I've become intrigued by the argument over whether visitability is a special interest that raged in the Green Building Meets "Silver" Building post and comments. So I've been researching the term "special interest" and how it is defined and applied. I'm at a loss to find much consistency or clarity in the term; it appears anyone in opposition to an idea can attempt to dismiss said issue as a "special interest".
I think the term is thrown around so often and with such malicious, broad-brush techniques that it has lost any depth of meaning. If you're involved in politics in any way, you'll know the things you like are of course worthy social goals to be pursued for the greatness of the state, blah blah blah. (I know it doesn't always sound like that in your head, but if you listen more closely...) and the things you don't like are the selfish narrow, unethical society-warping and unrealistic ideas of the "special interests".
It is a meaningless term that is insulting on two levels. First, anyone who votes could be labeled as supporting a special interest by someone else. That the term has no deeper context required other than disagreement with an idea makes it sloppy, generic and insulting. Second, the only reason it is used is because that works. That people in general are willing to be swayed by the rest of a political message that throws in the accusation of "special interest" involvement is insulting to me as an intelligent American.
I think if an idea I champion is accused of being a special interest, I'll take it as a compliment. And tell that person I assume there are a few specific ideas they'd like to see implemented and in principal I'll support their right to champion their special interest. However, if I don't see their idea positively affecting enough people, I'll tell them to kindly keep their idea out of the government's hands and drum up their own non-profit or whatever to manifest their idea. And if they want to tax me or regulate my life to manifest their idea, I'll need to believe it affects at least 51% of the residents. If it does and I still don't like it, I'll have to decide if the idea is so awful in the scope of my life that I should move.
Or I'll pick my battles, choose my special interests and debate them with you all, here, late at night, after my Silver Mine Sub shows up at 2:30 AM.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I have also observed that the term "special interest" is used primarily a pejorative.
Though the term is misappropriated, I believe it does have a useful meaning in political analysis. Special interests are a real phenomenon, and special interest politics have the potential to overexpend or misdirect public resources, restrain competition, introduce bias, and other evils of imperfect democracy.
The NRA is an example of a special interest organization. I believe the nudists also occasionally do some lobbying. Some groups with a very broad constituency can claim to be public interest groups, but maybe Doktorbombay is right that even these groups represent some sort of special interest.
So there is every kind of special interest. The hope of democracy is that elected leaders will recognize situations in which special interests are aligned with the public interest. In my opinion, the system works well enough. And at the local level, special interest politics and a professional lobby do not reign supreme the way they do at the state and federal level.
Dan, I agree that these terms are being overused so much as to lose meaning. Take the Lafayette ethics ordinance, which defines fairly well the restrictions on financial interest, but then also uses the term 'personal' interest with no definition. Technically all of council at one time or another is in violation of that. Do those of us who have dogs and voted for the dog park both a special interest and a personal interest? I don't like poorly written legislation, particularly when it is challenged and then we come to find it cannot be enforced due to vague language.
It makes me chuckle when someone uses a word that sends half the readers running for their dictionary. Pejorative. Use this word with your friends and watch their eyes glaze over! I'll use it at least once today while watching football with friends. I'll wait until after they've had a couple of beers. It'll be fun. I like doing this anyway, but thanks for providing the word of the day.
My definition of special interest is anything short of public interest. Vague? Yes. But, how do you draw the line? As said above, anything I don't think is in the public interest automatically falls into the special interest category. The challenge is to identify my favorite issues as special interest when, in fact, they are. In other words, don't kid myself into thinking that because I'm in favor, they must be in the public interest.
We further this thought process by surrounding ourselves with friends who have the same, or similar values, and are like-minded on most of the issues. This reinforces our belief that the issue must be in the public interest. "Look at how many people agree with me", as I point to my circle of friends.
In some cases, this concept of surrounding yourself with like-minded individuals carries over to elected officials. And, what should be considered special interest suddenly morphs into public interest.
The average citizen, who is just trying to get by, payday to payday, is typically underrepresented in local government. These are the people who just want to have good schools, good roads, good police/fire protection, and good water/sewer service. Anything beyond that is special interest to them. I tend to agree.
I think Special Interest is a good term to describe organizations, like the NRA, mentioned above, and many topic-specific lobbying groups. It's conventional wisdom that "special interests" are bad. When this term is pulled out by a politician, it's certain they are trying to squash the subject. The convetional wisdom is that a special interest is trying to take YOUR money to do THEIR work. Big shade of grey for most topics, though. There are many things that serve the greater good, that should not be supported by legislation and many things that serve few, but should have some legislative support.
Wikipedia has an appropriate definition:
"An interest group (also called an advocacy group, lobbying group, pressure group (UK), or special interest) is a group, however loosely or tightly organized, doing advocacy: those determined to encourage or prevent changes in public policy without trying to be elected."
This suggests the group tries to convince a majority to support whatever it advocates, pressures elected officials to do so, or works to elect officials who advocate the same policy and enact or defeat it.
The Denver Post reported the rush to get 17 tax initiatives on the ballot:
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6841400
The easiest is to convince public officials to enact or defuse the policy. After all, going through the election process can be complicated and expensive (unless one has $150,000 of financing on one's side and an organization for hire to make it happen) and runs the risk of actually losing, demonstrating 50% plus one is not in favor.
Also it is a lot easier to gen up the "facts" and claim they represent the majority, using repetitious rhetoric rather than any meaningful data. (The DC front page article on visitability drew 3 comments = ho hum.)
As for the wording of any law, ordinance, or policy. That's where the case law comes in, decisions made by the courts that interpret the words and set precedents. No way to make the wording air tight and many have tried.
I would bet the term "special interst" is not offensive if one supports it and offensive if one does not. Both major political parties are made up of such groups with each hoping the total brings their party to power.
Special interest groups have been at work in Lafayette a long time, years before I ever moved to town. They have not disappeared and still affect the present and future, as they did the past.
As Tip O'Neill is quoted as saying, "All politics is local."
I always get a chuckle when people spend endless hours blogging and spouting off arcane political philosophy and then comment on how no one else has their finger on the pulse of the common man. I guess we assume that Jane and Joe Public can be served only by representatives that mirror her and him in every detail, including vocabulary?
But then, we should be represented by people who have a broader view, who don't just represent themselves and surround themselves with opinions that reinforce their predilections. With that I agree. Who is this comment supposed to address anyway, Doktorbombay? Surely no one who regularly participates in the abuse here.
Populism is one theory of the public interest, but the public interest is also frequently served by finding something other than the lowest common denominator to frame issues. This is why I typically find accusations that special interests are involved in an issue unhelpful. If special interests are completely controlling politics, that's a problem, but sometimes it takes a little investment for or against an issue to bring out good criticism, good testimony and good ideas.
There certainly was no malice intended in my comments about vocabulary. Certain friends of mine and I like to use seldom used words in common conversation to try to trip each other up. I was chuckling because I had found my word for the day, and was simply commenting on it. I thought your skin was thicker than that. If you took it as a slam, I apologize. I just won't promise to keep my wry sense of humor to myself.
Those elected officials who regularly participate in the "abuse" here have my respect for they must either have an open mind, or at least profess to have one, which is better than not participating at all.
Those who shy away from this kind of forum probably have difficulty with the "abuse". They either take it too personally, or refuse to believe that anything constructive can come out of the discussions.
Nothing I can do about someone who takes comments too personally. I accept the risk of personal attack by participating. And, most of us here appreciate it if we're told we've overstepped the line of personal attack.
While wording my comment about like-minded elected officials, I was thinking specifically about our County Commissioners. But, regardless. The same comment could have been made about the Erie BOT a few years ago, when it was stacked with anti-growth advocates who completely misread what they perceived to be a mandate. Joe and Jane Public fixed that in the next election, but there are still some issues (impact fees) that need to be corrected from that administration.
I've had some comments made to me, as recently as today, that some fear the same like-mindedness in Lafayette. I found those comments a little hard to fathom, but perceptions are reality to those voters. FYI, get together was in Indian Peaks with representation from Old Town Lafayette, Superior, and Erie, but mostly Lafayette residents.
It's apparent by most of the comments here, and by Dan's lead comments, "special interests" are thought of as always bad. I don't agree. Special interests have been instrumental in pushing very positive legislation to the forefront and converting it from special interest to public interest.
With that perspective, yes, I believe special interests control politics. Anything discussed at the local level beyond basic services is more than likely fueled by some sort of special interest. Always bad? No. But, still a special interest, if it's not part of existing public policy.
Thanks for leveling, Doktorbombay, I appreciate it. But does "abuse" really deserve the quotation marks? Don't answer that.
Post a Comment