John Dean: Political Processes Matter

[seafan]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20071102.html">Political Processes Matter: Although They Are Often Ignored By American News Media, A New British Import Has Addressed The Issue Directly

By John Dean
November 2, 2007

To understand the way our country operates, one must understand the functioning of its government. To understand the functioning of government, in turn, one truly must understand its processes. I am talking about something far beyond Civics 101, for reality has little relationship to the way our government, in theory, is supposed to function.

.....

Regardless of which political party controls our national government, it is the processes that produce the policy outcomes. Good policies come from good processes; bad policies inevitably flow from dysfunctional processes.
The Bush/Cheney Administration has burdened the nation with policy decisions that range from a disastrous war in the Iraq to the failure to address domestic and international issues greatly in need of serious attention. Much of what has gone wrong has happened because Republicans are manipulating, misusing, and abusing the processes of our national government. (This is something of a surprise to me, since I thought my former tribe had learned something from the public's rejection of this activity when it was done by the Nixon Administration.)

Startlingly, the Democrats - so far - are ignoring the way the GOP has been gaming the system to its advantage, and to the detriment of the broader public interest, and it has been going on for too many years. This is a troubling situation.


How Democrats Ignored Process In 2004 and 2006

Nothing was more surprising about the presidential campaign of John Kerry than its decision to ignore process questions. For example, shortly before the 2004 election, the New York Times editorially asked why the Democrat's standard bearer was not raising the excessive secrecy of the Bush/Cheney White House with voters.
Following Kerry's defeat, I contacted his campaign and asked this question myself. The response, right from the top of the campaign, surprised me. Secrecy was a process matter, I was told, and the campaign did not believe most Americans cared about process.

Also, I made inquiry in both 2004 and 2006 of Democratic congressional candidates about why they had not addressed the way the Republican control of the Congress had literally removed them from the deliberative process, not to mention the way in which Republicans had abused those the process. Particularly in the U.S. House of Representatives, such abuses had become the norm under GOP control . We saw two-day work weeks, no committee hearings, legislation written by K Street lobbyists that was slipped into bills during late night sessions, cutting Democrats out of conference committees to resolve House and Senate differences -- to name a merely few abusive techniques.

Democratic congressional candidates, not unlike the Kerry campaign, said that they had been advised by consultants that voters did not want to hear about such "process matters," and to talk about them made them appear to be wimpy and complaining. So they too avoided process issues.

Republicans, in turn, have merely increased their abusive behavior, since it has no political cost whatsoever. And they are now making Democrats look like fools, rather than an opposition party.

.....

The UK's Guardian has recently started an online edition of its publication specifically directed at American readers. Michael Tomasky, the editor, acknowledged that he is interested in promoting the liberal and progressive agenda. More importantly, and as he explained when introducing this new publication, he plans to start "looking at the events of the day from a slightly different angle than US papers, and focusing in on some matters that they might ignore."

Tomasky did just that, for example, with his recent interview of Hillary Clinton. He asked her process questions that, inexplicably, no American newsperson has raised: "If you become president you'll enter the White House with far more power than, say, your husband had. What is your view of this?"

.....

If Democrats do not focus on process in 2008, then not only will they be giving up a winning issue, but should the Republicans get a pass on such subjects without being held accountable, they will so change our government that it will no longer be recognizable.

[napi21]

1. John Dean is absolutely RIGHT! I don't know who the Dem consultants

are, but I recommend firing all of them!

[Spazito]

2. I love reading John Dean, his articles are always thought-provoking....

I certainly agree with the substance of his perspective that "process" is key but, and in my mind it is a big but, the public, imo, is less interested in "process" than the results of said "process". As soon as the word "process" comes up whether in written or oral form, one can actually watch the proverbial glazing over of the person listening/reading unless they are policy/process oriented "wonks".

It is the way in which "process" is explained that makes all the difference not whether process should be discussed at all, the terminology used to get the point across.

For example, I think the Democrats have done an excellent job explaining "process" and what the republicans/bush did re the SCHIP program. It was process that both brought the bill to the floor, allowed passage and also allowed bush to veto the bill. What the Democrats did was explain the results of the process, both theirs re providing healthcare coverage for more poor children and bush's veto depriving poor children healthcare instead of the "process" by which they came to those results.

I hope this makes some sense. John Dean is right on point re process, imo, where I differ is that the Democrats need to hammer the results of those processes instead of the "process" itself.