'Citizen Choice' Software
for Evaluating Public Policies
Description and Features
This application will enable users to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of
a public policy. In Part I, users will evaluate the likely impact of the
policy on individuals, social groups, and the environment. If a user or a
sponsor of a policy espouses religious or philosophical beliefs about the cosmos
as a whole, and these beliefs are somehow relevant to the policy, users will
also be able to evaluate the impact of the policy on this most inclusive
level. This part includes separate frameworks for evaluating domestic and
foreign policies.
In Part II, users will evaluate the ability of a policy's sponsor(s) to
recognize and clarify relationships between the policy and other proposed or
existing policies that address the same issue. For example, they may
evaluate the role that a policy plays in a broader strategy that addresses some
challenging social issue. This section is placed after the impact
evaluation because it may not be possible to evaluate relationships between the
policy and other policies until one has evaluated the likely impact of the
policy itself. In Part III, users will evaluate the various
influences that shape the policy. They will first assess the degree to
which the policy reflects the public philosophy(ies) of its sponsor(s).
They will then determine whether or
not this influence as well as a variety of other factors shape the policy in ways that promote the public good. Some of these
factors may include public opinion, scientific research, the
interests of campaign donors, as well as deals that the policy's sponsors may
have made with other legislators in order to secure their support for the
policy. This part of the application is placed after the impact evaluation
because it is possible to evaluate the influences on a policy only after one has
evaluated the impact of the policy. For example, the influence of a
special interest on a policy may be positive if a user has determined that the
policy has a favorable impact on the common good. Conversely, its
influence may be negative if a user believes that the policy in some way
diminishes the common good.
In Part IV, users will evaluate the competence, character, and leadership that
the sponsors of the policy have demonstrated in the process of formulating,
proposing, and promoting the policy. This is the final section because a
thorough evaluation of a sponsor's or sponsors' leadership and character can be conducted only after
citizens have analyzed the impact of their policy and the ways in
which they have managed the various influences that shape the policy.
For example, a sponsor's leadership and character may be called into question
if they have allowed special interests to influence their policy in ways that
are harmful to the welfare of society as a whole.
As they use this application, citizens may find it helpful to
consult the 'Policy Profile' created by the sponsors of a policy and posted on
our web site. They may also refer to a 'Policy Web' that they themselves
have created using our software for understanding public policies (see
Application 9). In
addition, they may consult the 'Policy Guide' that is relevant to the policy being evaluated.
As with the other applications, each part of this program contains sections of
our method followed by sets of questions. For
example, in Part II of the application, we provide the sections of our method that explore the impact of
policies on individuals,
social groups, and the environment. One section addresses the impact of
policies on social institutions. After that section, we list questions
that ask the user to evaluate the impact that a policy is likely to have on the effective
and ethical functioning of various types of institutions.
Users will respond to each question using numerical ratings. Thus, on a
scale from one to four, they
will rate the impact of the policy on various institutions, such as
families, business firms, and government agencies.
When the user is finished with their evaluation, average scores for each section
would be calculated and presented on a separate Decision Summary Page.
A simple database in this application would enable users to compare
their evaluations of alternative policy proposals that address the same issue.
On the basis of this comparison, users may then decide which policy or policies
they should support.
A database on the PEAC web site could enable to users to compare
their evaluations of a particular policy with evaluations of the
same policy 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.
Citizens may also use this application to
evaluate broader initiatives and strategies that address challenging issues
through several coordinated policies. Rather than evaluating each policy
separately, citizens would assess the overall impact of the strategy. For example, citizens may evaluate a
strategy for promoting international development that includes
several specific policies.
CURRICULUM NOTE: In the 'Dialogue in the Public Square' Curriculum,
students may use this application to evaluate actual public policies. They may also use it to
evaluate policies that they have formulated as a class exercise.
If students do not have access to computers, they may complete this exercise
using worksheets that we will include in our printed resources.
*** under renovations (as with all apps except #s 6 and 12 ***
Part
I:
Evaluating the Likely Impact of Public Policies
Domestic Focus
I. Evaluating the Impact of
Domestic Policies on Individuals
The text from the introduction
to this section of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be provided here.
A. Evaluating the Impact of the Policy on the Different Dimensions of
an Individual's Personality and Lifestyle
The text from section I.A
of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided
here, followed by the response box below.
How do you rate the impact of the policy on the following dimensions of
individuals' personalities and lifestyles?
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
Physical
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relational
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intellectual
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vocational/Economic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cultural
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Artistic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spiritual
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Evaluating the Policy’s
Recognition of the Developmental Nature of the Human Person
The text from section
I.B-C of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the response box below.
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The policy recognizes
the developmental nature of the human person. More specifically, it
understands that personal liberty and fulfillment are developmental
achievements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.
Analyzing the Impact of the Policy on the Exercise of Human Rights
The text from section I.D of
"The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided
here, followed by the response boxes below.
How do you rate the impact of the policy on the ability of individuals to
exercise the following types of human rights?
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
economic and physical
rights
(rights to bodily
safety and fitness, to clean water, to affordable food, housing, and
medical care; to adequate vocational education and training; to a just
wage for one's labor; to start a business; and to own property; also
include rights to food, shelter, and health
care if one is unable to work
due to personal disability)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
civil rights
(freedom from
discrimination on the basis of one's creed, race,
ethnicity, or gender)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
political rights
(rights to civic
education, to peaceful public assembly, to form and participate in
political associations, to vote, and to petition the government)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
juridical rights
(rights to fair and
just treatment from law enforcement agencies and courts; examples include
the rights to due process of law, to trial by a jury of one's peers, to
representation in court, to protection from illegal search and seizure,
and to protection cruel and unusual punishment)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
broader social rights
(the freedom marry
and establish a family and the right to form and participate in religious
and civic institutions of all kinds)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cultural rights
(the freedom to
express the customs and values of one's culture; also include the right to
learn about the historical and philosophical foundations of one's culture
as well as its modes of artistic expression)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expressive rights
(the ability of
citizens to share their views in the public square; include the freedom of
speech, the freedom of the press, and the right to artistic expression)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rights to education
(right to a level
of education that enables individuals to form a coherent world view; also
include the educational dimension of the economic, political, and cultural
rights described above)
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Evaluating the Policy's Recognition of Relationships between Rights
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The policy reflects
an accurate understanding of the relationships between human rights in the
dynamics of human development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Evaluating the Policy's Integration of Rights and Responsibilities
The text from section I.E
of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided
here, followed by the response box below.
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The policy empowers
individuals to assume their responsibilities as well as exercise
their rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
F.
Evaluating the Policy's Integration of Personal Initiative and Social Support
The text from section
I.F of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the response box below.
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The policy
acknowledges the roles played by both personal initiative and social
support in the process of personal growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
II. Evaluating the Impact of the
Policy on the Social Level of Organization
The text from the introduction to section
II of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here.
A. The Impact of the Policy on Social
Institutions
The text from section
II.A of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the question box below.
|
How do you rate the
impact of the policy on the effective and ethical functioning of the
following institutions:
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Families
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schools: primary, secondary,
vocational, higher education
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business Firms
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade associations
that represent the interests of business firms that produce similar goods
and services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labor unions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Churches
|
|
|
|
|
|
Civic Organizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonprofit charitable organizations that
serve those in need such as the poor, the elderly, at-risk youth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institutions that support the arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonprofit social justice groups that
promote economic justice, political justice, ecological stewardship, and
human rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advocacy Groups that represent the
interests of groups such as the elderly, gun rights supporters, minority
groups, consumers, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Media organizations
(TV networks, radio stations; newspaper and magazine publishers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) Special Institutional Focus on Governments*
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
1) Rule of
Law
The policy helps government
institutions to establish and maintain the rule of law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2) Clarity
of Mission
The policy helps government
institutions to maintain a clear and consistent understanding of their
missions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3) Standards
of Excellence
The policy promotes standards
of excellence in policymaking and citizenship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4)
Constructive Relationships
The policy promotes civil and
constructive relationships between government officials, between political
parties, between government organizations of all types, between citizens,
and between citizens and their leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy promotes
constructive relationships between different national governments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5)
Inclusiveness
The policy encourages
governments to promote inclusiveness and diversity regarding opportunities
for all types of government service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy encourages
the use of inclusive decision-making processes that seek input from all
groups affected by specific decisions as well as the general public.
In other words, it promotes more democratic structures of government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy promotes
policies that are inclusive, i.e. that discourage all types of
discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6)
Accountability
The policy supports codes of
ethics for government officials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy encourages
governments to use transparent and inclusive decision-making processes,
thus allowing the public to hold governments accountable for their
decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall, the policy
discourages corruption in government and makes governments more
responsible to the needs and interests of their citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7) Military
Preparedness and National Security
The policy enables national
governments to maintain a military force that is capable of defending the
nation's security, interests, and values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy enables
your nation's government to strike a balance between spending on military
programs and those programs that promote personal development, social
progress, and environmental protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy promotes a
broad view of national security that includes both military strength and
social progress in your nation and abroad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8) Overall
Promotion of the Common Good
In general, the policy enhances
the ability of governments to enact and enforce legislation that promotes
individual development, social progress, and ecological stability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
* If the policy is a local or regional
policy, then the focus is on these levels of government. If it is a
national policy, then the focus includes all levels of government, since all
levels are affected by national policies.
B. The Impact of the Policy on
Social Sectors
The text from section II.B of
"The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided
here, followed by the question boxes below.
|
How do you rate the
impact of the policy on relationships
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
within the market sector?
|
|
|
|
|
|
within the state sector?
|
|
|
|
|
|
within civil society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
between the state and
the market sectors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
between the state
sector and civil society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
between the market
sector and civil society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
between the media and
the three sectors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
between political
parties and the state sector?
|
|
|
|
|
|
between government
enterprises and the three sectors?
|
|
|
|
|
C. The Impact of the Policy on Different Levels of Social Organization
The text from section
II.C of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The policy recognizes
the impact of public issues on all relevant levels of social organization
(i.e. local, state, national, international).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy gives
priority to issues that affect higher levels of social organization --
issues that impact many individuals and groups on lower levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy gives
priority to the impact of local issues on higher levels of social
organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy encourages
local initiative and responsibility in responses to important social
issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy encourages
coordination on higher levels of administration when this is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy encourages
constructive relationships between government leaders on different levels
of administration (local, state, national).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy applies
the principle of subsidiarity to issues relating to family life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy applies
the principle of subsidiarity to the market sector.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy applies
the principle of subsidiarity to civil society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy preserves
the integrity of higher level social processes such as the market
system and the democratic process. That is, it prevents abuses of
these processes by individuals and institutions on lower levels of
organization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. The Impact of the Policy on
Socio-Cultural Collectivities
The text from section
II.D of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the question box below.
|
The policy promotes
equal opportunities for self-development* among persons of different:
* this includes
discouraging discrimination against individuals from different races,
genders, etc.
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
Classes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Races
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ethnic Groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nationalities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age Groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sexual orientations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Areas of residence
(i.e. rural and urban)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EDIT HERE DOWN TO FOREIGN RELATIONS
III. Evaluating the Impact of
the Legislation on the Ecological Level of
Organization
The text from section III
of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
A. Conservation
|
How do you rate the impact of the legislation on
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
endangered species?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
biodiversity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wilderness areas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Sustainable Technologies and Lifestyles
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
1. Sustainable Extraction of Raw Materials
The legislation promotes ecologically sound practices of mining for metals, minerals, and
coal; and of
drilling for oil and gas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Sustainable Growth and Harvesting of Food and Forestry Products
The legislation promotes ecologically sound methods of farming, fishing, and forestry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Conservation of Natural Resources
The legislation promotes
the conservation of natural resources such as water, forest products, petroleum,
metals, and minerals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
Sustainable Manufacturing Technologies
The legislation promotes
the development of less polluting technologies for manufacturing goods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
Sustainable Energy Generation
The legislation promotes
the development of less polluting technologies for generating energy. |
|
|
|
|
|
6.
Sustainable Design and Construction
The legislation promotes
the implementation of designs for construction and renovation that increase the
energy-efficiency of all types of buildings. |
|
|
|
|
|
7.
Energy-Efficiency of Electronic Devices
The legislation promotes
the development of appliances and other electronic devices that are more
energy-efficient. |
|
|
|
|
|
8. Sustainable Transportation Technology
The legislation promotes
the development of less polluting technologies for transportation. |
|
|
|
|
|
9.
Population Control
The legislation encourages families to have fewer children so
that population growth may be reduced. |
|
|
|
|
|
10.
'Smart Growth' in Residential and Urban Development
The legislation promotes 'smart growth'
strategies for human communities. |
|
|
|
|
|
11.
Waste Management
The legislation promotes less polluting and more efficient methods of
waste management (strategies for recycling, toxic waste disposal). |
|
|
|
|
|
12.
Integration of Economic and Environmental Values
In general, the legislation strives to
integrate the goals of economic growth and ecological stewardship in his or her
domestic policy platform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.
Addressing Global Environmental Issues on the Local, State, and
National Levels
The legislation addresses global environmental issues, such as climate change
and acid rain, through policies on the local, state,
and/or national levels. |
|
|
|
|
|
IV. Evaluating the Impact of Legislation on the Cosmic
Level of Organization
A. Evaluating Legislation from the Perspective of
One's Own Cosmic
Views
The text from section IV.A
of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided
here, followed by the questions below.
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
How do you rate the impact of the legislation on the cosmic level of organization*?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
If you believe in a divine plan, your rating will indicate the degree to which
the legislation furthers (or hinders) this plan. If you believe in a cosmic
system of divine justice, your rating will indicate how just the legislation seems to be according to this system. If you espouse
universal laws or principles, your rating will indicate the degree to which the
legislation is consistent with these laws and principles.
|
B. Evaluating the Cosmic Views of Sponsors of Legislation
The text from section IV.B
of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided
here, followed by the questions below.
Since many public officials maintain that cosmic beliefs should not influence one's
political views, you should only complete this section if the sponsors attempt to integrate cosmic beliefs into the
goals of the legislation.
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
If the sponsors espouse views about the cosmos as a whole,
and if these views influence their policy goals, these beliefs seem to influence
their proposal in ways that promote the common good. (See also
the question in Part III that addresses the ways in which the candidate's public
philosophy influences their platform.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cosmic views of the sponsors influence the
legislation's goals in ways that
are consistent with my nation's Constitution. In other words, the sponsors
pursue cosmic religious goals that can be
'translated into' secular goals that are compatible with the government's mission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Evaluating Sponsors' Recognition of the Impact of
Legislation on All
Levels of Organization
The text from section V
of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The legislation's sponsors recognize the effects of their
proposal on all levels of organization
-- on individuals, social groups, the environment, and the
cosmos as a whole (if they espouse cosmic views that are relevant to their policy's
goals).
|
|
|
|
|
VI. Evaluating the Candidate's Recognition of Relationships between Different
Levels of Organization
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The sponsors recognize the impact of
the legislation on relationships between different levels of organization.
|
|
|
|
|
VII. Evaluating the Legislation's Recognition of the Hierarchy of Value and Order
of Priority among the Different Levels of Organization
The text from section VI of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be
provided here, followed by the question below.
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The legislation recognizes a hierarchy of value or order or priority among the
different levels of organization. More specifically, the legislation's
impact on higher,
more inclusive levels of organization is considered to be more important than
its impact on lower levels.
|
|
|
|
|
VIII. Evaluating how the Legislation Balances Trade-Offs between the Costs and
Benefits Associated With It
The text from section VII of
"The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
A. Trade-Offs between Short-Term Costs and Long-Term Benefits of
Legislation
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
As they explain and defend their proposal, the legislation's sponsors demonstrate that they are willing to
accept short-term costs of their proposal for the sake of the long-term benefits
that it provides.
|
|
|
|
|
B. Recognizing that Those Who Bear the Short-Term Costs of Sound
Policies Often Realize Benefits in the Long-Term
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The legislation illustrates
how individuals and groups that bear the costs of sound policies often
benefit from these policies in the long run, since these policies promote a
more stable, prosperous society and a healthier environment.
|
|
|
|
|
C. Trade-Offs between the Costs and Benefits
of Legislation for Different Individuals
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The legislation respects
the principle that more privileged or powerful individuals may bear some costs
in order that less privileged or powerful individuals might be able to meet
their needs.
|
|
|
|
|
D. Trade-Offs between the Costs and Benefits
of Legislation for Different Social Groups
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The policy supports the
principle that more privileged or powerful social groups may bear some costs in
order that less privileged or powerful social groups might be able to meet their
needs.
|
|
|
|
|
E. Trade-Offs between the Costs and Benefits
of Legislation for Different Levels of Organization
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The legislation's sponsors are willing to place
burdens on lower levels of organization for the benefit of higher levels of
organization if this is necessary in order to preserve the common good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The legislation does not allow
social groups to exploit individuals and less powerful social groups in the
pursuit of their missions and interests.
|
|
|
|
|
F. Trade-Offs between Special Interests and the Common Good
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
If the desires of special interest groups are in conflict
with the needs of the common good, the legislation supports
the needs of the common good over special interests.
|
|
|
|
|
G. Failures to Recognize the Trade-Offs
Associated with Legislation
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The sponsors recognize all of the trade-offs associated
with their proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
IX. Evaluating the Sponsors' Commitment to an 'Experimental Approach' to
Policymaking
The text from section VIII of
"The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the question below.
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The sponsors express and demonstrate a commitment to
an ‘experimental approach’ to policymaking.
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluating
the Impact of a Foreign Policy
(as well as the Impact of a Domestic Policy on Foreign Relations)
The text from Introduction to the
"Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding and
Evaluation" will be provided here.
I. Evaluating the Impact of a Foreign Policy on Individuals
The text from Introduction
to this section of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be provided here.
A. Evaluating the Impact of the Policy on the Different Dimensions of the
Human Person
The text from section I.A of
the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding
and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the question box below.
|
In all nations affected by it,
how do you rate the impact of the
policy on the following dimensions of personal well-being and development?
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
Physical
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relational
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intellectual
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vocational/Economic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cultural
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Artistic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spiritual
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Evaluating the Policy’s Recognition of the Developmental Nature of
the Human Person
The text from section I.B-C
of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for
Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the
question box below.
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The policy recognizes
the developmental nature of the human person. More specifically, it
understands that personal liberty and fulfillment are developmental
achievements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Evaluating the Impact of a Policy
on the Exercise of Human Rights
The text from section I.D of
the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding
and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the question boxes
below.
In all nations affected by it, how do you rate the impact of the foreign policy
on the ability of individuals to exercise the following types of human rights?
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
economic and physical
rights
(rights to bodily
safety and fitness, to clean water, to affordable food, housing, and
medical care; to adequate vocational education and training; to a just
wage for one's labor; to start a business; and to own property; also
include rights to food, shelter, and health
care if one is unable to work
due to personal disability)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
civil rights
(freedom from
discrimination on the basis of one's creed, race, ethnicity, or gender)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
political rights
(rights to civic
education, to peaceful public assembly, to form and participate in
political associations, to vote, and to petition the government)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
juridical rights
(rights to fair and
just treatment from law enforcement agencies and courts; examples include
the rights to due process of law, to trial by a jury of one's peers, to
representation in court, to protection from illegal search and seizure,
and to protection cruel and unusual punishment)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
broader social rights
(the freedom marry
and establish a family and the right to form and participate in religious
and civic institutions of all kinds)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cultural rights
(the freedom to express
the customs and values of one's culture; also include the right to learn
about the historical and philosophical foundations of one's culture as
well as its modes of artistic expression)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
expressive rights
(the ability of
citizens to share their views in the public square; include the freedom of
speech, the freedom of the press, and the right to artistic expression)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rights to education
(right to a level
of education that enables individuals to form a coherent world view; also
include the educational dimension of the economic, political, and cultural
rights described above)
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Evaluating the Policy’s Recognition of Relationships between
Rights
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The policy reflects
an accurate understanding of the relationships between human rights in the
dynamics of human development.
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Evaluating the Policy's Integration of Rights and Responsibilities
The text from section I.E
of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for
Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the
question box below.
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
In all nations
affected by it, the policy empowers individuals to assume their responsibilities
as well as exercise their rights.
|
|
|
|
|
F. Evaluating the Policy's Integration of Personal Initiative and
Social Support
The text from section I.F of
the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding
and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
In all nations
affected by it, the policy acknowledges the roles played by both personal
initiative and social support in the process of personal
growth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
II. Evaluating the
Impact of a Foreign Policy on the Social Level of Organization
The text from section
II of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for
Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the
questions below.
A. The Impact on National and International Institutions
The text from section
II.A of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for
Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the
questions below.
1. Institutions within Nations
|
How do you rate the
impact of the policy on the effective and ethical functioning of the
following institutions within all nations affected by it:
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Families
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schools: primary, secondary,
vocational, higher education
|
|
|
|
|
|
Business Firms
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade associations
that represent the interests of business firms that produce similar goods
and services
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labor unions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Churches
|
|
|
|
|
|
Civic Organizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonprofit charitable organizations that
serve those in need such as the poor, the elderly, at-risk youth
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institutions that support the arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonprofit social justice groups that
promote economic justice, political justice, ecological stewardship, and
human rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advocacy Groups that represent the
interests of groups such as the elderly, gun rights supporters, minority
groups, consumers, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Media organizations
(TV networks, radio stations; newspaper and magazine publishers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Special Focus on Local and
National Governments
|
The following
criteria apply to the government institutions in all nations
affected by the foreign policy.
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
1) Rule of
Law
The policy helps government
institutions to establish and maintain the rule of law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2) Clarity
of Mission
The policy helps government
institutions to maintain a clear and consistent understanding of their
missions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3) Standards
of Excellence
The policy promotes standards
of excellence in policymaking and citizenship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4)
Constructive Relationships
The policy promotes civil and
constructive relationships between government officials, between political
parties, between government organizations of all types, between citizens,
and between citizens and their leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy promotes
constructive relationships between different national governments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5)
Inclusiveness
The policy encourages
governments to promote inclusiveness and diversity regarding opportunities
for all types of government service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy encourages
the use of inclusive decision-making processes that seek input from all
groups affected by specific decisions as well as the general public.
In other words, it promotes more democratic structures of government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy is
inclusive: it discourages all types of discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6)
Accountability
The policy is consistent with
codes of ethics for government officials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy encourages
governments to use transparent and inclusive decision-making processes,
thus allowing the public to hold governments accountable for their
decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall, the policy
discourages corruption in government and makes governments more
responsible to the needs and interests of their citizens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7) National
Sovereignty or Self-Determination
The policy promotes national
sovereignty, that is, the ability of governments to govern without
undue interference from other nations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8) Foreign
Aid
The policy calls for
distributing foreign aid in ways that promote the common good of recipient
nations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy
distributes aid in ways that ensure that it will be used in a wise and
efficient manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9) Military
Preparedness and National Security
The policy enables national
governments to maintain a military force that is capable of defending the
nation's security, interests, and values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy enables
your nation's government to strike a balance between spending on military
programs and those programs that promote personal development, social
progress, and environmental protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy promotes a
broad view of national security that includes both military strength and
social progress in your nation and abroad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10) Overall
Promotion of the Common Good
In general, the policy enhances
the ability of governments to enact and enforce legislation that promotes
individual development, social progress, and ecological stability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
b) The
Use of Force for the National Defense: A Special Issue for National
Governments
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The policy has
adequately considered nonviolent strategies for addressing current
conflicts around the globe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the policy
involves the possible or certain use of military force, the sponsors have
clarified morally sound principles for the use of military force, and
these principles are appropriately applied to the situation that the
policy addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the policy calls
for the potential or certain use of military force, it is part of a
broader, comprehensive strategy for cultivating peace and prosperity.
|
|
|
|
|
2. International Institutions
|
How do you rate the
impact of the policy on the effective and ethical functioning of the
following international institutions:
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
international
governing organizations such as the United Nations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
international
alliances or blocs (such as NATO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
international
religious bodies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
international media
organizations (TV and radio networks, magazine and newspaper publishers,
etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
international
financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the
World Bank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
other organizations
that finance international development programs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
institutions that
regulate international trade (such as the World Trade Organization)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
international groups
that serve the needy or vulnerable -- the poor, the sick, the elderly,
victims of disasters, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
international
nongovernmental organizations that advocate economic justice, political
justice, and environmental stewardship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
international labor
unions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
international
organizations that coordinate cultural projects, including sporting events
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
corporations in your
nation that export goods to different nations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
transnational
corporations that maintain operations in more than one nation
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. The Impact on
National and International Social Sectors
The text from section
II.B of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for
Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the
question box below.
1. Impact on
Social Sectors within Nations
|
How do you rate the
impact of the policy on relationships
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
within the government
sectors of all nations affected by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
within the market
sectors of all nations affected by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
within the civil
sector of all nations affected by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between the
government and market sectors of all nations affected by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between the
government and civil sectors of all nations affected by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between the market
and civil sectors of all nations affected by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between the media and
the three sectors in all nations affected by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between political
parties and governments in all nations affected by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between government
enterprises and the three sectors in all nations affected by it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Impact on International Social Sectors
|
How do you rate the
impact of the policy on relationships
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
within the
international government sector?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
within the
international market sector?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
within international
civil society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between international
governing bodies and international markets?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between international
governing bodies and international civil society?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between international
civil society and international markets?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
between the
international media and the three international sectors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. The Impact on Socio-Cultural Collectivities
The text from section
II.D of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for
Understanding and Evaluation" will be provided here, followed by the
questions below.
|
The policy promotes
equal opportunities for self-development* among persons of different:
* this includes
discouraging discrimination against individuals from different races,
genders, etc.
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
Classes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Races
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ethnic Groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nationalities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Genders
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age Groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sexual orientations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Areas of residence
(i.e. rural and urban)
|
|
|
|
|
|
III. Evaluating the Impact of a Foreign Policy on the Ecological Level of
Organization
The text from section III
of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be
provided here, followed by the question boxes below.
A. Conservation
|
In all nations affected by it, how do you rate the impact of the
policy on
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
endangered species?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
biodiversity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wilderness areas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Sustainable Technologies and Lifestyles
|
In all nations affected by it,
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
1. Sustainable Extraction of Raw Materials
the policy promotes ecologically sound practices of mining for metals, minerals, and
coal; and of
drilling for oil and gas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Sustainable Growth and Harvesting of Food and Forestry Products
the policy promotes ecologically sound methods of farming, fishing, and forestry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Conservation of Natural Resources
the policy promotes
the conservation of natural resources such as water, forest products, petroleum,
metals, and minerals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.
Sustainable Manufacturing Technologies
the policy promotes
the development of less polluting technologies for manufacturing goods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
Sustainable Energy Generation
the policy promotes
the development of less polluting technologies for generating energy. |
|
|
|
|
|
6.
Sustainable Design and Construction
the policy promotes
the implementation of designs for construction and renovation that increase the
energy-efficiency of all types of buildings. |
|
|
|
|
|
7.
Energy-Efficiency of Electronic Devices
the policy promotes
the development of appliances and other electronic devices that are more
energy-efficient. |
|
|
|
|
|
8. Sustainable Transportation Technology
the policy promotes
the development of less polluting technologies for transportation. |
|
|
|
|
|
9.
Population Control
the policy encourages families to have fewer children so
that population growth may be reduced. |
|
|
|
|
|
10.
'Smart Growth' in Residential and Urban Development
the policy promotes 'smart growth'
strategies for human communities. |
|
|
|
|
|
11.
Waste Management
the policy promotes less polluting and more efficient methods of
waste management (strategies for recycling, toxic waste disposal). |
|
|
|
|
|
12.
Integration of Economic and Environmental Values
In general, the policy strives to
integrate the goals of economic growth and ecological stewardship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. Global Environmental Challenges
The policy addresses global environmental issues, such as climate change
and acid rain. |
|
|
|
|
|
IV. Evaluating the Impact of the Foreign Policy on the Cosmic Level of Organization
A.
Evaluating a Foreign Policy from the Perspective of
One's Own Cosmic
Views
The text from section IV.A
of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be
provided here, followed by the question box below.
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
How do you rate the impact of the
foreign policy on the cosmic level of organization*?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
If you believe in a divine plan, your rating will indicate the degree to which
the policy furthers (or hinders) this plan. If you believe in a cosmic
system of divine justice, your rating will indicate how just the policy seems to be according to this system. If you espouse
universal laws or principles, your rating will indicate the degree to which
policy is consistent with these laws and principles.
|
B. Exploring the Cosmic Views of the Sponsors of Foreign
Policies
The text from section IV.B
of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be
provided here, followed by the question box below.
Since many public officials maintain that cosmic beliefs should not influence one's political views, you should only complete
this section if the foreign policy's sponsors attempt to integrate cosmic beliefs into
the policy's goals.
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
If the foreign policy's sponsors espouse views about the
cosmos as a whole, and if these views influence their policy goals, these
beliefs seem to influence the policy in ways that promote the common good.
(See also the question in Part III that asks how the sponsors' public
philosophy(ies) influence the policy.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cosmic views of the sponsors influence their policy goals in ways that
are consistent with my nation's Constitution. In other
words, the policy pursues cosmic religious goals
that can be 'translated into' secular goals that are compatible with the
government's mission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Evaluating Sponsors' Recognition of
the Impact of Their Foreign Policies on All Levels of Organization
The text from section V
of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be
provided here, followed by the questions in sections V and VI below.
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The foreign policy's sponsors recognize the effects of the
policy on all levels of organization
-- on individuals, social groups, the environment, and the
cosmos as a whole (if they espouse cosmic views that are relevant to their policy
goals).
|
|
|
|
|
VI. Evaluating Sponsors' Recognition of the Impact of Their Foreign Policies
on Relationships between Different Levels of Organization
The text from section V of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be
provided here, followed by the question below.
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The sponsors recognize the impact of their
foreign policy on relationships between different levels of organization.
|
|
|
|
|
VII. Evaluating Sponsors' Recognition of the Hierarchy of Value and Order
of Priority among the Different Levels of Organization
The text from section VI of the
"Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be
provided here, followed by the question box below.
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The foreign policy recognizes a hierarchy of value or order or priority among the
different levels of organization. Its sponsors consider its impact on higher
levels to be more important than its impact on lower levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VIII. Evaluating How Sponsors Balance Trade-Offs between the Costs and
Benefits of Foreign Policies
The text from section VII of the
"Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be
provided here, followed by the question boxes below.
A. Trade-Offs between Short-Term Costs and Long-Term Benefits of
Foreign Policies
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
As they explain and defend their proposal, the foreign
policy's sponsors demonstrate that they are willing to
accept short-term costs of their proposal for the sake of the long-term benefits
that it provides.
|
|
|
|
|
B. Recognizing that Those Who Bear the Short-Term Costs of Sound
Foreign Policies Often Realize Benefits in the Long-Term
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
As they explain and defend their proposal, the foreign
policy's sponsors are able to explain
how individuals and groups that bear the costs of sound foreign policies will often
benefit from these policies in the long run, since these policies will promote a
more stable, prosperous society and a healthier environment in all nations
affected by them.
|
|
|
|
|
C. Trade-Offs between the Costs and Benefits
of Foreign Policies for Different Individuals
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The foreign policy respects the principle that more privileged or powerful individuals may bear some costs
in order that less privileged or powerful individuals might be able to meet
their needs.
|
|
|
|
|
D. Trade-Offs between the Costs and Benefits
of Foreign Policies for Different Social Groups
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The foreign policy respects the
principle that more privileged or powerful social groups may bear some costs in
order that less privileged or powerful social groups might be able to meet their
needs.
|
|
|
|
|
E. Trade-Offs between the Costs and Benefits
of Foreign Policies for Different Levels of Organization
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
As they explain and defend their proposal, the foreign
policy's sponsors demonstrate that they are willing to place
burdens on lower levels of organization for the benefit of higher levels of
organization when this is necessary in order to preserve the common good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The foreign policy does not allow
social groups to exploit individuals and less powerful social groups in the
pursuit of their missions and interests.
|
|
|
|
|
F. Trade-Offs between Special Interests and the Common Good
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
If the desires of special interest groups are in conflict
with the needs of the common good, the foreign policy supports
the needs of the common good over special interests.
|
|
|
|
|
G. Failures to Recognize the Trade-Offs
Associated with Foreign Policies
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The sponsors recognize all of the trade-offs associated
with their proposal.
|
|
|
|
|
IX. Evaluating the Sponsors' Commitment to an 'Experimental Approach' to
Foreign Policy-Making
The text from section VIII
of the "Foreign Policy" section of "The Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be
provided here, followed by the question below.
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
As they explain and defend their proposal, the foreign policy's sponsors
express and demonstrate a commitment to
an ‘experimental approach’ policy-making.
|
|
|
|
|
Part
III: Evaluating the Influences
that Shape the Candidate's Platform
Part III of our "Method for Political Analysis" will be
presented here. It will be followed by the question boxes below:
I. The Influence of Ideas
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
A. The
Public Philosophy(ies) of the Policy’s Sponsors
The policy clearly reflects the
views, values, and principles of its sponsors’ public philosophy(ies).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sponsors’
public philosophy(ies) influence the policy in ways that promote the
common good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. The Public Philosophy(ies) of the Sponsors'
Political Parties
The policy clearly reflects the views, values, and principles of the
sponsors' political party(ies).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The public philosophy(ies) of the
sponsors' political parties influence the policy in ways that promote the
common good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C.
Scientific Research
Scientific research influences
the policy in ways that promote the common good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D.
Analytical Studies
Analytical studies influence
the policy in ways that promote the common good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. The Media
News and commentary in the media influence the policy in ways that promote
the common good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
II.
The Influence of Special Interests
How do you rate the influence of the
following special interests on the policy? A favorable rating indicates
that you believe that a special interest influences the policy in ways that
promote the common good. A negative rating indicates that you believe that
a special interest influences the policy in ways that do not promote the common
good. You may click on 'not applicable' if you do not believe that a
particular special interest has any influence on the policy.
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
members of the
sponsors’ political part(ies)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
demographic groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
constituents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
groups that
contribute money
to the sponsors and their parties*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
groups with large
numbers of
registered voters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wealthy and/or
popular individuals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the national
interests of your nation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the interests of
foreign nations
|
|
|
|
|
|
III. The Influence of Public Opinion
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The policy is
influenced by public opinion that is well-informed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The influence of
sound public opinion on the policy is not eclipsed by other factors that
influence the policy in negative ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IV.
Trade-Offs: Cost-Benefit Analyses
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
As they defend the
policy, the sponsors always cite clear and accurate analyses of the costs
and benefits associated with the policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As they defend the
policy, the sponsors cite cost-benefit analyses of alternative policies
– past and present – that address the same issue in order to
demonstrate how their proposal is superior to these proposals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Risk and Uncertainty
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The policy’s
sponsors are able to effectively manage any political risks
associated with the policy.* That
is, sponsors’ concerns about political risks do not affect the policy in
a negative way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sponsors are able
to effectively and constructively manage risks related to the outcome
of the policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VI. The Timing of Elections
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The candidate's
concerns about the timing of elections have a positive influence on the
platform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VII. Political Deal-Making
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
Any political deals
that the candidate may have struck in order to secure support for their
platform have had a positive influence on the platform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part
IV: Focus on Leadership: Evaluating the
Competence, Character, and Leadership of a Policy’s Sponsors
The text from Part
I of our " Method for Political Analysis" will be provided here,
followed by the question boxes below.
I. Analyzing Sponsors’ Competence, Character, and Leadership
Psychological Health
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
The sponsors seem to
be psychologically healthy. If they currently suffer from any
psychological disorder, or if they have been diagnosed with a disorder in
the past, the condition is being/has been treated, and they are fit for
public service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Character and Leadership
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
Not
Applicable
(0)
|
|
Courage
In proposing this policy, the policy’s sponsors demonstrate a
willingness to raise public awareness of issues that are vital to the
public welfare, even if they are not sure how the public will respond to
them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sponsors are
willing to support this policy even if the outcome of the policy is
uncertain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In proposing this
policy, the sponsors seem willing to take positions on issues that may be
criticized or at least questioned by fellow party members and supporters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Humility and
Prudence
The sponsors seem willing to
revise their views (and this policy) in light of new information that is
relevant to the issue that the policy addresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honesty and
Consistency
The sponsors have been faithful to the views and values that they espouse
in their public philosophies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The policy fulfills,
or at least does not break, promises made by the sponsors to the public
either during or after their campaigns for office.
|
|
|
|
|