THE FOUR P’S OF POLITICS
In my Public Management class, our professor keeps making the same point over and over again. Every single class, the examples may change but the main point is the same. You’d think this would be annoying, but in fact I find it quite effective. Because the point is an important one to make, an important one to get, an important to fill out and look at.
That point is that while analysis and evidence are important to good public decisions, anything in the public arena ultimately boils down to politics. In other words, it’s not about finding or implementing the right answer, as if such a thing existed, but rather about value judgments and influence and persuasion; i.e. politics.
This may seem cynical but it is simply truth. It is naïve to think that politicians will get behind something because it is the “right” thing; after all, every argument has two sides, and each side thinks it is right. The political process can, to be sure, be slimy, but it is also necessary and, in many cases, just: various constituencies hashing out their views, culminating in a vote in which the majority’s will is chosen.
So if politicians don’t put forth solutions because they think they’re the “right” thing, what then are their motivations? To wit, I present to you “the four P’s of politics”:
Perks. Politicians get behind something if they can get something out of it, and stand up against something if they fear they’ll lose from it. According to our professor, perks can be money, the corner office, even a nice credenza. What’s good for the overall public good gets all too often traded for what’s good for the individual.
Power. Politicians support things that will increase their sphere of influence. Congress does this all the time, seeing as they have the power to circumscribe the process, budget, and staffing of practically everything governmental. Let’s just say that more than once, structural policies have been put forth not because they were good government, but because they resulted in Congress having more sway.
Publicity. Politicians will do something to look good in the public eye, whether it is being tough on terrorists or sympathetic to an embattled voting bloc. The common good takes a back seat to camera-preening, image-building, and other forms of campaigning.
Partisanship. Politicians sometimes speak the party line, literally, even when they might personally not go in that direction. I don’t think this is any different than a voter who hates a particular presidential candidate but votes for him anyway because of his political affiliation.
Please don’t misconstrue my comments as either justifying or attacking these ways. As I have learned more about politics, I have wondered how much of the game I feel comfortable playing. I am still figuring out the answer to that question, but at least I am learning the rules of the game.
In my Public Management class, our professor keeps making the same point over and over again. Every single class, the examples may change but the main point is the same. You’d think this would be annoying, but in fact I find it quite effective. Because the point is an important one to make, an important one to get, an important to fill out and look at.
That point is that while analysis and evidence are important to good public decisions, anything in the public arena ultimately boils down to politics. In other words, it’s not about finding or implementing the right answer, as if such a thing existed, but rather about value judgments and influence and persuasion; i.e. politics.
This may seem cynical but it is simply truth. It is naïve to think that politicians will get behind something because it is the “right” thing; after all, every argument has two sides, and each side thinks it is right. The political process can, to be sure, be slimy, but it is also necessary and, in many cases, just: various constituencies hashing out their views, culminating in a vote in which the majority’s will is chosen.
So if politicians don’t put forth solutions because they think they’re the “right” thing, what then are their motivations? To wit, I present to you “the four P’s of politics”:
Perks. Politicians get behind something if they can get something out of it, and stand up against something if they fear they’ll lose from it. According to our professor, perks can be money, the corner office, even a nice credenza. What’s good for the overall public good gets all too often traded for what’s good for the individual.
Power. Politicians support things that will increase their sphere of influence. Congress does this all the time, seeing as they have the power to circumscribe the process, budget, and staffing of practically everything governmental. Let’s just say that more than once, structural policies have been put forth not because they were good government, but because they resulted in Congress having more sway.
Publicity. Politicians will do something to look good in the public eye, whether it is being tough on terrorists or sympathetic to an embattled voting bloc. The common good takes a back seat to camera-preening, image-building, and other forms of campaigning.
Partisanship. Politicians sometimes speak the party line, literally, even when they might personally not go in that direction. I don’t think this is any different than a voter who hates a particular presidential candidate but votes for him anyway because of his political affiliation.
Please don’t misconstrue my comments as either justifying or attacking these ways. As I have learned more about politics, I have wondered how much of the game I feel comfortable playing. I am still figuring out the answer to that question, but at least I am learning the rules of the game.
Comments