Those who feel as if they are on the losing side of debates that are happening (at least in part) in private often call for increased transparency. They do so assuming that if the debate or negotiations are happening in private the interests of the larger public are being ignored. If only, the logic goes, the public really knew what was going on they would be outraged, raise and outcry and change the outcome. Further, advocates argue, sunshine increases confidence in the democratic process thereby adding a selfless reason to their argument.
Predictably, I disagree.
The first flawed assumption is that if everyone knew what I knew then everyone would agree with me (and if you don’t agree with me after I tell you what I know you are either irrational or in the pockets of special interests). Most of us consider ourselves to be rational reasonable people who examine the evidence and reach our conclusions for good reasons. If I explain my position and you disagree you did not understand me, you have selfish reasons for denying the obvious truth, or you are by definition irrational. So I repeat myself louder and more slowly. If you still don’t agree with me, you are stupid, selfish, or both (while I of course am neither of those things).
The logic is that if negotiations were transparent then you the public would see the obvious truth and worth of my position as an advocate; the only reason to keep conversations closed is to hide selfishness or stupidity.
What this logic misses is that we all think that we are rational, etc. Those in the closed meetings want them closed because you, the advocate, miss the obvious truth of the positions in the meetings and are, as an advocate, either stupid or selfish (or both). Democrats are negotiating health care reform behind closed doors because the Republican cries for transparency are really just political games – the Republicans don’t understand the reality of health care reform or want to score points (or both). And, of course, Democrats are selfish political insiders afraid to let the American people see what’s really going on and are afraid to have an honest and open, non-partisan, non-political discussion with Republicans. Those in, and locked out of, closed meetings on copyright believe the same about each other’s motives. Those in, and locked out of, and so forth.
The second flaw is that transparency raises confidence in the process. As Prof. John Hibbing and others are have shown, the opposite is true. Transparency can decreas confidence because Americans dislike political debate – ironically we see political disagreement as a failure of democracy (see for example Stealth Democracy). If I’m right about people’s views of their own rationality and selflessness and the irrationality or selfishness of those with whom we disagree, such should not be a surprise. If there is debate over what is obviously true (as I see it and as defined by me) then someone must be a jerk and it ain’t me.
