The Worst Form of Government

"Democracy is the worst form of government, save all others that have been tried." --Winston Churchill

The problem with democracy is that everyone has a say, even those people whom you think are wrong. When you are convinced that you know what's best for a city, state, or country, it can be frustrating when people don't see things your way. The history of our government has been a battle between those who desire more democracy and those who, quite frankly, don't trust the will of the people. Throughout the ages, there have been groups who pushed for a more "business" approach to governing, one that is efficient and responsive to new problems. Unfortunately, when you must take into account a multitude of competing interests and opposing opinions, acting quickly and responsively is near impossible. In truth, democracy simply is not efficient.

Currently, there is a debate about Tulsa's form of government. Prior to 1989, Tulsa had a commission form of government which dated back to 1908. That form of government was first established in Galveston, Texas following a devastating hurricane. At the time, many leaders feared that emerging from that devastation could not be accomplished if left to a democratically elected government. Thus, the city created several "commissions" modeled after businesses—much like departments with department heads who oversaw various functions. Initially, the plan called for all of the commissioners to be appointed, but was later modified to popularly elect 2 of the 5 commissioners in order to appease citizens. Later still, it was changed to make all commissioners elected, once court challenges questioned the legitimacy of allowing appointments.

Many have credited the "Galveston Plan" as an outgrowth of the progressive movement. It is true that many of the ideas of the progressive movement are consistent with the Commission Government. Many progressives believed in the ability of government, run correctly, to solve any problem. They embraced scientific and other progressive approaches as the solution to life's problems. Thus, a streamlined, efficient government was critical to "progress." Progressive leaders, like Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt, supported the commission form of government.

But not all progressives accepted it. Also key to progressives was giving all people a voice in government, eliminating party bosses, and creating more directly elected positions. Many saw this new form of government as simply a way to dilute the voice of the working class. In fact, in Galveston, this was pretty close to the truth. Even prior to the hurricane, there was a push to increase the dominance of business interests in Galveston's government. A group of local business men created an organization, called "Good Government Club," to ensure that the business interests of the city were protected. Key to their movement was the adoption of 3 at large councilors, whom they felt would help push through the business interests of the city. Yet, the group found this was not sufficient, and saw the hurricane as an opportunity to further streamline government. Many of the same people involved in the "Good Government Club" helped to create the Commission Government.

Backed by Chambers of Commerce, the commission form of government was hugely popular in the early 1900s. Between 1900 and 1920, as many as 500 cities adopted it. Yet, it soon fell out of favor for many reasons. Perhaps the biggest reason, though, was the belief that the commission government did not adequately represent all voices. Thus, in the 1980s, groups across the nation began legal challenges to that form of government. In some cities, like Springfield, Illinois, these challenges were successful, which is why when the NAACP brought suit in Tulsa, citizens smartly changed the form of government.

As I said in an earlier post, totalitarian governments govern by power and fear—legitimacy is not critical. As many have said, Hitler made the trains run on time. But Democracy derives its just power from the consent of the governed. No matter how efficient, a government that is not perceived as representing its entire citizens, one that lacks validity in the minds of too many people, cannot succeed. The ultimate goal of any good government then is to maximize its efficiency in way that does not compromise its democracy.

Expecting the Best

When I was a child, I heard swear words associated with President Nixon's name so often, I might have assumed that Nixon's first name was directions to the abyss. My parents and family were never shy in criticizing our resigning president. I think that was a turning point in politics. People my age grew up believing that corruption and politics go hand in hand like peanut butter and jelly. Obviously, certain politicians, like Mr. Nixon, made that association difficult to avoid. Unfortunately, though, they made the stereotype almost universal.

Recently, I was speaking with a friend about the action of a City Councilor. He said sneeringly that the councilor was "pushing forward his own personal agenda." I thought that was odd. After all, don't we elect politicians to push forward their agendas?

Mostly, though, it was evidence to me that, no matter what politicians do these days, someone will ascribe a sinister motivation. I don't think that times were always like that. There was a time when politicians, like teachers and doctors, were admired. They were viewed as men (almost always) who chose paths that enabled them to serve their community and improve the lives of citizens. Of course, politics has always had a nasty side. From the days of our founding fathers, there have been accusations of corruption, seedy implications of depravity. But the presumption that all actions of a politician are driven only by selfish motives and personal gain is something new.

Because we all expect that politicians are corrupt, no one is surprised when our assumptions are confirmed. And then we start making excuses for the politicians we like, while condemning those we don't. We argue that one politician's actions are excusable because "all politicians do that" or that "the media is just out to get him/her" instead of simply acknowledging that a bad act is a bad act.

There is a theory in Sociology called the "Labeling Theory" that says that people tend to become that which they are continually labeled. I wonder if our assumptions of corruption in politics are becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why would a decent, concerned citizen want to take on a job that is full of crooks and liars? Why would a politician choose the right path if he were convinced everyone else was breaking the law?

I believe that for our country to properly function, we must elevate our opinions of politicians. Don't get me wrong—a healthy skepticism of our elected officials is a good thing. But a complete loss of faith in the people who run our country will devastate our democracy. Totalitarian governments don't need trust—they rule by fear and power. But Democracy can only work when people have faith in their government. After all, democracy requires intelligent debate and acceptance of the will of the people. It requires a belief that, even when you disagree with a decision of government, you accept its legitimacy. It is one thing to believe that a government act was poorly conceived; quite another to believe it was criminal.

Of course, our politicians can certainly make it difficult for us to hold them in esteem. They frequently remind me of my young, fighting sons. Yet, with my sons, I would never think of stooping to their level, jumping into the fights, and excusing the name calling or hitting because they all do it. Instead, I let them know that I expect better of them, all of them. Perhaps it's time that we the voters become the parents, by assuming the best in our politicians, that even when they make mistakes, they are only trying to do what they think is right. Perhaps if we all assumed better of our elected officials, we could return to a time when politicians worked together to accomplish things, instead of constantly trying to denigrate opposing sides.

The Business of Politics

Often, you hear politicians exerting that they are the best candidate for a position because of their "business" experience. Saying you can run government because you have experience running a business is like saying you know how to drive a car because you have experience riding a bike. Sure, they might both be forms of transportation, but that is where the similarities end.

When you run a business, you are the boss—compromise and consensus building is simply not crucial. Take Steve Jobs, for example. Recent articles indicate that he runs Apple like a dictator, firing people on the spot for mistakes and micromanaging every aspect of the company right down to the buses used to transport employees. Given Apple's success, I am certain that Steve Jobs is an excellent CEO. The bottom line is that he makes Apple plenty of money, and, for the most part, that is all that matters. But would we want him as a politician? Would we want a Mayor or City Councilor who exerts that type of control and power?

Ultimately, your goal in a business is to make money. In government, it is to provide necessary services to the greatest number of people. And sometimes those services will not be cost effective. Unlike business, you can't decide to eliminate trash collection services just because you aren't getting a decent ROI (return on investment). You can't eliminate ambulance services to sections of the city simply because it doesn't fit your business plan. In business, customer satisfaction might be a factor in the equation—after all, customers must be satisfied if they are going to come back. But in government, customer satisfaction is the goal.

In politics, employees don't work for you; you work for citizens. And citizens like to complain a lot. They are quick to distrust you, and will assume you haven't done anything, if you haven't solved their problem. There is always a reporter or adversary lurking in the wings, waiting to tear you down. While a business leader can ignore pesky issues like voter popularity, a politician must be constantly aware not only of his actions, but of the perception of his actions. A politician must listen to all sides, making sure that everyone feels that they have been heard. Frequently, a politician must choose between competing sides, ensuring that one side will leave feeling that their rights or interests have been trampled. A good politician finds compromises that allow all sides to feel vindicated.

I am not saying that politicians shouldn't have some business experience. Everyone wants our elected officials to be able to balance the budget, and to have at least some idea of how businesses function. The last three mayors in Tulsa have touted their business experience as what qualified them first and foremost to be mayor, yet their success and failure seem to stem more from their political abilities. Given the current dysfunction in City Hall, perhaps what this city needs is someone who is first and foremost a politician.

Property rights and red herrings

Oliver Wendall Holms once said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." So too is the case with our land. In America, we often tout our history of private property rights, that a "man's home is his castle." Yet, our property rights have never been absolute. Our right to use our land in a way we see fit only exists to the extent that our use doesn't harm our neighbor's land. In the past, when most people lived on large farms, this wasn't so important. But even then, courts recognized the need to balance between competing property interests. If a smelting company damaged the trees of another, they must pay. If a farmer built a reservoir that caused flooding on another property, they must pay. Because of the distance between neighbors, it was possible for lawsuits to address the competing property rights.

However, as towns and cities grew, our neighbors became closer and more numerous. Lawsuits could not address all of the problems of competing land interests. Tulsa early on recognized the need for government to lay out restrictions on property for the good of the community. Thus in 1906, twenty years before zoning was accepted by the Supreme Court, the city prohibited drilling within the city limits. Such a step recognized that, while it may have deprived some of a property right, it ensured the ability of others to use and enjoy their land. Later, like most of the United States, Tulsa took this a step further by adopting a zoning code. This laid out broad restrictions on our land, regulating uses to certain areas in an attempt to ensure the value of all land. Zoning laws are based on an idea of reciprocity—we all give up a bit of our rights because we recognized the benefit we all achieve. For decades, Tulsans have lived with zoning laws that restrict our property right, yet are designed to enhance the value of our land.

Any time there is a change in zoning laws proposed, you always hear a few who decry that the change would "infringe on my property rights." It reminds me of my kids at the pool, when a summer shower once broke out. My youngest started yelling, "Hurry, we have to go in before we get wet." In a sense, we are already wet—as long as we have zoning laws, our property rights have already been infringed upon. Changes to the zoning laws will affect what you can and can't do with your property. But the idea that somehow the city can never change zoning laws, or that the property rights that you have right now are immutable, is silly. To move forward as a city, we must be able to adapt in our approach to land use, making changes to address new problems and new opportunities. After all, it wasn't until oil was discovered that the city needed to restrict drilling. And the Supreme Court has made clear that cities have the right to regulate land as they see fit, just so long as it isn't arbitrary and doesn't deprive a property owner of all viable economic use. That of course doesn't mean we shouldn't debate the merits of any zoning code change. No one wants to pass an ordinance that hampers growth or harms neighborhoods, so we must always listen to the pros and cons of a zoning code change. But, when someone says we can't change a zoning code because it "infringes on my property rights," we should recognize the argument for what it is—nothing but a red herring.

Looking for America (in Tulsa)

Recently, my husband and I visited New York City. We met in New York at law school, and my husband grew up in Manhattan, so the city is quite familiar to us. We wanted to simply roam the city, seeing as much of different neighborhoods as possible. The one touristy activity we did was attending the Tenement Museum in the lower east side. For those who have never been, the Tenement Museum is incredible. The building itself is filled with over a century's worth of wallpaper, paint, graffiti, and other relics of the past. I love old buildings, and the history they present. They are archeological sites that involve, not digging dirt, but scrapping off past histories from the walls. The museum is in the lower east side, an area of New York that, year after year, has housed the current wave of immigrants. To me, this is the real America, the country where poor peasants fled their homes, with nothing but a few bags and hopes of a better life. The America that opened its arms to anyone who had enough initiative to come here. The people who ended up in the lower east side were not famous, and few will ever know their names. But each wave brought something new to America—new tastes, new ideas, new religions. Each new wave pushed our country in a new direction, ensuring that America was constantly changing.

After touring the museum, we wandered through the lower east side, then over to Chinatown and Little Italy, and eventually up to the East Village. It was an eating tour. We dined at a Kosher deli on the lower east side, with some of the best Matzo ball soup I have ever had (many apologies to my mother-in-law). We had cannoli's and espresso in the little Italy. And finally, a dinner at a wonderful Indian restaurant on 6^th Street in the East Village. Diversity in a city creates so many opportunities. You can see it in its food--each immigrant brought their own to New York. The unique smells and flavors waft through the streets, and people, who have never even left the city, suddenly discover something new. Tastes and foods from India to China to Mexico are remixed to create something distinctly American. Like food, new ideas and new ways of thinking come with the immigrants. And anytime you bring together large groups of diverse people to interact, you are likely to get new ideas, new approaches. As I said before, cities are like chemical reactions, and the more diverse the chemicals, the more likely you are to get a reaction.

I wish Tulsa did more to highlight its diverse population. For such a small city, we do have a good deal of diversity, but it's spread out, without visible signs. Unlike large cities, we have no Chinatown. No Italian flags conveying this is where to stop for a pastry. Not even a Market Square, like San Antonio, lined with brilliantly colored Mexican goods. These places make you feel transported, as though you have traveled to an exotic country while not really leaving your home. I suspect that Tulsa doesn't have a large enough population of any one group to create a neighborhood. Perhaps then the solution would be to have an "international" neighborhood. Create a global street downtown devoted to ethnic stores and restaurants, a place where Tulsans can go to experience unique cultures. Obviously, I wouldn't suggest that any restrictions be placed upon who could open a business in a given location, but perhaps through incentives, we could encourage entrepreneurs to open businesses that reflected their heritage.

It also would be nice to have some sort of international festival, one that is outdoors, and involves as many nationalities as possible. I know that we already have some great ethnic festivals, and I wouldn't want to detract from those. And Tulsa Global Alliance does a wonderful job with Kids' World, but that is really designed for kids, and doesn't offer much food. A weekend devoted to music, food, and crafts from different parts of the world would certainly be something I would attend.

Growing up

Much has been said about Blake Ewings recent blog, "Grow up, Tulsa." There are many things to like about it, especially its focus on the unique aspects of Tulsa, and the call on leaders to celebrate those aspects, instead of trying to become something Tulsa is not. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment.

However, his premise that Tulsa can be like other cities, such as Austin and Portland, if we all just get on the same page and stop bickering really alarms me. In my experience, when someone says we all need to get on the same page, what they really mean is that we all need to agree with him or her. And the idea that other cities don't have their share of petty squabbles and political wranglings is naïve and myopic. As I wrote previously, political struggles are as old as Moses. It is simply human nature to fight for your cause. Tulsa is not unique in that aspect.

Quite frankly, it is the political systems in which we hear no dissent that should alarm us. When we hear fighting, we know that everyone has a voice in the process; when we hear nothing, we should worry that people are being silenced. Some of the biggest mistakes we have made as humans have been the result of "group think." In his blog, Mr. Ewing says that we need to ignore the "few angry idiots" who show up to protest something new. Not only do I find that elitist, I find it quite dangerous and un-American. Like the lone Chinese student standing up to a tank, we love the individual who fights the good fight. As a Planning Commissioner, we frequently get a "few angry idiots" who come to protest something. And while I may disagree with them, and even vote against them, I have tremendous respect for those people who believe with all their heart they are fighting for their city, for their homes. And sometimes, though admittedly not often, it is the lone dissenter that in hindsight proves to be correct. Among those "few angry idiots", you never know who might be the next Jane Jacobs or the next child who sees the emperor has no clothes.

So then, how is Tulsa to "grow up" as Mr. Ewing implies? Part of the problem I see is the assumption that somehow great cities are "grown up." Cities, like people, should never be grown but should be constantly growing, changing and evolving. To "grow up" connotes an ending, not a process. What we need to determine is how we can continue evolving as a city instead of stagnating. While bickering is normal, it must move us forward, must produce new ideas and compromises. But it is actually the bickering that produces something new. Think of the city as a large chemical reaction: when the chemicals are frozen and still, they are the least likely to react. When heated, the atoms move quicker, badgering and bumping each other, until something new is formed. We need to figure out, not how to all get on the same page, but how the bumping and badgering will produce something new. I don't presume to know where our city needs to go; it will go where the entire city pushes it, and I am just one person in that process. But I do have some ideas of how people can help that process. Here are my suggestions.

1. Engage in the process. What the city needs is more, not less, voices. Whether it's PlaniTulsa, the next election, or your local school's PTA, we all have something to add, including you. If no one is listening, talk louder.
   
2. Fight passionately for what you believe, but always remember you could be wrong. When we become rigid, we stop growing as individuals and as a city. The problem I see is not that our city is fighting; it's that we aren't listening to each other. Couples don't break up because of a fight; they break up because they don't care what the other has to say. Listen to the other side, take what is good about their argument, and redefine your position. Do this again and again.
   
3. Never reject something just because it's new and unfamiliar. Be excited about novel ideas and approaches, constantly willing to try something different. Ironically—and at the risk of offending my parents—it is often grownups who are often least likely to accept change.
   
4. Celebrate the discord, and be proud of Tulsa's diverse points of view. Austin and Portland didn't get where they are by all being on the same page. In fact, what makes them great cities is the fact that they celebrate the individual, and include them in the process. It is wonderful that so many people care so deeply about this city. After all, it is the cacophony of competing ideas and points of view that slowly become the symphony of the city.

The first step is to admit we have a problem

Ask just about anyone in Tulsa and they will tell you that City Hall is a mess. Open the paper, and yet another chapter in the saga of our city government unfolds. Given the daily dramatics, it isn't surprising to hear the drumbeat to change our current form of government. But what you don't hear is any careful analysis as to whether the current system is actually causing the current problems in our government. We all know that correlation does not prove causation (i.e., just because two things happen at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other). Yet many seem so quick to lay blame at our city's form of government. Perhaps we first need to actually define what the problem is. Just saying something is a "mess" doesn't really get you anywhere.

People will disagree about specifics of the problem in City Hall—some would argue that there is too much "ward" politics; some would say the Mayor's behavior is the source of the problems; some would say that City Council is acting outside of the Charter. We can all agree, though, that at its core the problem is that our elected officials are fighting too much, and that the discord has reached such an extent that day-to-day operations are affected.

So, the big revelation is that our elected officials are not getting along. Wow. How is this any different from the rest of our country? Not for the first time, the Federal government is on the verge of being shut down because of fighting between the President and Congress. As for state governments, we all recently witnessed Wisconsin's civil war. This is nothing new. From the time governments were formed, there was fighting, political wrangling, and struggles to gain more power. It is why people go into politics. If you believe that you are the best person to run a city, state, or country, then you must believe passionately about what is right and wrong. You must have a strong conviction on how things should be done, and a strong desire to lead your city/state/country. And people who are passionate about their beliefs fight for them, as they should.

Why, then, are we so shocked that our city government is no different? And if we believe that the disruptions in City Hall justify a change to our form government, shouldn't we also consider changing our state and federal government?

I'm not saying that we should just accept the fighting. I'm just saying that changing governmental systems because of fighting is like changing clothes because you have a fever.