People who have  difficulty gathering and processing information have plenty of company. We all have moments that humble us. Fortunately, there is still considerable forgiveness in our society, so most times we can mess something up and rebound and get back on track.

Harboring a grudge against a neutral observer is an odd sort of behavior. But such is the attitude that Sarah Palin takes towards Katie Couric. I don’t know enough Palin supporters to determine if they think that her continued bitterness towards Katie Couric is an acceptable form of behavior. Fortunately most people have the ability to eat humble pie and acknowledge when they had a bad moment. A good example would be Claire McCaskill in “plane-gate” when she apologized for unwise decisions and took the necessary steps to remedy them. David Letterman acted similarly when he was unfaithful to his wife.

Katie Couric is not exactly a “gotcha journalist.” If anything she has been criticized for asking softball questions and paying more attention to the frivolous than the serious. Actually, it’s that reputation which may have landed her the interview with Sarah Palin that virtually every other reporter wanted after John McCain snatched the Alaska governor out of obscurity and made her his choice to be the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee in 2008.

Since Governor Palin seemed to be somewhat ill-informed about this issues that would face a president or vice-president, Katie Couric wanted to know where the Alaska governor is getting her information. What newspapers and magazines did she regularly read? This is not the early days of pioneering in Alaska when a New York Times might arrive two or three times a year by dogsled. This is the era of the internet where anyone can read virtually any publication on-line. Couric’s question was eminently fair.

Governor Palin said that she read “all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.” If someone can’t name any of them, isn’t it plausible to conclude that she really means none of them.

It’s very likely that Sarah Palin has indeed read from the mainstream media, what her friend Rush Limbaugh calls the drive-by media. The question from Katie Couric may have just caught her off guard. We all have “senior moments” well before we even approach senior citizenship. Once it happened, Sarah Palin had options. Additionally, she had the opportunity to think about how she would explain her non-answer rather than being caught off guard as she apparently was in the interview.

Instead, Governor Palin called it an unfair question; one designed to “get her.” What Katie Couric was doing throughout the interview was to provide both herself and the viewing public with some information that could assure the viewing public that Sarah Palin was indeed informed and intelligent about major issues facing the nation and the world. If the governor could not answer a question such as what she reads, then the American people would have good cause to question her qualifications to serve on a national level.

Actually in the rest of the interview Governor Palin acquitted herself reasonably well, except when she tried to defend her previous statement that living across the Bering Strait from Russia gave her solid foreign policy credentials.

Following the interview, she could have said that she was new to this national spotlight and acknowledged that she had to refine her interviewing skills. She could have said that she was eager to learn and felt that her previous accomplishments had indicated that she could rise to the level of a job. But she didn’t.

Here we are over two years later. Sarah Palin has had some time on her hands, especially since she resigned her governorship for semi-inexplicable reasons well before her term was over. For many, time is an opportunity to reflect and even acknowledge past mistakes.

When it comes to the 2008 Katie Couric interview, Sarah Palin has expressed no regret or even explanation as to why she couldn’t answer the “what does she read” question. Rather, when Katie Couric announced that she would be resigning as anchor of the CBS Evening News, Palin could not resist the opportunity to mock Couric. Keep in mind that Couric had never mocked anything that Palin had said, she only reported them.

As reported by CNN,

Appearing on Fox News Tuesday (May 3), Palin mocked the CBS newswoman who told People Magazine she is looking forward to a new position that will facilitate “multi-dimensional storytelling.”

“Yeah, and I hear that she wants to now engage in more ‘multi-dimensional story telling’ versus I guess just the ‘straight on, read into the, that teleprompter screen story telling,'” Palin said. “More power to her. I wish her well in her – ‘multi-dimensional story telling.'”

Katie Couric has excelled in quite a few interviews and occasional in-depth stories. Before she became a co-host of NBC’s Today Show, she was a Pentagon correspondent who applied many of the reporting skills she learned at the University of Virginia. She clearly has the credentials to say multi-dimensional story telling. Almost by definition, such reporting stands in contrast to the news reading which is the primary function of a news anchor.

Sarah Palin has still not said whether or not she plans on running for president in 2012. I’d like to believe that she’s been spending some of her hiatus reading thoughtful and informative articles in newspapers and magazines. Even if she has, whatever credentials she might have to be chief executive will be tarnished by her inability to drop a grudge, one that emanates from an incident in which there is no one to blame but herself. Such an attitude may be acceptable to her natural right-wing base, but it probably doesn’t serve her well with the broader public, whose support she will need if she wants to be president. She might want to go back to the western coast of Alaska, look out on the Bering Strait, and do some reflecting.

The post To Sarah Palin: About that grudge… appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Joan Bray, of University City, was a Missouri House representative from 1993-2002, and a State Senator from 2003-2010, earning a reputation as one of the most progressive Democrats in Jefferson City. In an interview with Occasional Planet [OP], she reflected on her years in the legislature and shared her candid view of Missouri’s current political landscape.

OP: What sparked your interest in running for political office?

JB: I never intended to run for office, but in 1992, as I was leaving my job as district director for [then-Congresswoman] Joan Kelly Horn, I got a call from a political insider who basically said, “You HAVE TO run in the 84^th district.” I was pretty stupid, frankly. I didn’t know party politics. I filed to run against another Democrat—he was anti-choice and not popular with a lot of Democrats in his newly redistricted district—and that meant there had to be a primary. You’re not supposed to do that. When I won, a lot of people were pissed off.”

OP: How long after you got to Jefferson City did you lose your political innocence?

JB: My innocence was pretty hard core. It took me a while to catch on. Right after I arrived for my first night in Jeff City, a veteran politician greeted me and several other freshman women legislators, saying, “We sure are happy to have you girls!” That’s when I started to realize that Jefferson City was a very different environment than the one I came from.

OP: What was the political landscape in the State Legislature when you started in 1993?

JB: It was a very rural, old-boys’ atmosphere. The Democrats had been in charge for a long time: We had about 100 Democratic legislators, about 55 of whom were progressives. Back then, [former-Governor] Mel Carnahan proposed money for family planning for the very first time in Missouri history, and we got it passed.

OP: How has the atmosphere changed in Jefferson City?

JB: When I started, you could count the goofball Republicans on one hand. Most of the Republicans were rational, real Republicans—limited government, fiscal conservatives. By the time I left, there wasn’t even a handful of reasonable Republicans. Over the years, the reasonable Republicans have been co-opted into voting stupid. During the last two decades, Missouri has become so much more backward. Our legislature has lost sight of what’s good for Missourians and has fallen prey to a lot of conservative hocus pocus. Today, I see some perfectly reasonable people who consider themselves Republicans, and I ask myself, “Do they even know what today’s Republican Party is? They accuse Democrats of “tax-and-spend” policies, at the same time that they’re promoting “borrow-and-spend” policies. It’s just hard to believe.

OP: What’s your definition of a “progressive legislator?”

JB: In Missouri, you don’t have to be very progressive to be called progressive. But, for me, a progressive legislator is someone who comes at issues and how they impact people from a humanistic point of view. It’s a focus on individuals and the impact actions and laws have on their lives. It’s a system of values focused on caring about people’s lives. No one asks to be born. We’re all products of circumstances we don’t control. We need to have empathy for people who didn’t get great parents and great life situations. I am mystified by so-called religious conservatives’ ability to ignore the humane teaching of their religion and come down against people. Don’t these people have mothers?

OP: What accomplishments are you most proud of during your time as a state legislator?

JB: I didn’t let go of my values. I showed up, and I spoke up. I didn’t shirk from speaking up for what I thought were important policies for the people of Missouri. There’s a weird idea out there that, because my politics were different, I was abhorred by colleagues and got nothing done. That’s just not true.

OP: What were your greatest disappointments as a legislator?

JB: Just recently, I looked at the last three years of my own bill filings, and it’s pretty disappointing. I was persistent, but a lot of great ideas got nowhere. In a lot of places, those ideas would be seen as reasonable. For example, a couple of months ago, I attended a meeting in Texas on environmental issues. It turns out that the university we were at was totally on wind power. I’m thinking, “This is Texas! It’s backward in so many ways, and yet I can’t imagine sitting at a meeting in Missouri with so much accord on progressive environmentalism.”

OP: What effects have term limits had on the way the Missouri legislature works?

JB: The first general election under term limits came in 1994. That’s when the Gingrich revolution came into play, and that’s when we started seeing people elected who had that Gingrich arrogance and belligerence. The big term-limits turnover came in 2002. During my years in the House, a lot of people had been in office for 8 to 10 years, and that’s the last time there was some level of decorum and civility. Under term limits, the most experience anyone in a position of leadership can have is six years. So there’s less understanding of the rules, and, as a result, there’s much less decorum.

OP: What’s your view of the progressive movement in Missouri?

JB: There are still some true progressives in the Missouri legislature, but they have a tough time in the partisan atmosphere and a tough time with a conservative Democratic governor. And yet, they still go to Jefferson City every week and say what needs to be said, against some overwhelming odds. Unfortunately, their impact has been diminished, because there’s so little respect for progressive values in Missouri. And, you know, that befuddles me. When national polls show that 72 percent of voters believe that taxes should be raised on the rich, is Missouri an island on that subject? Our legislature and governor tend to operate on the idea that taxes are a forbidden topic.

OP: Is there a disconnect between political posturing and what people really want in their personal lives?

JB: Yes. The bombardment of sound bites has made it hard for people to do any critical thinking. Add to that 140-character messaging and our 30-second attention span, and people just repeat what they’ve heard. I think that, if you can pin people down and talk to them about what really matters—if people stop and think, and translate policies into their lives and their families’ lives, they are not mean and selfish. At the gut level, people actually favor progressive stuff.

OP: What advice would you give someone contemplating running for a Missouri legislative office?

JB: Go in with your eyes wide open. Talk to lots of people. I wouldn’t want anyone to go into this all dewy-eyed. Get your feet wet by serving on a school board, or as a citizen activist lobbying in Jefferson City. You need to know what you’re getting into, because it’s not for everyone.

The post Joan Bray: Still progressive after all these years in Missouri appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Sean Soendker Nicholson has run the widely read Fired Up! Missouri blog since March 2009. With a national following in the thousands, Fired Up! Missouri is an authoritative, progressive forum for all things political around the state. In late January 2011, Fired Up Missouri was named Best Political Blog by the Riverfront Times.  In a recent interview with Occasional Planet [OP], Nicholson [SN] shared a bit of his own genesis as an activist, and his views on the state of politics and progressive activism in Missouri and the country at-large.

OP: How did you become the editor of Fired Up Missouri?

SN: After college [University of Missouri, 2002], I went to Georgetown University in Washington DC for a master’s degree, and after that, I was looking for work. I heard that Fired Up! Missouri, which was owned by former Senator Jean Carnahan and Roy Temple, was looking for someone to do research and writing, help develop the site, and do the day-to-day managing. I was already a reader of the blog and an infrequent contributor. It was a good fit.

OP: What’s the focus of Fired Up Missouri?

SN: If it pertains to Missouri politics or activists, it’s fair game. Missouri’s Congressional delegation and the happenings in Jeff City are at the top of the list, but we also offer coverage of the rest of the state.

OP: How have the issues you cover changed since Fired Up Missouri started in 2005?

SN: Our focus has changed because there’s a different person in the Missouri Governor’s mansion. It’s such a huge difference now that Matt Blunt is out and Jay Nixon is in. The tenor and character of how the two conduct business is quite different.

OP: Does that mean that everything is better in Jefferson City now?

SN: No. There are still plenty of things to be mad about. It’s really frustrating to see how things operate in the State Capitol. It makes me mad to see the behavior of people who make decisions that affect people’s lives.

OP: How did you get started as a progressive activist?

SN: Before I went to college, I thought I wanted to be an architect. But then I took Intro to Sociology. I realized that I was less interested in building things and more interested in helping people. At that point, I didn’t have the language to know what to call myself. I think I had the core values of equality and justice and of wanting to be sure that people don’t get taken advantage of by government or corporations. I think those values were already there, and gradually, I saw that these were things I could work on full-time.

OP: How conservative is Missouri?

SN: Maybe not as conservative as some might think. The positions individual people hold on specific issues don’t really line up with those stated in party platforms. If you ask people about particular issues, the needle moves more to the left. The ideas people have are generally more progressive than those touted by conservative politicians. I think that people are more accepting of others who are different than them than the party lines would suggest.

One good example is LGBT issues and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The only place DADT is controversial is in Washington DC. The rest of the country has moved on and sees that we have other things to deal with. It’s the same for healthcare. Even though a lot of people call healthcare reform “the end of civilization” and a “takeover by the government,” if you ask them about individual provisions of the law, they support them.

OP: What are the big political issues facing Missouri in 2011?

SN: The state budget debate will drive everything else. It’s hard to overstate how bad the budget situation is, and we’re running out of fraud, waste and mismanagement to cut as a way of balancing the budget.

There’s a lot of work for progressives to tackle: We need to support good things, like laws against predatory lending, and beat back bad things, like the so-called “Fair Tax” ballot initiative backed by Rex Sinquefield.  One issue that could bring people together across party lines is Safe Schools legislation against bullying.

We’ll have to watch the legislature in Jefferson City carefully. This year, we have a lot of first-time legislators. The budget is very complicated, and most of those decisions will be made by the leadership. So, some new legislators are going to be bored and will go looking for something to get behind.

OP: How would you rate President Obama’s performance so far?

SN: I’m a big fan, honestly. He was dealt a pretty raw hand, and the economy has dominated everything. I agree with some people who say he could have moved more quickly on some things. The temptation is to get so frustrated with the pace of policy change that we forget how bad things were before. I saw an interview with W recently, and I said to myself, “Oh my god, this guy was in charge of things? Wait, he was in charge of everything?” Just having adults in charge with the Obama administration is such a positive change.

OP: President Obama has taken a lot of criticism from the Left. How do you feel about that?

SN: My frustration comes when people confuse what they think should happen with what is possible politically. I know, of course, that the repeal of DADT wouldn’t have happened without the relentless effort of the left.  But to call President Obama “a stooge of Wall Street” is to ignore how hard Wall Street has fought against financial regulation. I’m saying that there’s a real world that you have to deal with, and that the optics and the politics can be very different from the actual policy.

OP: What frustrates you most about Missouri conservatives?

SN: I think you have to make a distinction between conservative activists who sincerely think that their policy ideas are good for the state and conservative political leaders who just want to capitalize on the energy on the right. What’s so frustrating is the constant stream of misinformation. That drives me nuts. I would welcome a real conversation on the merits of various proposals and on the mechanisms of how to pay for them. I’m far more troubled by the BS than by the differences in philosophies.

OP: What’s your advice to young people who have progressive ideas in a conservative state?

SN: I sympathize with people who are closet liberals. It can be tough, for example, at family events. I would urge everyone to ask people to explain what they mean when they spout right-wing ideas, and to ask people, “How does that jibe with these facts?” And I would remind you that there are, in fact, other liberals out there. Even in a red state, it’s a 45-55 split, at most.

OP: So, you’re an optimist?

SN: Yes. I have to be to survive. To keep going, you have to be. I look around and see that good things are, in fact, happening and have happened before. So I know that there can be good things in the future, too. We just have to keep trying and moving forward.

[Photo credit: Riverfront Times]

The post Turning up the heat on Missouri politicians: Sean Soendker Nicholson appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Adam Shriver is a next-generation leader among St. Louis-area progressive activists. His blog, St. Louis Activist Hub, plays a major role in alerting activists to issues and events, and he is an outspoken critic of tea-party leaders. He was named Political Gadfly of the year [2010] by the Riverfront Times, and he is a co-founder of the recently launched Forward STL blog, a one-stop source for left-of-center news for the area’s progressive community. In an interview with Occasional Planet [OP], Shriver [AS] shared some of his ideas on progressivism, activism and the local political scene.

OP: How did you get started as an activist?

AS: When I was five years old, I asked my mother why she didn’t eat meat. She said, “Because it hurts the animals.” According to her version of the story, that was all I needed to hear, and I immediately became a vegetarian. So, you could say that the idea of animal welfare is where I got my start. My first official act of activism was in Iowa in 2001, when I joined a group of environmental activists who protested as George W. Bush came through town.  But I didn’t really understand the full power of activism until I became a campus organizer through an AmeriCorps program after college.

OP: You’re a Ph.D. candidate in the  Philosophy/Neuroscience/Psychology program at Washington U. How does that academic pursuit fit in with being a progressive activist?

AS: In the PNP program, we look at philosophical issues as they relate to the brain. My main interest in philosophy is in ethics. There’s a fairly new field in philosophy that tries to examine the constraints put on ethical theorizing that result from understanding how the brain works. Thinking about ethics provides the motivation to be an activist, and my political activities are, at least in that way, an extension of my studies in philosophy.

OP: How do you define progressivism?

AS: My definition probably doesn’t fit the historical meaning of the word “progressive.” I see progressivism as standing in opposition to the view that there are some people who are bad or in unfortunate circumstances for no reason. Progressivism takes a scientific perspective of looking for the reasons why some people are in difficult situations in their lives. Progressivism acknowledges that there are causes behind bad behaviors and disadvantaged circumstances, and that we can address inequality by understanding its causes.

Progressivism is an inherently optimistic viewpoint. Instead of saying, “There will always be poverty, unemployment and bad people, so just live with it,” as a progressive, you’ll look at the reasons behind those conditions. You want to address the problems. You’re motivated to hope and work for a world with less suffering that functions in a better way.

OP: Is there anyone you’d name as your progressive role model?

AS: One person I’ve admired is John Lewis, who was a leader in the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee during the Civil Rights movement. He embodies the kind of organization and commitment to a better world I think we, as activists, should strive for. Discussions of the movement nowadays focus quite a bit on Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., but I like Lewis because he was more low-key and involved in the day-to-day training and activities. He kept people involved. He’s emblematic of someone who works behind the scenes. The Civil Rights movement wouldn’t have been successful without Martin Luther King as its orator and figurehead, but it also wouldn’t have been as successful without the ground troops like John Lewis.

OP: What are the biggest misconceptions about progressives?

AS: The political right has been very successful in its PR campaign to portray liberal activists as knee-jerk reactionaries who haven’t thought a lot about the issues, or who are just hippies who do it because it’s cool. That perception has seeped into the general consciousness and the press, and as a result, liberal activism is often treated dismissively. An example is the Iraq War: No one presented a strong case for the existence of weapons of mass destruction, but when liberals protested, they were marginalized by the media.

OP: What’s the state of progressive activism in St. Louis?

AS: We’re very fragmented. What holds us back is too much focus on differences among groups and disagreements about minor things. There’s not enough emphasis on the values that we share. For example, there’s a huge number of people in environmental groups who don’t understand the point of labor issues, and an equal number in the labor movement who don’t “get” environmental causes. People don’t see themselves as part of a larger, progressive movement, and that compartmentalization holds back activism. We don’t present a unified set of values and we haven’t defined a core set of beliefs.

OP: How would you remedy that “silo-ization?”

AS: I think we need a large student/youth movement in St. Louis. Right now, there are a lot of old grudges among groups, which I think could be swept away if we had a newer, younger movement of people who don’t remember the old hurts. If we could get students from different campuses to successfully join together, it could demonstrate that working together is effective. And if leaders from student groups got together and met regularly, they could make a change.

OP: What are the biggest obstacles to effective activism by progressives?

AS: Unfortunately, a lot of liberal/progressive people don’t feel a need to participate. Too many people settle for an attitude of “I’ve got progressive ideas and I vote correctly.” To bring people together, we need a stronger level of commitment from the average person. Also, being an activist is hard work, and it’s frustrating. Plus, the right has successfully made a lot of people think that there’s something wrong with being a liberal activist.

OP: How do you maintain your own enthusiasm and energy for activism?

AS: I’m basically an optimist. I know that, looking at the situation right now, it’s bleak: The power of corporations to get people to act against their own self-interest is mind-boggling. But I’m optimistic that, while selfishness is part of human nature, it’s also in humanity to care about each other. I may be diverging from reason on this, but I think that the empathetic part of human nature will be an incentive for progressives to come together. There’s something in people that makes us hope.

The post Interview: St. Louis activist Adam Shriver shares his philosophy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Jamala Rogers is a community activist who has done extensive work for black causes and youth development in St. Louis. She is also a columnist for the St. Louis American and has lived and worked in several major cities. In an interview with Occasional Planet (OP), Rogers (JR) discussed youth activism and her experiences with young people.

OP: From 1993 to 2001, you were the director of St. Louis’ Office of Youth Development. After having such heavy involvement in black causes, what made you want to take on this role? How has youth involvement in the city of St. Louis changed since 2001?

JR: Well, I’ve always been involved with youth. My formal training in teaching lead me to be involved with youth development. I’ve always been drawn to youth issues so, for me, it wasn’t a quantum leap.

There are  ebbs and flows with youth activism, even on college campuses. I often go to campuses to speak on particular issues, and [the amount of activism] depends on what’s going on in the world and the capacity of leadership. If young people are passionate about something, they’ll organize. There’s a void because we haven’t had young people step up and address issues.

OP: What drives you to work with youth, in an age when young people are uneducated and apathetic toward what’s going on in their communities and the world?

JR: Young people  have raw energy, raw creativity and raw truthfulness, and these are qualities I admire. The fact that this generation and the generation before have combated so many issues and obstacles that have nothing to do with them, yet they’ve found a way not to get bogged down, is a testament to what they’re capable of accomplishing.

OP: As a young person, you were an activist for black issues during a time of great racial inequality. What do you feel is the greatest struggle for today’s youth?

JR: I still think access to social, political and educational opportunities is the biggest challenge. Even middle-class kids have varied levels of opportunity, because their parents have the capital to make these opportunities known to them. But the poor start at negative ten. The education system isn’t prepping them for opportunities, and our communities as a whole aren’t prepping them. In this age, a very technological age, when people are insensitive and callous about helping people along, you have to find a way to navigate toward your destiny with or without help from a social support system or family support system.

OP: You’ve worked in numerous cities. How does St. Louis compare to these cities and other cities you’ve lived/worked in? How does youth activism in St. Louis compare?

JR: I don’t think that St. Louis is any different from other urban cities. The same situations exist: Schools are in crises, unemployment is high, and there’s a high crime rate. It’s the same everywhere, but there may be more of one thing than the other.  It’s really a lack of cohesion and vision. If you look at St. Louis, there’s no political leadership for African-Americans saying: “The community needs this, and this is what we’ll fight for.” There’s a major lack of cohesion in terms of a plan.

I’d say there’s definitely more activism by youth in other cities. I attended the US Social Forum in Detroit, and St. Louis had three young people who attended, while some cities made it their business to bring youth to the forum. I think about Miami, New York, and Washington DC, three cities represented by large groups of organized delegates who found a way to bring issues to the attention of youth. Some organization is better than no organization.

OP: You have advanced degrees in education. What’s one thing you would do to improve the current condition of St. Louis Public schools?

JR: Start by infusing the philosophy that black children can learn. Despite all the slogans, I don’t think there’s a philosophy that our kids are worthy. You have to have the basic belief system that these kids are worth teaching. If not, you won’t do what’s necessary, and the kids feel it, and they won’t be receptive to what’s being taught. Having the proper facility and supplies are necessary, but I’ve seen kids succeed on the notion that “you’re the best, so be the best.” It’s frustrating for teachers when kids aren’t ready to learn. You need to meet kids where they are and take them to where they can be.

OP: In addition to being a contributor to blogs and websites, you’re a columnist for the St. Louis American and a member of the editorial board for the Black Commentator. What inspires you to write?

JR: I do a lot of social justice work, and I write about the issues I see. I witness people struggling in a particular situation, which is inspiring. A recent example would be when Paul McKee  [a land developer with an ambitious plan for North st. Louis] lost in court to a group of people who fought hard to hold onto their homes and their community.  Seeing people fight for human rights, to me, is very inspiring.

The post Q & A with Jamala Rogers appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Douglas J. Amy is professor of politics at Mt. Holyoke College. His “Government is Good” website and Facebook page feature topics such as: countering attacks against government; how government promotes the public good; and how to make government more democratic. In an interview with Occasional Planet (OP), Amy (DA) shares some of his views:

OP: You teach Introduction to Politics.  What attitudes and misconceptions do college students bring to your class?

DA: They come in with an extremely cynical and negative view of politics. The word “politics” itself has a negative connotation for them, and they tend to take a harsh view of government. I find myself battling that cynicism all the time. I try to talk about the potentials of government, and I emphasize that becoming politically active is a noble activity, a way to be a moral person in the world.

OP: But so many young people were involved in the 2008 election. Didn’t that enthusiasm have a carry-over effect?

DA: Somewhat. But Obama’s ability to rally young people was an exception. Young people saw him as a symbol of hope, but in the past year, some of the old cynicism has crept back in. There’s been some disappointment and disillusionment as the radical changes many were expecting haven’t materialized. I try to tell students that they need to be idealistic, but realistic.

OP: So, in realistic terms, have there been any qualitative improvements in government since the Obama administration came to power?

DA: Yes, particularly in the regulatory process. President Bush put a lot of effort into undermining workplace regulations, food safety and environmental protection. He knew, though, that people actually liked those regulatory protections, so rather than publicly removing them, he just didn’t enforce them, and he appointed people who didn’t know much about regulatory work or who were from the industries that they were supposed to regulate. President Obama, on the other hand, has gone out of his way to find competent people who believe in the mission of the regulatory agencies.

OP: Why don’t we hear more about the good things that government agencies are doing?

DA: When government does something right, it gets no press. Most of the time, in fact, government just goes along, day by day, doing a good job. That’s not necessarily a new phenomenon in this administration.

OP: What’s an example of government doing its job well?

DA: The Environmental Protection Agency is one. Ever since its inception, EPA has been very effective in improving the quality of the air and water in our country. And they do it very efficiently. EPA costs about $30 per year per American. It’s hard to think of a better use of $30.

OP: What’s the source of anti-government sentiment?

DA: Suspicion of government is part of America’s political culture. This country was started by people who were suspicious of the British monarchy and authority in general. In fact, I think we should be suspicious of any organization with a large amount of power—government, church, whatever. I don’t have a problem with that.  The problem is that the far right has moved from suspicion to hatred of government. That’s taking it too far. We need to see that, as a whole, democratic government is working well for us.

OP: If government generally works well for us, why do people voice such strong sentiments against it?

DA: A lot of Americans are very insecure economically. We worry about how we’ll be able to retire, how we’ll afford to send our kids to college, pay for our healthcare, or make our mortgage payments. People are looking for someone to blame for these problems. One of the loudest voices is that of big business, which routinely points the finger at government. They’ve made government a scapegoat to distract people from the real problems, many of which come from the private sector itself. The political right doesn’t want to talk about that.

OP: What frustrates you when you try to talk about good government?

DA: People often express self-contradictory views about government. On one level, they’ll say they’re “anti-government.” If you ask them, “Do you trust government,” they’ll say, “No.” But if you ask them about particular government services, like EPA, local fire and police, or FDIC, they’ll say, “Oh, yeah, that’s a good one. That works pretty well.” I often can get the conversation to that level, but in the end, people still say “I think we should limit government.”

OP: If you could immediately change anything in our government system, what would it be?

DA: Campaign financing. Our system is beyond broken. There’s so much money flowing from corporations that the whole thing has become corrupted. And this corruption of the electoral process is connected to the way people view government, because they see government as responding more to the special interests that fund campaigns than to the citizens it’s supposed to represent and protect. We really need public financing of elections, like they have in Maine, so that politicians can be less beholden to special interests.

OP: What’s your view of the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance?

DA: It’s a disaster. We already had a problem with the influence of big business—through PACs and individual contributions—on elections. This decision will make a bad problem worse.

OP: Who is your role model for making government work well?

DA: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He ignited a sea change in the way people looked at the federal government and its role in society. He put into play a new philosophy of government responsibility and activism. Before the 1930s, the government played a very limited role. Economic ups and downs were viewed like the weather: they just happened, and we endured them. Roosevelt didn’t invent a new role for government; he got his ideas from the American Left and from Western Europe. They were way ahead of the U.S. in offering pensions and universal healthcare. And ever since then, we’ve taken it for granted that when big problems occur, government is the only institution that can step in to deal with them.

OP: What other websites or blogs would you recommend for readers interested in engaging in the dialogue about good government?

DA: DEMOS is doing a great job. Their Public Works Project has done a lot to advance the idea that our public sector has a crucial role to play in promoting the public interest.

The post “Government is good,” says Douglas J. Amy appeared first on Occasional Planet.