|
'Citizen Choice' Software for Evaluating Political Addresses
Description and Features
This application will enable users to systematically evaluate the major themes
in a political address. The sections and subsection in this
application are the same as those in the
"General Framework of Evaluating and Understanding." The
application will thus enable users to evaluate the speaker's initiatives and policies
for promoting the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the
environment. If the speaker espouses religious or philosophical views of
the cosmos as a whole that have some bearing on his or her political views,
users will be able to evaluate these views as well. In addition, based on
the speaker's comments and conduct during the address, users may evaluate his or
her moral character, professional competence, and psychological fitness.
In each section, a set of "Assumptions" from the
General Framework will precede a "Question Box." In the question boxes, users will be able to enter
responses to the sets of questions derived from the Assumptions. Each box under the rating levels (1-4) will
contain a button that can be clicked in order to register a response
for that particular question. Questions may be left blank
and will not be averaged into the score summaries.
When the user is finished responding to the questions, a simple statistical program would calculate the average score or
rating for each major section of the framework and report these average scores
on a separate Decision Summary Page. Citizens could then review the
average score for each section. A copy of this Summary Page -- or a copy of the entire
evaluation -- could be printed or downloaded for future reference. Copies could
also be e-mailed to others if users wish to share their evaluations.
A database on the PEAC web site could enable to users to compare
their evaluation of an address with evaluations of the
same address conducted by other PEAC members. They could
compare their scores with the average scores of groups of members who share any
characteristic or affiliation that they report in their member profiles.
For example, they could compare their average ratings with average ratings
submitted by others of the same gender or political party. They may also
compare their scores with the average scores of all others who have used the
software on our site.
How the Questions Might Look
FRAMEWORK
FOR
EVALUATING
THEMES RELATED TO DOMESTIC POLICY
I. Evaluating Addresses on the Individual Level of Organization
A. Evaluating Speakers as Individuals
The "Assumptions" from section I.A
of the General Framework will be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
How would you rate the professional competence of the
speaker? |
|
|
|
|
| How do you rate the psychological health of the
speaker? (see Attachment 1) |
|
|
|
|
|
How would you rate the moral character of the
speaker? |
|
|
|
|
B. Evaluating a Speaker's Philosophies and Policies for Promoting Individual
Development
The "Assumptions" from section I.B
of the General Framework will be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
What were the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting the following
dimensions of personal development?
|
Questions exploring the speaker’s understanding of personal
development
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
How
do you rate the speaker's general philosophy and specific proposals for
promoting:
|
|
the physical development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
the economic or vocational development of individuals |
|
|
|
|
|
the political development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
the spiritual development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
the moral development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
the cultural development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
the artistic development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the speaker’s understanding of the developmental
nature of liberty and fulfillment? |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the speaker’s grasp of the roles that personal
initiative and social resources play in personal growth? |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the speaker’s understanding of human rights
and relationships between rights in the process of personal development? |
|
|
|
|
II. Evaluating Addresses on the Social Level of Organization
The Assumptions from section II of the
General Framework will be provided here.
A. Institutions
The Assumptions from section II.A of the
General Framework will be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| How do
you rate the speaker’s general philosophy and specific policies for
promoting the effective and ethical functioning of the following types of
institutions within your nation? |
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
| Families |
|
|
|
|
| Churches |
|
|
|
|
|
Civic organizations |
|
|
|
|
| Schools: primary,
secondary, vocational, higher ed |
|
|
|
|
|
Nongovernmental organizations that promote economic
justice, political justice, ecological stewardship, and human rights
|
|
|
|
|
| Nonprofit
charitable organizations that serve the needs of especially vulnerable
populations: the poor, at-risk youth, the elderly, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Advocacy groups that represent the
interests of specific populations: the elderly, minority groups,
supporters of gun rights, consumers, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
| Political parties |
|
|
|
|
|
Business firms |
|
|
|
|
| Labor unions |
|
|
|
|
| Media organizations
(TV networks, radio stations; newspaper and magazine publishers) |
|
|
|
|
| How do you rate the
speaker's proposals for
valuing diversity in government and in other institutions? |
|
|
|
|
1) Focus on Governments as Institutions
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
| The speaker's
policy initiatives will help to establish more democratic structures of government in your
nation. |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
proposals will help your local and state governments to resist corruption and to respond to the needs and interests of
citizens |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
proposals will help your national government to resist corruption and to respond to the needs and interests of
citizens. |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
initiatives will help local and state governments
to enact and enforce legislation that is just
and environmentally sound. |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
proposals will help
your national government to enact and enforce legislation that is just
and environmentally sound. |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
proposals will enable your national government to efficiently maintain a military force that
is capable of defending the nation's interests and values. |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
initiatives will help your government to strike a balance between spending on
military programs and on those programs that promote human development and
environmental protection. |
|
|
|
|
2) Special Focus on the Institutional Level: The Party to Which the
Speaker Belongs
The "Assumptions" from section
II.A.1 of the General Framework will be provided here. The "Question Box" below would follow.
In this section, users will rate the speaker’s party according to the
degree to which they agree or disagree with the statement on the left.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
The platform of the speaker’s party advocates
perspectives and policies that promote the well-being of individuals,
social groups, and the environment |
|
|
|
|
|
The party's financial supporters do not influence
the party's policies in ways that are harmful to the welfare of
individuals, social groups, or the environment. |
|
|
|
|
|
The speaker's party encourages intelligent civil dialogue that is
free of emotionally charged rhetoric and personal attacks |
|
|
|
|
|
The speaker's party is able to cooperate with other parties when
necessary for the common good of society |
|
|
|
|
B. Social Sectors
The Assumptions from section II.B of the
General Framework will be provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
What were the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting constructive relationships
within the market sector |
|
|
|
|
|
What were the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting constructive relationships
within the state sector |
|
|
|
|
|
What were the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting constructive relationships
between organizations that make up civil society |
|
|
|
|
|
What were the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting cooperative
and adversarial relationships between the state and the market sector |
|
|
|
|
|
What were the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting cooperative
and adversarial relationships between the state and civil society |
|
|
|
|
|
What were the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for
promoting cooperative
and adversarial relationships between the market and civil society |
|
|
|
|
C. Different Levels of Social Organization
The Assumptions from section II.C
of the General Framework will be provided here, followed by the "Question
Box" below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
How do you rate the speaker's general philosophy and specific proposals for promoting constructive relationships between different
levels of social organization? Did the speaker adhere to the principle of
subsidiarity, which states that all human endeavors (economic ventures,
public policies, etc.) should be pursued and administered at a level that
is as local as possible but as centralized as necessary? |
|
|
|
|
D. Socio-Cultural Collectivities
The Assumptions from section II.D
of the General Framework will be provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for
ensuring equal
opportunities for advancement among persons of
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
different races? |
|
|
|
|
|
different genders? |
|
|
|
|
|
different age groups? |
|
|
|
|
|
different religious traditions? |
|
|
|
|
|
different sexual preferences? |
|
|
|
|
|
different ethnic groups? |
|
|
|
|
|
different classes? |
|
|
|
|
III. Evaluating Addresses on the Ecological Level of
Organization
The Assumptions from section III of the
General Framework will be provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the speaker’s general philosophy
and specific proposals |
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
for protecting and restoring species? |
|
|
|
|
|
for protecting the integrity of ecosystems? |
|
|
|
|
|
for protecting the integrity of the biosphere as a whole? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
In her or his overall philosophy and specific policy
proposals, this speaker is able to integrate the goals of economic
development and environmental stewardship. |
|
|
|
|
IV. Evaluating Addresses on the Cosmic Level of Organization
A. Evaluating the Relationship between a Speaker's Cosmic Views and Their
Political Views
The "Assumptions" from section IV.A
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
Since many political figures maintain that cosmic
beliefs should not influence one's political views, you should only complete
this section if the speaker attempts to integrate cosmic beliefs into the main
themes of his or
her address.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The cosmic beliefs of this speaker influence
his or her foreign policies in ways that are consistent with my nation's
Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
The speaker's beliefs
about the cosmos as a whole influence his or her policies in a way that
promotes the welfare of individuals, groups, and the environment |
|
|
|
|
B. Evaluating an
Address from the Perspective of
One's Own Cosmic
Views
The "Assumptions" from section IV.B
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Do you believe
that universal principles or laws govern human affairs, such as the
principles of yin-yang or the law of karma? Do you believe in some divine plan for the universe that
guides human history (such as the coming of the Kingdom of God)? Do
you believe in some system of divine justice that operates in human
affairs? If so, how do you rate the main
themes of this address from the perspective of your
cosmic views? If you believe in a divine plan, do the speaker's
policies further or
hinder this divine plan? If you believe in a cosmic system of divine
justice, would you consider these themes to be 'just' according to this
system? If you espouse
universal laws or principles, are these themes consistent with these laws and
principles? |
|
|
|
|
V. Evaluating the Speaker's Recognition of the Implications of Policies for All
Levels of Organization
The Assumptions from section
V of the General Framework will be provided here, followed by the questions
below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
How do you rate the speaker's recognition of the
implications of policies on all levels of organization? Did he or she
recognize the impact on individuals, social groups, the environment, and the
cosmos as a whole (if a cosmic perspective is held by them)?
|
|
|
|
|
VI. Evaluating the Speaker's Recognition of Relationships between Different
Levels of Organization
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
The speaker understood relationships between the
different levels of organization. His or her policy proposals seem to
promote the common good at all three levels of organization -- they
promote the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment.
They do not favor the interests of one level of organization – such as individuals --
in a way that damages the other levels in the long term. |
|
|
|
|
VII. Evaluating the Speaker's Recognition of the Hierarchy of Values that Exists
among the Different Levels of Organization
The Assumptions from section VI of the General Framework will be provided here, followed by the question
below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This speaker has a clear understanding of the hierarchy of values
that exists among the different levels of organization. |
|
|
|
|
VIII. Evaluating the Speaker's Commitment to an 'Experimental Approach' to
Policy-Making
The Assumptions from section VII of the General Framework will be provided here, followed by the
question below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This speaker supports an ‘experimental approach’ to public
policy-making. |
|
|
|
|
FRAMEWORK
FOR EVALUATING
THEMES RELATED TO FOREIGN RELATIONS
I. Evaluating the Speaker's Views on Foreign Relations: Perspectives from
the Individual Level of Organization
A.
Evaluating the
Speaker's General Philosophy and
Specific Policies for Promoting Personal Development through Foreign Relations
The "Assumptions" from section
I.A-D of the
"Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework will be provided
here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions exploring the speaker’s understanding of how his or her
foreign policies impact the well-being of individual persons in all
nations affected by them
|
|
In the realm of foreign
relations, how do you rate this speaker's philosophy and policies for
promoting:
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
the physical development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
the economic or vocational development of individuals |
|
|
|
|
|
the political development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
the spiritual development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
the moral development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
the cultural development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
the artistic development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
Please respond to the following statements according to your level of
agreement or disagreement with them.
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This speaker's foreign policies recognize the developmental
nature of liberty and fulfillment |
|
|
|
|
|
This speaker's foreign policies recognize the roles that both personal
initiative and social resources play in personal growth |
|
|
|
|
|
This speaker's foreign policies honor a full range of human
rights and recognize relationships between rights in the process of
personal development |
|
|
|
|
II. Perspectives from the Social Level of Organization
The " Assumptions" from section II
of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework will be provided
here.
1. Social Institutions
1a. Institutions within Nations
The " Assumptions" from section
II.A of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework will be provided
here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate
the speaker's philosophy and policies for promoting the effective, ethical functioning of the following types of institutions
within all nations affected by the speaker's policies:
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Families |
|
|
|
|
|
Labor unions |
|
|
|
|
|
Business firms |
|
|
|
|
|
Schools: primary, secondary, vocational, higher ed |
|
|
|
|
|
Civic organizations |
|
|
|
|
|
Institutions that support the arts |
|
|
|
|
|
The media |
|
|
|
|
|
Political parties |
|
|
|
|
|
Churches |
|
|
|
|
|
Charitable organizations that serve the needs of
especially vulnerable populations: the elderly, the sick, the poor,
at-risk youth |
|
|
|
|
|
Advocacy groups that promote the interests of such
groups as consumers, the elderly, gun rights supporters, minority groups |
|
|
|
|
|
Nongovernmental organizations that promote economic
justice, political justice, ecological stewardship, and human rights |
|
|
|
|
1.a.1) Special Institutional Focus on Governments
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
| The speaker's
foreign policy initiatives strengthen democratic
structures of government in all nations affected by it, including those in your
nation. The initiatives enable governments to resist corruption and be more responsive to
citizens' needs and interests. |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
foreign policy initiatives enhance the ability of governments to
enact and enforce legislation that is just and environmentally sound. |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
foreign policy initiatives help national governments to efficiently maintain adequate military
capabilities. |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
foreign policy initiatives help governments to strike a balance between spending on
military programs and on those programs that promote human development and
environmental protection. |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
proposals advocate fair
and prudent policies for assisting other nations. |
|
|
|
|
| The speaker's
proposals reflect a broader, more enlightened view of national security that
focuses on environmental protection and improving of the lives of citizens both
within and beyond the borders of your nation. |
|
|
|
|
1.a.1.a) Special Focus for National Governments: The Speaker’s Views
Regarding the Use of Military Force by a Nation or an International Coalition
The " Assumptions" from section
II.A.1 of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework will be provided
here.
The "Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the speaker's views regarding the use of military
force? Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with
the following statements:
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
| The speaker advocates only defensive actions -- actions that defend
the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
| He or she advocates using violent means that are proportionate to the
goals to be achieved. In other words, the goals to be achieved justify the
destruction of human life, the environment, and physical structures that
is likely to accompany the military action.
|
|
|
|
|
| He or she advocates the use of violence only when all nonviolent means
to resolve the conflict have been exhausted.
|
|
|
|
|
| He or she advocates the
discussion of the root causes of violence and insists that any
response to aggression be a part of an explicit, long-term strategy for
addressing these causes of conflict, whether they be economic, racial,
cultural, religious, political, or some combination thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
1b. International Institutions
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the speaker's general philosophy
and specific policies for promoting the
effective, ethical functioning of the following types of international
institutions:
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
international governing organizations such as the United Nations
|
|
|
|
|
|
international alliances or blocs (such as NATO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
international religious bodies
|
|
|
|
|
|
international media organizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
international financial institutions such as the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank
|
|
|
|
|
|
other institutions that finance international
development programs
|
|
|
|
|
|
institutions that regulate international trade, such as
the World Trade Organization
|
|
|
|
|
|
international groups that serve needy or vulnerable
populations --
the poor, the sick, the elderly, victims of disasters, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nongovernmental organizations that advocate economic
justice, political justice, environmental stewardship, and human rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
international labor unions
|
|
|
|
|
|
international organizations that coordinate cultural projects,
including sporting events
|
|
|
|
|
|
transnational corporations that have manufacturing and marketing
divisions in more than one nation
|
|
|
|
|
1c. Special
Focus on the Institutional Level: Exploring a Speaker’s
Political Party
The "Assumptions" from section
II.A.3 of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework
for Foreign Relations will be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
The platform of the speaker’s party advocates
foreign policies that promote
the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment |
|
|
|
|
|
The party's financial supporters do not influence
the party's foreign policies in ways that are harmful to the welfare of
individuals, social groups, or the environment. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, the speaker’s party encourages intelligent civil dialogue that is
free of emotionally charged rhetoric and personal attacks |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign policy-making, the speaker’s party is able to cooperate with other parties when
necessary for the common good of society |
|
|
|
|
2. National and International Social
Sectors
The "Assumptions" from section
II.B of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework
will be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
How do you rate the speaker's general
philosophy and specific policies for promoting constructive relationships within the market
sector, particularly international
trade between nations and regions? |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the speaker's general
philosophy and specific policies for promoting constructive
relationships within the government sector -- within national governments
and international governing institutions |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do
you rate the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for
promoting constructive relationships within civil society -- among institutions that focus on
education, the arts, social justice, the environment, disaster relief,
etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do
you rate the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for
promoting cooperative and adversarial relationships between governing bodies and
markets on the local, national, and international levels? |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you
rate the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for
promoting cooperative and adversarial relationships between governing bodies and
civil society on the local, national, and international levels? |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you
rate the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for
promoting cooperative and adversarial relationships between markets and civil
society on the local and international levels? |
|
|
|
|
3. Different
Levels of Social Organization
The "Assumptions" from section
II.C of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework
will be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate
this speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting
constructive relationships between different levels of social organization? Does the
speaker support the principle of subsidiarity, which states that all human endeavors (economic ventures,
public policies, etc.) should be pursued and administered at a level that
is as local as possible but as centralized as necessary? |
|
|
|
|
4. Different
Socio-Cultural Collectivities
The "Assumptions" from section
II.D of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework
will be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate this
speaker's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting equal opportunities for advancement among persons of different
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Economic classes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Racial groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ethnic groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genders
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age Groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religious traditions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sexual Orientations
|
|
|
|
|
III. Perspectives from the Ecological Level of
Organization
The "Assumptions" from section
III of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework
will be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
How do you rate this speaker's general philosophy
and specific policies for protecting and preserving specific species? |
|
|
|
|
|
ecosystems? |
|
|
|
|
|
the biosphere as a whole? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
In her or his approach to foreign relations, this speaker
is able to integrate the goals of economic development and
environmental stewardship. |
|
|
|
|
IV. Perspectives from the Cosmic Level of
Organization
A. Evaluating the Relationship between a
Speaker's Cosmic Views and their Views on Foreign Relations
The "Assumptions" from section IV.A
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
Since many political figures maintain that cosmic
beliefs should not influence political views, you should only respond to these
questions if the speaker attempts to integrate cosmic beliefs into his or
her remarks on foreign relations.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
The cosmic beliefs of this speaker
influence
his or her foreign policies in ways that are consistent with my nation's
Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
The speaker's beliefs about the cosmos as a whole influence his or her
foreign policies in ways that promote the welfare of individuals,
groups, and the environment. |
|
|
|
|
B. Evaluating a
Speaker's Philosophy on Foreign Relations from the Perspective of
One's Own Cosmic
Views
The "Assumptions" from section IV.B
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Do you believe
that universal principles or laws govern human affairs, such as the
principles of yin-yang or the law of karma? Do you believe in some divine plan for the universe that
guides human history (such as the coming of the Kingdom of God)? Do
you believe in some system of divine justice that operates in human
affairs? If so, how do you rate the
speaker's views on foreign relations from the perspective of your
cosmic views? If you believe in a divine plan, do the speaker's foreign
policies further or
hinder this divine plan? If you believe in a cosmic system of divine
justice, would you consider the speaker's foreign policies to be 'just'
according to this system? If you espouse
universal laws or principles, are these policies consistent with these laws and
principles? |
|
|
|
|
V. Analyzing the Speaker's Recognition of the Implications of Foreign Policies
for All Levels of Organization
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This speaker understood the implication of
his or her foreign policies for entities on all levels of organization
(personal, social, ecological, cosmic*)
* = if applicable |
|
|
|
|
VI. Evaluating a Speaker’s Understanding of Relationships between the
Different Levels of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section
V of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework will
be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This speaker understands the relationships between the
different levels of organization. His or her foreign policy proposals promote the common good at all three levels of organization -- they
promote the well-being of individuals, social groups, and environment --
rather than favoring one level of organization – such as individuals --
in a way that damages the other levels in the long term. |
|
|
|
|
VII. Assessing Whether or Not this Speaker’s Foreign Policies Respect the
Hierarchy of Values that Exists among the Different Levels of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section
VI of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework
will be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This speaker’s foreign policies respect the hierarchy of values
that exists among the different levels of organization. |
|
|
|
|
VIII. Evaluating the Speaker's Approach to Foreign Policy-Making
The "Assumptions" from section
VII of the "Foreign Relations" section of the General Framework
will be provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
The speaker’s foreign policy initiatives reflect an experimental
approach to making foreign policies (for those issues for which an
experimental approach is appropriate). |
|
|
|
|
The Decision Summary Page
The Decision Summary Page will provide
average scores of all responses on each of the four levels of organization --
the individual, social, ecological, and cosmic. Average scores for each
'section' of a level will be provided in normal type; the average score for the
entire level will be provided in bold type at the bottom of the table of scores
for that section (see section II below). The ratings for the questions
following the levels of organization -- those that deal with relationships
between the levels, the hierarchy of values among levels, and the experimental
approach to policymaking -- will all be provided in their own separate boxes on
this page. Average ratings from the "Foreign Relations" section
will be listed in separate boxes as well.Users may then determine the relative importance of
these scores
according to their political views and priorities. We offer our own
understanding of the hierarchy of values that exists between the different levels of
organization (see section VII of the
"General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"). According to this hierarchy,
the average scores of sections that represent higher,
more inclusive levels
of organization should carry more weight in one's evaluation of the main themes
of an address. For example, we propose that the long-term ecological
effects of a speaker's proposals are more important than their impact on social
groups, since all societies depend on the health of the environment for
their survival and prosperity. However, nothing on the
Summary Page will reflect this view. Users may decide for themselves how
much to weigh each score as they make their final evaluation of a speaker's
views.
A format for the Summary Page is provided below:
I. Analysis and Evaluation of a Speaker on the Individual Level of
Organization
Because the two sections on the individual level of organization measure two
different things -- the speaker’s competence as an individual and the speaker’s understanding of personal development --
two overall scores
are given for the individual level of organization. Similarly, two average
scores are given for the social level – one that deals with the speaker’s
political party and one that deals with the speaker’s knowledge of social
dynamics. For the ecological and cosmic levels, only one average score is given
-- the average score of all responses for that level of organization.
|
Average evaluation of speaker’s psychological, professional, and
moral fitness
|
x.x
|
|
Average of scores related to speaker’s understanding of individual
well-being and development
|
x.x
|
II. Evaluation of the Speaker on the Social Level of
Organization
A. Evaluation of Speaker’s Political Party
The questions related to the speaker’s political party are located in
the section on ‘Social Institutions.’ However, this section does not
evaluate the speaker’s knowledge of institutions; it deals with an
institution to which the speaker belongs. Therefore, just as the score
related to the speaker’s competence (see above) is listed separately from
the scores dealing with the speaker’s knowledge of personal growth, so here
the average score for the speaker’s party is listed separately from the
average scores related to the speaker’s understanding of society. Aside from
these two sections (the individual and social levels of the speaker framework), only one average score is given for each level of organization.
|
Average evaluation of the speaker’s political party
|
x.x
|
B. Evaluation of the Speaker's General Philosophy and Specific Policies for
Promoting Social Progress
|
Average evaluation of speaker’s grasp of ways in which specific types
of institutions should pursue excellence, encourage diversity, and serve
the common good.
|
x.x
|
|
Average evaluation of the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies
for promoting constructive dynamics
within and between different social sectors
|
x.x
|
|
Average evaluation of the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies
for promoting constructive relationships
between different levels of social organization
|
x.x
|
|
Average evaluation of the speaker's general philosophy and specific policies
for ensuring equal opportunities for advancement among members of different socio-cultural
collectivities
|
x.x
|
|
Average of all responses evaluating the speaker's philosophy and
proposals for promoting progressive social dynamics
|
x.x
|
III. Evaluating a Speaker's Understanding of Ecology
and Environmental Stewardship
|
Average evaluation of the candidate's general philosophy and specific
policies regarding the environment
|
x.x
|
IV. Evaluating the Speaker on the Cosmic
Level of Organization
|
Evaluation of the ways in which the speaker's cosmic beliefs influence his or her political views and policies (if there is any discernable
influence)
|
x.x
|
Evaluation of the address from the perspective of one's own cosmic
views
|
x.x
|
Average evaluation of the address on the cosmic level of
organization
|
x.x
|
|
V. Evaluation of the Speaker’s Understanding of Relationships between the
Different Levels of Organization (individual, social, ecological, cosmic)
|
x.x
|
|
VI. Evaluation of the Speaker’s Recognition of the Hierarchy of Values
that Exists among the Different Level of Organization
|
x.x
|
VII. Evaluation of the Speaker’s Views on Foreign Relations
|
Average evaluation of speaker’s views on foreign relations
|
x.x
|
Average evaluation of speaker’s views on just war and the management
of international conflict
|
x.x
|
Format for Comparison of One
User’s Ratings
of a Speaker to
Other Users’ Ratings of the Same
Speaker
The following table represents a possible format that would enable one user
to compare their rating of a speaker with average ratings of the
same speaker submitted by various groups of other users.
|
Section of Framework
|
Avg. Score
of User
|
Avg. Score
for User's Political Party or Gender, etc.
|
Avg. Score
of All Users
|
|
the speaker's moral, psychological, and professional
competence |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the speaker's philosophy and policies for
promoting individual development |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the speaker’s political party as an
organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the speaker's philosophy and policies
regarding society and social development |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the speaker's philosophy and policies
regarding environmental issues and ecological
stewardship |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the evaluation of the address on the cosmic
level of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the speaker’s understanding of relationships between the different
levels of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the speaker’s understanding of the hierarchy of values that exists
among the different levels of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the speaker’s approach to policy-making (adherence to experimental
approach) |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the speaker’s perspectives on foreign
relations |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|