Public exposure Op-ed by David Schlosser

==Op-ed column: Public exposure==
: by David Schlosser, candidate for U.S. Congress, Week of 19th July 2006
One of the hardest things about running for office - any office, from
homeowner's association to Congress - is the quality and quantity of
exposure the public reasonably expects. Conventional wisdom suggests that
no one should discuss politics or religion at a party. Yet, when running
for office, those are two topics the audience demands. Further complicating
the situation, parents and peers teach us by word and deed that talking
about yourself is impolite - which is, unfortunately, exactly what a
candidate must do at every opportunity.
In other words, successful candidates are egotistical and offensive to the
significant plurality - if not outright majority - of the population that
does not agree with them. It's a challenging paradox, and there are a
variety of ways to deal with it.
Most candidates confront it head-on. They write a brochure with some issue
statements and a biography that highlights the relevant bits and omits the
embarrassing bits. Clever candidates find a way to "spin" the stuff most
people consider odd or bad - for example, a business failure may become a
character-building experience. A troubled child may become a platform for
speaking about law enforcement.
A very few candidates confront it more obliquely, by making up a history
they believe voters may find more attractive. This isn't as easy as it used
to be, with Internet search engines allowing anyone to find tracks, or a
lack of tracks. Besides making it harder for a candidate to manufacture a
history, the Internet also encourages such candidates to exit with admirable
haste.
Fortunately, the Internet creates more opportunities for positive public
exposure than negative. Before the Internet, sharing information with
voters was expensive - printing and distributing issue statements by mail or
in person, faxing or mailing news releases, establishing elaborate networks
of offices and supporters. Today, a Web site has an infinite volume of
space for sharing information and ideas. Even more important, the Internet
exposes candidates to a reciprocal relationship - for every position a
candidate takes on his or her Web site, citizens can respond by sending an
email, posting a response on a Weblog, or sending a link to the information
to other citizens. What used to be a single-lane, one-way street may become
the intersection of multiple superhighways.
That qualification, "may," is critically important. The Internet enables a
significant two-way relationship between a candidate and his or her
constituents. But not every candidate chooses to take advantage of that
opportunity. Many candidates choose to simply reproduce the same static
content of the old days, which leaves both citizens and their candidates
relatively impoverished. The exchange of ideas and opinions that emerged
from the earliest communities of small-D democrats, lost during most of the
Twentieth Century, is as possible today as when America's early immigrants
arrived here nearly 400 years ago. That exchange reflects both the rights
and responsibilities of citizenship: citizens have a right to choose their
representatives, and those leaders have a responsibility to both lead and
reflect their constituents; citizens have a responsibility to participate in
the civic life of our country, and their elected representatives reciprocate
by guaranteeing their shared rights remain intact.
Despite the extraordinary opportunities of the Internet to increase
favorable public exposure, too few candidates use that tool - or any others
- to present themselves and their ideas to citizens in a productive way.
Even fewer use it to develop the kind of dialogue that enhances public
policies and engagement in our civic responsibilities.
These circumstances are particularly disappointing because candidates have a
very special obligation to expose themselves to the citizens who will decide
whether to reward them with the right to represent the public. Our nation's
founders believed that this process of public exposure would equip citizens
with the information necessary to make the best possible decision about
their elected representatives. From stump speeches, to the Lincoln-Douglas
debates, to whistle-stop tours, to the Presidential Debates Commission,
America's leaders and citizens designed a broad array of opportunities for
public exposure.
One popular demonstration of these ideals is the special-interest survey.
Most special interest groups, from Sierra Club to Gun Owners of America, ask
candidates to respond to questionnaires that will allow the groups' members
to decide how to cast their votes. Most of these surveys ask very pointed
questions with very limited opportunities to answer. The essence of most
questions approximates the leading questions that get lawyers in trouble in
courtroom dramas: "Don't you agree that the most extreme interpretation of
our opposition's position is absolutely wrong? Please answer 'yes' or
'no.'"
The Internet allows candidates to share these questionnaires with all voters
and, importantly, to offer more fulfilling answers than yes/no. I've
challenged all the candidates in this Congressional race to post their
responses to these special-interest surveys on their Web sites, as I've
done, to increase our public exposure. As yet, none of the other candidates
have done so.
Even more disappointing, some candidates actively refuse to expose
themselves to the public in ways that would inform voters and open the
two-way dialogue between candidates and the electorate. Incumbent
Congressman Rick Renzi refused to answer the few simple questions posed to
all candidates by his home-town newspaper. Democrat Ellen Simon decided at
the last moment to refuse to participate in this week's forum of the five
candidates for the Democratic nomination.
In both cases, what's apparent is that those candidates will use their
campaign contributions to shield them from public exposure. Instead of
engaging their constituency in a way that informs and rewards both citizens
and candidates, they will buy television and radio advertising. It's a
clever political strategy, but it rewards only the consultants who produce
and buy the ads and the broadcasters and cable companies that carry the ads.
It's a completely controlled, entirely risk-free form of public exposure. I
believe that our constituents deserve more public exposure, not less, and
encourage voters to demand it.
	
Paid for by Schlosser for Congress. Scott Gude, Treasurer