Glasnost & Other Fairy Tales
August 4, 2009
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
Before Mr. Putin and others in the Russian government decided against freedom for all and started moving back towards an authoritarian regime, they talked a lot about pushing Glasnost.
This Russian word has been in their language for quite some time, but more recently, Mikhail Gorbachev changed the meaning. In the 1980′s, he used the word in policies, speeches, and everywhere he could to push new changes in the Communist government.
The word was used to describe the new government system as being more transparent and more open. Worldwide people knew the word and used it as a synonym for openness. Mr. Gorbachev used the word to hopefully shape policies that would’ve reduced corruption and increased citizen engagement.
Fast forward to the 2008 US Presidential election and things looked much the same. After going through a war time President, where secrecy is always valued more highly than during peace time, most Presidential candidates argued that transparency was missing in Washington.
Voters readily agreed with these statements and should’ve. Using basic human conditioning, logic, & game theory, we know that transparency does indeed reduce corruption and increase engagement. Anonymous actions and transactions are some of the ways the corrupt around us succeed. Looking at Enron, socialistic governments, even your neighbors, will help prove this concept.
Even President Barak Obama pushed this openness and transparency. He even pushed so hard during the campaign, that it became a cornerstone of how his administration would be better than others. In the first 100 days, we even saw glimmers of hope that this would happen:
President Obama embraces openness on day one
Vowing transparency, Obama OKs ethics guidelines
MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
FDA transparency committee set up under Obama openness pledge
& many, many more
Naturally, like all things, the devil is in the details. Since Mr. Obama’s changes in the very beginning to certain rules and such, we have very much witnessed an administration that is just as willing to hide details from the public as were previous administrations. The main difference lies, not in whether any given administration is open, but only in what facts they wish to conceal.
As proof of this assertion, look no further than the Clunker for Cash programs. The program, designed to remove old cars off the road, has looked extremely successful. In just 11 days, more than 250,000 older cars were removed from the US and replaced with more fuel efficient and cleaner cars.
This also helped spark demand in the auto industry which was a welcome side benefit during the recession. From all accounts, the program was successful and is potentially something we should continue to fund going forward.
Why then the refusal to share information (here) about this prized program?
The Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its “cash-for-clunkers” rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program’s success, even as the president presses the Senate for a quick vote for $2 billion to boost car sales.
It seems odd that an administration which has proactively bound their belief system to the ideas of transparency and openness would prevent the distribution, of what seems like innocuous, information.
Since we have no proof, I don’t wish to use conjecture or speculation about to why the admin is refusing to deliver the information they claim makes their case for refunding the program, but the possible reasons are almost endless. Some include:
They could knowingly be hiding damaging information. IE- the data doesn’t support their current contention.
They might not be able to really get the full set of information they are claiming they have… IE – they spoke earlier than they should’ve about the program using incoming information instead of complete information.
They might have all the information they will likely get, but it might not contain specific data to help resell the program. IE – we know it was used 250K times on these types of cars, but do we know whether this actually increased demand, got people to trade-in cars they wouldn’t have otherwise… etc, etc
But whatever the reason for the refusal, you would think in an “open” administration, at the very least, should communicate the reason the data has been delayed (and not denied from an open administration) and when the data should be available to the public.
Of course when the current makeup of our politicians includes several hundred incumbents who have voted on both the Patriot Act & more recently, health care reform, without ever having enough time to read it…. and with current celebrity obsessed population being more enamored by style than actual substance…I don’t see any trends that positive change in true transparency is on the way for the US.
Categories: Economics, International, Political Philosophy, Politics
| 
Tags: Auto Industry Bailout, Economics, Free Market Principles, Obama Administration, Obfuscation, Politics, Transparency
|
Leave a reply
