author%3A%22Goodwyn%2C%20Andrew%22 | Pollux - Fachinformationsdienst Politikwissenschaft

Updated: Edited for grammar and to spell John Adams' name properly.

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

In my role as political analyst for MTN, I sat down on
August 14 with Republican House candidate Ryan Zinke and asked him about
releasing his full military records. In case you missed the interview, you can
watch it here. I was promised during that interview, and afterwards by Zinke
spokesperson Shelby DeMars, that I—along with the AP and Chuck Johnson of Lee Newspapers—would
receive the complete set of records. I was also told that this would take some
time.

It is now October 22, 2014, and the general election is less
than two weeks away. In last night's House debate in Great Falls, John Adams of
the Great Falls Tribune specifically asked state senator Zinke about a fitness
report in 1999 that one other former Navy Seal suggests indicates some problems
with Zinke's performance. Zinke did not provide a clear answer as to what was
in that report, and suggested that Adams "was unjust, unfair, and shameless"
for asking the question.

Adams' request was not shameless.Watch the exchange here.

I have, thus far, believed
that the Zinke campaign would in good faith produce those records in a timely
fashion. And I'm hopeful that they will still release those records. And yet, I still have not gotten what was promised. I, like John Adams,
am beginning to wonder why.

But, if I may suggest, the problem is bigger than Ryan Zinke
and his record as a Navy Seal. The problem hits directly at democratic
discourse and accountability in an era when fewer and fewer candidates running
for public office have extensive records in elected office. Yet, they ask US to
credit them with those experiences as evidence they are suitable for service in
higher public office. I believe Ryan Zinke, Steve Daines, John Lewis, and
Amanda Curtis all should release as much of their employment records as
possible to the press and the public. These experiences, they claim, will make
them excellent public servants. If that's the case, then we—the public who
choose them—should be able to make the judgment ourselves of those records.

I think there are three very good reasons for why we should
expect transparency from our congressional candidates in this regard.

First, such transparency is not unusual for those seeking
public employment of any kind. Take, for example, the information I have to
generally produce when applying for academic jobs (both public and private). As
a job candidate, I have produced the following for employers:

1.
Transcripts (Graduate and undergraduate)

2.
A copy of my diploma

3.
My cv (an academic version of a resume)

4.
References and letters of support from those
references

5.
Student evaluations of my teaching

6.
A teaching statement

7.
A research statement

8.
Publications

Then, if I'm lucky enough to get a campus interview, I often
have to give a research presentation and a teaching demonstration. All of this
is to demonstrate that my academic credentials are real and that I am competent
as a teacher and researcher.

And, I should say, that a request for my transcripts from
Wisconsin or Indiana can be filled within 24 hours. Not more than two or three
months.

In running for Congress, candidates use their records to
bolster the case for why voters should vote for them and that they deserve the
trust of voters. Candidates who have served in elected office often have
extensive public records that voters can evaluate and pick apart—and even if
they do not, the opposition is more than happy to do it for the voters.

Ryan Zinke's House campaign biography begins with the
headline: Montana's Proven Leader. He highlights his accomplishments in nine
paragraphs. One paragraph details his service in the Montana Senate. Five
paragraphs focus on his "distinguished record" of military service. It is clear
that this service as a Navy Seal is critical to how he would like voters to
evaluate him.

Congressman Daines' campaign slogan is "More Jobs, Less
Government" and much of his campaign pitch focuses on his experience in
creating jobs—an experience he says begins with cutting government regulation
and red tape. In his campaign biography of seven paragraphs, one full paragraph
and the portion of another details his business experience. Only one full
paragraph, by contrast, details his experience in Congress. Congressman Daines
says he's a job creator. How exactly did he create jobs during his time at
RightNow and how many of those jobs were created in Montana, in the United
States, and in other countries?

Democratic candidates John Lewis and Amanda Curtis are not off
the hook here. John Lewis spent his professional career working as a staffer
for Senator Baucus, and on his campaign webpage, he notes that "working for
Senator Max Baucus and with Montana veterans, John spearheaded legislation
giving businesses incentives to hire veterans. What began as John's idea
to better serve veterans is now the law of the land." We, as voters, should
have access to the memos staffer Lewis wrote which demonstrate how central he
was to this veterans legislation. Lewis should also ask that Senator Baucus
release his personnel file so we can see the evaluations he received as a part
of the Senator's staff in Washington and here in Montana. And Amanda Curtis,
who touts her experience as a teacher, should demonstrate to us whether she
excelled as a teacher or not.

The main point of all of this is not that Ryan Zinke was a
bad Navy Seal, that Steve Daines didn't create jobs as part of an important
hi-tech company, that John Lewis wasn't a competent Senate staffer, and Amanda
Curtis wasn't a great teacher. The point is the voters deserve to have the
ability to evaluate those claims for themselves absent a narrative constructed
by the campaign, just as my fellow political scientists have the right to
examine my academic record to help them decide—without my own spin—that I am
the right person or not for their institution. We should be able to determine
how distinguished a military career is, what makes job creator successful, and
the whether the influence a Senate staffer has on legislative outcomes is
substantial.

A second reason why these records should be made available
is the nature of who is running for Congress. In the past, the common path for
folks running for higher office was to spend considerable time working their
way up through a series of public offices, building a public record that voters
could evaluate. As our elected officials are increasingly coming from outside
the public sphere or, if they do serve in the public eye, with much shorter
tenures in office, we need to be able to assess those experiences. At least
with public officials, there is a clear public record for all to see. Without a
public track record, voters are left to the rhetoric of the candidates—who are
clearly not unbiased—to make sense of those private employment experiences. At
the very least, they should give us as much access to private records that we
can get from those in public employ.

Finally, in an era of political polarization, it is even
more important that voters have access to unbiased sources of information to
help them make informed political judgments outside the spin room. Instead of blindly
accepting what candidates or their opponents tell you, it is even more
important to have metrics with which voters can independently judge the
records, temperament, and fitness of their candidates for public office. And,
even more important, an independent and free press must have access to these
records to do just that.

Transparency helps us make better decisions and to have more
trust in the democratic process. One of the most important New Deal reforms, in
my judgment, was the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission which
required publicly traded companies to release particular information in a
timely and regular fashion about the company's operations and budgets. This
information allows investors far more confidence when they participate while at
the same time providing a somewhat level playing field for investors. This
trust has allowed the creation of mutual funds and a retirement system funded
largely by investments in the stock market. Shouldn't we demand the same kind
of accountability and openness of those who wish to serve in public office?
Shouldn't we demand more of and from them as investors in the democratic
marketplace?

Suchergebnisse

Filter

Format

Medientyp

Sprache

Weitere Sprachen

Jahre

Kontakt

Hilfe