Public policy is a decision to intervene (or not to intervene if intervention is called for) on an issue facing people living under a particular political system. Previous posts have established that we live and work under certain beliefs and operate through perspectives, so what to make of these policy interventions (or non-interventions)?
At the core of public policy is the idea that something is not as it should be. How this is understood and communicated is based on these perspectives which mean that the idea of things not being as they should be may or may not be "true." Where "truth" is highly subjective to these individual perspectives, what collectively governs our decision to act? Depending on the political system, action (the use of public resources such as taxpayer funds, or material resources such as equipment) can be marshalled by convincing those with access to public resources to do something (or not do something, if action is called for). I've found even under a democratic republic, there are usually just a small number of people who motivate those with access to resources to do something, because there is usually such little public participation in most of what government does. On the local level, it even tends to be the same few people over and over again who make public officials dance on all issues.
So now with our subjective "problem" identified, those with resources motivated to act (or not act), what do we do? Part of the problem identification stage, by definition of things not being as they should be, involves a partial solution. If there was no deficit between wehere we are and where we should be, then there is no problem is there? So by simply identifying such a defecit, we've also identified a target goal. Establishing the process of achieving that goal is again based on perspectives, and is therefore also subjective. There may be a myriad number of ways to arrive at the goal, and choosing one over the other depends on what one person or another believes is the "best" way to do so.
This action, the actual policy, may be based on data generated through research, through examples from similar situations in history in that place or any other, or if a new "problem," might be based on assumptions and perspectives. There is however, no one "right" way to do things, just those that have the most desireable consequences with the least unforseen or undesirable consequences. In some cases, it may be more desireable not to act, as I've mentioned frequently. The consequences of action may create a bigger problem than the one the action was designed to address, for example.
The action must also be tailored to the issue as it will be at the time of action; human experience is fluid and dynamic, and as I've pointed out, everything chages, nothing is static. This means that an issue is not a monolithic unchanging obstacle; it is not like a runner facing a hurdle on the racetrack. In reality, problems move through time with us, they change and evolve, and are interconnected with other issues that may or may not be a problem at the moment. In this sense, the aforementioned deficit or problem is like a hurdle on a racetrack that moves with the runner at varying speeds and heights around the track, and when the runner decides to pick up the pace to overcome it is a subjective choice--but jumping over the hurdle always has implications for the obstacles to come.
The interconnectedness of everything adds another level of challenges. As I wrote about the problems with labels, the act of applying a label to something limits it. By identifying the problem, by giving it a name and therefore what the desired outcome is, limits have been placed on the possible solutions. When faced with a loose screw, for example, the appropriate screwdriver is important to fix it. A pair of pliers might work, but not as effectively as the right screwdriver. Similarly, if faced with a loose board, glue might be a solution over a screwdriver if the board is held with nails. But what if the board is part of a wall in a house, and rain has leaked through the roof making the wood swell, and thus, loosened it? That requires a whole host of other solutions. This is the key to problem solving, getting at the root cause.
However the interconnectedness of everything complicates things; in the screw/board/leaky house example, any intervention at any step of the scope of the problem is "right." However if the ultimate problem is a leaky roof, the screw fix will only be temporary. It may be that the best solution is to move to a drier climate where it doesn't rain as much. Any of the possible solutions to the problem will meet a need--the solutions are limited more by resources than what will ultimately fix the problem.
Take crime, for example. The role of the police department isn't to eliminate crime, but to minimize it as much as they can given the resources at their disposal. Given enough resources they could eliminate crime, however to do so is prohibitively expensive. Crime is a good example of interconnectedness--what causes crime? There are a number of factors, such as the economy, the state of American families, the culture of the location where crime might be committed, not to mention the biology of serial killers and so on. The police have not been given the power to completely intervene in all of the conditions that create crime or criminals--they cannot raise children with values that deter them from being criminals, for example, or change a person's biology. So where on the spectrum of society they can intervene is limited to resources and their scope of control.
In short, public policy is a complex association of resources, political power, arbitrary decision-making and relativity. Given this, its a wonder anything the government does actually bears fruit of some kind!
Saturday, September 3, 2011
On national politics
I wish I knew who to credit with this idea, and if anyone knows let me know who to credit with it because the last thing I want to do is plagiarise the work of another. In management circles there is a train of thought that our professional weaknesses are nothing more than the overdoing of our greatest professional strengths. For example, determination or persistence can easily become stubbornness if taken too far. This basic (and to my mind, correct) idea is evident in any number of other fields. Here, I'll apply it to politics.
There is a widening gulf between liberal and conservative viewpoints, and the bases of each party are digging in their heels to fight for the most extremist beliefs of their political party. But what are we fighting over really? Rhetorical flourish paints Democrats as tax and spend liberals and Republicans as American Taliban, where each view is irreconcilable with the other. Take one of America's strengths or values, say, freedom, and apply the above philosophy of weaknesses being overdone strengths. Both parties, even most Americans I'd say, support the idea of freedom. At the heart of our disagreements are where those strengths become weaknesses, and therefore where intervention is (or isn't) required.
A libertarian might desire as little restrictions on freedom as possible, meaning that at no point on the continuum of the issue is action merited to curb it. On the other extreme are religious conservatives, who might say that having legalized abortion is too much freedom, and draw the line there, while advocates for a woman's right to choose would disagree. Advocates for minorities might argue that government action is required to eliminate structures that impede the freedoms of minorities, while others might argue that government action impedes on their freedom to discriminate or some such thing. The point is that on the issue of freedom, where we choose to act (or not act when action is called for) depends on when an individual interprets that the value of freedom moves from being an asset to a hindrance. But in the end, we need to recognize that "the other" places values on freedom just like we do, or any other issue, and stop painting each other like tyrants and Nazis in divisive rhetorical flourish.
We paint opponents as extremists for the reason that it presents clear choices; the truth, we fear, is that in the case of elections the voters won't be able to tell us apart. When presented this way, differences are clear and the position of each candidate makes more sense without tearing at the public's faith in our political system.
The only difference between the position of Democrats and Republicans on public policy is where they believe America's strengths have become weaknesses.
There is a widening gulf between liberal and conservative viewpoints, and the bases of each party are digging in their heels to fight for the most extremist beliefs of their political party. But what are we fighting over really? Rhetorical flourish paints Democrats as tax and spend liberals and Republicans as American Taliban, where each view is irreconcilable with the other. Take one of America's strengths or values, say, freedom, and apply the above philosophy of weaknesses being overdone strengths. Both parties, even most Americans I'd say, support the idea of freedom. At the heart of our disagreements are where those strengths become weaknesses, and therefore where intervention is (or isn't) required.
A libertarian might desire as little restrictions on freedom as possible, meaning that at no point on the continuum of the issue is action merited to curb it. On the other extreme are religious conservatives, who might say that having legalized abortion is too much freedom, and draw the line there, while advocates for a woman's right to choose would disagree. Advocates for minorities might argue that government action is required to eliminate structures that impede the freedoms of minorities, while others might argue that government action impedes on their freedom to discriminate or some such thing. The point is that on the issue of freedom, where we choose to act (or not act when action is called for) depends on when an individual interprets that the value of freedom moves from being an asset to a hindrance. But in the end, we need to recognize that "the other" places values on freedom just like we do, or any other issue, and stop painting each other like tyrants and Nazis in divisive rhetorical flourish.
We paint opponents as extremists for the reason that it presents clear choices; the truth, we fear, is that in the case of elections the voters won't be able to tell us apart. When presented this way, differences are clear and the position of each candidate makes more sense without tearing at the public's faith in our political system.
The only difference between the position of Democrats and Republicans on public policy is where they believe America's strengths have become weaknesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)