle of our nation. But no legislative victory has crafted in front of Americans' eyes without the aid of secret meetings and special interests.

Hopefully Obama can recapture our trust and become an example of transparency himself by telling us the truth instead of just ideals.