Public Policy

[coberst]

Public Policy

I would say that ‘stem cell research’ and ‘global warming’ are labels of current public policy matters which have not yet become fully accepted strategies for most nations. Many nations are further along in the path toward deciding public policy for global warming than for stem cell research.

I claim that public policy establishes goals and strategy (the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems) to meet those goals.

Because the strategy undertaken by each nation is fundamentally connected to the strategy taken by every other nation no nation can feel secure in its own internal decisions on these matters without carefully integrating the strategy of others.

It appears to me that a nation’s public policy is often a matter of grave concern to all citizens of all nations. Because this is true I would think that the Internet is an invaluable tool for all of us when we consider matters of public policy. In many parochial matters the Internet forum is not very useful for the obvious reason that the facts are so different for each community.

The theory of democracy is that many or perhaps most citizens share in the policy decisions of their nation. Ideally all citizens would have an input for these matters but the preparation required for a citizen to provide intelligent input is significant and few citizens are interested. As citizens back-away from their responsibility a small group of elite make public policy decisions without significant input from the vast majority of the citizens.

I guess that 80% of forum members are younger than thirty. If we assume that public interest in participating in public policy is steadily declining then this new generation is at a lower level than any generation before.

Do you think that 80% of forum members are under thirty? Do you think that citizens under thirty can be expected to display more or less interest in participating in public policy decisions than previous generations? What is required of any citizen to be properly prepared to participate in making judgments about public policy?

[chonsigirl]

I believe that it is closer to 80% of FG member are above the age of 30-well, these stats may have chaged recently.

Stem cell research is a recent topic that crosses the poltical lines, it is also a religious issue with many voters.

And yes, I expect citizens under 30 to do their best to be informed about current issues when going to to the polls. That is why they are given the right to vote. I do not advocate a higher age level, like 30 years.

[Jives]

coberst wrote: It appears to me that a nation’s public policy is often a matter of grave concern to all citizens of all nations. Because this is true I would think that the Internet is an invaluable tool for all of us when we consider matters of public policy.


I heartily agree, Coberst! I hear today on CNN that ithe number of people online each day has hit staggering proportions.

If we can get more than half the country to vote on an American Idol, couldn't we get people to vbote online for public policy and elections?

The problem, of course is internet security, but I'm pretty sure that we could work that out.

And I think you underrate the interest that people have in decision-making, policy and voting. Many more people would vote if it didn't involved standing in lines, leaving your home, getting off work and so on. People these days are very busy just trying to survive, but give them an option and they'll take it and run with it.

I should know, I filed my taxes online this yer for the first time. And for the first time in a decade, I filed them on time!!! LOL!:D

[coberst]

Politics”the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy.

I am interested in democracy especially in America and generally elsewhere on the globe. I think, like Churchill, that considering all the other forms of government democracy is best. Democracy means self-government by the citizens, which means, among other things, that the citizens must share in the formulation of public policy.

Voting and being informed are necessary components of a healthy democracy but it is certainly insufficient. If that is the limit of participation then policy is left to those who are ready and willing to take those matters into their own hands.

We have been given the great legacy of a republic, like one of the early framers said “if you can keep it”. I suspect most people who consider such matters would agree with me that we, who enjoy the benefits of such a form of government, have not lived up to our responsibilities. We have erroneously thought that the ship will sail itself and we will enjoy the legacy without lifting our finger.

CA (Corporate America) has developed a well-honed expertise in motivating the population to behave in a desired manner. Citizens as consumers are ample manifestation of that expertise. CA has accomplished this ability by careful study and implementation of the knowledge of the ways of human behavior. I suspect this same structure applies to most Western democracies.

A democratic form of government is one wherein the citizens have some voice in some policy decisions; the greater the voice of the citizens the better the democracy.

In America we have policy makers, decision makers, and citizens. The decision makers are our elected representatives and are, thus, under some control by the voting citizen. The policy makers are the leaders of CA; less than ten thousand individuals, according to those who study such matters. Policy makers exercise significant control over decision makers by controlling the financing of elections.

Policy makers customize and maintain the dominant ideology in order to control the political behavior of the citizens. This dominant ideology exercises the political control of the citizens in the same fashion as the consuming citizen is controlled by the same dominant ideology.

I am interested in how we might turn this situation around such that citizens become active participants of public policy.

[gmc]

Don't know about the US but in the UK I reckon many don't bother voting because it seems to make little difference.

But I think it would be a mistake to assume that is the same as indifference. Most will happily not bother too much so long as things are pretty much to their satisfaction but when motivated enough will put governments firmly in their place as happened to the tories and I suspect is about to happen to Labour. Taking the electorate for granted is a big mistake.

In France you saw what happens when those in power annoy the electorate as they did over the proposed employment law. In the Ukraine people are realising that they don't have to put up with things any more the internet seems to have played an important part in keeping things going during the orange revolution but it would also be a mistake to assume that it is simple manipulation by would be power holders. A lot is changing thanks to the internet. people are not so isolated as they once were, come to that ten years ago I would not be sitting in an obscure industrial town in Scotland swopping ideas with foreigners on the other side of the world. You do know you are a foreigner don't you? You spell funny-bet you talk funny as well:sneaky:

posted by coberst

Policy makers customize and maintain the dominant ideology in order to control the political behavior of the citizens. This dominant ideology exercises the political control of the citizens in the same fashion as the consuming citizen is controlled by the same dominant ideology.




Like many approaches to explaining political control there is an element of ttruth in it but behind it is the assumption that somehow most people are stupid enough to allow themselves to be manipulated all the time and are too stupid to realise it. Consuming citizens won't just accept any old crap and neither will they accept any old political crap. Where you have an educated electorate, and any industrial society has to have one that is capable of thinking for itself, it gets harder and harder to keep the staus quo and those who would be power brokers only keep their hold so long as their aims fall in line with a broad consensus. When it falls out of line you have social unrest, withoput the safety valve of free elections you get social revolutionthat usually makes things worse. Policy makers often delude themselves they are calling the shots and tend to ignore signs that they are geting things badly wrong and find themselves out of power much to their surprise.

Citizens will become active in public policy when it matters to them, up until then they just lead their lives and don't want to be bothered.

Maybe i just have more faith in democracy and my fellow man than you do. Many have prophesised the death of democracy and lamented it's flaws-usually when things aren't going the way they should.

CA (Corporate America) has developed a well-honed expertise in motivating the population to behave in a desired manner. Citizens as consumers are ample manifestation of that expertise. CA has accomplished this ability by careful study and implementation of the knowledge of the ways of human behavior. I suspect this same structure applies to most Western democracies.




Corporate America has a major problem. Because your own market is so big it has become a bit complacent about competition. E.G.There's no point complaining about foreign car imports when the buying public prefer better cars from abroad. The UK car industry assumed they were the best and the british public would always buy british. They didn't they bought value for money. Propping up crap companies does no one any good they have to compete on a world scale or go under.

Corporations like govts should not take their customers for granted. You can't manipulate the population to buy your stuff if it is crap people are just not that gullible any more.

I'm curious though. Many american posters to this forum give the impression (IMO) that they feel powerless and worried about the future. false impression?

[coberst]

GMC says”“I'm curious though. Many american posters to this forum give the impression (IMO) that they feel powerless and worried about the future. false impression?”

My experience leads me to believe that when asked a question or when the discussion calls for a response people just kind of go with whatever crosses their mind at the time. I suspect Americans are pretty much like all other Western democracies.

I think this response system applies to political matters also. Very few people have given such matters any serious consideration except for some particular matter such as today’s gas prices. Their interest in government is perhaps somewhat like the weather”if it is not raining their seems little reason to bother with it.

[Jives]

coberst wrote: Very few people have given such matters any serious consideration except for some particular matter such as today’s gas prices. Their interest in government is perhaps somewhat like the weather”if it is not raining their seems little reason to bother with it.


You're right to a certain extent, Coberst. I can't keep all the world issues in my mind at the same time I'm teaching 75 screaming teens.

On the other hand, again I think you underrate the average American these days. Thanks to the internet and mass media, people are more informed than they have ever been in history.

All that's left is to develop an easy system to let them participate.

I've got a serious idea: let's get rid of congressional votes and put every bill to a internet vote. Senators and Representatives can still address the issues and write the bills, but let's let the citizens pass or veto it themselves.

Two problems, of course, are the fact that heavily populated parts of the country could sway votes, but then they do that anyway since they have more representatives.

Also, the poor would be disenfranchised, since they would not be able to vote. But then, the vast majority of the illegal immigrants in California don't vote either.

One way or another, I believe that democracy in the future will be much more in the hands of the people thanks to technology.

[OpenMind]

coberst wrote: GMC says”“I'm curious though. Many american posters to this forum give the impression (IMO) that they feel powerless and worried about the future. false impression?”



My experience leads me to believe that when asked a question or when the discussion calls for a response people just kind of go with whatever crosses their mind at the time. I suspect Americans are pretty much like all other Western democracies.



I think this response system applies to political matters also. Very few people have given such matters any serious consideration except for some particular matter such as today’s gas prices. Their interest in government is perhaps somewhat like the weather”if it is not raining their seems little reason to bother with it.


Political discussion amongst the general public in England is rare and is treated in the same light as religious discussion - it's best avoided to keep the peace. Sometimes, a current issue may be discussed, especially if prompted by a radio news bulletin.

The majority of the working people are more concerned with the day's events, what they're doing at the weekend, and generally brightening their day with a joke or two (if they're not in sitting in front of the lounge's entertainment centre switching off from the day.

Underlying this attitude is the general that, short of a full-scale revolution, nothing they do or say is going to make a difference. Political apathy, I am sure, is a product of Government.

Politics tends to be cossetted by those who have a yearning for power. Perhaps politicians set out, initially, with good intentions, ultimately, however, they seek the power and the glory. Britons are not only used to the constant display of corruption from their governments, they have been over-exposed to it to the extent that their senses are numb to it. Apathy.

[OpenMind]

Jives:

One way or another, I believe that democracy in the future will be much more in the hands of the people thanks to technology.


I doubt it, not if our leaders have anything to do with it.

[Jives]

The well-planned part being, that if our leaders don't do what we want, they don't get to be our leaders after the next election.

Jefferson was a genius.

[OpenMind]

Ok, sure. The trouble will be how the questions are put to the people. One way or another, the top dog wins.

[OpenMind]

On top of this, without an education programme to ground the public in making political decisions, and evaluating the outcome of a decision, the results could be disastrous.