![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Advocates v. Politicians
Dec. 13th, 2018 08:29 am There is a common saying: "Politics is the art f the possible." I have a saying: "Advocacy is about making the impossible, possible." This rather important distinction between politics and advocacy is illustrated by this news clip from Politico's Morning Tech. Discussing a new privacy bill drafted by Senator Schatz and joined by a dozen Democrats, Schatz discussed the rather thorny question of preempting state privacy laws -- notably the California privacy law that passed this summer.
The elephant in the room: Schatz said any federal privacy legislation that pre-empts state law must be sufficiently robust or it won't pass the Senate: "I just think we're in a relatively strong bargaining position because they need something to happen federally, because otherwise something goes into place that they fear very much," he said. That's a reference to the industry's desire to pass a bill that would pre-empt California's privacy law, set to take effect in 2020. Schatz also acknowledged that while his bill lays down "broad principles," it doesn't cover everything that would be needed in comprehensive privacy legislation. (emphasis added)
The first reaction, of course, is why this is about negotiating with industry at all. When last I watched School House Rock, there was no stage in which you had to get sign off by the industry being regulated to get legislation passed. But Schatz is being honest about the "art of the possible." And to be clear, Schatz is one of the good guys. he is trying to get good legislation passed. And since there are members (in both parties) who will act to protect the interest of the industry, getting "industry to the table" and trading off strong state protections for adequate federal protection is what the art of the possible requires. Without that industry sign off, getting decent privacy protections for everyone is impossible.
As an advocate, however, I believe that sucks. So my job is to create a political environment where that impossible thing becomes possible. Part of that is explaining to voters, so that y'all equally decide that it sucks and tell your members of Congress (and state level reps) that as a voter you want strong privacy protection. That is, after all, how the "impossible" privacy legislation got through the California legislature. There are other strategies I (and other advocates) use to make the impossible not merely possible, but required. I will not go into them here.
But my point is that for democracy to reach good results it requires an active an engaged citizenry. It requires trained and professional advocates who can counter the industry lobbying presence and who understand the strategy. And yes, sometimes it means getting less than a good result -- at least for the moment. (Industry never has a problem coming back latter -- why do public interest groups think that what we get this time around is all we'll ever get. Think like incumbents!) But it is a different job from the actual policy makers. That is how our "adversarial" system of law and government works. It's why politics is the art of the possible, and why advocacy is so critically important to getting real change.
The elephant in the room: Schatz said any federal privacy legislation that pre-empts state law must be sufficiently robust or it won't pass the Senate: "I just think we're in a relatively strong bargaining position because they need something to happen federally, because otherwise something goes into place that they fear very much," he said. That's a reference to the industry's desire to pass a bill that would pre-empt California's privacy law, set to take effect in 2020. Schatz also acknowledged that while his bill lays down "broad principles," it doesn't cover everything that would be needed in comprehensive privacy legislation. (emphasis added)
The first reaction, of course, is why this is about negotiating with industry at all. When last I watched School House Rock, there was no stage in which you had to get sign off by the industry being regulated to get legislation passed. But Schatz is being honest about the "art of the possible." And to be clear, Schatz is one of the good guys. he is trying to get good legislation passed. And since there are members (in both parties) who will act to protect the interest of the industry, getting "industry to the table" and trading off strong state protections for adequate federal protection is what the art of the possible requires. Without that industry sign off, getting decent privacy protections for everyone is impossible.
As an advocate, however, I believe that sucks. So my job is to create a political environment where that impossible thing becomes possible. Part of that is explaining to voters, so that y'all equally decide that it sucks and tell your members of Congress (and state level reps) that as a voter you want strong privacy protection. That is, after all, how the "impossible" privacy legislation got through the California legislature. There are other strategies I (and other advocates) use to make the impossible not merely possible, but required. I will not go into them here.
But my point is that for democracy to reach good results it requires an active an engaged citizenry. It requires trained and professional advocates who can counter the industry lobbying presence and who understand the strategy. And yes, sometimes it means getting less than a good result -- at least for the moment. (Industry never has a problem coming back latter -- why do public interest groups think that what we get this time around is all we'll ever get. Think like incumbents!) But it is a different job from the actual policy makers. That is how our "adversarial" system of law and government works. It's why politics is the art of the possible, and why advocacy is so critically important to getting real change.
