I’m 86, and I have spent 70 years of it thinking about how evidence should shape public decisions. I began as a 16-year-old high school debater, learning to test an argument before accepting its conclusion. That habit has left me with a persistent question.
How can representatives know what the public understands and authorizes when citizens are rarely given a structured way to reach an informed judgment between elections? Voting remains indispensable. Yet an election asks people to choose representatives who will decide any matters that might be a subject of a campaign.
Polls, town halls, constituent mail, and party organizations can reveal opinions. They do not show whether a community has considered the same evidence, examined competing claims, or identified genuine agreement. That distinction matters.
Political speeches are not the same as a durable process through which neighbors can be informed about conditions that are of common concern and voice their individual priorities, explain the basis for them, and build consensus for a collective position. Candidates listening can then acknowledge the priorities. Civic agency is thus fulfilled.
The contrast between community needs and federal priorities is amplified by the scale of decisions involved in the federal budget. The White House budget request for fiscal year 2027 proposes $1.5 trillion for national defense. Separately, the Department of Veterans Affairs requests $488.2 billion.
Federal budgets also take shape locally. The Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation’s Defense Spending by State Fiscal Year 2024 report provides a state-by-state view of defense contracts, personnel spending, and grants, illustrating how national appropriations enter local economies. In my view, those economic ties can also acquire political relevance.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
