Calling a politician a liar is NOT a capital offense. Saying that a politician is a liar is like saying that the sky is blue. It is however highly inappropriate for a Congressman to yell “You lie!” at the President of the United States while he is formally addressing a joint session of Congress as well as the American public. The incident was just plain disrespectful; Joe Wilson is from South Carolina – a southerner should have better manners than that.
Despite what a majority of Americans believe, politics is not 100% disrespectful. It’s not all about negative campaigning, name calling, and pouting like toddlers. There are actually legislators who are friendly towards their colleagues from the other side of the aisle – YES, it is allowed! It’s too bad the late Ted Kennedy is no longer with us; he could teach some of these ideologues how to work closely with and be friendly towards others of differing viewpoints.
Before people accuse me of being ideologically biased, I have to say Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to unwillingness to compromise. Nancy Pelosi deserves her own blog of criticism, but I don’t even want to open that can of Botox.
Back to the Wilson debacle: nothing like that has ever happened to any other President, at least not in such a grand and formal setting.
In the immortal words of Bon Qui Qui: “…rude.”
It is the job of Congress to hold the President accountable, but it is not the job of one embittered Congressman to disrupt a Presidential address in such a way.
On the topic of political compromise and the reduction of bitterness among congressional colleagues, I would like to share an essay that I have written on the book First Person Political. The author, Grant Reeher, is Associate Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Reeher also co-authored Click on Democracy: The Internet’s Power to Change Political Apathy into Civil Action.
“Up Close and Personal”
In First Person Political, Grant Reeher strives to provide the reader with deep insight into the more private aspects of state and local legislators. As citizens, we tend to have a negative, untrustworthy view of elected officials. Reeher refutes this common opinion through a series of interviews with legislators of Connecticut, New York, and Vermont; which expose politicians as complex human beings who have a true love for public service and the betterment of society.
Reeher’s main question that he seeks to answer through his research is that of motivation. Several factors create difficulty for politicians to run for, win, and continue to hold legislative office. Through his series of in-depth interviews with several state legislators, Reeher uncovers the reasons why they subject themselves to the hardships that accompany life in the public sphere.
Reeher wants us to understand that the vast majority of people who run for elected office do so to serve the will of the people and to improve the well-being of society. The legislators that he interviewed often spoke of the improvements they wanted to make for the people of their communities and states. In order to set their positive ideas in motion, there are many difficulties that legislators must overcome. Simply winning a position in a legislature is often extremely costly and time-consuming. Also, the legislative salary can sometimes – as in the case of Connecticut and Vermont – be insufficient. This typically requires elected officials to have a second job that provides them with adequate funds to live and campaign. It seems irrational for politicians to seek office solely for the sake of fame and power, when there are much easier and more cost-effective venues in the private sector to do so. While the desire for notoriety may be a common factor in the quest for political office, clearly one must also have a very intense desire to serve society in order to push through the barriers facing public servants.
Reeher concludes through his interviews that legislators must gain a great deal of satisfaction from their jobs, otherwise the struggle to attain and hold these jobs would prove fruitless. Sources of job satisfaction for legislators often come from a sense of personal efficacy, legislative accomplishments, and camaraderie with other legislators. However, he also claims that negative experiences of political office can be quite profound. Overextension of time and resources result in emotional stress and strain on several aspects of life: family, secondary career, and public image. Life in the public eye can result in a psychological toll, especially when elected officials are repeatedly criticized by media and constituents.
In my opinion, the most striking segment of Reeher’s collection of interviews is the section discussing Ralph Wright – a House Speaker of Vermont. This section gives the reader insight to the inner workings of a skilled politician who has made a career of public service. Wright wielded a great deal of political power, and used that power (along with a Democratic majority) to stack important committees and push through legislation. Such a forceful use of command caused several Vermont legislators to feel alienated from the political process. At the same time, however, Wright was able to enact a great deal of policy that benefitted the state. Opinions on Wright varied depending on the legislator being interviewed, but his mastery of the political process was evident throughout.
It was surprising to see the nature of the relationships among members of the legislature. The conversations that are recounted by Wright and others indicate that the Vermont legislature is – foremost – a workplace like any other. Rather than two sides of enemy ideology, it seemed more like a cooperative group of people with differing opinions. Indeed there were heated disagreements and political dealings, but primarily the Vermont legislature was remarkably connected to the needs of the state and its citizens.
President Obama's 9/9/09 address to Congress in its entirety:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YNF9I25yU
Joe Wilson's big moment:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/09/09/obama.heckled.cnn?iref=videosearch
Bon Qui Qui:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkdcYlOn5M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1wpEAlneHA
Friday, September 11, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
"What now, Goodnow?"
The concept of a policy-administration dichotomy has long existed in the political history of the United States. Basically, this means that – for many people – there has been a desire to separate policy-making from administrative policy application (Kettl, Fesler 6). Many political scientists and theorists suggest that this separation of power will protect the political minority, since the bureaucratic implementation of policy would be less controlled by the political party in power. During the era of “Political Machines” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was no policy-administration dichotomy, considering that the vastly powerful political parties had control over the implementation of policy, as well as publication of news. The establishment of a more independent bureaucracy has taken a considerable amount of power away from policy makers. Administrators that carry out public policy have greater autonomy to enact policy as they see fit. This can prove to be effective and efficient while still more gradual and regulated than if the policy was forcefully enacted by a majority political party. On the downside to a policy-administration dichotomy, bureaucrats tend to hold a large amount of governmental power, and are often quite autonomous and difficult to control. If a bureaucratic agency in charge of enacting a particular policy does not approve of the policy, the agency could potentially enact the policy slowly, in favorable fractions, or not at all.
Political scientist Frank J. Goodnow asserts that, in a popular government, the administrative segment of government must be subordinate to the control of the policy-making segment in order to prevent political paralysis. Goodnow explains the policy-administration dichotomy as “two distinct functions of government”. Politics are the expressions of popular will through policy-making, while administration deals with the execution of the policies (Shafritz 28). In a well-functioning government, powers cannot be totally separated. Policy must be carried out efficiently by administrative agencies to effectively execute state will.
While Goodnow hesitates to entitle the administrative segment of government with very much autonomy, past president Woodrow Wilson suggests that a more independent administrative body is necessary for effective government. While the elected officials of government enact broad policy, it is the job of the administrative bureaucrats to enact the policy by what means is appropriate. Wilson describes public administration as “detailed and systematic execution of public law” (Shafritz 23). The specific applications of laws are the jobs of administration. Making of the laws that direct policy is the job of legislators. Wilson focuses on the academic study of how administration can be made more efficient, fair, and Constitutional. Wilson does acknowledge that such an autonomous bureaucracy can only exist if it is truly businesslike, unbiased, and professional when it comes to implementing policy. He states that this can be achieved by holding heads of administrative agencies accountable for actions taken by their agencies.
While Wilson’s opinion on the policy-administration dichotomy relies heavily on the ethics and self-control of administrators, Goodnow seems to have a more realistic approach to the issue. Without adequate oversight and control over administration, it is possible – if not probable – that administrators will manipulate public policy through its implementation as they see fit. It is not an inherently bad thing for the political party in power to be able to have significant control over the implementation of policy. Constitutional civil rights are in place to prevent the political majority from tyrannizing the minority. To appease the will of the minority by hindering the implementation of policy may block effective policies from benefitting society.
Works Cited
Kettl, Donald F. and James W. Fesler. 2009. The Politics of the Administrative Process, 4th edition. Washington DC: CQ Press.
Shafritz, Jay M., Albert C. Hyde, and Sandra J. Parkes. 2008. Classics of Public Administration. 6th edition. Wadsworth Publishing.
Political scientist Frank J. Goodnow asserts that, in a popular government, the administrative segment of government must be subordinate to the control of the policy-making segment in order to prevent political paralysis. Goodnow explains the policy-administration dichotomy as “two distinct functions of government”. Politics are the expressions of popular will through policy-making, while administration deals with the execution of the policies (Shafritz 28). In a well-functioning government, powers cannot be totally separated. Policy must be carried out efficiently by administrative agencies to effectively execute state will.
While Goodnow hesitates to entitle the administrative segment of government with very much autonomy, past president Woodrow Wilson suggests that a more independent administrative body is necessary for effective government. While the elected officials of government enact broad policy, it is the job of the administrative bureaucrats to enact the policy by what means is appropriate. Wilson describes public administration as “detailed and systematic execution of public law” (Shafritz 23). The specific applications of laws are the jobs of administration. Making of the laws that direct policy is the job of legislators. Wilson focuses on the academic study of how administration can be made more efficient, fair, and Constitutional. Wilson does acknowledge that such an autonomous bureaucracy can only exist if it is truly businesslike, unbiased, and professional when it comes to implementing policy. He states that this can be achieved by holding heads of administrative agencies accountable for actions taken by their agencies.
While Wilson’s opinion on the policy-administration dichotomy relies heavily on the ethics and self-control of administrators, Goodnow seems to have a more realistic approach to the issue. Without adequate oversight and control over administration, it is possible – if not probable – that administrators will manipulate public policy through its implementation as they see fit. It is not an inherently bad thing for the political party in power to be able to have significant control over the implementation of policy. Constitutional civil rights are in place to prevent the political majority from tyrannizing the minority. To appease the will of the minority by hindering the implementation of policy may block effective policies from benefitting society.
Works Cited
Kettl, Donald F. and James W. Fesler. 2009. The Politics of the Administrative Process, 4th edition. Washington DC: CQ Press.
Shafritz, Jay M., Albert C. Hyde, and Sandra J. Parkes. 2008. Classics of Public Administration. 6th edition. Wadsworth Publishing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
