This writer is currently posting a series of offerings that
addresses the issue of policy change.
Policy change can be in the form of new laws, new regulations, or new
court decisions. For example, the court
decision that has legalized same sex marriages is such a case. The connection of this topic to civics
education is obvious. But to make the
point, good citizenry in a polity where citizen engagement is not only allowed,
but encouraged, its civics education owes its students an accurate account of
how the system makes policy.
To date, this
blog has highlighted the policy making attributes of coalition and
compromise. That is, policy change is
dependent on a string of players coming together and committing to
accomplishing the change. This writer
would argue that this is exactly how the system was supposed to work. Instead of a parliamentary system in which
political parties and their discipline dictate policy change, a congressional/presidential
system, like that of the US, depends on a more congregational approach as
described above.
Relying on the
research of Matt Grossman,[1] this
blog has identified those factors that influence this process. Of course, the leadership that forms such
coalitions is a factor. Grossman has
identified – and this blog has reported – a set of factors beyond this central
one. He has further divided them into
types and, in terms of influence, arranged them in a three-tier categorization.
Tier one
includes the internal deal-making characterized by this organizing, bargaining,
debating, and compromising among a relatively small number of policy makers. One can call it internal negotiating. A middle tier of factors consists of path
dependence from the previous attempts to make change, research in the related
area, and what is happening in the world, either domestically or abroad.
And the last tier identifies public
opinion along with media coverage, ideas that have taken some currency, court
decisions, and international and sub national developments of lesser note. This last tier deserves special attention in
a civics classroom due to the inclusion of public opinion. In a civics class that adopts federation
theory – as is advocated in this blog – the aim should be to upgrade public
opinion to, at least, tier two. But
Grossman indicates that there has been, of late, an uptick in the influence that
public opinion is having in contemporary politics.
This writer has also noted this
shift. The problem is that increased
engagement has taken not a federalist tone, not one that supports the
congregational spirit the founders had in mind, but one that resembles the
natural rights frame of reference and language.
In short, the current participation language sounds more like “what’s in
it for me” rather than “what’s in it for the common good.” Of course, in action this is probably always
the case, but in terms of espoused values – the espoused theory – the natural
rights view seems to be guiding the efforts toward change.
This trend can be traced to about
2009 when the effects of the financial crisis took hold. Since then, led by
groups such as the Tea Party, politics have become more polarized, ideological,
and nationalistic. It is catering to
more personal prejudices and biases. The
last election saw these trends in full display.
Today begins the consequences of such a shift; time will tell what the
effects will be.
Rule-making, an essential function of
any political system, has gone wanting.
The polarization has made the needed coalitions, negotiations,
bargaining, and compromises nearly impossible.
Hence, the system has become dysfunctional. The government, in many areas of national
concern, has become ineffective.
In such a political environment, the
call naturally bends toward a demand to shake up the system, for bringing in
the outsider. That is what this election
has brought, at least in terms of the executive branch. The legislative branch has already tapped
many outsiders to take up a significant number of the seats in the law-making
body. The outsiders are in control of
much of the nation’s decision-making positions.
The question remains: will this new set of policy-makers get the system to
make the rules that address the mounting demands among certain segments of the
population?
The likelihood of this outcome is a
topic for another posting. This writer
does not hold out much hope; if anything, the polarization has just gotten
worse. Here’s hoping he is wrong. Today is traditionally a day of celebration
and in less polarized days, it would be.
But, unfortunately, that is not the case.
To end, here is a Grossman
observation: for elections to be
effective instruments of change, they must be consistent and overwhelming in
their results. When that happens,
policy-makers will either heed the message an election conveys or it will lead
to a new batch of decision-makers.
Unfortunately, the last adjective one would use to describe the last
presidential election is decisive in terms of what people want.
[1] Matt Grossman, Artist
of the Possible: Governing Networks and
American Policy Change Since 1945 (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).
No comments:
Post a Comment