"It’s another example of Arizona’s legislative process increasingly playing out in private..." What's with "increasingly"? Are we witnessing a big departure from established norms? Also, you're not going to get a *better* product with electeds preening for the cameras. This vote will take place in public. The board of truth. Voters can decide next year how to respond.
"Wells is best known for his role as research director at the nonpartisan Grand Canyon Institute..." I mean. Ok, sure, it's not directly an arm of the Democratic Party, but nonpartisan doing a lot of work there. Maybe we also say, "The institute's work is often cited by progressives."
I think your point about the word “increasingly” is fair — this kind of late-session legislating happens all the time. But that’s also the point: just because it’s common doesn’t mean it’s transparent. Voter feedback is still important, even if lawmakers/lobbyists “preen for the cameras,” as you put it. Casting a vote may be one form of public accountability, but it’s a limited one — especially when that vote comes after a bill becomes law and reroutes hundreds of millions in tax revenue toward a stadium many Arizonans may never set foot in.
As for the Grand Canyon Institute, I appreciate the perspective. I refer to groups as nonpartisan when that’s how they self-identify — just as I would for the Common Sense Institute, even though its work is often cited by conservatives. I think readers are capable of evaluating the policy arguments on their merits, and I try to offer enough context for them to do so.
My guess -- it's just a guess! -- is that you, a reporter, are going to put a premium on transparency. I don't. Obviously, I value reporting or I wouldn't subscribe to your substack. But I'm not convinced about stuff being done "behind closed doors" to be detrimental. It might actually be the opposite. My thinking on this has been informed by Yuval Levin. He helped me sort out why I find certain aspects of the job to be detrimental to legislating. He writes:
"But when those members look to the institution as a means of displaying themselves rather than letting it form their ambitions into agendas, they do not become socialized to work together. They act like outsiders commenting on Congress, rather than like insiders participating in it. Much of what they say and do, even in private discussions with colleagues, is intended not for their peers but for an outside audience that wants to see a dramatic enactment of culture-war animosities."
You’re absolutely right that I put a premium on transparency — it’s part of the job, and probably part of my nature too. I don’t think every detail of every negotiation has to be public, but I do think a more open process — one that invites input from the people who will actually be affected by a policy — is crucial to building better outcomes. That includes space for disagreement and dissent, not just reinforcing the perspectives of the people already at the table.
I also agree with Levin’s broader critique about performative politics. But in Arizona, there’s still a long way to go when it comes to restoring public trust and bringing more voices — especially those of everyday people, not just lobbyists — into the fold. A closed process might avoid grandstanding, but it also risks excluding real accountability. And at the end of the day, decisions about how hundreds of millions in public dollars are spent shouldn’t feel so removed from the people footing the bill.
Appreciate the thoughtful exchange — this is exactly the kind of conversation we need more of.
Couple things:
"It’s another example of Arizona’s legislative process increasingly playing out in private..." What's with "increasingly"? Are we witnessing a big departure from established norms? Also, you're not going to get a *better* product with electeds preening for the cameras. This vote will take place in public. The board of truth. Voters can decide next year how to respond.
"Wells is best known for his role as research director at the nonpartisan Grand Canyon Institute..." I mean. Ok, sure, it's not directly an arm of the Democratic Party, but nonpartisan doing a lot of work there. Maybe we also say, "The institute's work is often cited by progressives."
I think your point about the word “increasingly” is fair — this kind of late-session legislating happens all the time. But that’s also the point: just because it’s common doesn’t mean it’s transparent. Voter feedback is still important, even if lawmakers/lobbyists “preen for the cameras,” as you put it. Casting a vote may be one form of public accountability, but it’s a limited one — especially when that vote comes after a bill becomes law and reroutes hundreds of millions in tax revenue toward a stadium many Arizonans may never set foot in.
As for the Grand Canyon Institute, I appreciate the perspective. I refer to groups as nonpartisan when that’s how they self-identify — just as I would for the Common Sense Institute, even though its work is often cited by conservatives. I think readers are capable of evaluating the policy arguments on their merits, and I try to offer enough context for them to do so.
My guess -- it's just a guess! -- is that you, a reporter, are going to put a premium on transparency. I don't. Obviously, I value reporting or I wouldn't subscribe to your substack. But I'm not convinced about stuff being done "behind closed doors" to be detrimental. It might actually be the opposite. My thinking on this has been informed by Yuval Levin. He helped me sort out why I find certain aspects of the job to be detrimental to legislating. He writes:
"But when those members look to the institution as a means of displaying themselves rather than letting it form their ambitions into agendas, they do not become socialized to work together. They act like outsiders commenting on Congress, rather than like insiders participating in it. Much of what they say and do, even in private discussions with colleagues, is intended not for their peers but for an outside audience that wants to see a dramatic enactment of culture-war animosities."
More here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/lights-camera-congress/606199/
You’re absolutely right that I put a premium on transparency — it’s part of the job, and probably part of my nature too. I don’t think every detail of every negotiation has to be public, but I do think a more open process — one that invites input from the people who will actually be affected by a policy — is crucial to building better outcomes. That includes space for disagreement and dissent, not just reinforcing the perspectives of the people already at the table.
I also agree with Levin’s broader critique about performative politics. But in Arizona, there’s still a long way to go when it comes to restoring public trust and bringing more voices — especially those of everyday people, not just lobbyists — into the fold. A closed process might avoid grandstanding, but it also risks excluding real accountability. And at the end of the day, decisions about how hundreds of millions in public dollars are spent shouldn’t feel so removed from the people footing the bill.
Appreciate the thoughtful exchange — this is exactly the kind of conversation we need more of.
And thanks for being a subscriber too!