THE WORKINGS OF THE POSSIBLE
This blog of late has reviewed some general observations and insights regarding the conditions that lead to public policy change. By public, this writer is referring to governmental policy in the form of laws, regulations, and/or judicial decisions. What he wants to next address is the work of institutional entrepreneurs and governing networks. This posting looks at the first of these two.
The reason for this interest is based on the belief that central to the teaching of civics should be not only the workings of government, but also imparting skills associated with citizen engagement, especially in a democracy like ours that exalts republican (with a small r) values. On both counts – workings and engagement – a student is well served if he/she understands what goes into the formulation of policy.
In terms of institutional entrepreneurs – a group referred to here as policy entrepreneurs – these are the relatively small groups of politicians (usually presidents and Congresspersons) who are not always the initiators of changes, but who play central roles in their enactment. They, in short, act as ringleaders in getting proposed changes into effect. A president or legislator who wants something enacted would do well to solicit the support of these individuals. They are not essential, but they are, given the history of such efforts, usually highly useful.
What can be said of these policy entrepreneurs? According to Matt Grossman,[1] whose research this blog has relied on in terms of this topic, they are the ones who form and organize the necessary coalitions of policy-makers. They orchestrate the give and take that lead to the compromises essential to arrive at the agreements upon which the enactments count. They, in addition, identify both those individuals, within and without government, who can make the difference between enactment or failure to enact.
In the last posting, it was pointed out that the current political scene, including in the Congress, levels of polarization have become so high that policy-making or rule-making has been seriously curtailed. This condition is of relatively recent vintage and before its ascendance, especially in the years between and including the 1960s and 1990s, such names as Moynihan, Kennedy, Dole, and Javits – all US Senators – were often cited as those politicians who were in effect the policy entrepreneurs of their day.
These central figures can be characterized by certain attributes. First, they do not think or act in terms of specific laws they are aiming to enact, but instead in terms of what can possibly be enacted. There is a significant difference between these perspectives. The former tends to think of the “perfect” (perfection defined by a politician’s values and/or attitudes), while the latter thinks in the realm of the possible.
Grossman describes these entrepreneurial politicians as more concerned with getting things done than getting specific things done – quantity over quality. Or stated another way: they strive for change for its own sake. In this line of thinking, while rare, they might use their skills to block enactment, but as a group, they would rather strive toward change through the enactment of new policy.
This overall perspective leads to some more specific orientations. They often see, for example, the perfect being the enemy of the good. That is, in trying to achieve the perfect, one can lose the good and end up with nothing new, aka the status quo. Of course, this is deemed to be the bad since it is the status quo that motivated the effort to change in the first place.
They partake of certain activities. They trade favors – something for something else. They are ready to concede minor goals to achieve the overall aim or some version of it. They try to stay clear of the more controversial issues and, by doing so, avoid engendering criticism that will kill their efforts.
As for critics, they try to win them over by addressing their concerns or, at least, they try to do so. And they cajole their fellow legislators, usually by flattery. Positive interchanges are better since the current bit of change effort will be followed by others and willing allies are always welcomed. Such alliances are not promoted by distasteful experiences in the past.
All this means compromising. But are there limits to such compromising? Of course, there are. Too much compromising – in terms of beliefs – will indicate that the politician is lacking in principles and, therefore, is apt to be judged as untrustworthy. The system of policy-making, as in any deal making, must depend on participants trusting the word of the other participants. Part of that is having a sense of what the limits of each participant are. And that, by its very nature, is what principles are all about.
This writer sees this phenomenon of entrepreneurial activity being more prevalent at the federal level than at the state level. In most state legislatures, one party is firmly in power and with that, one train of political thought prevails (more singular in terms of ideological biases). This is not true in all states; some are more diverse. Having said that, even when there is more unanimity, not all participants will see things the same way all the time. Translation: wheeling and dealing will commence.
Last, Grossman writes of “Senate gangs.” These are the recurring members who are the entrepreneurs in the US Senate. With that, one is naturally led to consider governing networks which will be the next and last topic this blog will address concerning how policy-change takes place.
[1] Matt Grossman, Artist of the Possible: Governing Networks and American Policy Change Since 1945 (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).
