|
Evaluating Candidate Platforms
|
|
I. Analyzing and Evaluating Candidates: Personal and Philosophical Issues A. Issues for Analysis and Evaluation on the Individual Level of Organization Introduction 1. Evaluating the Candidate’s Fitness to Serve Assumptions: There are many different dimensions of the human personality, all of which may affect a candidate’s fitness for political leadership. The three dimensions highlighted in this framework as the most important aspects of a candidate’s personality include the moral, psychological, and professional dimensions. The moral dimension focuses on issues of character, and suggests that citizens consider whether the candidate espouses the values and virtues -- such as honesty, courage, and self-discipline -- that are necessary for effective public leadership. The psychological dimension explores the mental health of candidates – the presence or absence of significant psychological disorders that may impair their ability to carry out their duties. Three possible disorders are described and discussed in Attachment 1: "Evaluating a Public Figure's Psychological Health and Fitness to Hold an Office." Finally, the professional dimension includes the knowledge and skills that politicians must possess in order to operate effectively within the political system. These include: 1) the capacity to articulate a clear set of goals, 2) the ability to work toward these goals in collaboration with other politicians and citizens, 3) a basic knowledge of the laws and policies that regulate the conduct of politics, and 4) a comprehensive understanding of how these laws and policies affect individuals, social groups, and the natural world. As stated above in the broader mission of this organization, we advocate an "experimental" approach to policy-making. We feel so strongly about this approach that we include it among the various other professional qualifications that a candidate should possess. It is discussed further in section I.H. In the software version of this framework, however, questions regarding the candidate’s willingness to use this approach will be presented in this section of the framework. If political candidates and leaders fall short in any of these areas – the moral, the psychological, and/or the professional -- they will be unable to effectively serve the public good. Questions: Has the candidate exhibited moral character and virtue in his or her previous career? Do they consistently espouse the same values? Do they stand by their convictions even when their views may not be popular with all groups? Does the candidate have any psychological problems that may interfere with their ability to competently carry out their duties? Does the candidate possess the skills necessary to articulate a clear set of goals? to collaborate effectively with others? Do they possess thorough knowledge of legal and political affairs? Do they understand how laws and policies affect the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment? On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any other assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask regarding a candidate’s moral character, psychological health, and professional competence? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the software program for evaluating candidates that will be available on the PEAC web site (see above, item E under the "Web Site" section of "Programs").
Assumptions: In order to be an effective leader, politicians must be able to understand how the impact of policies is felt at all levels of organization; they must be able to envision how policies affect individuals, specific groups, society as a whole, and the environment. One may analyze and assess a candidate’s understanding of individual development and well-being by considering the following assumptions about the welfare of individuals and by asking various questions that proceed from these assumptions. a) Physical, Relational,
Economic, Political, Cultural, Moral, Spiritual, and Artistic Dimensions of
Development b) The Developmental
Nature of Liberty and Fulfillment d) A Full Range of Human Rights
and the Relationships between Them On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask regarding a candidate’s understanding of personal development? Would you like to add assumptions and questions about the candidate’s view of human rights? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the software program for evaluating candidates that will be available on the PEAC web site (see above, item E under the "Web Site" section of "Programs").
B. Evaluating a Candidate’s Knowledge of Society and Social Dynamics The social world is complex. There are countless institutions, large and small; local, national, and international in scope; that pursue their diverse missions in society. We propose four ways to divide society into different types of groups. Each of these social perspectives is useful for analyzing and evaluating a candidate’s understanding of social dynamics. The first perspective involves focusing on specific institutions such as families, churches, and business firms. The second identifies social sectors -- including the state, the market, and civil society. These sectors consist of institutions sharing some common function or goal. The third recognizes different socio-cultural collectivities, which are broader groups of persons joined by specific biological, cultural, or economic characteristics. These groups include different races, genders, and economic classes. The fourth social perspective examines different levels of social organization, including local, state, national, and international levels of social organization. Candidates should have some grasp of all four of these perspectives, as well as the key values and norms for public policy appropriate to each. Assumptions: The first social framework focuses on social institutions such as the family, business firms, churches, voluntary organizations of all sorts, and specific departments and branches of government. An institution is any group of persons united in the pursuit of some common interest. Families, business firms, government departments, and civic organizations are all institutions that enable people to combine resources in order to address some common interests or needs. It is assumed that all institutions must somehow contribute to the common good of society. Whether they be banks, families, government agencies, or garden clubs, it is reasonable to expect that they must somehow build up society as they pursue their interests. They should promote those dimensions of individual growth (see above) that are affected by their programs and policies. They should also care for the environment. More concretely, it is assumed that all institutions should strive for three specific institutional goals in their mission, programs, policies, and values. 1) The first goal is competence in the basic skills necessary for forming healthy human relationships, including skills in empathy, communication, the clarification of key values and guidelines for behavior, and the ability to cooperate as a team toward desired goals. 2) The second goal is a commitment to excellence in the development of specialized skills necessary for the achievement of a group’s mission. These may include technological skills, skills in managing projects, or even skills needed to perform charitable works if it is a service organization. Regardless of the necessary capabilities, institutions should strive for continual improvement of vocational skills among all of their members and employees. 3) The third goal is inclusion: institutions should not deny individuals the resources that they need for self-development on the basis of individuals’ race, creed, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or political views. Obviously, churches may be exempt from including persons of other creeds in their programs, and single-sex schools may exclude members of the other gender. But for the vast majority of groups, particularly economic and political institutions, all of these norms of inclusion should be respected. Questions: Does the candidate have some idea of how specific institutions should contribute to the common good through their mission, values, and policies? I.e., do they have some concrete ideas about how specific institutions, such as families, business firms, and governments should contribute to different dimensions of personal development? Which institutions are believed to be especially important for the development of each area of competence in individual growth? More specifically, what role does the state have in the development of each area? Are there some areas that are beyond the state’s role and function? Are some areas of special concern to the state? If so, how does the candidate believe that the state should promote these areas? Should the state help other institutions, such as schools, churches, and civic organizations -- to develop these different areas? If so, how? How does the candidate believe that different institutions should contribute to the good of society as a whole? to the environment? Does the candidate clearly espouse policies of non-discrimination, especially in business firms and governmental organizations? Does he/she value diversity in institutions? Does the candidate articulate standards for excellence that different kinds of institutions should espouse as they pursue their missions – standards for specialized skills and for cultivating healthy human relationships? 1a) Special Focus on the Institutional Level: Exploring a Candidate’s Political Party Assumptions: Political parties greatly shape the landscape of public life. While individual candidates run for offices, they almost always represent parties, and they promote issues that are important to these parties. In their platforms, parties articulate a broad public philosophy and specific policies that they endorse. We have created applications to help citizens to better understand this philosophy and these policies. In this section of the framework, we focus not on parties' platforms, but rather on their sources of support: their members and donors. We explore how these sources influence parties' philosophies and policies, and, in turn, how they influence's the parties' candidates as well. By doing so, we hope to get a clearer idea of the various influences that shape a candidate's platform.
Membership and Support Relationships with Other Parties Assumptions: Different types of social institutions may be grouped into
three social sectors, or collections of institutions that have a similar
mission and function. Institutions that have as their primary goal the exchange
of goods and services for profit comprise the market sector. Institutions
that make and enforce laws comprise the state or government sector.
The last sector, which may be called civil society, is comprised of
organizations that provide participants with opportunities for educational,
cultural, moral, and spiritual enrichment. These organizations include schools,
churches, and environmental organizations, as well as organizations that
represent the interests of such groups as the elderly, the handicapped, and the
mentally ill. a) Relationships within Sectors Assumptions: Relationships within sectors are matters of great importance for social progress. Within the market, a competitive climate must be maintained in order to motivate firms to continually improve their products and service. Without competition, firms will charge whatever price they wish, since they have no rivals that will challenge them with lower prices and better products. An elaborate system of checks and balances between government branches and departments must be in place in order to promote accountability and efficiency in the public sector. No branch or agency should be allowed to exert too much control over public affairs. This is the wisdom behind the principle of the separation of powers -- the division of governing functions among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Competition is also valuable for organizations in civil society, all of which need consistent motivation in order to improve their educational, cultural, and/or spiritual programs. Cooperation within sectors is also crucial. It may be necessary to combine the resources of many firms in order to complete massive technological projects. It may also require many civic groups, churches, and educational groups in order to effectively promote environmental concerns or civil rights legislation. Many technological, ecological, and social problems cannot be adequately addressed without pooling the resources and coordinating the programs of many different institutions within sectors. Questions: Do candidates
appreciate the need to encourage healthy competition in the market sector? to
maintain systems of checks and balances between branches of government? to
promote a broad spectrum of religious, cultural, and educational institutions?
Do candidates encourage cooperation between business firms when this is
necessary to achieve some economic or technological goal? Do they promote
cooperation between government departments and agencies in order to minimize
inefficiency and confusion? Do they push groups in civil society to pool their
resources as they battle complex social problems? In general, do they understand
how to monitor relationships within sectors in order to encourage competition,
accountability, and cooperation for the sake of the common good? In a more adversarial manner, the three sectors must
"check and balance" each other just as the three branches of
government hold each other accountable to the common good. The state should
regulate the market so that business practices and products contribute to the
common good. Organizations in civil society may have to pressure the state and
the market to meet some glaring public need and serve the common good. In turn, the state must
regulate organizations in civil society in order to ensure that they use funds
and pursue their missions in an ethical manner. Destructive relationships between sectors are very common,
however. Like constructive relationships between sectors, these may be
cooperative or adversarial interactions. For example, a business firm may donate
money to political parties in order to influence public policy in a way that
serves the firm's economic interests. In this case, the state and the
market cooperate to promote the firm's private interest in ways
that may not serve the public good of society as a whole.
Similarly, faith communities in civil society may try to cooperate with
governments in order to gain political leverage. They may then use this
leverage to impose their beliefs and values on citizens against their
will. This possible scenario is perhaps the most historically infamous
illustration of the need for checks and balances between sectors, and it has led
most democratic governments to insist that churches and the state must remain
separate. Questions: Do candidates
articulate a clear understanding of the role of each sector in the promotion of
the common good? Do they understand how sectors may cooperate toward common
goals? Do they recognize the types of cooperation between sectors that are
damaging to the common good? Does the candidate understand healthy and unhealthy
forms of conflict between sectors? Do candidates have strategies for balancing
relationships between the sectors in a way that maximizes their strengths and
respects their limitations? Assumptions: In the social section of our framework, we also group persons according to income, ethnicity, gender, age, creed, race, and sexual orientation. We have chosen these specific characteristics because they very often have a significant impact on an individual’s ability to gain access to resources that they need in order to develop themselves. For example, young people in lower economic classes may lack the resources and social support needed in order to gain a high level of education and career training. By contrast, those in a higher class may have access to abundant resources necessary for developing vocational skills, including special tutoring and enrichment experiences. More affluent individuals may also enjoy the social support of affluent family members and the institutions to which they belong. Similarly, someone in a particular religious tradition, race, or ethnic group may be discriminated against by persons in other faiths or ethnic groups. These oppressed individuals may be excluded from participating in educational, economic, spiritual, political, and civic organizations. We propose that the key principles that
should govern relationships within these socio-cultural groups are equal
opportunity and inclusion. Persons
in all classes, races, genders, faith traditions, and ethnic groups, as well as
those who share different sexual orientations, should enjoy the same
opportunities to develop all areas of competence that contribute to personal
liberty and fulfillment. We propose
that the state may have to take proactive and even aggressive measures to ensure
that members of all groups gain opportunities to advance themselves,
particularly if some groups have been historically oppressed on the basis of one of these
characteristics.
At the very least, we propose that societies should enact and vigorously
enforce anti-discrimination laws. Questions: Does the candidate affirm the equal rights of persons of all classes, races, ethnic groups, faiths, genders, and sexual orientations to develop themselves and aspire to some notion of fulfillment that is compatible with the common good? How specifically does the candidate propose to ensure opportunities for different groups, particularly those that have been oppressed, as a group, in some way? How does the candidate propose to moderate the "income and opportunity gaps" between classes? Does the candidate endorse policies that address the problem of discrimination in specific institutions? How does the candidate understand the role of government in the creation and enforcement of these policies? 4. Levels of Social Organization Assumptions: It is also useful to break the social world down into different levels of organization from least to most comprehensive. There are a lot of ways in which one might do this. One could, for example, describe geographic regions of increasing scope, moving from geographic regions to subcontinents to continents. However, this framework will organize society primarily according to levels of political administration. We thus highlight neighborhood, municipal, state, regional, national, and international levels of social organization. The question often arises: "Should significant social issues be addressed on more local or more centralized levels of social organization?" Some views favor local administration in business, governmental, and civic affairs. Some claim that central coordination and control for problems to be addressed in an efficient, thorough, and comprehensive manner. We maintain that one must strike a delicate balance in the relationships between local and centralized levels of organization. On the one hand, it is best to promote local responsibility and control in business firms, governments, and civic organizations. This enables people to develop responsibility and a sense of vision for their personal and collective destinies. They learn more about their civic affairs; they plan for the future; they feel a sense of pride and investment in their local community. However, it is also essential to acknowledge that some issues, especially in the state and market sectors, can only be effectively addressed by coordinating strategies and resources at higher, more centralized levels of organization. In short, social decision-making should be as local as possible and as centralized as necessary in order to effectively serve the common good. Local levels should respect the need for higher levels to coordinate responses to social projects. Higher levels should help lower levels to take as much initiative and responsibility as possible in these projects. In the field of ethics, this norm has become known as the principle of subsidiarity. In reality, problems can seldom be addressed on local or centralized levels alone. In practically all institutional contexts – economic, political, religious, civic, or cultural, cooperation between local and centralized levels of administration is essential. So it is foolish to disregard the legitimate roles and functions that each level of organization must assume if issues and problems are to be effectively addressed. Local and centralized levels must work together, with each level respecting the knowledge, expertise, and initiative that the other level can contribute to the process of managing social projects. Questions: How clearly does the candidate recognize different levels of organization? Does the candidate recognize the need for both local initiative and central coordination and facilitation in order to successfully address social projects and problems of all types? How has the candidate applied this framework to specific issues such as medical care, economic growth, education policy, and environmental health and stability? In addressing these social issues, what is the role for national and international levels of organizations? What is the role for local bodies?
5. Special Focus on the International Level of Social Organization: Evaluating a Candidate’s Foreign Policy Initiatives (candidates for President and Congress only) The competence to make foreign policy is a critical issue for the evaluation of congressional and presidential candidates. It is relevant to the international level of social organization, and thus belongs in this section of the framework. However, the foreign policy section includes assumptions and questions that deal with all four levels of organization – the personal, social, ecological, and cosmic. It will thus be helpful to read through the rest of the candidate framework before reading the section that assesses candidate’s foreign policies (see section IV below). On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any other assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask regarding the candidate’s understanding of social progress? of the role of institutions in promoting the common good? the role of social sectors? the role of different levels of social organization? the role of different socio-cultural collectivities: different races, classes, ethnic groups, genders, and persons with different sexual orientations? Do you have any additional assumptions and questions regarding the candidate’s understanding of the relationship between churches and states? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the
Assumptions: In this proposal, the natural world includes all living things, including human societies, and the habitats in which they live. Like the social world, the world of nature can be broken down into different levels. The most basic is the level of species, which represent unique types of organisms. Ecosystems are complex "webs of life" composed of a variety of species that live within a particular habitat and depend on each other to maintain a state of ecological balance and equilibrium. The most inclusive level is the biosphere, which is the entire envelope of air, soil, and water that circles the globe, containing all ecosystems and habitats within it. 2. Relationships between Species, Ecosystems, and the Biosphere Individual species depend on
the health and integrity of other species and ecosystems. They depend on other
species that they eat. They depend on species that eat them and thus control
their populations. They also depend on all other species that somehow help to
create an environment that is suitable for their survival and growth. The
stability of ecosystems depends on all of the species that occupy
"niches" within them. Ecosystems are also intimately connected to each
other. When ecosystems are damaged, surrounding ecosystems are inevitably thrown
out of balance and the survival of species within them is jeopardized. All
ecosystems (and species) are, in turn, dependent upon the integrity of the biosphere
as a whole – the global layer of all ecosystems and the natural resources that
are necessary for their survival. If the balance of the components of the
biosphere is disrupted, all organisms and all ecosystems are somehow affected.
For example, such phenomena as acid rain and the greenhouse effect receive a
great deal of study and attention simply because they are large-scale phenomena
that affect the entire biosphere and all of the ecosystems within it. Thus,
indirectly or directly, all species and organisms on the planet will be affected
by them. Species, ecosystems, and the biosphere as a whole are
involved in an evolutionary process that has continued for billions of years.
This process has generated a variety of forms of life that is amazingly rich and
complex. Human beings are fairly recent products of this ancient process. Our
well-being and prosperity are utterly dependent on the health and integrity of
the systems of life within which we evolved and which continue to sustain us. Aside from physical sustenance, the natural world provides
us with beautiful vistas that have inspired all types of artwork. It may be also
be a source of intellectual enrichment as one studies the great variety of forms
of life and the complex living systems within which they thrive. One may
experience the moral challenge of gaining humility before the vast legacy of
life of which we are a part; one may cultivate the virtues of simplicity,
discipline, and foresight as one tries to live a lifestyle that is more attuned
to the laws and rhythms of nature. For countless generations, the natural world
has provided a tranquil setting in which spiritual seekers have encountered the
sacred in a more focused and immediate way. And finally, one of the most popular
ways to experience nature is through recreation: hiking, boating, hunting,
fishing, or simply having a picnic. At the present time, however, human activities are having a tremendous impact on the natural world. As habitats are radically altered or destroyed, species are forced to adapt to these changes or perish. Many ecosystems are becoming unstable and incapable of sustaining the rich variety of organisms that reside within them. The integrity of the biosphere as a whole is threatened by such large-scale problems as acid rain, global warming, and the depletion of the ozone layer. Environmental issues affect all living things profoundly,
including human societies. And they do so on a long-term basis. While
individuals may suffer and societies may decline without a lasting effect on the
welfare of the planet, the integrity of ecosystems affects all people for long
periods of time; indeed, much damage to the environment is irreversible. It is
thus imperative that all public policies take these issues into account. For species, policies must
ensure the preservation of adequate habitat, even if this requires that humans
endure some inconvenience in order to set aside land and sea for endangered
species. For species, ecosystems, and the biosphere as a whole, policies
must promote the conservation of wilderness, the responsible use of renewable
natural resources, the development of less polluting industrial technologies,
and the recycling of waste products. Large scale problems such as global
warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, and acid rain require urgent
international efforts aimed at reducing air pollution from manufacturing
processes, developing cleaner ways of generating energy, promoting less
polluting forms of transportation, especially public transportation; and
encouraging more efficient use of energy in homes and office buildings. In all areas of environmental policies, it is essential that environmentally sound policies and technologies be shared by all nations. Provisions must thus be made to facilitate the transfer of "green" technologies from wealthy nations to less affluent ones. Organizations in all sectors should also work to create international forums for the discussion of effective public policies concerning the environment. Questions: Do the candidate’s policies support specific international treaties and agreements that address broad environmental issues, such as global warming and the ozone layer, by coordinating policies in all nations? Do the candidate’s policies encourage the development of cleaner energy sources? Do they promote more energy-efficient designs for housing and office buildings? Do they encourage the global development of manufacturing processes that are less harmful to the environment? Do they facilitate the development of less polluting forms of transportation? Do they promote the development of public transportation? Do the policies promote recycling of resources and effective global waste management? Do they promote patterns of human settlement that preserve habitats for different plant and animal species? Do the candidate’s policies protect endangered species by preserving their habitat and preventing the exploitation of them? Since all human activities have some effect on the environment, we have attempted to identify these areas of special concern that have the greatest impact on species and ecosystems around the planet. This list is by no means exhaustive, but it identifies urgent environmental issues that all human societies face. On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any other assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask concerning the candidate’s understanding of ecological stewardship? of the needs of particular species? ecosystems? the biosphere as a whole? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the software program for evaluating candidates that will be available on the PEAC web site (see above, item E under the "Web Site" section of "Programs").
D. Analyzing a Candidate’s Beliefs concerning the Cosmic Level of Organization
Assumptions: Most religions and philosophies maintain that all entities and events on all
levels of organization are somehow influenced by a deity(ies) or some cosmic
principle. For example, some
traditions believe in
cosmic principles such as karma or yin-yang.
Many theistic religions believe that all earthly events are part of a
divine plan. Some traditions believe that
a system of divine justice operates in earthly affairs. Do these cosmic views influence the candidate’s political views? If so, how do you evaluate this influence -- are the values sanctioned by these cosmic beliefs consistent with the values enshrined in your nation’s constitution? In your view, do these values promote individual development? social progress? ecological stewardship? On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any other assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask regarding the candidate’s view of the cosmos as a whole – that is, their belief in certain laws, principles, or trends that influence all of human history and the universe as a whole? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the software program for evaluating candidates that will be available on the PEAC web site (see above, item E under the "Web Site" section of "Programs").
Assumptions: It is essential for candidates to strive for a comprehensive view of the effects of policies on the different levels of organization. Historically, some political ideologies have focused on the individual level; others have focused on social collectivities. Others have stressed the ecological and cosmic levels. As a result, policies have been created that benefit entities on one level but harm entities on other levels. It is thus important for candidates to integrate concepts and norms from all of these levels in order to create policies that have a positive impact on all levels. Policies that benefit individuals should benefit persons from all socio-cultural groups, not just those in one racial or ethnic group. Similarly, if policies are designed to benefit the market sector, one should consider their impact on individuals and on the environment. If candidates are unable to do this, they will almost certainly create policies with unpleasant and unintended consequences on one or more levels. Just within the social level, this holistic perspective is challenging to achieve. Consider a government policy that regulates an international corporation. The social framework enables one to consider the firm as an institution and as part of the market sector. It also helps one to see issues on different levels of social organization. One may, for example, try to determine if it is more effective to regulate the firm through state, federal, or international laws and policies. In addition, the employees of the corporation, all of whom might be affected by the policy, may be drawn primarily from one ethnic group. If so, it would be necessary to consider norms regarding socio-cultural collectivities when creating or evaluating this policy. Challenging as it may be, this holistic perspective thus helps one to grasp the full context of social issues and to create the types of policies that best address them. Each level of organization provides key insights into how policies work and how they can be made more effective. Questions: Does the candidate demonstrate an understanding of the implications of their platform and policies on the personal, social, ecological, and cosmic levels? Does the candidate have a clear understanding of how policies affect the different social frameworks -- institutions, sectors, levels of social organization, socio-cultural collectivities?
F. Assessing the Ability of
Candidates to Recognize the Impact of Policies on Dynamic Relationships between
the Levels of Organization Assumptions: It is important to analyze significant issues on all levels of organization simply because all of these levels are dynamically related to each another. The actions of individuals affect institutions and the environment, institutional policies affect individuals and the environment, and environmental policies affect individuals and institutions. The distinctions between the levels or organization in this framework can thus be misleading. While these distinctions help one to analyze policies more clearly, they may cause one to overlook the relationships between all of the levels and the ways in which these relationships influence the effectiveness of social policies in the long run. For example, a policy that develops individuals while undermining social institutions and damaging the environment will be a disaster for many individuals in the long-term when the environment and social institutions can no longer provide the necessary resources for their development. Similarly, a policy that strengthens institutions while oppressing individuals will ultimately lead to social conflict, which will in turn undermine many institutions. The task of predicting the long-term effects of policies on relationships between different levels of organization is perhaps the most challenging part of using this framework. One may have to consult research in such fields as sociology or ecology in order to gain insight into these complex relationships. This holistic, diligent approach is worth the effort, however, since it may prevent the unhappy discovery of unintended, negative consequences that result from the implementation of flawed, short-sighted policies. Questions: Does the candidate understand how policies affect relationships between the different levels of organization in the long run? Do the candidate’s policies benefit some individuals while harming social groups? Do they harm the environment while providing short term benefits to societies? Or do they benefit individuals, societies, and the environment in the long run? Does the candidate understand the impact of policies on institutions as well as the ways in which these impacts on institutions will affect social sectors? different levels of organization? socio-cultural groups? and visa-versa for all of these?
G. Assessing the Candidate’s Understanding of the Hierarchy of Values that Exists Among the Different Levels of Organization Assumptions: As one considers the personal, social, and ecological consequences of different policies, it becomes clear that effects on the different levels of organization do not have the same degree of impact on the common good. Individuals may suffer harm without necessarily affecting the well-being of institutions and ecosystems. As one moves to the level of institutions, however, the stakes go higher, since harm to institutions inevitably affects the many individuals whose lives are touched by them. Furthermore, harm to ecosystems can be the most disastrous in the long run, since individuals and entire societies depend on the environment for their health and well-being. It thus seems reasonable to propose that there is a hierarchy of values that exists among the different levels of organization. This hierarchy of values is based on the insight that the well-being of entities on lower levels of organization depends on the well-being of more comprehensive, higher levels of organization. Individual development depends on effective social institutions that provide opportunities for individuals to address their needs and exercise their personal freedoms. In turn, all institutions and societies depend on the health of ecosystems for their survival. These insights are not ideological opinions. They are facts that can be empirically proven through sociological and ecological research. When institutions break down, individuals suffer from the lack of opportunities to better themselves; when ecosystems break down, societies experience a much lower quality of life, and individuals inevitably suffer as parts of these societies. There are several fairly obvious implications of this hierarchy of values. First, it is absolutely essential to promote the integrity of ecosystems if societies and individuals are to thrive. Thus, the health of the environment is the most important issue for public policy. If the environment is damaged, then all societies and individuals suffer the consequences. Next, it is essential to create and maintain dynamic institutions that enable individuals to lead full, satisfying lives. Candidates must respect this hierarchy of values. They must never create policies that encourage individuals to seek their interests at the expense of institutions. They must never create policies that allow individuals and societies to pollute the environment in pursuit of short-term goals that ultimately lead to ecological crises. We do not wish to minimize individual rights – the traditional pillars of free, democratic societies. We simply insist that candidates respect the need to preserve the social order and ecological systems within which individual freedoms are exercised. Individuals depend upon these institutions and ecosystems for the resources they need to survive and pursue their vision of happiness. Outside of society and the natural world, individual liberties mean nothing. Questions: Does the candidate acknowledge and respect the hierarchy of values that exists among the different levels of organization? Does he or she respect the priority of the ecological level, followed by the social level, and then by the level of individual persons? Do the candidate’s policies promote entities at lower levels of organization while damaging those on higher levels? Do they promote personal liberty to the detriment of social institutions or sectors? Do they promote economic activities in the market sector to the detriment of ecosystems? In which specific ways is this hierarchy acknowledged in specific policies proposed by candidates?
H. Assessing the Candidate’s Approach to the Policy-Making Process: The Primacy of an ‘Experimental Approach’ to Creating and Refining Public Policies Assumptions: Creating policies that address complex social issues is a daunting prospect. Even when one performs the most comprehensive analysis, there is no guarantee that a policy will actually be effective. Like any other complex human project, solving social problems requires trial and error. We propose, in all contexts in which it is possible, it is best to try different policies in different areas at the same time in order to see which will be most effective. This may not be possible with all public issues, but it should always be done when circumstances permit. In today’s political world, few bold and novel approaches to social problems are initiated. Policymakers fear that if they propose bold policies, they will alienate some portion of their constituents. Also, terms of office are short. If the results of risky policies are unclear or bad at the end of a term, officials may not be reelected. They will therefore never get the chance to evaluate and refine policies in order to make them more effective. Also, political parties may be hopelessly deadlocked on policy issues. Since neither party can get their policy passed, no bold initiatives are tried and no progress is made on vexing social problems. The experimental approach offers a solution to these dilemmas. Rather than choosing just one policy that might alienate a big chunk of their constituents, lawmakers can advocate a cluster of policy options that includes diverse approaches. When different groups perceive that their ideas are getting a fair chance, they will be less likely to reject the official for trying out new ideas. Also, in this experimental approach, parties have no excuse to be deadlocked. The public will expect them to try several alternatives grounded in different ideological orientations. There should thus be no excuse for inaction. Using frameworks for evaluating policies like the one in this resource, the public may then judge which policies are most effective. The problem of limited terms of office is trickier, but we propose a solution for that as well. While it is true that politicians might be up for reelection before their proposals can really be evaluated, the public can still evaluate the candidate on the basis of his or her fidelity to the experimental process of making policy. They can assess officials’ openness to different approaches and their ability to evaluate the merits of these approaches. So, even if the results are not all in, a politician can still be evaluated for their contribution to a process of intelligent, visionary government. Questions: Does the
candidate advocate an ‘experimental approach’ the process of creating,
evaluating, and refining public policies? Does he or she demonstrate the
qualities of fairness, courage, and openness that are necessary for trying out
bold approaches to addressing social issues? On the international level of social organization, we assume that the goal of foreign policy should be to promote the development of individuals, social groups, and ecosystems in all nations affected by specific policies and programs. In order to evaluate the competence of candidates to make foreign policy, one may therefore ask questions on all three of these levels of organization. For candidates who espouse a broader cosmic philosophical or religious perspective, questions for this most inclusive level are included as well. The reader is encouraged to review the assumptions for
each section of the candidate framework before answering the sets of questions
below. A. The Candidate's Views on Foreign Relations: Perspectives from the Individual Level of Organization 1. Exploring the Competence of a Candidate to
Conduct Foreign Policy
a) Physical, Relational,
Economic, Political, Cultural, Moral, Spiritual, and Artistic Dimensions of
Development b) The Developmental
Nature of Liberty and Fulfillment d) A Full Range of Human Rights
and the Relationships between Them
On the social level of organization, we examine a candidate's views on foreign relations as they affect social dynamics both within and between nations.
Regarding the norms that govern the activities of these large-scale institutions, emphasis is appropriately placed on the common good of large-scale entities such as nation-states, international coalitions, and the biosphere as a whole. As with all other institutions, large-scale organizations such as the United Nations and international alliances are responsible for the welfare of all of the social and biological systems that are affected by their values, programs, and policies. a) National Governments Issues related to national defense are also a
central focus for national governments. Regarding national military capabilities, one should
evaluate a candidate’s proposals for maintaining military preparedness and for
deploying forces. One should determine whether candidates espouse clear and
ethically sound criteria for using military force on foreign soil. b) International Institutions In addition to these politically-focused national and international institutions, the candidate should also demonstrate how his or her policies will allow educational, cultural, familial, religious, economic, media, and civic organizations to flourish both within and across national boundaries. Consistent
with the tradition of ‘just war theory,’ we set forth several criteria for
the use of military force. Namely, the candidate should advocate only defensive
actions -- actions that defend the well-being of individuals, social groups, and
the environment. He or she should advocate the use of violent means only when
these are proportionate to the goals to be achieved -- in other words, the goals
to be achieved must be able to justify the destruction of life and property that
is likely to accompany the military action. Finally, he or she should advocate
the use of violence only when all nonviolent means have been exhausted. One
should also evaluate the candidate’s strategies for improving the efficiency
of the military’s use of resources. Assumptions: As stated above in section I.B.1.a, this sections focuses not on parties' platforms, but rather on their sources of support: their members and donors. We explore how these sources influence parties' philosophies and foreign policies, and, in turn, how they influence's the parties' candidates as well. By doing so, we hope to get a clearer idea of the various influences that shape a candidate's views on foreign relations.
Membership and Support Relationships with Other Parties
2. National and International Social Sectors Assumptions: On all levels of organization, it is essential to maintain both cooperative and adversarial relationships between the three social sectors of the market, the state, and civil society. On the international level, this is a great challenge. Regarding the government sector, the autonomy of nations is greatly esteemed around the world, so there is no single "world government" that can regulate global markets or coordinate environmental policies. This must be done through several international organizations such as The World Trade Organization, The World Bank, and others. The United Nations seeks to establish norms and programs for a variety of economic, military, social, cultural, and environmental concerns. It acts as both an international governing organization and as a part of a "global civil society." In the international market sector, many business firms conduct their business across national boundaries. Many organizations that make up civil society have roots across the globe. Churches are one example, as are relief agencies such as The Red Cross. All three sectors have a global presence, yet their power and influence varies greatly from sector to sector, and from region to region. It is also difficult to coordinate the organizations that make up the sectors, since they have roots in so many different cultures and value systems. Relationships between sectors are thus much more complicated on the international level. However, the same basic principles apply: it is essential for sectors to cooperate on projects that are urgent priorities for societies across the globe. Poverty and environmental concerns are two examples of such issues. Businesses, governments, and groups in civil society must combine resources in order to address these massive issues that affect the welfare of billions of persons. The sectors must also maintain an inevitable tension in their relationships. The business sector must pressure governments and international organizations to maintain a favorable climate for trade and entrepreneurship. Churches and advocacy groups must pressure states to promote the welfare of all individuals and groups, of all races and classes. International governing bodies must regulate business firms so that they promote the well-being of employees, customers, and ecosystems. They must also monitor the activities of groups in civil society so that these groups remain faithful to their educational, spiritual, and cultural missions. Overall, a careful balance between cooperation and tension must be maintained between sectors on all levels, from neighborhoods to the entire globe. Relationships within sectors on the international level are complicated as well. Within the government sector, foreign policies must promote a balance of power between the different branches of government in all nations affected by them. In the international political arena, policies must create and reinforce a healthy balance of power between different states between international coalitions or blocs. Regarding the market sector, foreign polices must preserve a favorable climate for business firms, small and large. They should try to enhance the economic status of all nations and all of their citizens. Policies must promote economic opportunities for all persons, regardless of class, gender, or race. They must encourage fair and open trade relationships between nations. They must help international organizations to establish a wide distribution of economic wealth and opportunity within and between nations and between different regions of the globe.
Within civil society, policies must
help educational, spiritual, and cultural institutions to achieve their goals
without undue interference from the state and from one another. Policies must
also facilitate cooperation between these groups when this is necessary in order
to achieve some social goal. The Government Sector National Government Sectors and International Political
Coalitions The Market Sector The National Market International Markets Civil Society National and International Non-Governmental Organizations Cooperation and Competition between Sectors Do the candidate’s policies facilitate cooperation between civil society, the market, and governments when this is necessary? Do they help institutions in civil society to hold governments and business firms accountable to the task of promoting the global common good? Do they help governments to regulate businesses so that their economic activities consistently promote the common good? Do they enable business firms to operate without excessive regulation and restriction of trade?
3. The Impact of a Candidate's Foreign Policies on Dynamics between Different Levels of Social Organization Assumptions: The proper scope and function of institutions at different levels of organization is a particularly important issue for foreign policy. According to the principle of subsidiarity, it is essential that foreign policies encourage responsibility and initiative on lower levels of organization whenever this is possible. This principle applies to all contexts and types of institutions: political, economic, spiritual, educational, etc. Yet, when international and national coordination is essential in order to address major global issues, action must be taken on higher, more centralized levels. Maintaining a balance between these two imperatives is the great challenge for those who create foreign policy. Many policies require actions at all levels of organization – from global to local. Policies should thus encourage responsibility and initiative on more local levels, yet also insist on coordination on higher levels when this is necessary. They must encourage a spirit of respect between leaders at lower and higher levels so that they may more readily cooperate on broad social projects. Questions: As they pursue social goals and address social problems, are the candidate’s foreign policies faithful to the principle of subsidiarity: do they encourage a prudent balance between 1) local initiative and 2) coordination on the national and international levels?
4. Impact of a Candidate's
Foreign Policies on Relationships between Socio-Cultural Groups Questions: Do the candidate’s foreign policy initiatives facilitate just and equitable relationships between different classes, races, religions, ethnic groups, genders, and between those of different sexual orientations? Do all members of these groups enjoy equal opportunities for self-development and for participation in society?
Assumptions: For foreign policy, there is perhaps no more urgent issue than the environment. Ecosystems, unlike cultures and nations, ignore boundaries set by human convention. One nation’s environmental problems almost always have some tangible impact on other nations. Consequently, environmental issues demand focused and coordinated efforts by many nations, regardless of culture, creed, or political ideology. Foreign policies may focus on issues related to the
protection of species, ecosystems, and the entire biosphere (for a discussion of
these terms, see section III.C: Evaluating a Candidate’s Awareness of the
Environment: The Level of Ecosystems and Natural Resources). They provide
opportunities to reach broad international accords that call upon all nations to
enact specific environmental policies. They may also create agreements that
somehow transfer "green technologies" from nations that have them to
nations that need them. The environmental impact of all foreign policies, even
those that do not specifically address environmental issues, should be carefully
assessed in order to predict their short- and long-term effects on species,
ecosystems, and the biosphere as a whole. In all of these areas of concern, does the candidate advocate the transfer of environmentally sound technologies from nations that do have them to nations that don’t? In other words, does the candidate believe that governments and international organizations should actively help nations acquire, through aid or trade, less polluting technologies for energy generation, transportation, manufacturing, etc.? How? How can he or she be held accountable to these policies if elected? Since all human activities have some effect on the
environment, we have attempted to identify several areas of special concern that
have the greatest impact on species and ecosystems around the planet. This list
is by no means exhaustive, but it identifies urgent environmental issues that
all human societies face. Assumptions:
Most religions and philosophies maintain that all entities and events on all
levels of organization are somehow influenced by a deity(ies) or some cosmic
principle. For example, some
traditions believe in
cosmic principles such as karma or yin-yang.
Many theistic religions believe that all earthly events are part of a
divine plan. Some traditions believe that
a system of divine justice operates in earthly affairs. Since
foreign policies affect large regions and the globe as a whole, they are often
interpreted through the lens of religious belief systems. Questions: Does the candidate’s religious or philosophical tradition espouse some overall view of the cosmos or of human history? For example, does it claim that some principles or laws govern the entire cosmos (e.g. the law of karma or the principles of yin-yang)? Does the tradition espouse some concrete vision of the goal of human history (e.g. the Kingdom of God in the Judeo-Christian tradition)? Is there some understanding of key trends in human history that lead up to this goal? Do these doctrines influence the candidate’s foreign policies? If so, are the values sanctioned by these cosmic beliefs consistent with the values enshrined in your nation’s constitution? Do you believe that this influence promotes the well-being of those nations and peoples affected by the policies -- do these values promote individual development? social progress? ecological stewardship? On the basis of your religious beliefs or philosophical orientation, are there any other assumptions that you would like to add and questions that you would like to ask regarding the candidate’s foreign policies and their effects on persons, societies, ecosystems, and cosmic trends? Instructions on how to add assumptions and questions to the frameworks will be provided in the
Assumptions: It is important to analyze significant issues on all levels of organization because all of these levels are dynamically related to each another. The actions of individuals affect institutions and the environment, institutional policies affect individuals and the environment, and environmental policies affect individuals and institutions. The distinctions between the levels or organization in this framework can thus be misleading. While these distinctions help one to analyze policies more clearly, they may cause one to overlook the relationships between all of the levels and the ways in which these relationships influence the effectiveness of social policies in the long run. For example, a policy that develops individuals while undermining social institutions and damaging the environment will be a disaster for many individuals in the long-term when the environment and social institutions can no longer provide the necessary resources for their development. Similarly, a policy that strengthens institutions while oppressing individuals will ultimately lead to social conflict, which will in turn undermine many institutions. The task of predicting the long-term effects of policies on relationships between different levels of organization is perhaps the most challenging part of using this framework. One may have to consult research in such fields as sociology or ecology in order to gain insight into these complex relationships. On the international level, this task is even more daunting, since policies may have an impact on individuals, social groups, and ecosystems throughout entire nations, international regions, and the entire globe. While it may be demanding for political experts and citizens alike, this holistic, diligent approach is worth the effort, since it may prevent the unhappy discovery of unintended, negative consequences that result from the implementation of flawed, short-sighted policies. Questions: How do this
candidate’s foreign policies affect relationships between the different levels
of organization in the long run? Do policies benefit some individuals while
harming social groups? Do they harm the environment while providing short term
benefits to societies? Or do they benefit individuals, societies, and the
environment in the long run? As discussed in section III.G, we propose that there is a hierarchy of values that exists between the different levels of organization. The well-being of the ecological level is the most important, since all societies and individuals depend on the health of the environment for their own survival and well-being. The well-being of social groups is, in turn, more important than that of individuals, since individuals rely on society to provide opportunities to develop the skills and capabilities necessary to achieve some degree of happiness and fulfillment. Once again, we do not wish to devalue personal rights and liberties. We simply point out the facts – these rights and liberties can be exercised most freely in societies with healthy ecosystems and ethical, efficient institutions. Like domestic policies, foreign policies must respect this hierarchy if they hope to promote the welfare of the nations that are affected by them. Questions: Do this candidate’s foreign policies respect the hierarchy of values that exists among the different levels of organization?
Assumptions: As discussed above in section I.H, we advocate an experimental approach to policy-making. According to this approach, one should tackle difficult social problems by trying a variety of sound approaches. One can try different policies in different regions, or implement different policies in the same region over the course of an extended period of time. One may then compare the results of these different policies in order to determine which approaches are most effective. This approach is much more difficult to implement on the level of foreign policy for several reasons. One simply may not have enough control over policies and events in other countries. It would thus be difficult to systematically try out different approaches in the shifting seas of international affairs. One may have to make policies in conjunction with other nations, and such alliances may be very difficult to achieve for even a short period, much less over a longer period of sustained policy experimentation. Also, nations understandably demand to be treated fairly, so any approach that appears to apply one set of values and policies to one nation and another set to another nation might be resisted by some or all of the parties involved, even if the policy-makers act with sincerity and good will. Nonetheless, whenever possible, an experimental approach should be implemented, particularly in foreign aid and development programs. One may try some approaches to assisting nations in one region, and another approach in another region. While results may not be so easily compared and evaluated, one will surely learn a wealth of additional information by trying out a variety of sound approaches to aid and development. Over the course of many years, it is likely that some approaches will prove themselves to be more productive than others. Questions: Does the candidate advocate an experimental approach to foreign policies, whenever such an approach seems feasible?
A. Organizing and Training Political Education and Action Groups It is never easy to work through this entire framework of
analysis on one’s own. One may not have a clear grasp of all of the sections
of the framework, or one may know a lot about one candidate but little about
another. We thus propose that this strategy for evaluation can best be used by
groups of citizens in Political Education and Action Groups (PEAGs). As
discussed in the "General Introduction" above,
PEAGs will be small groups of citizens who wish to come together to engage in
political dialogue and advocacy. One may form a PEAG in one’s neighborhood,
faith community, workplace, or school, or civic organization. PEAGs may analyze various candidates using the framework above. This process of evaluation will be made easier if the candidate or his or her staff has clarified their platform using the software that we will provide for this purpose (see Attachment 3: "Sample Format for Platform Software"). They may then try to build a consensus around a candidate who best represents the group’s political views. When a consensus has been reached, the group may decide to volunteer to work for the campaign of this candidate. Members may also seek to build coalitions with other PEAGs (or any other groups) that support the candidate. The PEAC web site will have a special page listing PEAGs and other types of groups who are looking for partners. The PEAC staff will facilitate these coalitions and provide them with guidance on communicating their ideas in the public square. Coalitions may then combine resources and plan public relations campaigns in which they promote the candidate through public gatherings, the internet, print and broadcast media, or other means. If candidates use the aforementioned format to articulate their platforms, and if citizens use this framework to evaluate candidates, then political campaigning should not be a polarizing, conflictual process. Rather, it may become a clear and systematic conversation between candidates and citizens – a conversation in which all participants may candidly and intelligently express their political views and share their deepest aspirations for the future of their society. |