I haven't posted about the concept of the public interest in quite a while, I think. In Feb. 2015, I posted my conception of the public interest as I envisioned it then:
Governing in the public interest means governance based on identifying a rational, optimum balance between serving public and individual or commercial interests based on an objective, fact- and logic-based analysis of competing policy choices, while (1) being reasonably transparent and responsive to public opinion, (2) protecting and growing the American economy, (4) fostering individual economic and personal growth opportunity, (5) defending personal freedoms and the American standard of living, (6) protecting national security and the environment, (7) increasing transparency, competition and efficiency in commerce when possible, (8) fostering global peace, stability and prosperity whenever reasonably possible, all of which is constrained by (i) honest, reality-based fiscal sustainability that limits the scope and size of government and regulation to no more than what is needed and (ii) genuine respect for the U.S. constitution and the rule of law with a particular concern for limiting unwarranted legal complexity and ambiguity to limit opportunities to subvert the constitution and the law, [later included: and (9) engaging in reasonable political compromise as a pro-democracy bulwark against extremism, corruption and authoritarianism].
I get some criticism for arguing I am pro-democracy and pro-service to the the public interest because my notion of those concepts allegedly is often very different than what many--if not most--would consider "the public interest" and "democratic." I reject that criticism. I doubt that most Americans would reject my conception of service to the public interest or democracy. From what I can tell, most don't have much or any idea of what they are or ought to be. Maybe it's what makes them happy and comfortable, whatever that might be, e.g., getting rid of illegal immigration and wokeness, and making the price of food and housing go back down.
And for what it is worth, at least I have the guts to be explicit about how I view the public interest. Everybody can criticize such a juicy, big target.
Obviously, there are contested concepts in that description, e.g., (i) "the scope and size of government and regulation [limited] to no more than what is needed", and (ii) "reasonably transparent and responsive to public opinion." Those are loaded with contested concepts, maybe even some essentially contested concepts. But that is why "reasonable political compromise" is now included. Opinions obviously differ about contested concepts, that's why I call them contested. Democratic regimes have to compromise, but authoritarian regimes don't unless forced to by out-of-control circumstances. That is why the existence and importance of contested concepts has to be acknowledged. I do not hide from, deny or irrationally downplay reality and reasoning that is inconvenient or complex.
When asked, most MAGA people do not have much of an idea about lots of things. Ask them what regulations they want to get rid of? Usually little to no answer. Ask them where power flows when businesses are deregulated and who or what usually gets shafted? Almost always little to no answer. Most of them don't have a freaking clue. A lot of them still falsely believe the 2020 election was stolen, vaccines are bad and Biden caused all the inflation.
Guess what happens when I describe my vision of the public interest to people who think I'm a liar, full of crap, a radical socialist tyrant, and/or whatever? They generally got little to nothing coherent to say. Gutless pussies go silent. Some respond by deflecting or degenerating into whataboutism or crackpottery. They hate it, but just can't or won't say why. In my opinion, the main reason for silence in the face of a solid defense of my vision of democracy and the public interest probably is there's just too much cognitive dissonance for most people to handle. Brains either just seize up or fly into biased unconscious self-defense mode.
Lots of people like to think they are staunchly pro-democracy, while in fact they are mostly anti-democracy. Being deeply steeped in pro-democracy morals or principles is probably why my conception of the public interest is so hard for most people, including old-fashioned conservatives, to attack.
