Presentation: May-Can-Should: Foundations for Policy Analysis
I want to visit with you for just a moment about a fifty thousand foot overview of the process in this case a fuller process of policy analysis than you typically get in the modern approach you see most of the time when we talk about policy analysis in modern American political circles what we really mean is what option among the available options is the best and we almost always answer that question in a pragmatic way we literally compare one and say I like the outcome of that better than the outcome of another set of ideas that may be employed to solve a particular problem but what I’d like for you to do is you approach policy analysis in Liberty’s Public Policy Program is to think of it a little more deeply because there are some other questions that are going on other than just what’s best between two or more available options and the way you should really approach that is by asking at least a three part question may I do a particular thing can government do a particular thing and then and only then do you reach what normally dominates the political discussion of whether you should do a particular thing so you can think of it in that way may can and should now if you want some clarity on this I would encourage you to take a look at a couple of Supreme Court cases where the United States Supreme Court took a long look at what they call the political question doctor and you can look at cases like Baker v car or Nixon versus the United States where the court looks at the difference between those things that are legal questions and those things that are political questions and that will go a long way to help you understand the difference between them. May analysis and this should analysis but let me boil it down for you again from a fifty thousand foot very general gestalt overview it works something like this the mail in their offices is asking when and from where does government get the authority to do a particular thing now that’s going to sound a little odd to most policy analyst because we kinda presume these days that government may do anything that government wants to do but that’s not at all how the founders viewed government that’s not at all how the government was approached when when we sent the Declaration of Independence to England or designed the United States Constitution that set up the separation of powers in Baker v Carr and in Nixon versus the United States what the Supreme Court is doing is drawing that distinction between saying when are we talking about a question of authority usually legality and when are we talking about a question of choices what should somebody do because that’s the political question so it works very much like this if you’re going to approach any particular question where you’re asking what the government should do in a particular situation the very first question that you have to answer is whether the government can and may do anything in that realm whatsoever so the first question if you remember from Frederick boss to ya if you have a refresher it boss the OSS the law you should it’s an excellent beginning point for this is this where does government get the authority to do the thing that it would like to do down the United States it’s a very particular question because we’re a nation of a numerated powers which means if government has the authority to do a thing the sovereign we the people granted it that authority in the Constitution so there’s point one in your May analysis you’re asking very.
CITIC Lee whether the government has the authority to do a thing and from where did it gain that authority so for the United States federal government the only place that authority could come from is the United States Constitution but that alone doesn’t fully answer the question because you have to ask yourself where did the authority of the United States Constitution come from and we’re told we’re not hiding the ball it said we the people in order to form a more perfect union so you see that the authority that is built into the Constitution arises from the people but that begs yet another question where did the people get the authority so I’d like for you to think of it very much like this and again if you review Frederick boss the hasta law you’re kind of see how this works that if you can imagine that there’s a God who holds all authority all authority that exist belongs to the Lord God who created the universe actually hello and you can imagine that there’s a picture and that picture contains the whole universe of authority and he pours out to man just a little bit of authority and says Man this is yours to govern with as you will now man then has and has rights that God gave him and now in the Declaration of Independence we refer to those as things that are are absolutely apparent that they are self evident things like life liberty and the pursuit of happiness now the Declaration of Independence goes a step further and says that it’s for the protection of these things that governments are instituted among men so you see that man takes some of the authority that God has given him and he pours it out just a little bit not all the authority that man has but just a little bit to government those are what we call the enumerated powers in the United States Constitution so then boss the Our Drew very logical conclusion and said this If you’re asking yourself whether government may do a particular. Thing ask yourself this Would you be able to do that thing because if the people don’t have the authority to do with thing then logically the people could dot grant the government the authority to do a particular thing let me show you how it works in real world terms let’s say for instance that we’re examining an issue one that dealt with a lot was one that he called plunder we would call it redistribution of wealth or something along those lines imagine asking yourself government goes into a place takes money from one group of individuals and gives to another group of individuals boss the OWS analysis for the May analysis would look something like this it would say if you’d like to know whether government can take money from one set of individuals and give it to another set of individuals ask yourself this can an individual could you if you wanted to go to your neighbor and take their money and give it to another neighbor that you liked better or that you thought deserved it more and the question is obviously no that would be theft Well boss the OS says exactly that’s the point if you didn’t have the authority to do that because God didn’t give you the authority to take from your neighbor and give to another then you couldn’t pass that authority on to government so the government could take from one and give to another that same method works repeatedly in a variety of circumstances such as life and death did God give you the authority to take your own life well if not then you couldn’t give that authority to the government for purposes of euthanasia did God give you the authority to take innocent life of others if not then you can’t give authority to the government to take the life of the unborn it works like that repeatedly over and over again now that falls into at least two categories and you can see that from the discussion so far one is constitutionality and the other is what the.
Underscore the laws of Nature and Nature’s God So the very the beginning point is that the authority arises from the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God and then you must show that that authority was transferred through the cost to Sion to the United States government only after you reach that point of saying the thing is constitutional and does not violate the laws of Nature and Nature’s God Have you reached a point where you can decide that the government may take a particular action that alone would keep the government out of so much trouble and that’s a piece of the analysis that’s generally ignored by common policy analysis now the next question is a little more practical than that it’s simply one of can if you remember when you were a child and you ask your teacher of whether you can take some time off or whether you can go to the restroom she responded and say I don’t know CAN you what she meant was you’re asking whether you had the physical ability rather than the authority so in the May analysis we’re asking the question of authority and in the can analysis we’re asking a very practical question of the possibilities that generally falls into three categories you’re asking yourself whether it’s physically feasible in other words is it something that even given all the money and time in the world can we really do it second we’re talking about financial feasibility do we have the resources with which to carry out this plan and then the third is political feasibility do we have the political will and the political capital that we willing to spend to bring this thing in different mission let’s take an absurd example let’s say for example that we all thought it was a fantastic idea to build a highway bridge to the moon now there’s nothing that we can think of that would limit our authority to do that there’s nothing. In the laws of nature Nature’s God says you can build a highway to the moon there’s nothing maybe we’ve got the political will to do it but the fact is that financial feasibility and the spinning of the earth and the rotation of the moon are going to keep that from happening it’s simply not possible now let’s assume that we’re talking about things that are possible financial Fiza busily speaks for itself but political Now that’s something a little different because you’re having to look at what motivates this is where reading Shakespear can help you so much in in your planning of public policy because understanding what motivates policymakers will help you do a thorough job of analyzing the political feasibility Let’s say that it’s possible physically Let’s say that the resources are there but then figuring out whether the votes are going to be there and the coalitions are going to be there is an entirely different job now after you answer those two broad questions that you have that the government has the authority to take a political measure and that there is the physical financial and political feasibility to carry it out only then do we reach the question that typically dominates public policy analysis and that is the pragmatic question of between the available solutions which is the best and at that point we have reached what is what is a very proper practical pragmatic discussion of comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges and saying that the result yielded by one is better than the result the old did by the other I hope this will give you a basis for approaching policy analysis from a little more thorough a vote of an approach than we typically have and I hope you enjoy the class.
DISCUSSION INSTRUCTIONS
Topic: Policy Analysis
What particular element of policy (e.g. values, goals, assumptions, hypothesized relationships, provisions, allocation, finance, and delivery) becomes the subject of analysis for each type of policy analysis and why?
How does this contribute to developing a good framework for the analysis of policy?
For each thread, students must support their assertions with at least three scholarly citations (7–8 sources for the threads for discussions 4 and 5) in Turabian format.
