Quiz 1

Discussion 

What is public policy and why should we study it?

Kraft defines public policy as “what public officials within government, and by extension the citizens they represent, choose to do or not to do about public problems.” 

1) How would you define public policy?  Be sure to draw from scholarly sources to enhance or support your definition; but don’t quote the source.  I’d like to see your analysis of the term.

2) Share with us some of the public policies you have seen present within your community or state.  Which ones impact your life directly and how?

3) What about national policies?  Have there been larger policies that you see a personal connection to? 

Be sure to discuss policies rather than current events.  While policy can be driven by a current event or catastrophic happening, I want to see the discussion on policy not the event.   

Quiz 2

 Jeffrey Tulis, in “The Two Constitutional Presidencies,” argues that there is a formal presidency and an informal presidency.  As a result, he states, “many of the dilemmas and frustrations of the modern presidency may be traced to the president’s ambiguous constitutional station, a vantage place composed of conflicting elements.” 

Comment on Tulis’ thesis, with reference to a specific president.  Your post should be at least 300 words. 

Quiz 3  

Classical Theorists

Reflecting on the readings for Week 1, answer the following questions.  Remember to reply your classmates’ posts too. 

Why do Plato, and philosophers in general, find the concept of a perfect society, or utopia, so useful?

Finally, why do utopias (both fictional and real-life attempts) often slide into dystopias?

Reading resources for quiz three.

Plato

The Greek physicist, mathematician, and inventor Achimedes purportedly said, “Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough and I will move the world.” Plato’s idealist metaphysics is the place on which he stands to criticize the political world. The Good is the lever Plato he used to move the political.

The Divided Line, which outlines Plato’s two-tiered metaphysics of Being and Becoming, is the linchpin for understanding the Republic. Once you understand the metaphysics of the Divided Line, the other parts of the Republic are much easier to understand – his attack of Athens as a City of Pigs, his education scheme, his critique of materialism, his valuation of the philosopher, his tripartite meta-psychology (reason, will and desires) his view of justice in the individual and state, and his contention that political rulers should be trained in philosophy in addition to being tested morally, trained practically, and selected and removed using stringent standards.

If the Divided Line outlined Plato’s metaphysics or ontology (his theory of reality), the Allegory of the Cave is his epistemology (his theory of how we know that reality). In the lower level of the cave, its inhabitants are mired in misperceptions. As they advance upward, they move through the world of perceptions and into the light. Their movement from Darkness to Light is a transition from the lower realm of becoming to the realm of Being. The realm of Being of light consists of apprehension of the math objects, idea, the forms, and atop that realm – the Good.

The Allegory of the Cave not only parallels the Divided Line, those two constructs in combination can be used to outline the structure of the Republic. The Republic begins in the Pireaus, a symbol of Athenian trade, decadence, and materialism or what Plato would call the rule of desires, the City of Pigs. The Republic then descends downward, through a series of dialogues which disputants with ever more misconceived theories of justice. The nadir or bottom of this descent is Thracymachus’ theory of justice as rule of the stronger.

After his tussle with the Sophist Thracymachus, like the inhabitants of the Allergorical Cave, Socrates begins the long journey upward, toward the Light and the Good. This journey has metaphysical, epistemological, psychological, educational, and artistic aspects. But it also has a very practical political edge.

To understand the practicality of Plato’s politics, one must bear in mind the small size of the Greek polis. To gain political power in Greek city-states didn’t require gaining the hearts and minds of millions. A philosopher acting in the capacity of educator, mentor, and advisor could gain enormous political power through a few well-placed students. Perhaps the best know example of this is Aristotle’s role as teacher and advisor to Alexander the Great.

In contrast with contemporary philosophers, who mostly labor far from the political fray in the ivory towers of academia, Greek philosophers and their had a direct and powerful impact on their politics, for better or worse. Indeed, Alcibiades, one of Socrates students, gave his famous teacher a black eye when he ebtraued Athens.

The Platonic political project may seem unrealistic in a modern age of massive nation states. But in small Greek city states with a few thousand citizens, gaining the ear of handfuls of talented, bright, well borne, young men was a very practical means to political power and influence. As a result, the real audience of the Republic are Glaucon and Adiemantus.

In contemporary terms, the Republic is not unlike Star Wars. Socrates and Plato are like Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda, trying to pull Glaucons and Adiemantuses (the Luke Skywalkers) to come towards the Good (the Force) away from the dark side (Sophistry) and the despotism that follows the collapse of democracy (Empire). The Sophists like Thracymachus in the Republic and Callicles in the Gorgias, seek to corrupt the Glaucons and Adiemantuses.

The practical Platonic political project reflects the centrality of the tug of war for the hearts and minds of talented young members of the ruling classes in the Greek world. But Plato’s Republic, like the death of Socrates, also testifies to the other battle that ripped apart the Greek world – the political infighting of oligarchic and democracy factions in Greek city-states.

In many Greek city states, factions in the ruling slave-owning advanced opposing theories of justice, struggled to define and gain citizenship and office holding, and vied for political power. Unlike modern democracy, which allows participation and citizenship for all adults, Greeks confined citizenship to free adult males, excluding women, slaves, and in most cases farmers and workers. As a result, the battle between democrats and oligarchs, the few and the many, was basically a political struggle between the rich and the not quite as rich. These struggles created enormous political instability in the Greek world, as the history of Athens around the time of Socrates and Aristotle shows

Plato’s Republic is not just philosophy, it is the earliest attempt at Political Science. The later parts of the Republic not only develop a typology of political types (the callipolis, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and despotism) but also a rudimentary theory of political regime change. Plato’s more empirically and practically oriented student, Aristotle would later develop a much more sophisticated and systematic political typology and theories of regime change. But, the Republic is an impressive start.

The resultant theory of regime change and Plato’s analysis of how oligarchy devolves into democracy and democracy devolves into despotism has a hard-headed realism. Our Founders, blinded by self-interest and fear of their fellow citizens, underestimated the dangers of oligarchy, corruption, materialism and selfishness. In contrast, for all his philosophical idealism Plato was also a realist, keenly aware of the dangers of oligarchic rule, political corruption, and the corrosive impact of materialism, hedonism and selfishness on political life.

This content serves not only as an introduction to basic philosophical terms, but also as the entry point for an understanding of the metaphysics of Plato. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question “what is real?” The philosophical position that ideas are most real is called “idealism.” A philosopher that believes ideas are most real is called “idealist.” This is a slightly different usage than are ordinary language usage of the term idealist which for us means optimistic or in some cases naïve.

“Empiricism” is the philosophical position that sense data is most real. Materialism is the philosophical position that physical things (for example the planets, our bodies, the whole realm of physical objects we find around us) are most real. The term “materialism” has a slightly different meaning in our society meaning someone who is overly concerned with accumulating wealth.

I point out what idealism and materialism do not mean in the context of philosophy because I do not want you to think that when we say Plato is “idealist” that we mean he is overly optimistic. Or, that when we say Marxist is a “materialist” that we are saying that he was overly concerned with accumulating lots of belongings or wealth. Idealism and materialism in this course will nearly always refer to the philosophical positions that ideas or material things are most real, respectively.

You need to understand two other basic philosophical concepts to move through this course. The term “Subject” refers to the knower. The term “Object” refers to the thing that is known. For a philosophical idealist, the subject is the agent of apprehending the real – the idea. For an empiricist, the subject is a perceiver of empirical data (smell, touch, sight, sound, taste).

Reading resources for quiz 2

“The Two Constitutional Presidencies”

What are the powers of a president? What powers did the framers of the Constitution intend for a president to have? Most important, how do the actual powers compare to the intended powers?

Jeffrey Tulis, in “Two Constitutional Presidencies,” notes that while the formal design of the president’s powers are outlined in Article II of the Constitution (the formal presidency), modern developments have created an “informal presidency,” with much greater public expectations. He concludes: “Both constitutions were designed to encourage and support an energetic president, but they differ over the legitimate sources and alleged virtues of popular leadership. For the Founders, presidents draw their energy from their authority, which rests on their independent constitutional position. For Woodrow Wilson and for presidents ever since, power and authority are conferred directly by the people.”

What is Tulis saying? There are official limits on the power of a president laid out in the Constitution, but what really determines what a president can do is popular support. Large “C” constitutional powers are generally more static than small “c” constitutional powers, because popular opinion is much more fluid and unstable than judicial interpretations of the Constitution.

George Washington

Washington’s relationship with the Supreme Court was unique because he chose all members of it. In fact, Washington appointed the entire federal judiciary after Congress created the federal court system. The ability to hand-pick the entire federal judiciary likely contributed to the fact that George Washington had little contention from the Supreme Court. However, it should be noted that the power of judicial review had yet to be established.

Washington did begin pushing the boundaries of what a president can do in two very important ways. First, the concept of executive privilege, or rather secrecy of presidential/executive communications, came into existence when Washington refused to turn communications about Jay’s Treaty over to the House of Representatives. Second, Washington’s response to the Whiskey Rebellion laid the groundwork for the president to be able to deploy military forces in times of emergency.

Andrew Jackson

Jackson was the president who really demonstrated that a president’s powers are determined by what popular opinion will allow, not what the courts or Congress say.

In the article, “Studying the Presidency: Why Presidents Need Political Scientists,” Lyn Ragsdale offers interesting generalizations about the presidency, many of which could be applied to Jackson’s tenure. The presidency has two dimension, which are comparable to the “two constitutions,” image and institution. Public opinion polls show that the public most consistently expects presidents to place the country’s interests ahead of politics, be intelligent, exercise sound judgment in a crisis, take firm stands on issues, get the job done, and be concerned about the average citizen. Early press coverage, which deals with family stories and future policy plans, is more favorable than subsequent press coverage. Short successful wars, sudden international crises, and significant diplomatic efforts temporarily improve the president’s public approval ratings.

Jackson had several questionable moves as president, such as his actions over the National Bank even after the Supreme Court ruled it as constitutional in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). But Jackson is known for his lack of enforcement of the 1832 Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, where the court ruled that removal of the Cherokee Tribe from Georgia was unlawful. Popular opinion nationally and in Georgia was that the court was wrong. Neither the state of Georgia nor Andrew Jackson enforced the decision, as if it never happened. Jackson was alleged to have said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” There’s no strong evidence Jackson actually said this, but his action, or rather inaction, did reflect such a sentiment.

Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln took extraordinary actions during extraordinary times. What expanded greatly in his administration was the range of emergency powers a president could use. Among these were jailing political opponents, suspending constitutional rights of habeas corpus, and declarations of martial laws in parts of the U.S. Chief Justice Taney ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus was illegal. Lincoln, with popular support mostly behind him, ignored the ruling and even threatened to put Taney in jail.

Most extraordinary was the use of force to coerce states to remain part of the Union. Secession had been considered, until that time, a legitimate action taken by states who no longer wanted to remain in the Union. Ironically, the first states threatening secession were in the north over the War of 1812. None of these actions would have withstood a majority of public opinion siding against Lincoln, and neither would have his 1864 reelection campaign. But Lincoln shaped the government to his ends essentially making good on a statement he made to Stephen Douglas in 1858, “”Whoever can change public opinion can change the government.”

Woodrow Wilson

Following Teddy Roosevelt’s lead, Wilson appealed directly to American voters to build support for his policies. These included creation of the Federal Reserve and new regulations on businesses. Lasting over a century after his presidency, he made the U.S. a leader on the world stage and openly supported intervention into the affairs of other countries. Enjoying large majorities in both chambers of Congress, Wilson worked on breaking down the legal wall between the presidency and the legislative tasks of Congress. This was a case of small “c” constitutional powers encroaching on large “C” constitutional powers.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

By speaking directly to the American people through his “fireside chats” on the radio, Roosevelt strongly established the link between popular support and small “c” constitutional powers. He continued in Wilson’s vein of legislative leadership, pushing bold new federal initiatives. Like Wilson, he enjoyed large Democratic majorities in Congress, yet popular support helped drive his policies and was reflected in unprecedented string of three reelections.

A recurring theme that should be noticed is under which conditions a president will most likely have popular support to expand small “c” constitutional powers. That’s when the U.S. was in a state of war, whether it was Jackson and the Indian wars, Lincoln and the Civil War, Wilson and WWI, Roosevelt and WWII, or even George Bush and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Quiz 1 reading resources

What Is Public Policy?

Public policy includes the specific actions government takes to rectify a public situation, to establish goals and develop methods to accomplish them, to set guidelines and best practices, and to communicate agency expectations and standards. It might be broadly said that public policy is simply what a public official who influences or determines public policy does or does not do about a problem that comes before them to be considered and acted upon.

There are many issues in the United States’ communities that remain unsolved, some of which can be dealt with in the private sphere (requiring only the actions of individuals or families). The larger, civil society (which includes social, economic, or political associations or organizations) is required to handle others. Public policy problems are those that must be addressed by the government (federal, state or local) through laws and regulations. Hundreds of millions of people can be impacted by a single public policy. Therefore, it cannot be considered or planned in haste. In some cases and for different reasons, a public policy must be replaced.

Public policy as a whole is difficult to define, as it is a very broad term. Most can agree that public policy:

• is made in response to an issue or problem that requires attention, representing what the government chooses to do or not do about that issue or problem.
• might take the form of law, regulation, or set of laws and regulations governing a particular issue or problem.
• is made on behalf of the “public,” which includes all Americans.
• is oriented toward a specific goal or state, such as solving a problem or issue.
• is ultimately made by governments, though the ideas for the policy can come from many different sources outside of the government.
• is part of an ongoing process that has no beginning or end, since it is continually being reassessed, revisited, and revised.

For each policy action, there are one or more contexts at play for its creation, modification, or rejection. There are five public policy contexts that affect public policy: social, economic, political, governmental and cultural.

Policymaking and Political Culture

The political culture of the United States places a great value on individual freedom, equality, progress, efficiency, and practicality. The economy is practically and pragmatically regulated under this form of democracy, and present problems are dealt with before long-term plans are made. This is also a diverse nation with diverse values, and these differences in values lead to different public policies. For example, debates have been sparked over whether private or national health care systems are the best model for the nation, or if economic competition is preferable to enterprises being state-owned. A number of different political cultures have arisen as a result of these differences, including:

INDIVIDUALISTIC CULTURE

The individualistic culture, which focuses on private concerns. In this culture, government is a utilitarian device, and policy issues are of minimal concern.

MORALISTIC CULTURE

TRADITIONALIST CULTURE

Policy Analysis

It is clear that a variety of contexts can drive policy development, implementation, and change. But how do we trust the underlying contexts? Whether acting as a citizen, government official, part of the administration, advocate, or one of a host of other individuals and groups connected to the policy system, it is imperative that the policy be analyzed.

Solid policy analysis requires systematic, thoughtful, and impartial assessment of the problems and/or solutions being identified by the policy and a consideration of its outcomes, alternatives, and impact. This process takes into account effectiveness, efficiency, equity, ethics, technical feasibility, political feasibility, and institutional capacity.

• FRAMEWORK FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
• THREE APPROACHES TO POLICY ANALYSIS

One of the most accepted models for policy analysis is that set forth by Carl V. Patton and David S. Sawicki, which has the following six steps (Patton and Sawicki 1986, p.26):

1. Verify, define and detail the problem. Determine what the problem is exactly, and whether that problem can be solved on a lower level or if public policy is necessary.
2. Establish evaluation criteria. This step allows other evaluation criteria to be considered in addition to cost; other valued criteria may include effectiveness, political acceptability, or votes and equity.
3. Identify alternative policies. Once the goals are known and evaluation criteria specified, it should be possible to develop a set of alternative ways of getting to known goals.
4. Evaluate these alternatives. Once alternative policies have been identified, they can be evaluated by deciding the particular points in favor or against each one.
5. Select an alternative policy. The results of the evaluation may be presented as a list of alternatives or as a preferred alternative. Implementation of the choice occurs at this step as well.
6. Monitor policy outcomes. Monitoring or evaluation of progress should be fundamental to every public policy. According to the nature of public policy, the original problem can be expected to evolve into others.

Official Policymakers

Many persons and groups share power over policy, but the ones that come to mind for many are the official policymakers, which include elected and appointed government officials. A system of checks and balances distributes the authority to make policy in order to prevent abuse of power and guarantee individual liberties, and ideally, to avoid inefficiency, duplication, and unnecessary expense.

The balance of power between the federal government and state governments has shifted over time. Today, national defense, transportation, interstate commerce, are generally the domain of the federal government, while the states traditionally dominate the areas of law enforcement, property rights, public education, land use regulation, highway construction, occupational licensing, and public sanitation.

Conditions Affecting Policymaking

Many parties are involved in the making of public policy, including businesses, groups, and individuals. These parties compete and work together to influence policymakers to act in a particular way concerning policies that are of interest to them, using a number of tactics to advance their interests. Perfect policies rarely emerge from the political process, and policy outcomes are usually the result of compromises between parties.

Businesses usually consider what is in their best interest when they decide which position on a policy issue to support. Will this policy help the business achieve its greatest possible profits? Is the policy politically feasible? How many other people will support it? Will it achieve the desired outcome in a cost efficient manner? For example, an automobile manufacturer may have the choice of supporting or opposing a proposed policy to completely eliminate carbon emissions. The benefits to the environment and to public health would be great. However, it would involve an extremely high economic cost for the manufacturer. But if another proposed policy calls for a gradual reduction in carbon emissions from automobiles, the company would have far more ease in shouldering its expense.

Public opinion, economic conditions, new scientific discoveries, technological change, interest groups, business lobbying, and other political activity all influence public policy. As many influencing factors pull and push policy in different directions, change in public policy often happens slowly.

Influence of the Media and Internet on Policymaking

The media and Internet are among the biggest influence to determine which problems rise to prominence on the national agenda. While many older Americans still look to television, radio, and newspapers to acquire most of their awareness of political issues, younger Americans tend to turn to social media on the Internet for that purpose.

The impact of the media and Internet is highly persuasive where policymaking is concerned. A large body of research reveals a strong relationship between the media agenda and the public agenda, but what has caused this influence? It may be easy to assume that media outlets emphasize issues that will garner the attention of the public, and that it therefore reflects public opinion. But other analyses have shown that the media and its agenda dictates public opinion itself.

It has been shown that controlled media exposure significantly influences the perceptions that citizens have concerning how important and salient the issues are. However, others have found that the media influenced public opinion on “spectacular” issues such as national defense and crime, but that public opinion influenced media coverage on not-so sensational topics such as environmental issues. In the case of elections, public opinion was only influenced by endorsements that strengthened their initial choices—for example, a voter who already planned to vote on a particular candidate would be likely to increase their enthusiasm when a local newspaper endorsed that candidate, but not so likely to change their mind when the newspaper endorsed his or her opponent.

The relationships between public opinion, media coverage, and policymaking across a variety of policy issues during legislative hearings have also been examined and have shown strong correlations, with the strongest between the media and policymaking and the weakest between the public and policymaking. This examination has suggested that policymakers pay considerable attention to media coverage on important issues and consider that coverage to be of greater importance than public opinion.

Conclusion

Public policy is a complex topic with many variables to consider. A variety of contexts can drive policy development, implementation and change. Since a number of government officials and informal policy actors participate in this process and are connected to the policy system, analyzing policy is imperative. Solid policy analysis takes into account effectiveness, efficiency, equity, ethics, technical feasibility, political feasibility and institutional capacity.

References

Cogan, A., Sharpe, S., & Hertzberg, J. (1986). Citizen participation. The Practice of state and regional planning. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.

Parker, B. (2002). Planning Analysis: The Theory of Citizen Participation. University of Oregon. Retrieved from http://pages.uoregon.edu/rgp/PPPM613/class10theory.htm.

Patton, C. V., & Sawicki, D.S. (1986). Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.