The Wisconsin Idea sure has fallen on hard times. Long forgotten is how intertwined this signature principle of our great state university system was with the Progressive movement. The UW Extension, one of the earliest manifestations of the Wisconsin Idea and one of the chief ways the university was extended to the boundaries of the state, is itself a Progressive Era reform.
Oh, how the UW has strayed from its roots. Today it is as owned as our politicians.
Nowhere is that more apparent than with those who teach about government. Wisconsin used to be known from coast to coast for clean, open and honest government. We can no longer lay claim to such a reputation, at least not with a straight face. But instead of challenging the status quo and engineering new reforms and working with public officials to make those reforms a reality, most of the political scientists on campus are missing in action. Some of the most prominent among them are apologists for the way things are and throw their weight around on behalf of the very forces that have corrupted our politics and sullied Wisconsin's once-proud reputation.
Professor Ken Goldstein, for example, is fond of calling negative political TV ads a "multivitamin for democracy." Then just recently he sold the UW's soul, climbing in bed with a corporate-funded rightwing think tank and even cooking how polling numbers were reported at the group's request.
Today Professor John Coleman was in the newspaper arguing against a campaign finance disclosure bill that was recently passed by the state Senate, claiming that "more spending and more communication produce better informed voters." Never mind that all the spending addressed by the legislation is done by an incredibly small number of extremely wealthy interest groups. And never mind that the source of money used to pay for the spending is kept a secret, leaving voters entirely in the dark about who is really behind all those multivitamins, er. . . ads. Yep, sounds like a recipe for happy, well-informed voters to Dr. Coleman.
There was a time when real giants at the University of Wisconsin played a major role in making Wisconsin a beacon of honorable politics and good government. The reforms they thought up lasted for the better part of a century. Unfortunately for us, their place has been taken by far smaller figures who at best look the other way at the corruption of our times and at worst are tools used to dismantle the inspired work of their predecessors.
11 comments:
One real danger to democracy is politicians that climb in bed with the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
You are obsessed with approving speech.
Terribly lame comment. Since when is it "approving speech" to want to know who is really behind all the ads and where the money comes from to pay for the campaigning?
If that's the best you can do to defend the conduct of these purportedly "public" employees who are supposed to be working for us taxpayers at the UW, then it really is indefensible.
I am personally thankful that someone is willing to publicly state the obvious truth about how the UW has changed and what that change has done to the Wisconsin Idea. As a university employee, I am reluctant to speak my mind openly on the topic for fear of professional repercussions. So the best I feel I can do is anonymously say that the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign is to be applauded for saying something that should have been said many times before by many others. This blog commentary speaks for me.
Why all the fluster about "negative" ads and speech? When was the last time you paid any attention to an obvious attack ad? The bad photos, the ominous voice-overs, the admonition to call candidate So-and-so and tell them thus-and-such: It is laughable, and as likely to backfire as to move the electorate in the direction desired by the ad.
Far better to err on the side of more speech than less. Any attempt to limit the exchange of ideas, especially when those seeking the limits clothe themselves in what they see as rightousness, should be suspect.
LaFollett Institute and others are nothing more than a front for the corrupt Wisconsin Democratic party which has rewarded these academics with favors such as the boondoggle former Democratic governor Earl was given in his "consulting trip" to Africa some time ago. The academics are given positions on study groups etc. which lead to rewards.
Anon says "Why all the fluster about 'negative' ads and speech? When was the last time you paid any attention to an obvious attack ad?" and goes on to say "Far better to err on the side of more speech than less."
Are people who spew this line of argument completely thick or are they playing dumb and deliberately lying to distract everyone from the real issues - disclosure, transparency, accountability, i.e. who does all the spending?
It is just this kind of ad hominem attack (Anon 1:56) that illustrates the point made by those who oppose speech limits. An idea stands or falls on its own merit, not on the reputation of those who put it forward: Remember that the Federalist Papers were published anonymously. Similarly, why should the source of funding disqualify the idea? Any person or group putting forth an idea has an agenda - isn't that obvious? - and the idea may be good or bad, but who says it or pays for it has no bearing on the idea itself.
One would hope that more speech would lead to more thought, still more speech, and eventually the best outcome.
Knowing the source of the funding puts the message into context and allows the recipient of the message to judge its intent and the speaker's motivation. That is very relevant.
McCabe is right on when he says the UW is as owned as the politicians. The UW's withdrawal from public policy debates is directly connected to the steady decline in the percentage of its budget coming from public sources. As the university becomes more and more reliant on private and corporate sources of financial support, it becomes less and less willing to have faculty out there proposing things that might antagonize its biggest donors. Same problem that the politicians have.
Anon 2/10/10 8:34's comment "It is just this kind of ad hominem attack that illustrates the point made by those who oppose speech limits" is more than a little ironic. Corporations routinely tell their employees what they can and can't say, but then want no limitations or restrictions of any kind on their speech. Then someone makes a perfectly valid point about the need for disclosure of and accountability for political spending, and it's deemed a personal attack. Talk about your double standards.
Yesterday I heard a story on WI Public Radio about the Supreme Court decision on corporate spending in elections. Included in the story were comments from someone who was described only as a UW law school professor saying the ruling was great news. What listeners weren't told is that he also is a campaign lawyer who represents WMC, WEAC, the realtors, the builders, the lobbyists association, Right to Life and others in their efforts to block campaign finance reforms and kill any regulation of their election activity. Shame on UW for hiring such a special interest tool to teach campaign finance law, and shame on WPR for not fully informing listeners of the background of this "news source."
Post a Comment