Public Ministry
[ Home ] [ Preface ] [ Mission ] [ Site Overview ] [ Basic Tenets ] [ Spiritual and Moral Vision ] [ Ministry Strategy and Programs ] [ Organization and Policies ] [ Leadership ] [ Public Ministry ] [ About the Founder ] [ Search ] [ Response Form ]

The Center for Civic Education
and Political Action

The Establishment of this Organization by The Eos Network of Faith Communities

Our ministry of political education and action or "public ministry" is a central part of our mission. Without vigorous public dialogue, governments cannot create responsive and effective public policies.  Ineffective public policies, in turn, hinder the ability of individuals and groups to pursue their goals and to promote the common good as they do so. We therefore propose to stimulate public dialogue and political action through a variety of programs. The Center for Civic Education and Political Action will coordinate these programs.  It will be established by The Eos Network and then turned over to an independent Board of Directors.  Its programs will be open to the general public.

In our Spiritual and Moral Vision, we claim that institutions in civil society – churches, schools, and civic groups – have a special responsibility to articulate visions of social progress that reach far into the future. We maintain that these groups must be able to rise above the short-term economic and political interests that often limit the vision of institutions in the state and the market.

As an institution in civil society, we are proposing this organization as the cornerstone of our long-term vision for the future of political life.  Through the activities of Political Education and Action Groups (PEAGs), we propose to set an example for constructive political dialogue and effective political action, both within and beyond our faith community.  Through our comprehensive 'Method for Political Analysis,' we hope to bring a greater sense of clarity and focus to American political discourse.  The sections below describe all aspects of the mission and programs of this independent, nonprofit organization.

Mission

I.  Our Basic Mission

Our mission is driven by our belief that citizens will become more engaged in political life if they can more clearly grasp the most important political issues that impact their lives.  We believe that this knowledge will encourage them to develop a greater interest in public life and to participate in public dialogue in a more confident, intelligent, and purposeful way.

We will help citizens to gain this knowledge by offering them a method for political analysis that will enable them to more clearly understand and discuss a broad spectrum of political topics, some of which include political parties, candidates, addresses, public policies, social movements, and politically relevant news and commentary in the media.

Though we place a high priority on a clear understanding of public issues, our mission really begins with organization and community.  We believe that citizens can best form political views by participating in small communities of learning, dialogue, and advocacy.  While these small groups may find it useful to band together and/or join larger organizations and movements in order to speak out powerfully in the public square, it is still essential to cultivate the 'grass roots' of democracy in small communities of politically engaged individuals.  As discussed below, the early stages of the American democratic movement took shape when small groups of concerned citizens came together to address pressing social needs and issues.  We hope to revive this legacy in order to strengthen democratic institutions in our own country and in other nations as well.  

Our efforts to educate citizens and build community are integrated into a broader strategy for political participation.  This general strategy is composed of more focused strategies for political organizing, dialogue, analysis, and advocacy.  These strategies will introduce citizens to
* a method for organizing small groups of concerned and committed citizens who wish to engage in a careful and deliberative process of political dialogue and action;
* methods for systematically analyzing and evaluating political topics so that this dialogue will be more informed, coherent, and civil; and
*  methods for communicating their political views to government officials and the wider public in creative and persuasive ways.

We will also encourage parties, candidates, and sponsors of policies to use our software applications (see section I.F below) in order to create 'profiles' in which they summarize and defend their platforms and policy proposals.  Since our applications are structured according to our method for political analysis, citizens who are familiar with our method should have no trouble understanding and responding to these platform and policy profiles.  These resources may therefore promote political participation by providing citizens and their leaders with a common set of concepts that they may use in order to communicate more effectively with each other.  In addition, these resources will help citizen groups to create and advocate their own policy proposals if they choose to do so. 

II.  The Cultural Crisis to Which We Respond

From a broader perspective, this organization and its curriculum have been created to respond to a wider cultural crisis -- a related set of problems that afflicts many, if not most contemporary democratic societies.  Below we discuss these problems and offer several ways in which our programs address them.


The Problem of Information

The first problem is a problem of information: there is a lot of political information in the public square, but it is often biased – facts and values are distorted to serve the interests of those who provide the information. Also, this information is often presented in a sensational, fragmented manner by the press, thus making it difficult to comprehend in a careful and systematic manner.

The Conceptual Problem

Even when this information might be accurate and useful, there is also a conceptual problem – most citizens have not been exposed to adequate conceptual frameworks for interpreting information and using it to make sound political decisions. This fact points to weaknesses in the civic education programs of many nations. In the United States, public issues are often framed only in terms of individual rights, without taking account of the social and ecological contexts within which rights are exercised. Beyond rights language, citizens may have a basic understanding of political principles such as checks and balances and the separation of powers, but many are not able to recognize broader social dynamics, such as relationships between different levels of organization (local, national, international) and relationships between the three social sectors of the market, the state, and civil society. Yet some understanding of these broader social dynamics is crucial for grasping the most important issues in public policy debates.

The Attitude Problem: The Problem of Incivility

Citizens are also weary of a pervasive attitude problem in American political life. The conduct of civil dialogue is often nasty and polarized. Politicians stage vindictive personal attacks on each other, often distorting facts and appealing to negative attitudes of voters such as fear, condemnation, and prejudice. In the process, they fail to focus on issues in an open-minded, reasonable, systematic, and practical manner. Citizens as well lash out at each other in emotional arguments that seem to do little to clarify issues and to identify intelligent, practical solutions to pressing social problems.

The Organizational Problem and the Problem of Systematic Corruption

Even when politicians are civil with one another and issues are clearly understood, there is also an organizational problem that faces committed citizens who wish to advocate specific candidates and policies.  Many concerned citizens are isolated and unable to find like-minded persons with whom they can share their views and speak out with a unified voice in the public square. Complicating this problem is the power of special interest groups that make contributions to campaigns. These funds are given to candidates and parties with the expectation that candidates, if they are elected, will promote donors’ interests in their legislative decisions. This corruption problem stems largely from the role of money in political life.  In order to fund their campaigns, parties and public leaders accept donations from a variety of individuals and groups.  In return for these donations, public officials are expected to promote the interests of donors in the legislation that they sponsor and support.  These interests may or may not promote the interests of the general public.  For their part, public officials may demand donations from a group in return for the officials' support of legislation that promotes the group's interests.  Thus, the corruption problem can be described as a combination of political bribery and extortion.  Even though recent campaign finance reform legislation has been upheld by the Supreme Court, there are plenty of ways in which money can be funneled by 'special interests' into campaign efforts.  Without substantial grass-roots organization, citizens cannot compete with the influence of these special-interest donors.

The Problem of the Short-Term Horizon and the Courage Problem

Finally, even if citizens can unite their voices in support of specific policies, they must still find a politician who is willing to sponsor the legislation. Many officials avoid the prospect of sponsoring policies that address complex social problems. They may fear that the policies will not be very effective, at least in the short term. If a sound policy takes ten years to achieve its goals, it may be useless to a politician whose record is scrutinized by voters every two, four, or six years. Or perhaps officials are worried that specific policies might offend some groups and thus erode their base of support. As a result, they may talk about controversial or complex problems in a vague and roundabout manner while doing nothing about them, working according to the principle of "nothing ventured, nothing lost." Because of these dynamics, complex social problems are rarely addressed with concrete, systematic, long-term solutions.


Integrating Solutions to these Problems in Methods for Political Organizing, Dialogue, Analysis, and Advocacy

The Center will address the problems of information and comprehension by providing citizens with a comprehensive method for analyzing political topics, some of which include parties, candidates, debates, addresses, and various types of policies. It is hoped that this method, which is described below, will stimulate citizens’ interest in politics and impart a sense of confidence that they can, in fact, understand public issues and public policy decisions. We also hope that this framework may encourage candidates and parties to be more clear, specific, and systematic as they articulate their public philosophies and policy proposals.

Our method for analysis will also address the attitude problem if it encourages candidates, parties, and public officials to focus on technical political issues instead of impugning one another’s character. If parties and candidates can become more "issue-focused," then citizens may also be less inclined to "personalize" debates and lapse into emotional frenzies as they discuss politics. Instead, citizens and officials may strive to discuss key issues in a style that is more rational and practical than ideological and emotive.  Our workshops in small group discussion skills should contribute to this atmosphere of civility by cultivating habits of communication that are calm, open, and respectful.  These aspects of our strategy for political participation should help to make political life more attractive to intelligent citizens who have grown tired of simplistic ideas and the negative tone of public discourse.

To help individuals to apply our method to specific political issues, we will create a set of 'Policy Guides' and a suite of software applications.  The Policy Guides will explore ways in which different areas of public policy (such as health care or energy policy) impact the welfare of individuals, social groups, and the environment.  They will also review specific policies that have been or that may be proposed in order to address challenging issues in each policy area.  In addition, they will examine the different interests and influences that shape these policies.  Our software applications will help citizens to analyze and evaluate a wide variety of topics, including political parties, candidates, debates, addresses, policies, international treaties, foreign governments, international institutions,* non-governmental organizations,* socio-political movements, and broader social issues.  A description of the features for each application is provided on a page entitled "The 'Public Square' Suite of Software Programs for Political Organizing, Dialogue, Analysis, and Advocacy."  On this page we include links to actual formats for some of these applications.  We also plan to publish our method in educational curricula that may be used in schools and in organizations such as faith communities and civic associations (see section II, 'Educational Programs' below).  And finally, we hope to produce several types of televised programs that apply our framework to both domestic and foreign policy issues (see section VIII, The 'Public Vision Project' below).

The organizational problem will be addressed by exhorting citizens to form Political Education and Action Groups (PEAGs).  PEAGs will be groups of citizens who come together to study our analytical method, discuss political issues, and then, if they choose, to advocate their own views in the public square.  These groups may be formed within families, neighborhoods, faith communities, schools, businesses, and civic organizations.  They may also be composed of individuals who meet each other online through our web site.  The method described above will help these groups to structure their discussions.  We will also provide PEAGs with methods for organizing themselves and for advocating their positions to the wider public.  As discussed above, we are developing policy guides and software applications that will help these groups to apply our analytical framework to specific political figures and issues.  We are also developing 'project management' applications that will provide guidance in political organizing and advocacy (see applications 31 and 32 below).  The nature and purpose of PEAGs are described in more detail in section I.A below.

We maintain that, with a commitment to civil dialogue, careful organization, creative coalition building – particularly with internet-based advocacy organizations, and effective use of the media, these groups can gain significant leverage in the political process.  If PEAGs are successful in gaining this leverage, they may be able to challenge the influence of wealthy political donors and fight the problem of corruption in American politics. 

The problem of the short-term horizon and the courage problem are somewhat more difficult to solve, but the basic idea is simple.  If public officials are hesitant to address complex social problems in a straightforward manner that strives for comprehensive, long-term solutions, then citizens should urge them to take an experimental approach to creating and revising public policies.  This approach is discussed at length in Part IV, section VIII of our 'Method for Political Analysis'.  Briefly, it holds that public policies should be created and refined through a careful process of trial and error.  Whenever possible, policymakers should address challenging issues by 'experimenting' with different policies in different geographic areas, or in the same area in successive time periods.  They may then compare the results of these policies in order to determine which policies most effectively achieve the desired results.  For example, in order to create a fairer and less corrupt process for electing state legislators, one state may stay with the current system that permits candidates to buy advertising time on the TV and radio.  Another state could try a system that provides each candidate with a small amount of free advertising time, while supplementing this with more televised debates.  After a few election cycles, citizens and officials could try to determine which approach encouraged the fairest, most open, and most informative election process. 

In addition, when policymakers are addressing a particular issue, the experimental approach requires them to assess the outcome of other policies that address the same issue or problem.  Such policies may have been implemented in the policymakers' own jurisdiction, in other jurisdictions, or even in other countries.  They may be past policies that have expired or policies that are still in effect.  By assessing the outcomes of these 'policy experiments,' policymakers may be better able to formulate promising policies for their own areas.

We acknowledge that it may not always be possible to implement a variety of promising policies that address the same problem.  However, even when it is not possible to experiment with different policies in this manner, legislators should still view policies as experiments that must be formulated, implemented, evaluated, and, if necessary, revised on an ongoing basis so that they may most effectively achieve the purposes for which they were created.

This approach is certainly not new. Ongoing research is constantly being conducted in order to assess the effectiveness of different policy options for achieving the same basic goals. This research is used by policymakers in order to fine-tune their policy proposals. However, we highlight this experimental approach to policymaking as the most realistic and effective way to address daunting social problems whose solutions are complex and unclear. 

By promoting this approach to the policymaking process, the Center will encourage citizens to judge elected officials according to their willingness to try out different policies and then carefully evaluate and fine-tune these policies over an extended period of time. It will not be easy for politicians to embrace this approach because of their short terms of office. It is, after all, difficult to evaluate the results of many policies after they have only been in effect for a few years. Therefore, instead of measuring politicians' success by the short-term results of their policies, citizens will often have to evaluate candidates according to their willingness to support and implement this experimental process.

As we caution above, an experimental approach may not be helpful for dealing with all types of policy dilemmas. For many difficult issues, however, it is the only reasonable method, since it will enable policy-makers to address complex problems in a cumulative, systematic, and open-minded way.

While the various parts of this proposal attempt to address a variety of daunting problems in contemporary democratic societies, they are part of a "whole cloth" strategy for political engagement that includes methods for political organizing, dialogue, analysis, and advocacy.  In the process of creating these methods, we have tried to integrate insights from many rich intellectual traditions, including ethical theory, political thought, and the human sciences.  It is our belief that solutions to the above problems must come from this sort of broad public conversation between methods and models from many disciplines, each of which may help citizens to become more inspired and informed participants in political life.

* Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are private institutions that strive to establish more just, prosperous, and sustainable societies, particularly in the developing world.  These groups may, for example, provide basic human services such as health care to poor communities around the world.  They may also coordinate projects designed to promote economic, political, and cultural development in impoverished regions.  In addition, they may advocate for such causes as human rights and environmental protection.  Oxfam is an example of a development NGO, The Red Cross and Doctors without Borders provide disaster relief and medical services, respectively; and Amnesty International advocates for human rights.  As discussed in our analytical framework, these groups are part of global civil society.  International institutions are organizations composed of member nations.  They pursue a variety of missions.  Some, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, enact and enforce international laws and policies.  Some are created in order to provide for the mutual security of each member nation.  Examples include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and, once again, the United Nations.  Like NGOs, these institutions may also sponsor programs that are designed to promote justice, peace, prosperity, and environmental stewardship around the world.  Because their members include national governments, and because many of them assume the functions of global governance, these institutions may be considered part of the global government sector.

Summary
In summary, we hope to help citizens to form communities of concern and learning in which they may discuss political issues and share their views in the public square.  We hope that our various programs will arouse citizens' curiosity about politics and give them the courage to speak out intelligently and forcefully in public discourse.  Our programs will be judged worthwhile in so far as they help citizens to become more convinced that they can play a meaningful role in the process of shaping the future of society, both for their own good and for the sake of posterity.  This entire organization is dedicated to the enlightened exercise of this right to self-determination – a right that is the cornerstone of democratic society and a fundamental aspiration shared by individuals and societies around the globe.

I. Political Education and Action Web Site
The Center for Civic Education and Political Action will have its own web site. Any individual may register as a member of the Center through this web site. Members will be able to participate in most of the following web-based or other programs. They may also receive discounts on books, software programs, and other on-line publications.  Our web site will have the following components and functions:  

A. Coordination of the formation, training, and activities of Political Education and Action Groups (PEAGs)
PEAGs will be small groups of citizens who come together to engage in political dialogue and action.  Through our web site, we will
*  provide an e-form that will enable individuals to express interest in establishing a new PEAG;
*  help new and established PEAGs to recruit members by posting a comprehensive directory of PEAGs that includes contact information as well as the issue(s) that serve as the focus of each group's dialogue and advocacy;
*  provide a software application and video workshops that will help PEAGs to coordinate an orientation program for new members;
*  provide software applications that will help PEAG members to understand and evaluate a wide variety of political topics;
*  provide internet message boards on which PEAG members may discuss issues with other PEAG members and with the general public (see item I.D below);
*  provide a software application that will help PEAGs to plan strategies for advocating their views in the public square;
*  help PEAGs to form coalitions with other PEAGs and/or with outside groups who share their views.  These coalitions may then combine resources in order to advocate their views more effectively to a wider public audience.  We will facilitate this process by posting on our web site the political views and contact information of PEAGs who are seeking partners.  Other groups may then contact them in order to plan joint advocacy efforts.

For further discussion of the establishment of PEAGs as well as guidelines for dialogue and advocacy within them, see the summary of our strategy for political participation.  The framework that PEAGs will use to analyze issues is described below in our "Method for Political Analysis."  The software programs that will help PEAGs to become established, to discuss and analyze issues, and to advocate their views are described in section I.F below.


B.  A presentation of our strategy for political participation: methods for political organizing, dialogue, analysis, and advocacy
On our site we will describe: 
1.  our method for organizing citizens into PEAGs;
2.  basic steps for conducting dialogue in PEAGs;
3.  our analytical framework or method for understanding and evaluating a broad range of political topics; and
4.  our method for creating persuasive advocacy strategies that citizens may use to promote their views in the public square.
These strategies will be integrated into our software programs (see item I.F below) and included in our publications (see item II below).  They are explained in detail below in the sections on our "Methods for Political Organizing, Dialogue, Analysis, and Advocacy".


C.  Policy Guides, available in printed booklets and on the web, will provide explorations of major areas of public policy using the concepts and methods in our analytical framework.  These guides will focus on broad policy areas such as health care, education, career training, the environment, energy, finance and investing, manufacturing, consumer protection, taxation, media and entertainment, international development, international trade, military planning, and military conflicts.  Each guide will provide an historical overview of a particular policy area; a discussion of the relevance of that policy area for personal development, social progress, and environmental stability; as well as a discussion of relationships between that policy area and other policy areas.  Each will also analyze and evaluate specific policies -- past and present -- that address issues within the policy area.  

The purpose of these guides is to help PEAGs to pick policy areas and issues that will serve as the focus of their dialogue and advocacy.  As part of our educational curriculum (see item II below), these guides will help students to understand a broad spectrum of policy areas and to complete exercises in proposing, analyzing, and evaluating organizations, platforms, and policies.

A longer description of these Policy Guides is provided on a separate page in this web site.


D. Brief articles by political commentators who represent a broad spectrum of political views.  For the purposes of clarity and consistency, we will encourage writers to communicate their views in terms of the concepts and methods set forth in our strategy for political participation.  We do not make this request because we want these commentators to think like we do.  Rather, this guideline is intended to encourage greater clarity and consistency in the dialogue that takes place on our web site.


E. Moderated message boards, open to the public.  These message boards will be organized in two ways.  The first is by the topic of discussion.  Some will be devoted to the discussion of political candidates and elected officials.  Others will focus on specific areas of public policy.  We will also have separate discussion 'areas' for students who are using our software and/or textbooks in their classes.

As with the articles described above in item D, we will urge participants to articulate their views using concepts from our methods for organizing, dialogue, analysis, and action.  Once again, this request is not intended to force individuals to adapt their political views to our own.  Rather, it is designed to encourage participants to articulate their views using similar concepts so that they can better understand one another.  We are confident that even persons with very diverse views can still convey these views using the same basic set of concepts.

F.  The 'Public Square' Suite of Software Programs for Political Organizing, Dialogue, Analysis, and Advocacy
We will develop a suite of software applications that will help citizens, political parties, public and private institutions, and individual public leaders to implement our strategy for political participation.  It is designed to help citizens 
* to organize into small groups in which they may engage in political dialogue and action,
* to cultivate skills and attitudes that are essential for constructive political dialogue,
* to systematically analyze and evaluate political topics so that this dialogue will be more informed, coherent, and civil, and
* to communicate their political views to the wider public in a civil and persuasive manner.

It will also help political parties, candidates, and government officials to set forth and defend their public philosophies, the principles of leadership that they espouse, as well as their platforms and policy proposals.  In addition, it will help citizen groups to create and advocate policies if they choose to do so.  It may even be used by international organizations to explain their mission, policies, and programs.  

Five types of applications are being developed in order to achieve these goals.  A brief description of each type is provided below.  Longer descriptions of each application are provided in the page entitled "'Public Square' Suite of Software Programs."  Citizens who do not have access to a computer may use worksheets in our printed resources that will have the same basic format as each of these applications (see section II.A.1 below).  Our video workshops on dialogue skills as well as printed exercises will be available as alternatives for citizens who wish to focus on these skills without using computer technology.

Applications for Information
Application 1:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Political Parties
Application 2:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Candidates
Application 3:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Proposing Public Policies
Application 4:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Proposing International Treaties

These applications may be used by parties, candidates, and sponsors of policies and treaties in order to profile themselves and the policies that they are proposing.

The applications for parties and candidates ask users to 

• clarify their overall political philosophy, 
• explain how they, as individuals or organizations, reflect qualities of character and leadership that are essential for effective public service; 
• set forth the various policies that comprise their platform; 
• systematically explain how their platform will benefit individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole (if this level is relevant to the party's or candidate's policy goals); and 
• explore relationships between different policy areas within their platform.  

The applications for proposing policies and treaties will ask sponsors of policies or treaties to 

• summarize the proposed policy or treaty,
• discuss the issue(s) or problem(s) that it addresses,
• explain how the proposal is designed to benefit individuals, social groups, and the environment (as well as the cosmos as a whole if this level is relevant to the policy goals of its sponsor[s]);
• discuss how it is related to other policies or treaties that are somehow relevant to the issue(s) that it addresses;  (These policies and treaties may include past initiatives, initiatives that are still in effect, as well as proposed initiatives.  In addition, they may include policies and programs of other types of organizations, such as institutions that provide services to the poor.) 
• describe the various influences that have shaped the proposal, including the public philosophy of its sponsor(s) as well as such factors as public opinion and scientific research; and
• explain how the proposal reflects the character, competence, and leadership of its sponsor(s).

Public officials may also use the policy application to propose and defend broader initiatives and strategies that address challenging issues through several coordinated policies.  For example, legislators may propose a broad strategy for reducing unemployment that includes several specific policies.

In addition, citizen groups may use Application 3 in order to present and defend their own policy proposals.  


Applications for Understanding
Application 5:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding Political Parties
Application 6:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding Candidates
Application 7:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding Candidate Debates
Application 8:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding Political Addresses
Application 9:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding Public Policies
Application 10:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding International Treaties
Application 11:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding Media Outlets
Application 12:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding News and Commentary in the Media
Application 13:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding Interest Groups
Application 14:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding Socio-Political Movements
Application 15:  "Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding Social Issues

Applications 5-15 may be used to analyze parties, candidates, debates, addresses, policies,  treaties, interest groups, social movements (such as the Civil Rights Movement), broader social issues (such as poverty or abortion), media outlets, as well as information provided by the media.  They are designed to help individuals to understand these topics thoroughly before they evaluate them using Applications 16-26.  On a personal level, the goal of these applications is thus to discourage individuals from 'rushing to judgments' about their topics.  In a positive sense, they are designed to help users to cultivate a greater sense of objectivity and detachment as they analyze and discuss political topics.  When using Applications 5, 6, 9, and 10, citizens may refer to profiles of parties, candidates, policies, and treaties that have been created using the four 'informational' applications described above.  

Applications 5 and 6 will ask users to 

• examine the public philosophies of parties and candidates, 
• analyze the qualities of character and leadership that they have demonstrated, 
• summarize the platform of the party or candidate, 
• explore the various influences that shape the platform, analyze how the platform is likely to impact individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole (if this level is relevant to the political views of the user and/or the candidate or party being analyzed); and 
• explore relationships between the various policies set forth in the platform.

Applications 7 and 8 will ask users to 

• summarize the philosophical views and policy proposals that are set forth by speakers and debaters, 
• describe how these views and policies are influenced by a variety of factors, including speakers' and debaters' public philosophy, public opinion, and scientific research; 
• analyze how the statements of speakers and debaters reflect key qualities of character and leadership; 
• describe how the policy initiatives proposed by these figures are likely to impact individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole (if this level is relevant to the political views of the user and/or the speaker/debater); and 
• explore relationships between policy initiatives proposed and supported by speakers and debaters.

Applications 9 and 10 will ask users to describe the policy in question, the issue that it addresses, and the history of related policies that have addressed this issue.  The applications will then ask users to 

• analyze how the policy or treaty is likely to affect individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole (if this level is relevant to the political views of the user and/or the policy sponsor[s]); 
• explore relationships between the proposal and other existing or proposed policies or treaties that are somehow relevant to the issue that the policy or treaty addresses; 
• describe how the policy or treaty might be shaped by various influences, including the public philosophy of its sponsor(s), public opinion, scientific research, as well as deals that its sponsors may have made with other legislators in order to secure their support for the policy or treaty; and 
• examine how the policy or treaty reflects key qualities of character and leadership that its sponsors should uphold.    

Citizens may also use the policy and treaty applications (nos. 9 & 10) to analyze broader initiatives and strategies that address challenging issues through several coordinated policies or treaties.  For example, citizens may analyze a broader strategy for fighting terrorism or reducing air pollution that includes several specific policies.

Applications 11 and 12 focus on the media as a source of information in political life.  Since the media is the main source of public information, it is essential that citizens learn to critically examine media outlets and the information that they produce.  These applications will help citizens to gain insight into the role that this vast array of institutions and individuals plays in public life.  Simply examining media information is not enough, since this information reflects the world view and interests of the individuals and organizations that produce it.  In other words, the message cannot be understood apart from the messenger.

Application 11 focuses specifically on media outlets, which may include newspapers, commercial television networks, non-profit networks and organizations, magazines, or even individuals who operate a web log, or 'blog'.  In Part I, users will describe the medium of communication employed by the outlet as well as its content focus.  The focus may include specific types of issues and policies, or it may simply be a general focus on public affairs.  In Part II, users will describe the audience of the outlet, as far as this can be determined.  In Part III, they will examine the influences that shape the information produced by the outlet.  In Part IV, they will explore the style and method used by the outlet as it communicates its information to its audience.  Part V explores the impact of the information on all entities that may be affected by it.

Application 12 focuses focuses on specific pieces of information produced by media outlets, such as a news story or a commentary.  In Part I, users will ask users to summarize the news story or commentary, identify the policy area(s) to which it is relevant, explore the influences that shape the information, describe the style and method used to compose and communicate the information, and examine the impact that the information may have on all entities that might be affected by it.

Application 13 examines interest groups, which are collections of individuals and/or institutions that band together in order to gain influence in the political process.  While the influence of these groups is addressed in applications that analyze policies and platforms, their impact on public life is so great that they merit a separate application that provides a more comprehensive examination of their members, views, and goals.  As with several other applications described below, this application will be based on a revised version of our analytical method that has been adapted specifically for examining these groups.

The various parts of the application will ask users to describe common characteristics of individuals and institutions that comprise an interest group, the relationships between the group and other groups, the interests and goals that it promotes within the political process and in society at large (these may relate to cultural, political, and/or economic spheres of life), as well as the means that it employs to influence the views of public officials and the general public, which may include lobbying of parties and officials as well as broader advocacy campaigns aimed at public officials and the general public.  A final section explores the qualities of character and public leadership demonstrated by the group in its advocacy efforts.  

Application 14 will focus on broader social movements that have political goals, such as the Civil Rights Movement.  These movements advocate specific causes and, often, specific policies as well.  For example, the Pro-Life Movement opposes abortion, the Women's Movement supports policies that empower women, and the Environmental Movement supports policies that protect the environment.  Movements may include many individuals and a broad array of institutions such as advocacy groups, faith communities, and civic groups.  They may be highly organized under the leadership of one or a few main leaders, or they may be less structured collections of committed individuals and groups.

The application will also be based on a revised version of our analytical method.  It will ask users to 

• describe the philosophical perspectives of the movement, including its basic world view and goals; 
• identify different factions within the movement as well as the views and goals of each faction;
• describe relevant characteristics of individuals in the movement, including their age, gender, race, class, profession, religious affiliation, etc.;
• describe the movement's strategies for recruiting participants and for involving them in the various projects of the movement;
• list the specific policies proposed by the movement;
• analyze the likely impact of these policies on individuals, social groups, the environment, and, if applicable, on the cosmos as a whole;
• explore relationships between these policies as well as relationships between the movement's policies and the policies of governments, other movements, etc.; 
• describe the movement's methods for advocating its views and policies; 
• discern the influences that shape the movement's mission, policies, and advocacy strategies; and
• explore the overall character and leadership of the movement.

The purpose of Application 15 (and of Application 26 below) is to enable users to step back and examine the broader social issues that are often addressed by platforms, policies, and movements.  These broader issues may include racism, immigration, gun control, terrorism, and many others.  Using various revised parts of our analytical method, the application will help users to

• describe how the issue is relevant to individuals, social groups, the environment, and, if applicable, the cosmos as a whole;
• describe how the issue may be related to other issues and policies in the public debate;
• identify trade-offs that may be involved in addressing the issue through public policies; and
• describe the philosophical perspectives that are relevant to the issue.

Users may then use Application 9 to more closely examine specific policies that have been enacted or proposed in order to address the issue.

Applications for Evaluation
Application 16:  "Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating Political Parties
Application 17:  "Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating Candidates
Application 18:  "Citizen Choice" Software for Judging Candidate Debates
Application 19:  "Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating Political Addresses
Application 20:  "Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating Public Policies
Application 21:  "Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating International Treaties 
and Agreements
Application 22:  "Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating Media Outlets
"Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating News and Commentary in the Media
Application 24:  "Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating Interest Groups
Application 25:  "Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating Socio-Political Movements
Application 26:  "Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating Positions on Social Issues

The purpose of this set of applications is to help citizens to conduct comprehensive and systematic evaluations of parties, candidates, debates, addresses, policies, treaties, interest groups, movements, positions on broader social issues, media outlets, and information provided by the media.  As they conduct these evaluations, they may use information from the 'Profiles' or analyses of these topics that have been conducted using Applications 5-15.  In Applications 16-21, users will respond to several sets of questions that will ask them to assess 

• the public philosophies of parties, candidates, speakers, debaters, and sponsors of legislation, 
• the character and leadership of parties and these public figures, 
• the influences that shape policies and platforms that are proposed by parties and public figures, 
• the likely impact of platforms and policies on the well-being of individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole (if this level is relevant to the political views of the user/or and the public figure, party, or policy sponsor being analyzed), and
• relationships between policies.  In Applications 16 and 17 users assess relationships between policies in the platforms of parties and candidates.  In Applications 18 and 19 users evaluate relationships between policies proposed by speakers and debaters as well as relationships between these policies and other existing or proposed policies not explicitly mentioned by them.  In Applications 20 and 21 users evaluate relationships between proposed policies and treaties and other existing or proposed policies and treaties.

Citizens may also use the policy and treaty applications (nos. 20 & 21) to evaluate broader initiatives and strategies that address challenging issues through several coordinated policies or treaties.  For example, citizens may evaluate a strategy for reducing global poverty that includes several specific policies.

Applications 22 and 23 focus on the media and its role in as a key shaper of opinion in the public square.  Application 22 will enable users to evaluate media outlets or sources of media information.  In Part I, users will assess an outlet's use of its chosen medium or media of communication.  In Part II they will evaluate the ability of the outlet to reach its target audience as well as its ability to communicate coherently to persons beyond this audience who might have an interest in its information.  In Parts III and IV, users will assess the ways in which a media outlet manages the influences that shape the information that it produces, the style and method that it employs as it produces information, and the leadership that it demonstrates as a shaper of public opinion.  In Part V, users will evaluate the impact that its information may have on all entities affected by it.  In this part users will also assess the degree to which it embraces an experimental approach to policymaking.  It is important to focus on this approach because it will have a significant impact on the outcome of the policies that the outlet advocates.  It is thus a key aspect of its advocacy and the impact that its advocacy has on the policymaking process.

Application 23 will focus on specific pieces of media information, such as news stories and commentaries.  Users will evaluate the content of news and commentary (whether or not it is thorough and comprehensive), the ability of journalists to manage the influences that shape the information that they produce, the style and method employed by journalists as they compose information, the qualities of public leadership demonstrated by journalists as they produce information, as well as the impact that the piece of information may have on the public good.

Application 24 evaluates interest groups and the influence that they have on political life.  Part I assesses the impact that their views, values, and favored policies have on the common good.  Part II assesses the leadership abilities that these groups demonstrate in the public square, as these are reflected in their rhetorical style, their commitment to the public good, and the means that they use to promote their views and goals to policymakers and the general public.

Like Application 15, Application 25 will focus on broader social movements that have political goals, such as the Civil Rights Movement.  It will also be based on a revised version of our analytical method.  It will ask users to evaluate

• the philosophical perspectives of the movement, including its basic world view and mission;
• the ways in which the movement recruits members and involves them in the movement's various projects;
• the likely impact of the movement's policies on individuals, social groups, the environment, and, if applicable, the cosmos as a whole;
• relationships between these policies as well as relationships between the movement's policies and policies of governments, other movements, etc.
• the movement's methods for advocating its views and policies; 
• the influences that shape the movement's mission, policies, and advocacy strategies; and
• the overall character and leadership of the movement.

Application 26 will be based on another revised version of our analytical method.  It will help users to evaluate various positions on important social issues such as free trade, poverty, and racism.  The application will ask users to evaluate

• the implications of a position for individuals, social groups, the environment, and, if applicable, the cosmos as a whole;
• the impact of a particular position on relationships between the issue and other issues in the public debate (for example, how their position on free trade relates to the issue of poverty in developing nations); 
• trade-offs that may be involved in addressing the issue in a way that is consistent with a particular position; and
• the coherence of the philosophical perspectives that are used to justify a position.

Users may then use Applications 9, 10, 20, and 21 to understand and evaluate policies and treaties that have been enacted or proposed in order to address the issue.  Their analysis and evaluation of positions related to the issue should help them to conduct these more specific analyses and evaluations of policies and treaties.  In addition, they may use Applications 3 or 4 to propose their own policies or treaties for addressing the issue in ways that are consistent with their position on the issue.

Applications for Global Awareness
Application 27:  "World Citizen" Software for Foreign Governments
Application 28:  "World Citizen" Software for Understanding Foreign Governments and Their Policies
Application 29:  "World Citizen" Software for Evaluating Foreign Governments and Their Policies
Application 30:  "World Citizen" Software for International Institutions and Non-Governmental Organizations
Application 31:  "World Citizen" Software for Understanding International Institutions and Non-Governmental Organizations
Application 32:  "World Citizen" Software for Evaluating International Institutions and Non-Governmental Organizations
Application 33:  "World Citizen" Software for Proposing Policies and Programs of International Institutions and Non-Governmental Organizations
Application 34:  "World Citizen" Software for Understanding Programs and Policies of International Institutions and Non-Governmental Organizations
Application 35:  "World Citizen" Software for Evaluating Programs and Policies of International Institutions and Non-Governmental Organizations

This set of applications will enable users to understand and evaluate a variety of topics associated with international relations.

Applications 27, 28, and 29 will enable users to understand foreign governments and gain a greater awareness of important global issues and problems.  The applications are structured according to a revised version of our analytical method.  They will enable users to understand and assess:

• the public philosophies of the leaders of a foreign government;
• the impact of a foreign government's policies on all entities affected by them;
• relationships between the government's policies as well as relationships between the government's policies and the policies of other governments and international institutions; 
• the influences that shape the policies of a foreign government; and
• the character, competence, and leadership of government institutions and public leaders in this nation.

Application 30 may be used by international institutions and non-governmental organizations in order to explain their mission, policies, and programs to the public.  Using a revised version of our analytical method, the application will ask these groups to describe

• the philosophy and mission of their organization;
• the membership and administration of their organization;
• the various programs sponsored by their organization;
• the intended impact of these programs on all entities affected by them (individuals, social groups, and the environment in all nations affected by them; as well as the cosmos as a whole, if this level of organization is relevant to the organization's understanding of its mission);
• relationships between these programs as well as relationships between these programs and other programs and policies of governments and other institutions;
• the influences that shape their programs and policies; and
• the competence, character, and leadership of the institution and its leaders.

Applications 31 will enable users to gain a comprehensive understanding of the mission and policies of international institutions and non-governmental organizations.  Application 32 will enable users to evaluate the missions and policies of these organizations.  Using a revised version of our analytical method, users will explore and evaluate

• the philosophy and mission of an international organization;
• the likely impact of its programs and policies on all entities affected by them;
• relationships between its various programs and policies as well as relationships between its programs and the policies of governments and other institutions;
• the influences that shape its programs and policies; and
• the competence, character, and leadership of the institutions and their leaders.

Application 33 will enable international institutions and non-governmental organizations to explain and defend the programs that they plan to implement or already have implemented.  It will ask users to

• summarize the program or policy,
• discuss the issue(s) or problem(s) that it addresses,
• explain how the program or policy is designed to benefit individuals, social groups, and the environment in all nations affected by it (as well as the cosmos as a whole if this level is relevant to the organization's understanding of its mission);
• discuss how it is related to other programs and policies that are somehow relevant to the issue(s) that it addresses (These policies and programs may include past initiatives, initiatives that are still in effect, as well as proposed initiatives.  In addition, they may include other policies and programs sponsored by the organization as well as programs and policies of other institutions, including governments.); 
• describe the various influences that have shaped the program or policy, some of which may include the organization's philosophy and mission, scientific research, and the desires and interests of those nations, groups, and individuals that support the organization, financially or otherwise; and
• describe how it reflects the competence, character, and leadership of its sponsors and supporters as well as the organization as a whole.

Applications 34 and 35 will enable users to understand and evaluate specific programs and policies of international institutions and non-governmental organizations.  Like Applications 9 and 20 above, these applications will help users to analyze

• the likely impact of the program or policy on all entities affected by it;
• relationships between the program or policy and other programs and policies, including those of its sponsoring organization as well as those of governments and other institutions;
• influences that have shaped the program or policy; and
• the competence, character, and leadership of the individuals and groups within the institution that sponsor and support the program or policy.

Applications for Political Organizing and Advocacy
Application 36:  "Citizen Action" Software for Political Organizing
Application 37:  "Citizen Action" Software for Political Advocacy

Application 36 will be a project management application that will help citizens to plan and organize the various tasks involved in the establishment of Political Education and Action Groups (PEAGs) -- small groups in which citizens may engage in political dialogue and advocacy.  Another component of this application provide interactive exercises that will help users to cultivate the skills and attitudes that are essential for constructive political dialogue.  This component may serve as either a complement to or substitute for the video workshops that also focus on these skills. Application 37 will be a project management application that will help PEAGs, other groups, and individuals to plan creative strategies for promoting their political views in the public square.  More specifically, it will provide a framework that citizens may follow as they set goals for their advocacy, build coalitions with other groups, select rhetorical strategies, and then communicate their message to their audience (i.e. government officials and the general public).


Supplemental Applications for Understanding and Evaluating the Products and Policies of Business Firms

"Informed Citizen" Software for Understanding the Products and Policies of Business Firms
"Citizen Choice" Software for Evaluating the Products and Policies of Business Firms

These applications will enable users to conduct comprehensive analyses of the products and policies of business firms.  Toward this end, they will help users to

• understand how the issues surrounding a product or policy are related to the three key 'inputs' in the process of producing goods and services (physical resources, human resources, and financial resources, often referred to simply as land, labor, and capital); as well as a business firm's external relations (customer relations, government relations, and community relations);
• understand and evaluate the ways in which the product or policy impacts individuals, social groups, the environment, and, if applicable, the cosmos as a whole;
• understand and evaluate the influences that shape the policy or the purposes for which a product has been developed;
• understand and evaluate the ways in which the product or policy reflect the competence, character, and leadership of the business firm and its leaders. 

G.  Teaching editions of each software application will be developed for use in exercises that are part of the 'Dialogue in the Public Square' Curriculum (see section II.A.3 below).  As part of this comprehensive curriculum, the software will be accompanied by printed textbooks as well as video workshops (see item II.A) that explain and demonstrate the various parts of our strategy for political participation.

H.  'Informed Citizen' Update: A Daily Survey of Public Issues and Policies
The 'Informed Citizen Update' will be a brief daily broadcast of political news and analysis.  Our analytical method will guide our selection of news stories and serve as the framework for our analysis of significant issues and policies.  Audio versions of the Update may be accessed by telephone.  A videotaped version of the Update will be made available through public access cable television stations.  Both versions will be available on the internet.  Each day's production will be condensed into a concise ten-minute format.  For example, a broadcast may present a cost-benefit analysis of a prominent piece of national legislation.  To the extent that time allows, it would also explain how our analysis differs from the perspectives of other voices in the public square.  In addition, it would briefly explore possible reasons for these differences.  

The goal of this program is to provide an inexpensive, convenient way to communicate our perspectives to individuals no matter where they are -- at work, at home, in a car, or even standing in a commuter bus -- wherever they have access to a cell phone, land line, computer, or television set.  We have also chosen this type of media because it will allow the message to be our own.  It will not require substantial financial backing from outside donors who may have their own agendas, it will avoid the commercial considerations of for-profit networks, and it will not be influenced by the political forces that inevitably shape the content of public broadcasting networks.  We will provide the Update in as many languages as our resources will allow.

The topic for each day's broadcast will be e-mailed to interested persons who subscribe to this service.  Individuals may also arrange to receive the broadcast at the same time every day through an automated phone call or through an e-mail with the broadcast stored in an attached audio or video file.


I.  'Virtual Politics' Video Games
‘Virtual Politics’ is a set of internet video games that enables players to log in from any internet connection and participate in a variety of mock political events, institutions, and media productions.  The purpose of the games is

• to teach players how political parties and various political events are organized,
• to encourage them to explore the role of the media in public life,
• to enable them to explore the role of lobbyists in the policymaking process, and
• to allow them to hone skills related to political analysis, public speaking, facilitating discussions, debating, and collaborating in groups toward a common goal.

In the ‘Virtual Political Address’ game, players may provide the speech and control the gestures of an animated speaker in the program.  In ‘Virtual Debate’ players will be able to provide the speech and control the gestures of the debaters and the debate moderator.  In the ‘Virtual Convention’ game, players will control the convention Master of Ceremonies as well as convention speakers.  They will also be able to put slogans on the hats, shirts, and placards of convention delegates.  In each game, designated political ‘pundits’ or commentators may provide insights and analysis during and after the events.  Once again, the purpose of these games is to teach players the purpose of these events and how these events are organized.  This is especially important for the convention version because these are more elaborate events that provide valuable insights into the ways in which political parties are organized and managed.  In addition, these games will help players to refine their public speaking, debating, analytical skills. 

In ‘Virtual Lobbyist,’ players who assume the characters of lobbyists will be able to use all legal means in order to persuade public officials to support rules and laws that advance the interests of their clients.  Players who assume the roles of public officials and party officials will decide which lobbyists present the most persuasive case.  ‘Virtual Host’ will invite players to host their own talk radio and television programs.  They may invite public officials to appear on their shows (portrayed by other players), and/or they may take calls from other players with questions or comments.  This game will also allow players to produce shows that provide more in-depth analysis of significant issues and policies.

‘Virtual Party’ is a much more advanced game that creates a virtual ‘political world’.  Players will adopt the identity of animated characters who will form a political party and create its public philosophy and platform.  In the 'Virtual Campaign' game, players may create candidates for local and national office from any party.  These candidates, as well as their campaign staff and party officials, may then engage in debates, hold rallies, compose flyers and brochures, create print, televised, and radio advertisements; and participate in interviews with the media (including virtual hosts of mock radio and television shows).


J.  Web Pages for Organizations and their Members
In an attempt to promote political participation within entire organizations, we will invite any group – a business firm, an environmental organization, a faith community, a labor union, etc. -- to create its own organizational page on the Center's web site. On this page the group could highlight issues and values of special concern that its members may review before using our software programs for evaluating political parties, candidates, debates, addresses, and/or policies.  If a member submits his or her evaluation to the Center's database, they would be able to compare their evaluation of a specific party, candidate, etc., with evaluations conducted by other members who have also submitted their ratings.  The database would also enable organization members to compare their evaluations with those conducted by individuals outside of their organization.


K.  "The Party Page"
'The Party Page' will be a section of the Center's web site that contains 'Party Profiles' submitted by the various political parties in a particular country.  The purpose of this program is to enable citizens to consider a broad range of parties as they choose which, if any, to join.  The profiles will be created using our "'Informed Citizen' Software for Political Parties."  Citizens may rate each party using our "'Citizen Choice' Software for Evaluating Political Parties."  Links to the web sites of parties will also be provided.  In addition, we will try to enable users to link to profiles of candidates from each party who are running for offices in their area.

L.  "The Advocacy Organization Page"
As discussed below in our method for advocacy, advocacy organizations are created in order to promote specific views and values in the public square.  These views and values may be related to politics, economics, the environment, the needs and interests of groups such as the elderly, and any other types of issues that are relevant to public life.  They may focus on issues in all contexts, from the local to the international level.  They may also promote candidates for political office on all levels of government.  

'Grass roots' advocacy organizations attempt to organize members of the public in campaigns that promote specific views, values, and/or public figures.  They are essential parts of the democratic process because they help individuals and small groups to amplify their voices as they speak out in unison on issues that are important to them.  Examples include such organizations as The National Rifle Association and MoveOn.org.  In this section of our web site, we will provide brief profiles of grass roots advocacy organizations as well as information on how to contact them.  In our profile of each organization, we will describe the issues and values that are the focus its advocacy efforts.  We will try to include all groups, regardless of their 'ideological leanings'.  However, we will not include any groups that promote advocacy through violent means.



II. Educational Curricula and Programs

A.  "Dialogue in the Public Square:  A Curriculum for Political Participation"
The ‘public square’ is a general term that describes the forum of political dialogue in democratic societies.  The purpose of this curriculum is to help students to learn how to participate effectively in this public forum.  Like our overall strategy for political participation, the curriculum will feature components in political organizing, dialogue, analysis, and advocacy.  It may be used in high schools as well as colleges and universities.  The curriculum will include the following resources.

1.  Textbook and Teacher's Guide

A textbook will thoroughly explain our strategy for political participation.  A teacher's guide will provide suggestions on ways in which educators may present this strategy to students.  It will also include instructions on leading the small-group exercises associated with the video workshops described below.

2.  Video Workshops on Skills that Are Essential for Effective Political Dialogue in Small Groups

A set of video workshops will help students to learn about skills and attitudes that are essential for successful small group discussions.  These workshops will focus on such topics as listening skills, assertiveness, managing conflict, respecting diversity, discussing controversial issues, and consensus-building.  They will also cover key organizational skills such as running meetings, delegating responsibility, setting goals, facilitating discussions, and motivating group members.  In the first component of these workshops, skills and attitudes will be defined and described.  In a second component, students will watch a demonstration of the skills in a small group setting.  In the third component, students will practice the skills and attitudes in small group exercises (see the summary of our strategy for political participation below).  The lessons taught in these workshops are especially valuable because students may apply them in many aspects of their lives, including their relationships with family and friends, their extracurricular involvements, and their career development.

3.  Exercises in Political Analysis and Advocacy

Students may complete a variety of creative projects related to our method for political participation.  They may create and promote their own mock parties and candidates using our 'Informed Citizen' software for parties and candidates (see Applications 1 and 2 above), or they may gain an understanding of actual parties and candidates (see Applications 5 and 6).  They may gain an understanding of addresses and debates -- actual or staged by students -- using applications designed for these events (7 and 8).  They may propose their own policies and treaties using Applications 3 and 4, or they may carefully review policies and treaties proposed by public officials using Applications 9 and 10.  They may also gain an understanding of socio-political movements, broader social issues, foreign governments, international institutions, non-governmental organizations, as well as news and commentary in the media using Applications 11, 12, 13, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 29.  

In addition, they may use the 'Citizen Choice' applications to evaluate actual parties, candidates, debates, addresses, policies, treaties, movements, broader social issues, foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, international institutions, and media information; as well as the mock parties, candidates, debates, addresses, policies, treaties, and international groups that they create in classroom exercises (see Applications 14-22, 24, 27, and 29).  We will provide printed 'Policy Guides' (see item I.C) that explore a broad spectrum of policy areas (energy policy, health care policy, etc.).  These guides will help students to understand and evaluate all of the topics mentioned above.  

Students may create a strategy for advocating their views using Application 32.  More ambitious groups of students may use Application 31 in order to start their own political discussion groups.  They may then use the applications described above to analyze and evaluate a variety of topics.  If these groups wish to promote their views to government officials, their fellow students, and/or the general public, they may use Application 32 as they plan their campaign.

If students do not have access to computers, we will provide educators with a workbook that includes printed adaptations of the software applications and the exercises associated with them.

4.  Student Chat Rooms on our Web Site

Students may discuss their analyses of political topics in moderated chat rooms on our web site.  Teachers may limit their online conversations to others in their class or encourage them to discuss topics with students from other schools that use our curriculum.

5.  Televised Programs from our 'Public Vision Project'

The curriculum may also include any of the programs produced by our proposed 'Public Vision Project', including the 'Policy Lab: Spotlight on Issues and Ideas' series, the 'Profiles of Leadership' series, discussion panels, the 'Global Politics' documentary series, and 'The Center Scorecard.'  For a fuller explanation of these programs, see item VII below.

6.  Daily 'Informed Citizen Update' Broadcasts

Students may listen to or watch an Update broadcast (see item H), which may then serve as the focus of a classroom discussion.

7.  'Digital Debates' moderated, judged, and argued by students

Our staff will arrange on-line and webcast debates between students who attend different schools that use our curriculum.  Students will serve as debaters, moderators, and judges for these events.  They will be selected for these roles by representatives of their school.  Students may debate each other as mock candidates for local or national office.  In this election debate, they would debate various issues related to their platforms.  In a policy debate, students would select a challenging public issue and then debate different policies that address the issue.  Before the debate, the debaters will use our software applications to create platform or policy profiles.  They will then submit these profiles to us and we will post them on our web site.  During on-line debates, students may read the responses of debaters as they are typed in to our web site.  During webcast debates, digital video cameras will film the participants in their schools and send the footage to our web site.  We will coordinate the video streams and telecast the entire debate from our web site.  Students may thus watch each other in different 'windows' on one TV screen.  

The judges for the debates will be drawn from participating schools.  They will use our software to evaluate the debaters' responses to questions posed by the moderators.  Their evaluations will be posted on our web site.  In addition, any student following the debate may select a winner and then submit their choice to our site.  We will post a summary of this general poll as well.

8.  'Virtual Politics' Video Games
As described above in section I.I, these internet-based games will allow students to log in from any internet connection and participate in a wide variety of mock political institutions, events, and media productions.
 

B.  A Curriculum for Other Types of Institutions (including PEAGs) 
A similar curriculum will be created for use in other types of institutions such as faith communities, salons (neighborhood discussion groups), and civic groups.  This curriculum will contain all of the resources described above, though some resources may be adapted for use in different types of organizations.  Ideally, members of these institutions will form PEAGs after they complete the curriculum.  This curriculum may also be used by PEAGs that may or may not be associated with any larger organization.

C.  Web-Based Distance Learning curricula will also be created for home-schooled students as well as other individuals who wish to join an E-Learning Group.  These groups will be organized through our web site and moderated by our staff.  Group members will complete the entire curriculum online.  Many of the exercises will be online interactive sessions in which participants will practice skills and strategies related to political dialogue, analysis, and advocacy.  After they complete the curriculum, group members may form a PEAG among themselves, join an existing PEAG, or form a new PEAG with others outside their group.

D.  Intercollegiate, Interscholastic, or Interfaith Seminars will invite all of the schools or faith communities in a region to reflect upon and discuss a specific public issue.  We would provide each participating institution with profiles of the issue that are structured according to our framework for political analysis.  This profile would include a summary of the major ideological perspectives on an issue.  We would then identify one day or week during which schools or faith communities could discuss this issue in large or, preferably, small groups of members or students.  Participants could also discuss the issue on our web site.



III. On-Line Newsletter
A weekly or bi-weekly newsletter could feature several types of articles.  One type would discuss the foundations of our analytical method (see section II.B below).  Other articles could analyze past and present political figures and issues using this framework.  This publication could also review and propose promising strategies for advocacy.  The target audience would include policymakers, members of PEAGs, students who use our curriculum, and interested members of the public at large.

IV. Conferences and Research
A. Research may be sponsored for scholars who wish to 1) examine and evaluate our model for political participation, and/or 2) conduct research in which they apply our analytical method to specific public figures, issues, and movements.

B. Conferences may be sponsored by the Center as well. These may focus on some aspect of our methods for organizing, dialogue, analysis, and advocacy as well as applications of our analytical method to public leaders and issues.



V. Retreats, Internships, and Institutes could be sponsored in the Washington, DC, area for interested individuals, families, church groups, and school groups. These programs could last between one week and two months. All programs would include instruction in our method for organizing, dialogue, analysis, and advocacy. The other components could be tailored to the desires of our guests. They could do service projects, learn about governmental and non-governmental organizations in the D.C. area, and/or work at an internship with a government agency or nonprofit organization.



VI. Free Society Missions would be a program in which volunteers would travel to other countries in order to teach the basic elements of our political strategy to interested persons and groups. This program would be especially directed toward fledgling democracies and developing countries.


VII.  Wisdom Corps: A Political Action Network for Older Americans
This program will recruit older Americans (not just retirees) to participate in Political Education and Action Groups based in their neighborhoods, faith communities, civic organizations, and retirement communities.  We hope to give these individuals new opportunities to bring their experience and historical perspectives into the public debate.  We also hope that participants will strive to leave a legacy of pragmatic and far-sighted political advocacy for future generations.


VIII. The 'Public Vision Project': Exploring New Directions in Public Policy
The 'Public Vision Project' will be a series of televised programs that promotes civic education and political participation.  This project is inspired by Bill Moyers' call for the establishment of a 'Citizens Channel' that would provide critical perspectives on pressing social problems.  Our proposed programs would focus on six key areas.

A.  'Policy Lab': Spotlight on Issues and Ideas
A 'Policy Lab' series could introduce viewers to issues and ideas that are vital to the public good.  We will especially focus on issues and policies that do not receive much attention from the media and from public officials.  These may include a proposal requiring that all young people perform some sort of civilian or military service, proposals for mandatory career counseling and vocational training in schools, new ideas for energy conservation and for the development of alternative sources of energy, as well as proposals to create and implement new paradigms for international development.  This program could also review promising new policies that are already being implemented.  We will use our method for political analysis to carefully examine the impact of these policies on individuals, social groups, and the environment.  

Through this program we hope to motivate citizens to demand that public leaders explore a broader variety of policy options as they address complex and challenging issues.

B.  Profiles in Leadership
Another program could profile persons around the world who have provided exceptional leadership in civic and political affairs.  These figures may be public officials, community leaders, teachers, business leaders, or anyone else who has performed exceptional service for the public good.  The programs may also profile organizations whose work has contributed in an extraordinary way to the public welfare.

C.  Discussion Panels
Another program would feature discussion panels on significant public issues.  We would structure these discussions according to our method for political analysis. 

D.  'Global Politics' Documentary Series
In order to raise public awareness of political and social conditions in other nations, the 'Public Vision Project' could also produce a series of documentary films that profile the public life of international regions around the globe, such as Southeast Asia and the Middle East.  In a brief, 40- or 50-minute format, we could examine important social issues in these regions using the concepts and methods in our analytical framework.  We could also review trends in U.S. foreign policy toward these regions.  In addition, we could explore recent trends in the policies of international organizations, such as the World Bank and the United Nations, toward these areas.  

E.  'The Center Scorecard'
'The Center Scorecard' would be a televised program during which we would evaluate important public policy proposals, debates, and televised addresses.  We would structure these evaluations according to the formats in our software applications (see Applications 14-17 above).  These evaluations will also be published on our web site.  Evaluations of policies will be posted in the 'Policy Guides' section of our web site.  Evaluations of debates and addresses will be posted in sections of our site that focus on current political events.

All of the programs produced in this project could be integrated into our civic education curriculum (see item II above).

Outline

Our Strategy for Political Participation:
Methods for Political Organizing,
Dialogue, Analysis, and Advocacy

Summary of Our Strategy for Political Participation

I.  Renewing the Legacy of Political Dialogue in Small Groups
II.  The Steps of Our Vision for Small-Group Political Participation
        A.  Method for Organizing:  Forming Small Groups for Dialogue and Advocacy
        B.  Method for Dialogue and Analysis
        C.  Method for Advocacy

Outline of Our Method for Political Analysis

I.  Introduction to the Method

II.  The Foundations of the Method: A 'Dynamic Systems' View 
        of the World

Part I:  Key Elements of Public Philosophies

I.  The Sources and Composition of Public Philosophies
        A.  Sources
        B.  Composition
                1.  Basic World View:  Views on Human Nature, Society, the
                            Environment, and the Cosmos 
                2.  Values and Principles for Promoting Individual Development, 
                            Social Progress, Environmental Stewardship, and Cosmic
                            Patterns of Change and Development
                            a)  Views and Principles on the Individual Level of Organization
                            b)  Views and Principles Regarding the Social Level of 
                                    Organization
                            c)  Views and Principles Regarding the Ecological Level of 
                                    Organization
                            d)  Views and Principles Regarding the Cosmic Level of
                                    Organization
                            e)  Views and Principles Regarding Relationships between
                                    These Four Levels of Organization
                            f)  Overarching Principles and Values Regarding the Goals of 
                                    Political Life
                3.  More Specific Values and Principles that Apply to Particular Areas of 
                            Public Policy
                4.  Principles for Dealing with Trade-Offs between the Costs and 
                            Benefits of Public Policies
                5.  Principles for Reviewing and Revising Policies
                6.  Historical Perspectives:  Reading 'The Signs of the Times'
                7.  Ideals for Participation in Public Life
                            a)  Ideals for Public Leaders
                            b)  Ideals for Groups and Individual Citizens
                8.  Ideals Related to the Character of Your Community or Nation as a Whole
                9.  Our Strategy for Political Participation as a Public Philosophy

Part II:  Focus on Public Leadership:
Evaluating Public Figures and Political Parties

I.  Evaluating the Competence of Public Leaders
        A.  Three Key Dimensions of Public Leaders
        B.  Vision and Leadership:  The Fruits of Character and Competence

II.  Analyzing Political Parties as Institutions

Part III:  Recognizing and Evaluating the 
Influences that Shape Platforms and Policies

I.  The Power of Ideas
        A.  A Party's Public Philosophy
        B.  Unique Aspects of a Public Figure's Personal Public Philosophy
        C.  Research in the Human and Natural Sciences
        D.  Analytical Studies
        E.  News and Commentary in the Media

II.  The Influence of 'Special Interests' that Provide Votes and 
        Donations to Parties, Candidates, and Elected Officials

III.  The Influence of Public Opinion
        A.  The Quality of Public Opinion
        B.  The Amount of Influence Wielded by Public Opinion in the Policymaking
                    Process

IV.  'Trade-Offs': Analyses of the Costs and Benefits Associated 
            with a Policy or Platform

V.  Risk and Uncertainty

VI.  The Timing of Elections

VII.  The Influence of Deal-Making Among Public Officials and 
            Party Factions

Part IV:  A Framework for Understanding and
Evaluating the Impact of Platforms and Polices 

Focus on Domestic Policy

I.  The Personal Level:  The Impact of Domestic Policies on Individuals
        A.  The Impact of Domestic Policies on the Different Dimensions of an
                     Individual's Personality and Lifestyle
        B.  A Developmental Perspective on the Human Person
        C.  The Developmental Nature of Liberty and Fulfillment
        D.  Respecting the Full Range of Human Rights and Recognizing Relationships 
                    between Them
        E.  The Relationship between Rights and Responsibilities
        F.  Integrating Individual Initiative and Social Support

II.  The Impact of Domestic Policies on the Social Level of Organization
        A.  Impact on Social Institutions
                1.  Special Institutional Focus on Governments
        B.  Impact on Social Sectors
                 1.  Definition of Each Sector
                2.  Relationships within and between the Sectors
                        a)  Relationships within Sectors
                        b)  Relationships between Sectors
        C.  Impact on Levels of Social Organization
                1.  Recognizing the Full Social Scope of Social Issues and Problems
                2.  Recognizing an Order or Priority that Should Govern Responses 
                        to Issues on Different Levels of Social Organization
                3.  The Principle of Subsidiarity:  Determining the Appropriate Locus of
                        Decision-Making for Initiatives that Address Social Problems and Issues
                4.  Applying the Principle of Subsidiarity to Nongovernmental Institutions
                        a)  Applying the Principle of Subsidiarity to Families
                        b)  Applying the Principle of Subsidiarity to Economic and Civic Institutions
                5.  Social Processes and Dynamics that Include Many Institutions, Sectors, 
                        and Levels of Organization
                6.  Foreign Relations: Special Focus on the International Level of Social 
                        Organization
        D.  Impact on Socio-Cultural Collectivities

III.   The Impact of Domestic Policies on the Ecological Level of Organization
        A.  Levels of Organization in the Natural World
        B.  Relationships between Species, Ecosystems, and the Biosphere
        C.  The Impact of Human Activities on the Natural World
        D.  Promoting Sustainable Technologies and Lifestyles through
                Public Policies
        E.  Preserving Endangered Species
        F.  Preserving Wilderness Areas
        G.  Environmental Policies in Platforms
        H.  Assessing the Environmental Impact of All Public Policies

IV.  The Impact of Domestic Policies on the Cosmic Level of Organization
        A.  Understanding and Evaluating Platforms and Policies 
                from the Perspective of One's Own Cosmic Views
        B.  Recognizing the Cosmic Views of Candidates, Parties, and 
                 Public Officials

V.  Recognizing the Impact of Domestic Policies on All Levels of Organization and on Relationships between Different Levels of Organization

VI.  Recognizing the Hierarchy of Value that Exists Among the Different Levels of Organization

VII.  Dealing with Trade-Offs Regarding the Costs and Benefits of Domestic Policies

VIII.  The Primacy of an 'Experimental Approach' to Creating and Refining Domestic Policies

Focus on Foreign Policy
(and the Impact of Domestic Policies on Foreign Relations)

I.  The Impact of Foreign Policies on Individuals
        A.  The Impact of Foreign Policies on the Different Dimensions of an
                    Individual's Personality and Lifestyle
        B.  A Developmental Perspective on the Human Person
        C.  The Developmental Nature of Liberty and Fulfillment
        D.  Respecting the Full Range of Human Rights and Recognizing
                    Relationships between Them
        E.  The Relationship between Rights and Responsibilities
        F.  Integrating Individual Initiative and Social Support

II.  The Impact of Foreign Policies on the Social Level of Organization
        A.  Foreign Relations and Social Institutions
                 1.  The Impact of Foreign Relations on Institutions within Nations
                 2.  The Impact of Foreign Relations on National and International Institutions
                        a)  National Governments
                                1)  Dealing with International Conflicts: A Special Issue for National 
                                        Governments
                                        a.  Nonviolent Strategies for Conflict Resolution
                                        b.  Principles Governing the Use of Military Force to Address 
                                                International Conflicts
                                        c.  Proactive Strategies for Promoting International Peace
                        b)  International Institutions
        B.  The Impact of Foreign Relations on National and International Social Sectors
                1.  Relationships within Sectors
                2.  Relationships between Sectors
        C. The Impact of Foreign Relations on Dynamics between Different 
                Levels of Social Organization
        D. Impact of Foreign Relations on Relationships between Socio-Cultural 
                Collectivities

III.  The Impact of Foreign Policies on the Ecological Level of Organization
        A.  Promoting Sustainable Technologies and Lifestyles
        B.  Preserving Individual Species
        C.  Preserving Wilderness Areas 
        D.  Environmental Policies in Platforms
        E.  Assessing the Environmental Impact of All Foreign Policies

IV.  The Impact of Foreign Policies on the Cosmic Level of Organization
        A.  Exploring the Cosmic Views that May Shape Foreign Policies
        B.  Understanding and Evaluating Foreign Policy Platforms and 
                Proposals from the Perspective of One's Own Cosmic Views

V.  Recognizing the Impact of Foreign Policies on All Levels of Organization and on Relationships between Different Levels of Organization

VI.  Foreign Relations and the Hierarchy of Value that Exists among the Different Levels of Organization

VII.  Dealing with Trade-Offs Regarding the Costs and Benefits of Foreign Policies

VIII. The Primacy of an 'Experimental Approach' to Foreign Relations

Attachments

Attachment 1: Evaluating a Public Figure's Psychological Health and Fitness
Attachment 2: Using Theories of Human Development in the Creation and
        Analysis of Public Policies

Part V:  Exploring Relationships between Policies

I.  Understanding and Evaluating Relationships between the Policies that Comprise Platforms

II.  Analyzing Specific Policies and Treaties

III.  Analyzing Broader Strategies and Initiatives

The full text of the "Method for Political Analysis" follows the
"Summary of Our Strategy for Political Participation" below.

Summary of Our Strategy for Political Participation

I.  Renewing the Legacy of Political Dialogue in Small Groups

Small groups of committed citizens have played a pivotal role in the spread of democratic ideals. Benjamin Franklin, a central figure in the American revolution, created small groups in which individuals could discuss important political issue and address pressing public needs. These groups were the grass-roots communities within which the ideals of free speech and vigorous public discourse took hold.  The challenges faced by democratic societies are more complex in today’s world, but we believe that small group discussions still provide the best opportunities for persons to learn about the world of politics and then share and refine their own political views.

The Center for Civic Education and Political Action seeks to revive and adapt this tradition of small-group public discourse. We seek to preserve the intimate and civil atmosphere of listening, learning, and sharing in small communities.  Yet we propose to refine this tradition in three important ways.  First, we will introduce small group members to contemporary methods for conducting constructive and engaging group discussions. We will also offer members systematic frameworks and methods that will help them to understand and evaluate political candidates, parties, debates, addresses, policies, movements, broader social issues, foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, international institutions, and media information. These frameworks are grounded in a variety of contemporary scientific disciplines as well as traditional political philosophy.  They will provide citizens with a common set of concepts that will facilitate clear and productive communication between group members. 

Finally, we will encourage members to use modern forms of mass communication such as the internet in order to speak out effectively in the public square. We are thus attempting to renew small group discussions as the primary forum for political dialogue, yet we will use contemporary insights and technologies in order to make this dialogue more civil, insightful, and persuasive in the broader forum of public discourse.


II.  The Steps of Our Vision for Small-Group Political Participation

In the sections below, we describe the steps in our vision for small-group political participation.  These include our methods for organizing, dialogue, analysis, and advocacy.  Before discussing these methods, we need to clarify three points about the meaning of these terms and their relationships with one another in the process of political engagement.  

First, the term 'political organizing' is often used to describe a process of bringing persons together and helping them to advocate policies that reflect their views, values, and interests.  In our strategy, however, it only refers to the process of forming small groups and training their members. 

In addition, since groups analyze topics in the course of their dialogue about them, 'dialogue' and 'analysis' are not really separate steps in the process of political participation.  They are listed separately in order to highlight the crucial role that sound analysis plays in the broader process of political engagement.  In addition, because it is so elaborate, our analytical method is discussed in a separate component of the curriculum.  In reality, however, it is part of the strategy for dialogue.

Finally, we separate 'analysis' into two distinct tasks: understanding and evaluation.  In the process of understanding, one seeks only to gain knowledge about a topic.  In the process of evaluation, one may then make value judgments about that topic on the basis of the knowledge that one has gained.  This distinction is a central part of our vision for civil and effective public dialogue.  It calls citizens to be more objective, thorough, and open-minded as they discuss issues and public figures, since they must develop a clear understanding of a topic before passing judgment on it.  In our 'Public Square' suite of software applications, we encourage citizens to respect this distinction by providing them with separate sets of applications for understanding and evaluating topics.  


A.  Method for Organizing:  Forming Small Groups for Dialogue and Advocacy

Formation
The first step in this political vision involves political organizing in a very basic sense: the creation of Political Education and Action Groups (PEAGs). As described above, PEAGs will be groups of persons who come together to engage in political dialogue and action.  These groups may be composed of individuals in the same family, neighborhood, faith community, workplace, school, or civic group.  They may also be composed of individuals who meet each other on our web site.  They may meet in person or strictly over the internet.  On our web site, we will help individuals to found PEAGs.  We will also help existing PEAGs to recruit new members.  Our "'Citizen Action' Software for Political Organizing" will provide step-by-step guidance for forming these groups.

Training
Before taking an active role in group discussions, prospective members of PEAGs will have to complete an orientation program that consists of three components. The first component is a series of brief workshops.  These workshops will cultivate skills and attitudes that are essential for successful small group dialogue.  They will focus on communication skills (listening skills and assertiveness training), public speaking, brainstorming, respecting diversity, managing conflict, discussing controversial issues, consensus building, group dynamics, and facilitating small group discussions.  Other workshops will help members to learn general organizational skills such running meetings, setting goals, motivating members, delegating responsibility, and planning successful events.  Groups will also learn how to facilitate the formation of new 'colony' PEAGs in their area.

The workshops will be produced on a series of videos that PEAG leaders may show to their members.  Most of the workshops will have three parts.  A didactic component will define and discuss the skills and attitudes covered in a given workshop.  In a demonstration component, the videos will then show individuals illustrating the skills and attitudes in a small group discussion.  Finally, the videos will ask viewers to demonstrate the skills and attitudes in a small group exercise.

Our textbooks and software applications will provide instructions for facilitating these activities.  They may be conducted either online (in chat rooms) or in person.

PEAG leaders will complete a report on each workshop sponsored by their group.  This report will include the date and location of the event, the name(s) of the workshop's facilitator(s), a list of attendees, and a brief evaluation of the workshop.  Our software for political organizing will provide a form for this report that can be completed electronically and then submitted to our web site.  Printed versions photocopied from our textbooks may be submitted by fax or mail.  In order to post political opinions, recruit members, and build coalitions on our web site, PEAGs will have to demonstrate that all of their active members have completed the full complement of required workshops.

It is worth noting that the skills learned in these workshops will be useful to members in ways that extend beyond their role as citizens in public life.  Their participation in family life, in civic and spiritual organizations, and in job-related projects should be richer and more rewarding as they practice and master basic strategies for cooperating with others toward a common goal.

The second major component of this orientation program will be a thorough introduction to our 'Method for Political Analysis'.  This framework will be described in our textbooks and in tutorials that are included in our software programs.  

In the third component, members will learn how to persuasively advocate their views in the public square.  This component will include two additional workshops: one in setting goals for advocacy campaigns and one in coalition building.  After these workshops, members will be introduced to a variety of creative methods for expressing and advocating their views in the public square (see the section on 'Advocacy' below).

Throughout the course of their orientation, new members will participate in a variety of 'ice breakers' that will help them to get to know each other on a more personal level.  These activities will invite them to share their values, interests, and hobbies.  They will also be encouraged to compose a 'political biography' -- a history of their political views and involvement.  This biography should include an exploration of the reasons why they have chosen to participate in a PEAG.  Looking to the future, new members may then share the ways in which they aspire to grow as individuals through their participation in a PEAG.  They may also offer their hopes for the success of the PEAG as a whole.  Groups will discuss their shared goals and expectations in more depth in their workshop on goal setting.  Another exercise will help members to refine their political judgment.  They will learn about attitudes and behaviors that facilitate sound political judgment as well as factors that cloud our judgment regarding political affairs.  A third exercise will help members of faith communities to make connections between their political views, values, and affiliations and the views and values of their faith tradition.  

As a whole, this orientation program is designed to help PEAG members to communicate and cooperate with each other as informed citizens, each with something valuable to contribute to political dialogue and action.

B.  Method for Dialogue and Analysis

Our method for dialogue and analysis involves three steps: selecting topics, understanding and evaluating topics, and consensus building.

Selecting Topics
After their orientation is complete, PEAGs may engage in dialogue and analysis.  In the course of their dialogue, they will first select a topic for discussion.  The topic could be practically anything related to politics -- a party, a candidate, a debate, an address, some area of public policy, such as housing or education policy; a socio-political movement; news and commentary in the media, a broader social issue (such as poverty or gun control) an international organization; or a foreign government.

Understanding Topics
After they select a topic, PEAG members will use our analytical method to gain a comprehensive understanding of their topic.  The ‘Method for Political Analysis’ presented below may be used to understand parties, candidates, debates, addresses, public policies, and treaties.  Part I of this method will help them to understand the public philosophies of political parties and public figures, including candidates, speakers, and sponsors of legislation.  Part II explores the character, leadership, and competence of public figures as well as the character and leadership of political parties.  Part III examines the various influences that shape policies and platforms.  Part IV systematically investigates the likely impact of platforms and policies on individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole.*  Part V explores relationships between policies.  This final part focuses on relationships between different policies within platforms as well as relationships between proposed policies and other policies related to them.

We will create revised versions of this method that PEAG members may use to analyze other topics, such as social movements, news and commentary in the media, broader social issues, international organizations, and foreign governments.  In addition, our Policy Guides (see I.C above) may be used by groups that wish to use our software or workbooks in order to analyze public policies.  These guides will help members to clarify key issues and problems relevant to a specific area of policy.  They will then guide them through an analysis of the ways in which these issues and problems are relevant to the welfare of individuals, social groups, and the environment.  Finally, the guides will review policy options that have been or may be proposed to address these issues.  Readers will be encouraged to brainstorm their own policy proposals as well.

In general, the goal of this stage is simply to gain a thorough understanding of the different aspects of a topic before evaluating the topic.  Our 'Informed Citizen'™ and 'World Citizen'™ software applications will be helpful for this process of understanding (see Applications 5-14, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 31 above).  (For those who do not have access to a computer, these applications will be converted into exercises that will be included in our publications.) 

* If a group espouses beliefs about the universe as a whole, and these views are relevant to their political views, they may wish to discuss the impact of platforms and policies on this most inclusive level as well.  If they do not espouse any politically relevant cosmic views, it is not necessary to explore the impact of platforms or policies on this level.  For an detailed explanation of these different levels of organization, see the section below entitled "The Foundation of this Method: A 'Dynamic Systems' View of the World".

Evaluating Topics
After gaining a comprehensive understanding of the topic of their discussion, PEAGs may then carefully evaluate their topic.  In the 'Citizen Choice'™ and 'World Citizen'™ software applications described above (see Applications 15-24, 26, 29, and 31), we convert our analytical method into a comprehensive framework for evaluating topics (also provided in printed exercises).   For example, after PEAG members gain a clear understanding of a party's or a candidate's platform, they may evaluate how effectively the platform promotes the well-being of individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole (if applicable).  They must then decide if the benefits of the platform outweigh any costs -- financial or otherwise -- associated with it.  This type of evaluation is called a cost-benefit analysis.  It is discussed in more depth in Part III of our 'Method for Political Analysis.'  In addition, they will evaluate the influences that shape the platform as well as the character and leadership of the party or candidate.  For other topics, they may assess a specific policy, a political address, or a debate.  As mentioned above, other versions of this method will enable PEAG members to evaluate positions on broader social issues, foreign governments, international institutions, socio-political movements, and news and commentary in the media.

Consensus Building
After carefully analyzing and evaluating their topic, group members may then wish to reach a consensus that represents the group's collective judgment on the topic.  For example, they may wish to identify a specific party, candidate, policy, or set of policies* that, in their view, best promotes the public good.  Or they may wish to declare a winner of a debate, or make a collective judgment on the quality of a political address.  In order to help the group come to an agreement on a position that all may support, group members will learn skills, attitudes, and strategies for consensus building.  When a consensus has been reached, PEAG members may then wish to explore ways to advocate or promote their views in the public square (see the section on 'Advocacy' below).

* If a group is trying to reach a consensus on policies, we recommend that they take an 'experimental approach' to public policy-making.  As discussed in our Mission and in section VIII below, this approach suggests that public policies should be created, implemented, and refined through a careful process of trial and error.  In this process, policymakers should, whenever possible, address a challenging social problem with different policies in different regions or with different policies in the same region at different times.  After the different options have been given a sufficient trial period, policymakers may then step back and try to determine which of the alternative policies most effectively achieved the desired results.  If it is not possible to implement different policies, this approach demands that legislators review and, if necessary, revise the policies that they implement so that these policies will most effectively achieve their goals.

If they adopt this experimental approach, PEAGs do not necessarily have to reach a consensus on just one policy to advocate.  They may decide to promote a cluster of policies that all seem promising.  They may then call on leaders to 'experiment' with the different policies in different regions, or at subsequent times in the same region.  This approach will help groups to appreciate the complexity of social problems and to honor a variety of promising proposals that may be suggested within the group and within the public debate as a whole.

C.  Method for Advocacy

After reaching a consensus on the views and positions that they would like to espouse, PEAG members may then begin to plan a strategy for advocating their views in the public square.  Our ‘Citizen Action’ Software for Political Advocacy will help members to plan this strategy using our method for advocacy (as with all applications, we will provide groups with printed worksheets based on this application if they do not have access to computers).

Our method for advocacy involves several steps.  Groups should first clarify the goals and objectives of their advocacy campaign so that they can make the best use of members' valuable time, talents, and resources.  PEAGs may then recruit other groups as well as individual citizens who may wish to form a partnership or coalition.  These coalitions may combine their resources in a broader advocacy campaign that may have a greater impact on the policymaking process.  Next, groups should select effective rhetorical strategies or ways of composing their message to different audiences.  And finally, groups should choose strategies for communicating their message to these audiences.  These strategies may include relatively simple activities, such as writing a letter to an elected official, as well as more ambitious projects such as vigils, ‘teach-ins’, and rallies.  Each of these steps in the advocacy process is discussed below.

Clarifying Goals and Objectives
PEAGs should first identify specific goals and objectives that they would like to achieve through their advocacy.  These should be related to three basic goals of advocacy: reaching, sharing, and mobilizing.  Advocates must first identify and reach out to individuals and groups who can help them to promote their cause.  They may try to reach a smaller 'niche' audience, a broader public audience, and/or specific public officials.  They must then share their views with others in a civil, clear, and persuasive manner.  Finally, they must mobilize individuals and groups to take specific actions that promote their cause.  In short, advocates must somehow communicate to their audience: "This is an important issue."  "This is why it's important."  "This is what we can do about it."  We will help groups to adapt these goals to local, state, national, and international advocacy campaigns.  

Building Coalitions
As they clarify the goals of their campaign, PEAGs should consider forming coalitions with other PEAGs, with other organizations, and/or with individual citizens who may wish to join their cause.  The advantage to this, as mentioned above, is that coalitions can combine their creativity and resources.  They may then plan more ambitious strategies for communicating their views to a wider public audience and to public officials.  

The Center's web site will facilitate coalition building among PEAGs who desire to do this.  In a special section of the site, we will allow groups that are interested in forming coalitions to publish a summary of the views and positions that they would like to advocate.  After groups with compatible views find each other, we will provide special 'coalition chat rooms' in which their leaders may discuss the coalition's goals and strategies.  

The web site will also help PEAGs to form coalitions with established advocacy organizations.  Advocacy organizations are created in order to promote specific views and values in the public square.  These views and values may be related to politics, economics, the environment, the needs and interests of groups such as the elderly, and any other types of issues that are relevant to public life.  They may promote their causes on a variety of levels, from their local community to the international arena.  They may also promote candidates for political office on all levels of government.  

'Grass-roots' advocacy organizations attempt to organize members of the public in campaigns that promote specific views, values, and/or public figures.  They play an essential role in the democratic process because they help individuals and small groups to amplify their voices as they speak out in unison on issues that are important to them.  Examples include such organizations as The National Rifle Association and MoveOn.org.  We will provide profiles and contact information on these and many other groups in the section of our web site entitled "The Advocacy Organization Page."

PEAGs may wish to formally coordinate advocacy efforts with advocacy organizations, particularly if these organizations are local groups.  PEAGs may also wish to join in the grass-roots efforts of larger advocacy organizations.  For example, they may choose to participate in a nationwide campaign of writing e-mails or letters to members of Congress regarding an important policy or issue.  This type of participation may be considered coalition building in a less formal and organized sense, since PEAG members will not actually participate in the planning of advocacy efforts.  Yet it is still a very effective advocacy strategy.  It is discussed further in the section on advocacy strategies below.

Finally, we will help PEAGs to formulate strategies for contacting individual citizens and other types of organizations that may wish to participate in their campaign.

If they would like to build coalitions with other groups or recruit individual citizens to participate in a campaign to promote a policy position, PEAGs will have to pursue their advocacy goals in two stages.  In the first stage, they will have to reach other individuals and groups, share their views with them, and mobilize them to communicate their views to policymakers.  In the second stage, they will have to reach policymakers, share their views with them, and try to mobilize them to take action through the policymaking process.

After groups have clarified their goals and identified possible coalition partners, they may then select rhetorical strategies and methods of communication that will best achieve these goals.  Rhetorical strategies are the forms in which groups compose their message.  Methods of communication are the strategies that groups will use to actually convey their message to others in a clear, compelling, and persuasive manner.

Choosing Rhetorical Strategies
Groups may use a variety of different rhetorical strategies as they articulate and defend their positions.  As they advocate candidates, parties, and policies, groups must first provide a systematic explanation of the ways in which policies and platforms promote the well-being of individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole (if applicable).  For example, a group may explain how a vocational training program will benefit individuals as well as the institutions that employ them.  If this program trains individuals to work in industries that protect the environment, such as clean energy or mass transit, then the group may discuss the benefits of the program for the environment as well.  Groups should also explain how the benefits of platforms or policies outweigh any costs -- financial or otherwise -- associated with the policies or platforms.  This rhetorical strategy may thus be described as a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of a policy or platform.  This type of analysis is essential to any credible campaign for advocating platforms or policies.  As mentioned above, it is discussed in more depth in Part III of our 'Method for Political Analysis.'

Groups may also promote their views by weaving a historical narrative.  In this approach, groups describe how their advocacy campaign fits into a broader progressive historical movement.*  For example, if a group is advocating civil rights legislation, they may claim that this legislation is part of a wider global movement that seeks the liberation of all persons who have been oppressed because of their race, religion, gender, etc.  This strategy is powerful for two reasons.  First, it helps one's audience to make sense of the past and, more specifically, to identify meaningful events and trends.  Second, it opens up a hopeful, progressive vision of a future that the audience can shape by supporting a particular candidate or policy.

*  In order to help citizens to place their views or 'causes' within one or more social movements, we will provide brief descriptions of a variety of different social movements from throughout American history.  Some of these include the Abolitionist Movement, the Labor Movement, the Women's Movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the Environmental Movement, the Pro-Life Movement, and the Reagan Revolution.  Many of these movements are or were international in scope.  We will thus describe their reach beyond American borders as well.  For all of these movements, we will briefly discuss their goals, the key individuals and organizations that have led and sustained them, key turning points within them, and some of the specific public policies associated with them.  This broad historical perspective will enable citizens to see how their cause may be part of movements that have continued over several decades, or even centuries.  It will also enable citizens to entertain the prospect of reviving, renewing, and/or revising movements that may have lost their focus and momentum.  In addition, it may help citizens to join forces with larger organizations that are the driving forces behind contemporary social movements.  It may even inspire citizens to start a new social movement!  

Stories are simpler but very effective rhetorical strategies that can be used to promote policies and public figures.  Stories about significant episodes in a candidate's life can illustrate the candidate's most admirable personal qualities.  Stories can also communicate the need to enact a policy.  For example, if a group is advocating a policy that is designed to alleviate poverty, its members may tell stories about the daily hardships that must be endured by the persons who will benefit from the policy.  They may then describe how the policy will eliminate some or all of these hardships.  The use of stories is an especially persuasive rhetorical strategy because stories can engage an audience's imagination, emotions, and sense of values in profound and enduring ways.

Other simple but effective rhetorical strategies include the use of songs, slogans, and symbols in advocacy campaigns.  Slogans and symbols can powerfully summarize the key views and values that groups espouse.  Symbols may also become a sort of 'trademark' that immediately identifies your group or coalition to others.  Songs can both communicate insights and cultivate a deep emotional commitment to one's cause.  When sung by large groups, songs can create an intense feeling of solidarity and purpose among group members. 

Choosing Means of Communication
After they have selected one or more rhetorical strategies, groups may then evaluate methods for communicating their message to their audience.  If they are trying build partnerships or coalitions with individual citizens and civic groups, they may decide to hold a public forum on an issue or policy.  They may also distribute flyers that explain their views in some well-traveled public place.  If they are trying to reach policymakers, they may write letters to them or invite them to attend a forum or panel discussion.  Our publications and political action software will provide step-by-step guidance for planning a wide variety of different communication strategies.  We will also rate each method according to several criteria that are derived from the goals of advocacy described above:
* cost;
* potential exposure: the number of persons likely to be reached by a specific method of communication;
* potential for education: how effectively the group will be able to explain its views to others through a particular method.  Panel discussions provide excellent opportunities for this.  Passing out flyers at a shopping mall may reach a lot of people, but it will not provide the best forum for dialogue, questions, and clarification.
* potential for mobilizing: the potential for encouraging others to take concrete, coordinated steps in support of one's position.  Again, PEAGs will be able to do this more effectively by planning activities that involve extended interactions with other groups and individuals.  Communication methods that involve brief interactions (such as distributing flyers) do not provide as much opportunity for mobilizing others to take action.
* continuity or long-term effectiveness:  measures how long the method will have an impact on the intended audience.  Advocating views by starting a discussion group may have a long-term impact on participants.  Canvassing neighborhoods in order to encourage others to vote for a particular candidate in an upcoming election has a more limited, short-term impact.

As methods of communication are being planned and implemented, our textbooks and software programs will help group leaders to delegate tasks to group members and keep track of the various tasks as they are being completed.  

Below we describe how groups may use a variety of methods for communicating their support for candidates and their positions on public policies.

Communicating Support for Candidates
Citizen groups may advocate candidates in a variety of ways.  They may, for example, submit letters to the editors of newspapers that describe why they support a particular candidate.  They could also advocate their candidate on a 'call-in' radio talk show.  These methods reach a broad public audience yet cost nothing.  Another inexpensive strategy is distributing campaign literature door-to-door in neighborhoods or in public places such as malls.  In addition, groups may promote their candidate in chat rooms on the internet or in a special web site that they create.  All of these methods may include summaries of groups' cost-benefit analyses of candidates' platforms.  They may also include stories from a candidate's life that illustrate the candidate's character and leadership.  

Using a variety of other rhetorical strategies, group members may wear buttons and t-shirts on which are printed slogans and symbols that express the core views, values, and policies espoused by the candidate whom they support.  Groups can plan more ambitious communication strategies by forming coalitions and pooling their resources.  They may then run ads or notices in print or broadcast media that reach a wide public audience.  Or they may hold a large and well-publicized rally in their community for their candidate.

Grass-roots advocacy organizations may also provide opportunities for PEAG members to advocate candidates.  PEAGs may urge these organizations to officially endorse a specific candidate for an office.  For their part, advocacy organizations may arrange for graphic artists to design electronic or printed flyers that profile candidates and their platforms.  PEAG members may then post printed flyers within their communities or e-mail electronic flyers to other interested persons. 

Communicating Positions on Public Policies
Most of these options as well as many others are available to groups that wish to communicate their positions on public policies.  Groups may communicate their views directly to public officials in a variety of ways.  They may, for example, attend a public hearing on a particular policy and voice their opinions directly to the public officials who attend.  They may also meet with officials in their offices.  In addition, they may convey their views by writing, calling, or e-mailing government officials.  

They may communicate their views to the wider public in many creative ways.  Using the same strategies described above, they may write letters to the editors of newspapers, participate in call-in radio shows, and pass out flyers that explain their position.  If groups wish to communicate their policy positions on-line, they may participate in internet chat rooms or post their views on message boards.  They may also create a web site that promotes their position.  They may compose slogans and create symbols and then print them on buttons, bumper stickers, and/or t-shirts.  

Once again, more ambitious groups could form coalitions with other groups in order to reach a wider audience as they promote their views.  If groups build large enough coalitions, they could place notices in print or broadcast media that reach a very large public audience -- including public officials.  They could also plan large-scale vigils and peaceful public demonstrations in support of their policy positions.  In addition, they could call for boycotts of businesses and/or public services in order to pressure governments to enact, repeal, or change a particular policy.  For example, if members of a particular race believe that a state has enacted a racist policy, they may call for a boycott of hotels and tourist attractions in that state.  In this way, they may persuade the owners and employees of these businesses to pressure state leaders to repeal the policy.  They may also boycott public services such as transit systems.  The resulting loss of public revenue may persuade legislators to repeal the policy.  The latter strategy was successfully employed during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's.

PEAGs may pursue other effective options by participating in the campaigns of grass-roots advocacy organizations.  These organizations may coordinate large-scale efforts to speak out on important policies.  They may, for example, coordinate rallies around the country in order to promote or protest against specific policies.  PEAGs can play an important role in recruiting members of their community to attend these rallies.  Advocacy organizations may also coordinate campaigns in which members of the public are urged to write a letter or e-mail to members of Congress regarding a specific policy.  PEAGs can urge their members as well as other individuals and groups to participate in these campaigns.

Coordinating Forums for Dialogue or 'Town Hall Meetings'
On their own or with other organizations, PEAGs could coordinate forums for political dialogue in schools, neighborhoods, faith communities, and/or civic groups.  These forums are often referred to as 'Town Hall Meetings.'  The topics of these forums could be parties, candidates, policies, debates, or any other political topic that they wish to discuss.  Candidates, party representatives, and sponsors of policies could be invited to attend in order to discuss their policies and/or platforms.  Our methods for dialogue and analysis could be used to provide a format for these discussions.  PEAGs may distribute brief descriptions of these frameworks to those who attend.  They could also encourage participants to form their own PEAGs so that they may take part in further discussions of important figures and issues. 

All of these methods for communicating views – and many more besides – will be included in our textbooks and in our ‘Citizen Action’ Software for Political Advocacy.

Our Method for Political Analysis

I.  Introduction to the Method: Understanding and Evaluating Political Figures, Institutions, Events, and Policies*

In a general sense, this method has been created in order to broaden, clarify, and refine the terms of political discourse that are commonly used in the public square.  We hope to help citizens and their elected officials to clarify the goals of political life, and then to discuss, in a concrete and systematic way, the various types of public policies that should be created in order to achieve those goals.     

More specifically,  this method should enable citizens of all parties, philosophies, and creeds to better understand and evaluate political figures, institutions, and issues.  Citizens may use it to conduct a detailed and systematic analysis of political topics.  They may then make decisions that are more informed and carefully considered.  This method is also designed to encourage parties and candidates to clarify their policy positions as well as their overall public philosophy. Hopefully, as more citizens use this framework to refine their political views, candidates and officials will feel more obliged to articulate and defend their ideas in a concrete and coherent manner.

In order to encourage parties, candidates and officials to use this framework, we propose to create simple software programs, structured according to the method, that they may use to clarify their public philosophies, articulate their campaign platforms, and defend their policy proposals (see section I.F, Applications 1-4 in the list of the Center's programs above). To make it easier for citizens to use this framework, we propose to create a variety of programs that will help citizens to analyze and evaluate political figures, parties, debates, addresses, and policies. (see section F, Applications 5-10, 15-20).*

The Parts of the Method
Our analytical method consists of several components.  The first is an exploration of the public philosophies that shape the platforms and policies of parties, candidates, and public officials.  The second is a careful examination of the competence, character, and leadership of parties and public figures.  The third focuses on the various influences that shape platforms and policies.  The fourth is a comprehensive framework for analyzing the impact of platforms and policies on individual persons, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole.  The fifth is an exploration of the ways in which different policies and areas of policy are related to each other.  In the analysis of platforms, this component explores the ways in which parties and candidates integrate different policies into broader strategies that address a social issue or problem.  In the analysis of specific policies, this component seeks to clarify how a policy may be part of a larger strategy for addressing an issue.  It also explores the ways in which other areas of policy might be adversely or positively affected by a specific policy.

The five components of our method will help parties, candidates, and public officials to communicate their philosophies, platforms, and policy proposals to the general public.  They will also enable citizens to analyze and evaluate these topics.  Using our software applications and worksheets, citizens may construct 'webs' of information that will enable them to gain a comprehensive understanding of parties, candidates, and public policies (including treaties).  Policy and Treaty Webs are structured by five 'circles' of information.  The first is a clear presentation of the policy or treaty, the issue that it addresses, and a brief history of other policies or treaties that have been enacted to address this issue.  The second focuses on the ideas, interests, and other influences that shape the policy or treaty.  The third focuses on the character and leadership of the sponsors of a policy or treaty.  The fourth is a comprehensive exploration of the likely impact of a policy or treaty on individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole (if applicable).  The fifth seeks to identify relationships between the policy or treaty and other proposed and existing policies or treaties.

Party and Candidate Webs have five circles of information: a summary of the candidate's or party's public philosophy, an examination of the character and leadership of the candidate or party, an analysis of the different influences that shape their platform, a systematic analysis of the impact of the platform on the four levels of organization mentioned above, and an assessment of the relationships between the different areas of policy that comprise the platform.

The method may also be used to analyze debates and political addresses.  It will enable citizens to create profiles for each of these events.  These profiles will include 1) the areas of policy covered in the event, 2) the competence, character, and leadership demonstrated by the speaker or each debater, 3) analyses of the impact of the various proposed policies on the welfare of individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole (if applicable), and 4) an exploration of relationships between the various proposals put forth by the speaker or by each debater.

Citizens may consult these webs and profiles as they evaluate parties, candidates, debates, addresses, policies, and treaties.  These evaluations may be conducted using our 'Citizens Choice' software applications or printed worksheets provided in our publications.  As mentioned above in our description of the software, they will enable citizens to assess 

• the public philosophies of parties, candidates, speakers, debaters, and sponsors of legislation, 
• the character and leadership of these organizations and public figures, 
• the influences that shape policies and platforms that are proposed by parties and public figures, 
• the likely impact of platforms and policies on the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment,
• relationships between the various policies that comprise platforms, and 
• relationships between proposed policies and other existing or proposed policies.

*  As mentioned above, revised versions of this method will be created in order to allow citizens to understand and evaluate interest groups, social movements, broader social issues, media information, foreign governments, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations.

II. The Foundation of this Method: A 'Dynamic Systems' View of the World

Our method for political analysis is grounded in two important ways of understanding the world: a "systems" view and a "process" view of the world. The systems view focuses on the interconnectedness of all things – individuals, societies, and ecosystems. The process view reveals how things change and develop over time.*  These 'systems' and 'process' views simply acknowledge that we live in space and time -- a space that is filled with many interconnected things, all bound together in a temporal process of change and development.  We may combine these two views into one overarching perspective: a 'dynamic systems' world view.  This perspective seeks to understand how all things relate to each other as they undergo patterns of change and development.  Below we discuss in more detail the 'systems' and 'process' perspectives that comprise this overall world view.  We also describe how the 'dynamic systems' world view structures various aspects of our method for political analysis.

(*The 'process' perspective does not apply to the nature of any deity(ies) that may be part of one's religious beliefs.  We are not claiming that a divine being or beings has/have a changing and developing nature.  We refer only to humans and the world around us.)


A 'Systems' View of the World

The systems view focuses on the relationships that exist between all things.  From a systems perspective, one may discover how one’s ideas and actions are never isolated. Rather, they affect other individuals and groups in a variety of ways. Similarly, the programs and policies of specific groups affect other groups, the actions of nations affect other nations as well as countless individuals, and the actions of human societies as a whole have a profound effect on other forms of life and entire ecosystems. In a very real way, the world around us is part of one big system made up of myriad interrelated individuals, groups, ecosystems, and geographic features.

A systems view of the world also affirms that all entities are composed of interrelated parts.  Thus, in order to bring greater order and clarity to this world system and all of its interrelationships, we will break it down into different "subsystems" that comprise it.  These subsystems include four different levels of organization, moving from the least to the most comprehensive.  They include 1) individual persons, 2) social groups, 3) ecosystems and finally 4) the cosmos as a whole.  [In most contexts, the cosmic level simply refers to the Earth as a whole.  However, when analyzing religious or philosophical views, this level may refer to laws (e.g. karma), principles (yin-yang), or divine plans that are relevant to the entire universe]. 

We use these four levels as the basic outline of our framework for analyzing public philosophies, platforms, and policies.  It is important to remember that there are no strict separations between these levels in the real world.  In fact, as one moves from the least to the most comprehensive level, each previous level is included in or subsumed by the next successive level: individuals are subsumed into the social level, social groups are part of ecosystems, and all ecosystems are included in the cosmic level.  Nonetheless, this framework is useful because it breaks the world up into manageable parts that can be understood with greater precision and clarity. Starting on the level of individuals, we can gradually construct the larger context of the world around us as we attempt to make sense of political issues and events.

Sets of Components on Each Level of Organization

Within each subsystem or level of organization, our analytical method highlights a clearly defined set of components that comprise the various entities on that level.  Once again, consistent with our 'systems' view, it is assumed that these components are related to each other on each level, and that each level is connected with the other levels.  Consistent with our 'process' view (see below), these sets of components are also put in motion -- they are understood as changing and developing entities.

Various disciplines in the human sciences, the natural sciences, the humanities, and especially ethical theory all provide clarity in the details of understanding these components, whether they be various dimensions of the person or the types of institutions that make up society (see diagrams below).  On the different levels of organization, we draw from diverse fields such as psychology, sociology, traditional political theory, economic theory, philosophy, and ecology.  By initiating dialogue between these fields and ethical theory, we offer values and principles that describe how to most effectively promote the well-being and development of each set of components, thus enabling these various components to contribute in some way to the public good.  Using these sets of components, values, and principles, citizens may systematically explore how platforms and policies will affect the development of entities on each level of organization.

Components of the self or of human nature may be described using two different but complementary perspectives. The first includes sets of developmental needs and capabilities that all individuals address and develop.  Two useful theories of human development are discussed in Attachment 2 below.  The second describes different dimensions of one’s personality and lifestyle.  Each of these perspectives illuminates aspects of the human person that are central to our identity and to our quest for meaning and fulfillment.  Relationships between these two perspectives are discussed in section I of our 'Framework for Analyzing the Impact of Platforms and Policies'.  

The social subsystem includes all individuals (the inner circle) and human groups of all types and sizes. Various types of social collectivities may be described using different frameworks or sets of components. One may, for example, focus on different types of institutions. Another social framework highlights three types of social sectors: the market, the state, and civil society.  A third focuses on different socio-cultural groups composed of individuals who share a particular characteristic that may have a significant impact on their opportunities for self-development.  Some of these characteristics include race, ethnicity, economic class, and gender.  A fourth organizes society according to different levels of social organization, from local communities to the global community.  These frameworks are presented in section II of our 'Framework for Analyzing the Impact of Platforms and Policies'.

The ecological subsystem is comprised of the biosphere, which contains ecosystems along with their species and physical habitats. Human individuals and societies, represented by the two inner circles, are parts of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole.  This subsystem is discussed in section III of our 'Framework for Analyzing the Impact of Platforms and Policies'.

The cosmic system contains the entire global community of life and all other entities beyond the Earth.  It is discussed in section IV of our 'Framework for Analyzing the Impact of Platforms and Policies'.



A 'Process' View:  Mapping Connections between Events in the History of Individuals, Social Groups, the Environment, and the Cosmos

Just as a systems view of the world focuses on relationships between things, a process view focuses on relationships between events -- between the past, present, and future.  This awareness of time -- of history -- is the hallmark of a process view of the world.  It calls us not to understand persons, groups, the environment, and the cosmos only in the here and now, but rather as entities that develop and change over time.  In our 'Framework for Analyzing the Impact of Platforms and Policies' (Part IV of our Method), we take a process view of the world and of the different levels of organization within it.  In section I of this framework we use theories of human development to analyze the impact of policies on personal growth.  In section II we explore how policies affect the dynamics of social progress, which are shaped by the behavior of particular social groups as well as interactions between groups.  In section III we explore the impact of policies on the cycles of growth and renewal in ecological systems.  And finally, in section IV we provide an opportunity for citizens to analyze how policies relate to their views of how the cosmos as a whole unfolds over time.

Dynamic Relationships between Patterns of Change on Different Levels of Organization

In addition, since the various levels of organization are related to each other in one comprehensive cosmic system, it is important to emphasize that the processes and patterns of change on each level are also interrelated.  For example, the dynamics of individual development have a major impact on social progress: competent, mature individuals strengthen organizations and society as a whole.  Similarly, thriving individuals and progressive institutions contribute to ecological integrity as they create ways of living that respect and preserve the environment.  

It is also important to point out that the development of entities on lower levels of organization is dependent upon healthy patterns of change and development on higher levels.  The healthy development of individuals is deeply influenced by social institutions that should, optimally, provide opportunities for personal growth.  In turn, personal growth and social progress are both dependent upon the integrity of the ecological cycles of growth and renewal that sustain all human societies.

Defining the Common Good and the Ideal Society

The overall goal of political life may be described as the common good.  This overarching principle represents the interconnected dynamics of personal growth, social progress, and ecological renewal.  We assume that all aspects of political life should, in some way, aim toward this dynamic goal.  In all of their activities in the public square, citizens, public leaders, and political groups should strive to achieve it.  

We further maintain that these dynamics aim toward the ideal of a just and sustainable society.  This ideal society provides criteria by which all human societies may be measured.  The principles of justice and sustainability are the central criteria.  The principle of justice has meanings on both the individual and social levels.  On the individual level, justice demands that all persons enjoy ample opportunities to develop themselves and reach their full potential.  In a broader social sense, justice represents a way of ordering society that promotes social progress.  This social order is expressed in the values, policies, and programs of institutions.  It is also realized in the ways in which various other types of social groups, such as social sectors, relate to each other.  The specific values and principles that shape a just social order are discussed in Part IV of our "Method for Political Analysis".  The principle of sustainability promotes ways of living that preserve the long-term health of the environment.  It is also discussed at length in Part IV of our method.  A just and sustainable society is thus a well-ordered society that provides opportunities for all and that meets its needs in ways that preserve the environment.

These ideals are relevant for both domestic and foreign policies.  In the realm of international relations, the global common good is an interrelated personal, social, and ecological process that aims toward a just and sustainable global community -- a community in which individuals and groups in all nations may meet their needs while preserving the long-term health of the biosphere.  All international policies and programs should promote the global common good and, in doing so, strive to establish just and sustainable societies around the world.

As we explain our strategy for political participation, we may use the terms public good, common good, and public interest interchangeably.  All of these terms refer to the same principle defined above. 

Integrating 'Systems' and 'Process' Perspectives within a 'Dynamic Systems' World View

We integrate these 'systems' and 'process' perspectives into a 'dynamic systems' world view.  This world view will enable citizens to understand political life in the broader context of a world made up of entities that are related to each other in complex patterns of change and development.  

In Part I of our method, this world view will help citizens to identify some of the key elements that comprise a coherent public philosophy.  In Part II, it will enable them to understand how effective public leadership requires the cultivation of several interrelated dimensions of character and competence.  In Part III, it will help them to discover how policies and platforms are shaped by many different influences interacting with one another.  In Part IV, it will help them to explore the ways in which platforms and policies affect individual development, social progress, ecological cycles of renewal, and cosmic patterns of change and development.  As they do so, they will be able to more clearly discern the benefits and drawbacks of different platforms and policies for entities on all levels of organization.  In Part V, it will enable them to discover the ways in which policies are related to one another in the policymaking process.  

Within this comprehensive perspective, citizens will be able to grasp the 'big picture' of political life.  They may conduct thorough and penetrating analyses of candidates, political parties, debates, addresses, public policies, and treaties.  Informed by their analyses, they should become more confident and competent participants in discussions of important public issues.

Part I:  Key Elements of Public Philosophies

A public philosophy is a statement of the views, values, and principles that guide an individual's or an organization's understanding of the nature and goals of political life.  It describes the key roles and functions of public leaders and institutions as well as the goals toward which they should strive as they conduct the affairs of government.  It also describes how individual citizens and private institutions can work with governments to achieve these goals.  And since politics in some way affects practically all aspects of human civilization, it must be based on a 'world view' that can comprehend how political life will impact the well-being of individuals, social groups, ecosystems, and the biosphere as a whole.  It may even offer views on the relationships between public life and the cosmos as a whole.*  In this section, we describe the sources and components of political philosophies.  We also describe how they are related to the platforms and policies of parties and public officials.

*  Most contemporary western public philosophies do not include views on the cosmos as a whole, for reasons that are discussed in section I.B.2.d below).

I.  The Sources and Composition of Public Philosophies

A.  Sources
The insights and principles that comprise public philosophies may be drawn from many sources, including political theory, the human sciences, the natural sciences, philosophy (including ethical theory), and religious traditions.*  In fact, any set of ideas that an individual or group considers to be relevant to political life may be a source for their public philosophy.

Having said this, we also note that most modern democratic societies are pluralistic -- that is, they are composed of citizens who have different views and values.  The residents of many large cities throughout the world represent a dizzying variety of religious traditions and philosophical viewpoints.  To further complicate this, many individuals do not adhere to any established religion or philosophy.  Rather, they forge their own personal views, some of which may be original to them while others may be 'borrowed' in bits and pieces from a variety of established traditions.  

This diversity is a challenge for individuals or groups that wish to ground their political philosophy in the doctrines of a particular religious tradition.  If they want to appeal to this diverse audience, they will have to 'translate' these religious doctrines into concepts and values that can be understood and verified through our common human experiences and observations.  They must thus rely on sources of ideas that are based in science or in more basic philosophical reflections on human experience.  For example, a candidate may believe that each individual human life is valuable because all humans are created in the image of their divine creator.  In order to appeal to a wider audience, which may include persons of many faiths as well as atheists, this candidate may wish to translate this doctrine into terms that all may find reasonable and verifiable in their own experience.  They could thus affirm the inherent value of individuals as intelligent, creative beings who have the capacity to cultivate profound moral sensibilities and form rich and rewarding relationships.  This translation or adaptation could capture the basic meaning of a religious doctrine and express it in terms that can be clearly understood by anyone in the general public who is a careful observer of human behavior.  

In addition, this translation will enable the candidate to deal with issues regarding the separation of church and state.  If they can articulate their policy goals in both religious and non-religious (i.e. secular) terms, this will minimize concerns that they are trying to use the government to pursue policy goals that are rooted solely in the beliefs of a particular religious tradition (and not in your nation's Constitution).  Thus, with some creative interpretation, the candidate can both honor their religious convictions and respect the properly secular mission of governments.

While some may view this type of translation or adaptation as a 'watering down' of religious doctrines, it is an essential step that must be taken if an individual or group wishes to appeal to a broad spectrum of diverse individuals.**  In order to maximize their appeal to diverse citizens, a party or candidate could even use both religious doctrines as well as nonreligious translations of these doctrines as they set forth and defend their public philosophies.

* In order to help citizens to understand how public philosophies draw from different sources, it may be helpful to make some distinctions between three key sources: philosophy, science, and religion.  We define a 'philosophy' as any system of thought that seeks to describe the world, ascribe value to entities within the world, and set forth ethical principles and values that should guide human behavior (including politics).  While some aspects of a philosophical 'world view' may be based on scientific research, the scope of philosophical inquiry extends beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.  Empirical scientific research simply strives to describe things and phenomena using strict methods of observation and measurement.  Philosophy, on the other hand, may speculate on the value of things and phenomena, the proper goals and purposes of human endeavor, and the best ways for humans to achieve these goals and pursue these purposes.  Philosophers may also speculate on the nature and behavior of things and phenomena that are not easily investigated using the tools of science.  Though the two fields are distinct, scientific findings may be very helpful for philosophical inquiries, and philosophical principles may be used to select the types of research projects that scientists will conduct.  These principles may also help scientists and philosophers alike to explore the broader implications of scientific findings.

In addition, for the purposes of this method, religious systems of thought that affirm the existence of any sort of deities or gods are not considered philosophies.  We should note, however, that there are other views regarding the relationship between philosophy and religion.  This is simply a distinction that seems useful for our method.  

According to this definition, examples of philosophical systems include long-established traditions such as Taoism and classical Buddhism, as well as more modern philosophies such as existentialism, utilitarianism, and relativism.

** This process may actually work to the benefit of religious and philosophical traditions.  As their members attempt to translate their doctrines into terms that are more accessible to the public, they may discover ways to clarify, refine, and even 'update' these doctrines.


B.  Composition
Public philosophies include a variety of different components.  In the sections below, we describe several components that should, in our view, be included in all public philosophies.

1.  Basic World View:  Understanding of Human Nature, Society, the Environment, and the Cosmos 
Public philosophies are based on assumptions about human nature and the world around us.  These assumptions may be described as the 'world view' of a party or public figure.  As discussed in the sections on the foundations of this method, we can organize a world view according to sets of views on four different levels of organization: the individual level, the social level, the ecological level, and the cosmic level.  Thus, in order to more clearly comprehend the world view of a party or public figure, citizens may identify their specific understanding of human nature, society, the natural world, and the cosmos as a whole (if the party or public figure espouses views regarding this most inclusive level of organization).  They may also determine how a party or public figure understands relationships between these entities.  Parties and public figures may be more or less explicit about their world view as they set forth their basic philosophical tenets.  Ideally, they should articulate their world view in a clear and systematic fashion.  Examples of various components of a world view are provided in sections 2a-2e below.  In these sections, we first provide a key component of the world view of a public philosophy, followed by values and principles related to that view.

2.  Values and Principles for Promoting Individual Development, Social Progress, Environmental Stewardship, and Cosmic Patterns of Change and Development
Beyond a basic understanding of entities on the four levels of organization, a public philosophy may include values and principles for promoting individual development, social progress, environmental stewardship, and cosmic patterns of change or development (if applicable).  

a)  Views and Principles on the Individual Level of Organization
For example, as part of its basic world view, a party or public figure may assert that individual persons are social beings who seek some vision of fulfillment or happiness.  They may then affirm the principle that individuals must be free to exercise a set of basic human rights in order to pursue their vision of personal fulfillment.

b)  Views and Principles Regarding the Social Level of Organization
On the social level, a public philosophy may maintain that society is composed of social institutions as well as various other types of social groups such as ethnic groups and economic classes.  It may also set forth general principles that social groups should follow in order to promote the public good.  Some of these principles may focus on the effective and ethical functioning of institutions such as schools, business firms, and government bodies.  These principles may also describe appropriate relationships between these types of institutions.  For example, they may set forth principles governing relationships between governments and businesses.  Other principles may focus on appropriate relationships between national and local levels of government.  Still others may deal with relationships between different economic classes, ethnic groups, races, and faith traditions.

Views and Principles Regarding International Relations
An understanding of society also includes the realm of international relations.  The world view of a public philosophy should describe how nations are related to one another -- economically, politically, culturally, and ecologically.  The philosophy may then set forth principles that should guide relationships between nations and shape the economic, political, environmental, and cultural projects that nations pursue in the international arena.  These principles should include strategies for preventing international conflicts and for dealing with conflicts that do arise, particularly those conflicts that may lead to the use of military force.  In addition, it may set forth principles regarding the role and function of international institutions. 

As discussed in section F below, a public philosophy may articulate a more focused vision of an 'international order' -- a vision for stable relationships between nations built on a shared set of values, principles, and interests.  These shared concerns may include a common respect for human rights as well as national sovereignty, which is the right of a nation to control affairs within its borders without undue interference.  The goals that your nation will pursue within these international relationships and projects may be described as the national interests or priorities that guide your nation's foreign policies.

c)  Views and Principles Regarding the Ecological Level of Organization
On the ecological level, a public philosophy may offer views based on ecological science.  It may, for example, describe how the welfare of human communities depends upon the cycles of growth and renewal within the ecosystems in which we live.  It may then articulate principles regarding the protection of endangered species as well as the preservation of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole.

d)  Views and Principles Regarding the Cosmic Level of Organization
On the cosmic level, a public philosophy may espouse religious or philosophical views on the cosmos as a whole.  These may include universal laws, principles, and/or divine plans that have implications for political life.  Examples include the law of karma, the principles of yin and yang, and the establishment of the Kingdom of God.  In the modern history of political thought, many political movements have not incorporated cosmic beliefs into their public philosophies.  Instead, they focus on views regarding the other three levels of organization.  Some of these movements believe that cosmic views are simply irrelevant to political life.  Many are also wary of cosmic views because they are so speculative -- that is, they are not very open to rational analysis and verification in the public square.  It may thus be difficult to use them as part of a convincing rational argument for a platform or policy.  In addition, many believe that cosmic views are too divisive in the public square.  Even if people agree on the merits of a policy, they may not agree on some sort of cosmic justification for it that is rooted in a particular philosophical or religious tradition.  The use of this justification may thus give rise to arguments that are neither necessary nor productive.  Furthermore, in nations that strive to maintain a separation between religious and political institutions, many believe that it is inappropriate to include cosmic religious views in one's public philosophy.  Yet there are still political groups around the world that do consider cosmic views to be a basic foundation of political thought.  It is thus important to understand these views and the role that they play in public philosophies.

e)  Views and Principles Regarding Relationships between These Four Levels of Organization
A public philosophy may further describe its understanding of relationships between these different levels of organization as well as principles that apply to these relationships.  For example, a party or public figure may hold that personal development requires both individual initiative and social support.  They may then set forth values and principles that are relevant to this relationship between the individual and society.  One of these principles may state that social institutions must provide resources that individuals need in order to become self-sufficient, productive members of society.  Similarly, they may affirm that societies depend on the health and integrity of the ecosystems that sustain them.  They may then state the principle that manufacturing technologies should produce goods in ways that minimize waste and pollution.

f)  Overarching Principles and Values Regarding the Goals of Political Life
Many political philosophies embrace an overarching principle or image that encompasses and integrates the values and principles described above.  This principle may thus represent the overall goal of public life or the highest political value.  Some examples of an ultimate value include 'individual liberty', ' the public good,' 'the common good,' and 'the public interest.'  The overarching goal of political life may also be described as a vision of an ideal society toward which all political activity should aim.  Examples include 'a free society' and 'a just and sustainable society.'  Parties and public figures may discuss these goals as they present a broader vision for the future of society (see section 5 below).

As with the other principles described above, a philosophy may articulate one overarching principle or goal for domestic policy and another for foreign relations.  For example, the goal for domestic policy may be the establishment and maintenance of a free society.  As mentioned in section C above, the goal for foreign policy may be the establishment of some sort of 'international order' in which nations are bound together by common values, principles, and interests.  The goals that your nation pursues within this order may be described as your nation's 'national interest.'  The principle for foreign relations may simply be an extension of the principle for domestic policy.  For example, the goal for domestic policy may be a just and sustainable society, and the goal for foreign policy may be a just and sustainable global community.
 
3.  More Specific Values and Principles that Apply to Particular Areas of Public Policy

Parties and public figures should also set forth more specific sets of views, values, and principles that are relevant to particular areas of domestic and foreign policies.  These guidelines apply the more general principles in the world view to more specific policy contexts.  In the domestic realm, they may include principles regarding policy areas such as taxation and public education.     

In the realm of international affairs, public philosophies may include principles for establishing trade agreements and for dealing with environmental challenges that can only be addressed through coordinated global strategies.  In addition, practically all public philosophies espouse principles regarding the just use of military force against other nations.

As with the broader principles described in the sections above, these specific principles for domestic and foreign policy may be related.  For example, a party's principles for promoting human rights in a global context may mirror its principles for promoting human rights within your nation.  Yet many foreign policy principles may be unique to a broader international context, such as those governing security alliances with other nations.  While such principles are relevant only to foreign affairs, they may nonetheless reflect core values, such as self-determination, that are meaningful for individuals and institutions both within and beyond your nation's borders.

4.  Principles for Dealing with Trade-Offs between the Costs and Benefits of Public Policies
A public philosophy may further clarify principles for evaluating the costs and benefits of public policies.  These principles will help policymakers to determine whether the benefits of a policy for some entities outweigh any costs or disadvantages for other entities.  For example, officials may use them to assess whether or not a policy that benefits the environment by reducing pollution is worth any costs that it might impose on the institutions and individuals that generate pollution.  The challenge of evaluating trade-offs is discussed further in Part IV, Section VII of this method.

5.  Principles for Reviewing and Revising Policies
Reviewing and revising policies is a key stage in the policymaking process.  Sponsors of new policies should review the outcomes of previous policies that have been enacted in order to achieve the same goal as their policies so that they may gain insights from the successes and/or failures of these policies.  Parties and public figures should also espouse some strategy for reviewing the results of policies after they have been implemented.  They may even support the implementation of alternative policies in different regions or at different times in order to see which is most effective at addressing a particular social issue or problem.  We describe this as an ‘experimental approach’ to policymaking.  It is discussed at length in Part IV, Section VIII of this method.
 
6.  Historical Perspectives:  Reading 'The Signs of the Times'

Historical Trends
As parties and public leaders set forth the views and principles that form the core of their philosophies, they should also identify key historical events and trends that are relevant to public life.  Historical trends may be referred to as the 'signs of the times' that shape political life.  They may be related to any aspect of social life, including economics, politics, science, technology, education, culture, morality, and religion.  They may focus on the ongoing histories of local communities, states, regions, the entire nation, and/or international regions.  They may be short-term or long-term in scope.  As they are discussing these trends, parties and public leaders should try to explain how they may impact the well-being of the various entities affected by them, including individuals, social groups, species, ecosystems, the biosphere, and, if applicable, the cosmos as a whole.  For example, a candidate for a county council may describe a trend toward economic growth and population expansion in the county.  They may also describe how that trend may be affecting individuals, neighborhoods, local businesses, transit systems, and the health of local ecosystems.

Visions for the Future and Mission Statements
These historical perspectives should include parties' and public figures' visions for the future.*  These visions may focus on one or more of the various aspects of social life mentioned above.  They may also set forth general aspirations for society as a whole.  As they set forth these visions, parties and public figures should describe how they hope to contribute to the realization of these visions.  In doing so, they will set forth the overall mission of their organizations (for parties) and their political careers (for public figures).  In a more concrete sense, these 'vision and mission statements' should briefly describe how the platforms and policies of parties and public leaders will lead to a more desirable future.  In assessing these visions, citizens should discern whether or not the hopes and aspirations that they express will actually promote the common good.  Citizens should also determine whether or not these visions are realistic and attainable.

Citizens should be aware of these historical perspectives for two reasons.  First, a party's or public figure's interpretation of trends may help to clarify the various elements of their public philosophy.  The future visions of a party or public figure may be especially helpful in so far as they help to clarify their view of the overall goal or goals of political life.  Toward this end, parties and public leaders should acknowledge the ways in which their philosophies may help them to recognize and respond to these trends.  They may also acknowledge ways in which their interpretations of trends have shaped their public philosophies.  In fact, they may cite these trends as they are setting forth the various elements of their public philosophies.  For example, they may describe how the development of 'environmentally friendly' technologies has inspired their commitment to the principle of sustainable economic growth, that is, economic growth that meets human needs and preserves the environment.

Second, an analysis of these trends and future visions will provide insights into the personal and organizational missions of parties and public figures.  It may thus help citizens to decide which party to join and which candidates to support.  It may also help citizens to identify and evaluate the long-term goals of the policies and platforms that are proposed by parties and public figures.  This is important because parties and sponsors of legislation may not openly acknowledge all of the long-term goals that they are pursuing through their policies.  Policies may be designed to promote positive trends and/or alter negative trends so that some desirable vision of the future may be realized.  For example, a party may claim that there has been a long-term national trend toward higher poverty rates among residents of inner cities.  It may then propose policies that are designed to counteract this trend and move toward a future vision of more prosperous urban neighborhoods.  If citizens are aware of these historical perspectives, they will be better able to understand the goals of the party's specific policies for lowering the poverty rate in these areas.

*  In our printed resources and software applications, we will provide examples of historical trends related to economics, politics, and culture.  We will also describe visions for the future that have been set forth by various parties and public figures (such as the 'Good Society' initiative of the Johnson administration).  These visions may be related to one or more of the social movements discussed above in the section on 'Rhetorical Strategies' within our 'Strategy for Advocacy'.  Some of these historical perspectives focus only on American society, while others include trends and visions that are relevant to the broader international community.  As a whole, these examples are intended to help citizens to more easily recognize, understand, and evaluate the historical perspectives of parties and public figures.

7.  Ideals for Participation in Public Life
The visions and principles described above can be promoted only if the individuals and groups that support them are willing and able to participate effectively in public life.  Public philosophies should thus set forth ideals regarding the participation of public leaders, groups, and individual citizens in the political process.

a)  Ideals for Public Leaders
A public philosophy may describe areas of competence that public leaders should possess as well as qualities of character and leadership that public servants should espouse and uphold.  We discuss several areas of competence and qualities of leadership and character in Part II of this method.

b)  Ideals for Groups and Individual Citizens
A public philosophy may also describe the roles that individual citizens and groups should play in public life.  It may call on individuals to embrace a vision of responsible citizenship.  This vision may urge them to be informed on important public issues, to discuss their views with others, and to vote in elections.  It may also set forth principles regarding public discourse, that is, key values and virtues that individual citizens and groups should uphold when speaking in the public square.  For example, it may urge citizens and groups to share their views in a civil and rational manner.  Furthermore, it may clarify the ways in which individuals and groups should exert influence in the policymaking process.  It may, for instance, encourage citizens to band together into groups that can speak out more forcefully in the public square.  It may also discourage individuals and groups from trying to 'buy influence' in the policymaking process by making large donations to parties and candidates.  Related to this, it may discourage government officials from soliciting donations in return for favorable decisions on legislation that may somehow affect the interests of potential donors.

8.  Ideals Related to the Character of Your Community or Nation as a Whole
A public philosophy may include qualities that should represent the character of your community or nation as a whole.  These traits and virtues may include self-discipline, foresight, courage, responsibility, optimism, determination, and steadfastness in a commitment to key values.

Part II:  Focus on Public Leadership:
Evaluating Public Figures and Political Parties

I.  Evaluating the Competence of Public Leaders

A.  Three Key Dimensions of Public Leaders
In the process of political analysis, citizens should examine the personal qualities of public figures as well as the policies that they advocate.  By adapting our dimensional view of the human person to the context of public leadership, we identify three key dimensions of competence that effective leaders should possess.  These include moral, psychological, and professional competence. The moral dimension focuses on issues of character and integrity.  As they analyze public figures, citizens should consider whether the individual demonstrates 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 politicians – the presence or absence of significant psychological disorders that may impair their ability to carry out their duties and serve the public good. Three possible disorders are described and discussed in Attachment 1: "Evaluating a Public Figure's Psychological Health and Fitness."

The professional dimension includes the knowledge and skills that politicians must possess in order to operate effectively within the political system. Some of these include a basic knowledge of the dynamics of personal development, social progress, and ecological cycles of growth and renewal; a basic knowledge of the laws and procedures that guide the political process; the capacity to articulate a clear set of goals; and the ability to work toward these goals in collaboration with other politicians and citizens.  In the messy world of politics, this collaboration often requires that candidates make deals with one another in order to gain support for their policy proposals (see Part III below).  Skilled politicians should be able to make these deals in ways that do not defeat the goals of their policy or compromise the core values that they embrace.

They should also espouse what we describe as an 'experimental approach' to policymaking that acknowledges that policymaking is a trial and error process.  As explained below in Part IV, Section VIII of our method, this process calls on sponsors of proposed policies to carefully evaluate previous policies that were enacted to achieve the same goals as their proposals so that they may gain insights from the successes and/or failures of these polices and then integrate these insights into their legislation.  This approach also encourages policymakers to enact alternative policies that pursue the same goal in order to determine which policy(ies) most effectively attain this goal.  Even if it is not possible to do this, this approach calls on policymakers to carefully evaluate and, if necessary, revise policies so that they may better achieve their goals. 

The professional dimension also includes specialized knowledge of political issues that are of special concern to a public figure and the citizens whom he or she represents.  This knowledge may be gained from formal education, their career in public service, their career prior to public service, and/or from life experience (for example, individuals who have experienced the effects of prejudice and discrimination may be especially interested in anti-discrimination policies).

B.  Vision and Leadership:  The Fruits of Character and Competence
If political candidates and officials 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.  On the other hand, effective public leaders demonstrate these qualities and capabilities in a variety of ways.  

They articulate a clear and systematic public philosophy -- one that includes their understanding of their personal mission in public life.  The policies that they propose and support are consistent with this philosophical outlook.

They demonstrate honesty and integrity by following through on campaign promises after they are elected.  They are also truthful with the public when they set forth and justify the positions that they take on important issues.

While they are responsive to the views of their constituents, effective leaders do not simply follow public opinion polls as they establish their priorities.  Rather, they demonstrate courage and initiative by raising public awareness of issues that they consider to be vital to the public welfare.  And they are willing to do this even if they are not sure how the public will respond to these issues.  In other words, they understand when to follow public opinion and when to try to lead it in a new direction that responds to some pressing public need.  Beyond this, they are also bold enough to propose and support sound policies even if these policies are not favored by their constituents, donors, and fellow party members.

Capable public leaders also promote open, objective, and rigorous discussions of issues in the public square.  When asked about their views and proposed policies, they are neither vague or evasive.  Nor do they place a 'spin' on their statements by distorting facts and issues in ways that reflect their public philosophy and/or personal interests.  Rather, they provide straightforward and thorough responses to the media and the general public.  They advocate policies by appealing to reason rather than by arousing emotions such as fear and hate or by appealing to vices such as selfishness and greed.  They take pains to entertain and respond to all viewpoints in public discussions.  On a more personal level, they acknowledge conflicts of interests that could bias their judgment.  For example, they refrain from voting on policies that affect their financial interests or the financial interests of their families, friends, and present or past business associates.

They possess the political skills to effectively advocate the policies that they support and to implement them after they are enacted.  They are willing to strike compromises with their colleagues without abandoning their core values when this is necessary in order to secure passage of these policies.

They are also aware of the limits of their knowledge and vision and, consequently, the need to constantly review, evaluate, and, if necessary, revise the public policies that they sponsor and support (once again, see the discussion of our 'experimental approach' to policymaking in Part III, section VIII of this method).  In addition, they are willing to revise their public philosophy in light of new insights and changing circumstances.  As is the case in practically all fields of human endeavor, political theories and practices are being revised in light of changing moral sensibilities as well as new insights gained through scientific research and historical experience.  Effective public leaders accept this process of revision and integrate new insights into their public philosophies.  And they do so in a way that is open and honest so that their constituents are fully aware of these changes in their views and values.  They accept the fact that they can honestly represent their constituents only if their constituents respect and support any new views and values that they may adopt.


After citizens analyze the character and leadership of public figures, we recommend that they also analyze the parties to which these figures belong.  We do so for two reasons.  The first is the simple fact that individuals are shaped by the views and values of the organizations to which they belong.  Thus, by examining the institutional character and leadership of a figure's party, one may gain further insight into the character and leadership abilities of that figure.  

Second, on a more practical level, public figures must work with members of their party in order to carry out their policy goals.  Thus, the character and leadership of the entire organization will have an effect on a public figure's ability to achieve his or her goals.

Brief sections in our software applications for understanding and evaluating candidates (see Applications 6 and 14) will help citizens to analyze and evaluate the parties to which they belong.  These sections are based on section II of this part of our method (see below).  If citizens wish to conduct a more thorough analysis of candidates' parties, they may use the applications that are entirely devoted to understanding and evaluating political parties (see Applications 5 and 13).



II.  Analyzing Political Parties as Institutions

Introduction
    Political parties play a very large role in the public square.  They espouse public philosophies that articulate views on the aims and purposes of public life as well as their specific missions in the public square.  Yet the ideas expressed in these philosophies are not limited to politics.  They are based on a set of assumptions regarding human nature, social life, the natural world, and perhaps even the cosmos as a whole.  Thus, a party's public philosophy not only shapes its members' views on politics, it also informs their understanding of themselves and the world around them.  

Parties also articulate platforms or sets of concrete policies that are derived from their public philosophies.  Party platforms may include specific proposals for policies regarding taxation, energy, defense, and many other important areas of legislation.

In addition to articulating public philosophies and platforms, parties nominate candidates for local, state, and national office.  They help these candidates to formulate their own policy platforms.  These more specific platforms apply the party's public philosophy to the issues that are most relevant to specific elections.  Parties also control important processes in legislative bodies.  For example, the leaders of the party with the most number of legislators (the majority party) control which policy proposals are brought up for consideration before a legislature.

In all of these ways, parties shape political life within societies.  They influence the range of political issues that will be discussed, they provide sets of concepts and principles that citizens use to discuss these issues, and they produce the public leaders who will lead this discussion.

Our software applications and worksheets provide comprehensive frameworks for understanding and evaluating parties.  The first section of these applications focuses on the basic elements of a party's public philosophy.  The second explores the various areas of policy within the party's platform.  The third provides a set of questions that will help the user to analyze the likely impact of the party's platform on individual persons, social groups, and the environment (as well as the cosmos as a whole, if the platform addresses this most comprehensive level).  The fourth section analyzes relationships between different sections of policies within the platform.  The fifth traces the various interests that shape the platform.  And the sixth and final section analyzes the ways in which the party demonstrates key qualities of public leadership.

Key Principles for Analyzing the Character and Leadership of Political Parties
    The first five components of this party analysis are explained in other parts of this method.  In this part, we focus on Part VI -- a party's qualities of public leadership.  As with political figures, we will set forth principles that will help citizens to assess the character and leadership demonstrated by parties as they shape public life.  

    In Part IV, section II.1 of this method, we identify several principles that should guide the values, policies, and programs of all social institutions, large and small, from the family to the United Nations.  These principles provide criteria for assessing the character and leadership of a political party.  The most basic principle is a commitment to the common good.  The values, policies, and activities of all institutions should promote individual development, social progress, and ecological integrity.  More specific principles include a clear sense of mission, a commitment to excellence in the cultivation of skills and knowledge related to the mission of the organization, inclusiveness in outreach, membership, and decision-making; the promotion of constructive relationships between the members of an institution and between the group and other groups; and accountability, which represents an institution's willingness to demonstrate to its members and to the public that it is truly promoting the common good.

Clarity of Mission
In its public philosophy, a party should provide a clear sense of its mission within the public life of a society.

Commitment to Excellence
The successful pursuit of a party's mission requires its members and leaders to cultivate a broad spectrum of knowledge and skills.

Excellence in the Formulation of a Public Philosophy and a Platform
    As discussed in Part I above, we maintain that a party's public philosophy should integrate insights from a variety of sources, including the natural and human sciences, political theory, ethics, and philosophy.  It may also include views and values derived from religious traditions, but parties should try to express these perspectives using rational arguments that can be understood and accepted by persons from diverse religious and philosophical traditions.

Like individual public leaders, parties also demonstrate responsible leadership when they are willing to revise their public philosophies in light of new moral sensibilities, significant historical events, and/or new insights gained from scientific research and historical experience.

Party platforms should be clear and comprehensive, covering all areas of public policy.  As discussed in Part V below, they should also reflect a comprehensive understanding of relationships between different policy areas.  This understanding may be expressed in three key ways.  First, the party should be able to establish an order of priority among the different policies in its platform.  It should highlight or emphasize those policies that address the most urgent public needs.  Second, the goals pursued by different policies should be compatible; they should not conflict with each other in any way.  Third, parties should demonstrate an ability to address difficult public issues by coordinating policies in different policy areas.  For example, they could propose to address inner city poverty by coordinating policies related to education, welfare, job training, and economic development.  

As discussed in Part I of this method, the policies within the platform should consistently reflect the views and values that comprise the party's public philosophy.  And finally, the platform should reflect an 'experimental approach' to policymaking (for an explanation of this approach, see the section above on individual public leaders as well as Part IV, Section VIII below).

Standards of Excellence in Organizing, Dialogue, and Advocacy
    Parties should teach their members effective methods for political organizing, analysis, dialogue, and advocacy.  It should facilitate the formation of groups among its members so that they can participate more effectively in public life.  It should help members to form coherent political views, refine these views in dialogue with one another, and then play a meaningful role in determining the policy agenda that the party will pursue.  Parties should also teach members a variety of creative strategies for advocating their views in the public square.  These strategies should strive to create and reinforce an atmosphere for public discourse that is civil and rational.  They should not rely on methods of persuasion that create irrational fears, enflame hatred between social groups, or appeal to vices such as greed and avarice.

Parties may further demonstrate excellence and leadership in public dialogue by taking bold stands on important issues even if they are not sure how the public will respond to their positions.  Parties should also be willing to persuade their members and supporters to advocate sound policies even if these policies do not promote their short-term personal or group interests.

Inclusiveness
    Parties should be inclusive in their mission, membership, and decision-making processes.  As they recruit members, parties should welcome all individuals, regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender, economic class, age, national origin, or sexual orientation.  As they make important decisions, they should encourage input from all members that have a stake in the outcome of a decision.  In addition, the policies that they promote in the public square should benefit all individuals, regardless of the personal characteristics mentioned above.

Constructive Relationships
    Parties should encourage civil and constructive relationships between members.  They should also seek to establish civil relationships with other parties.  On a practical level, this means that they should not misconstrue the philosophy and policies of other parties as they advocate their own views.  While it may be impossible to avoid adversarial relationships, parties should acknowledge their differences in an open, clear, and civil manner.  In this way, the competitive aspects of their relationships should have a positive effect on the overall quality of public dialogue.

Parties should also be willing to cooperate with one another in order to address issues that are especially important to the public welfare.  This may require that they compromise their positions on key issues.  If they observe the rules of civil dialogue described above, it will be much easier to work out compromises in order to serve the public good.

Accountability
    All political parties should hold their members accountable to ethical standards regarding political organizing, dialogue, and advocacy.  They should, for example, promote inclusive strategies for recruiting members.  They should also require members to discuss issues and advocate positions in ways that are civil and rational.  In addition, they should clarify standards for soliciting funds and other forms of support from individuals and groups.  

Parties should also be held accountable to their public philosophies; the policies and platforms that they propose and support should reflect the views, values, and principles that they espouse.  However, as with all institutions, parties are ultimately accountable to the common good -- to the welfare of all individuals and social groups as well as the environment.  The needs of the common good thus outweigh their fidelity to their public philosophy as well as the needs and interests of their members and financial supporters.

In order for parties to be held accountable, they must operate according to policies and decision-making processes that are transparent, or open to review by their members and the general public.  More specifically, they must allow their members and the public to discern and analyze the various influences that shape their platforms.  These influences may include the party's public philosophy, the views and values of party members, as well as the interests of individuals and organizations that support the party financially (see Part III below).

Another key aspect of accountability is 'follow-through' on promises made to members and the general public.  Since voters support a party's candidates on the basis of the views that they espouse and the policies that they propose, these candidates should continue to espouse these views and pursue these policies after they win elections.*

By using these principles to analyze political parties, citizens should be able to judge their organizational character and their potential for sound public leadership.  Citizens will also be better able to analyze and assess the candidates whom they sponsor and the policies that they support.

* Unless, as mentioned above, revisions are warranted in light of changing moral sensibilities, new scientific findings, and/or significant historical events.

Part III:  Recognizing and Evaluating the 
Influences that Shape Platforms and Policies

Platforms* and policies are shaped by many different influences.  In section I, entitled 'The Power of Ideas,' we discuss sources of information and insights that suggest promising directions for public policies.  These sources include the public philosophies of parties and public figures, scientific research, analytical studies, and the media.  Section II examines the influence of the so-called 'special interests' that provide parties and public leaders with sources of funding and votes.  The third section explores the influence of public opinion or the views of citizens regarding parties, public figures, policies, and significant public issues.  In the next section we discuss the influence of cost-benefit analyses that weigh the advantages and disadvantages associated with platforms and specific policies.  We then examine the influence of policymakers' perceptions of risk and uncertainty regarding both the political impact and actual outcome of platforms and policies.  In section VI we describe how the timing of elections can influence policies.  And in the final section we explore how policies are shaped by political deals that are made between legislators and within parties.

These influences are not mutually exclusive; policies and platforms may be shaped by any number of them.  

As they seek to understand and evaluate party platforms, candidate platforms, debates, addresses, and policies of all types, citizens must carefully identify these factors.  They should then determine whether or not these factors influence platforms and policies in ways that promote the public good.  For example, if a candidate cites reliable scientific studies as they defend their platform, then it is likely that scientific research has influenced the platform in ways that promote the public good.  On the other hand, if the candidate cites unreliable scientific studies, then it is likely that this research has influenced the platform in ways that do not promote the common good.

* It is important to note that these influences shape not only the policies that comprise platforms but also the different degrees of importance or emphasis that parties and candidates place on the different policies within their platforms.  This is discussed below in Part V, Section I of this method, which explores relationships between the policies that comprise platforms.



I.  The Power of Ideas

A.  A Party's Public Philosophy
Platforms of parties and their candidates should certainly reflect the main elements of their political philosophies, such as their views on human nature, their interpretations of historical trends, and their understanding of their mission in public life.  As they analyze platforms, citizens should try to discern how clearly and consistently parties and their candidates express their public philosophies in all areas of policy within their platforms.  Specific policies should also reflect the philosophies of their sponsors and the parties to which they belong.  If citizens determine that a policy or platform is in fact influenced by a party's or public figure's public philosophy, they must then determine whether or not the public philosophy influences the platform or policy in ways that promote the public good.  For example, a policy may faithfully reflect its sponsors' views on environmental stewardship.  However, the influence of their public philosophy will only promote the public good if their views on environmental stewardship are fundamentally sound.

This section also deals with the controversial issue of the influence of religious views on platforms and policies.  As discussed in Part I above, religious views may be integrated into the public philosophies of parties and public figures.  If parties and public figures do include religious views and values in their philosophies, we recommend that they try to 'translate' these views and values into terms that may be understood and accepted by persons who may hold different views on religion.  Using the example from Part I, a candidate may believe that each individual human life is valuable because all humans are created in the image of their divine creator.  In order to appeal to a wider audience, which may include persons of many faiths as well as atheists, this candidate may wish to translate this doctrine into terms that all may find reasonable and verifiable in their own experience.  They could thus affirm the inherent value of individuals as intelligent, creative beings who have the capacity to cultivate profound moral sensibilities and form rich and rewarding relationships.  This translation or adaptation could capture the basic meaning of a religious doctrine and express it in terms that can be clearly understood by anyone in the general public who is a careful observer of human behavior. 

Since this process of translation encourages parties and public figures to express their views and values in more concrete terms that all persons can understand, it will also make it easier for citizens to determine whether or not the religious beliefs of a party or public figure influence their platforms and policies in ways that promote the common good.  For example, if the candidate mentioned above can express their views on human dignity in terms of our moral, intellectual, relational, and and creative capabilities, citizens might more clearly understand and evaluate the ways in which these views influence the candidate's policies for promoting well-rounded personal growth.

In addition, this process of translation may calm citizens' concerns that a party or public leader might be using the government to promote their religious beliefs in a way that violates the constitutional prohibition on the establishment of a particular religious tradition as an official 'state religion.'

B.  Unique Aspects of a Public Figure's Personal Public Philosophy
While there is a certain amount of pressure on party members to support all aspects of the party's public philosophy, the views and values of public leaders may differ to some degree from those of the party to which they belong.  These unique elements of their personal public philosophy will somehow be reflected in the platform and policies that the leader proposes and promotes.

C.  Research in the Human and Natural Sciences
Scientific research commands a great deal of authority in modern societies.  Its findings are somehow relevant to practically all realms of human endeavor, including politics.  In Part I, we described how public philosophies may be informed by research in the human and natural sciences.  Since platforms and policies are derived from public philosophies, they are often shaped by the same broader scientific theories that inform public philosophies.  In addition, platforms and policies may be influenced by more focused research that is especially relevant to a particular area of policy.  Studies in such fields as education, economics, psychology, sociology, medicine, and ecology play a major role in shaping many types of public policies.

Scientific research may be conducted by scientists who work in colleges and universities, scientific institutes, public policy institutes or 'think tanks', as well as advocacy organizations.  Research in schools and scientific institutes is often not directly related to any political issue, yet the results of this research may nonetheless be relevant to discussions of policy issues.  Scientists working for policy institutes may conduct scientific research projects and then integrate the results of their research into the analytical studies (see section C)  that they issue.  Advocacy organizations are formed in order to promote the interests of particular groups, such as the elderly, or advance a particular cause, such as gun rights or environmental protection.  They may also conduct scientific research in order to defend their views on important public issues.

Parties and public leaders often cite specific scientific studies as they articulate and defend their platforms and policies.  A variety of other voices in the public square also appeal to scientific studies as they propose, support, and criticize policies.  These include citizen groups, individual citizens, media organizations, as well as the policy institutes and advocacy organizations described above.  

In cost-benefit analyses (see Section IV), scientific studies may be conducted in order to determine if the advantages of policies outweigh any disadvantages associated with them.  These studies may measure the actual costs and benefits of existing policies so that these policies may be evaluated and, if necessary, revised in some way.  They may also attempt to predict the costs and benefits of proposed policies.  (For an in-depth discussion of the need to carefully assess the effectiveness of policies, see Part IV, section VIII of our method, in which we explain our 'experimental approach' to policymaking).  

While scientific studies almost always claim to be thorough and objective, citizens and public officials must carefully examine the ways in which research projects are conducted.  The knowledge gained through these projects will only promote the public good if researchers apply the scientific method in a rigorous and objective manner.  If citizens and officials do not possess the technical background necessary to assess the scientific integrity of a study, they should seek out evaluations of the research by other reputable scientists who have reviewed it.

If the findings of research studies are deemed to be sound and accurate, these studies should enjoy a greater degree of authority in public discourse than the opinions and general assumptions of individuals and groups.  The reason is simple: these studies generate knowledge by carefully examining phenomena using methods of observation and measurement that may be checked and verified by others.  In fact, scientific studies are often duplicated in order to ensure that the observations and measurements (i.e. the 'data') of one study are consistently accurate.  Thus, the knowledge generated by scientific studies, particularly studies whose findings are verified by subsequent studies, is almost certainly more reliable than general observations based on the experiences of individuals and groups.

Limitations on the Influence of Science in the Policymaking Process
While science is a key source of insight in public life, it can only create knowledge about things that can be observed and measured.  Individuals must decide how this knowledge relates to the goals of political life.  In making this judgment, individuals will draw on the views that they hold regarding the values and goals that should guide the political process.  Each citizen must therefore integrate scientific knowledge into a broader context of purpose and meaning in public life.  For example, a scientific study may discover that a certain method of farming pollutes bodies of water surrounding the farms that employ this method.  If one believes that the goal of political life is simply to secure the freedom of individuals to use their property as they wish, then this scientific finding may not seem relevant to public life.  If, however, one believes that the political process should protect the welfare of individuals, societies, and the ecosystems that sustain them, then this discovery should lead to the creation of laws that require farmers to engage in environmentally sound methods of farming.

To take this a step further, we would maintain that one's views on the goals of politics should be shaped by scientific insights regarding personal development, social progress, and environmental stewardship.  For example, research in ecology may convince one that one cannot base one's political philosophy solely on individual rights.  However, scientific discoveries do not automatically convince individuals to revise and adapt their political values and convictions.  This sort of philosophical change can only take place if individuals are willing to acknowledge the validity of scientific insights and then integrate them into their political views and values.

Thus, the influence of science on public policy is limited by two factors.  First, science can only gain knowledge regarding things that can be observed and measured.  It does not directly address questions regarding the nature and purpose of political life, though scientific insights can help one to form and refine one's views on the proper goals of politics.  Second, the influence of science depends on the willingness of individuals to accept the validity of scientific knowledge and to explore its implications for public life.  Scientific discoveries do not necessary lead to revisions in an individual's political views and values.

D.  Analytical Studies
Platforms and policies may also be influenced by analytical studies that are conducted by individuals and groups.  These studies examine important public issues and specific policies related to them.  Often they propose policies that should, in their authors' view, be implemented in order to address some pressing issue.  They may also include analyses of the costs and benefits (advantages and disadvantages) associated with past or proposed policies (see section IV below).  They may be written by scholars on the faculties of colleges and universities, by independent political analysts, and by analysts who work for advocacy organizations and policy institutes.  They may also be written by informed citizens who are not in the field of politics.

These studies may be issued in the form of relatively brief commentaries published in newspapers and in longer articles published in magazines, academic journals, and reports that are issued by policy institutes and advocacy organizations.

The authors of analytical studies may draw insights from a variety of sources as they examine political issues and policies.  They often cite findings from the scientific studies mentioned above, but they may also include their own interpretations of historical events and trends as well as their observations of the world of politics.  Because they rely so much on their authors' interpretations of complex social and political phenomena, analytical studies are generally considered to be more subjective than scientific studies.  The conclusions reached by their authors may be shaped by their political views or biases as much or more than they are shaped by any facts that can be clearly established.  It may thus be difficult to conclusively prove the accuracy and relevance of the conclusions and positions set forth by their authors.

If it is clear that a particular analytical study has influenced a policy, it may be difficult to determine whether or not the influence of the study promotes the public good.  We can only say with certainty that all analytical studies should be critically evaluated.  Many studies are published by individuals and institutes that are funded by special interests (see the next section) such as business firms and advocacy organizations.  These studies will almost certainly reflect the interests and values of those who fund them, and these interests and values may or may not promote the public good.  Citizens will have to determine whether or not they promote the public good by carefully evaluating the impact of a policy on individuals, social groups, and the environment.  If citizens conclude that a policy promotes the public good, then they may assume that the influence of a particular study is likely to be a constructive influence.

E.  News and Commentary in the Media
Media organizations communicate ideas and information to policymakers through news reports and commentary.  News reports focus on facts; they are simply descriptions of events.  They are not supposed to contain a reporter's or a media organization's opinions regarding the events that they describe, though they may include opinions from others outside the media organization regarding the meaning and significance of events.  Commentary, on the other hand, contains opinions on a wide variety of political topics.  Some of these topics include the meaning and significance of events and trends, evaluations of public policies, evaluations of the policies and programs of economic and civic institutions, and the character, competence, and leadership of public figures.  Commentary may be provided by the editorial staff of a media organization or by political commentators or 'pundits' who are not on the organization's staff.

Information in News Reports
News reports may communicate ideas for policies in two ways.  First, news reports may pass along information that is produced by individuals and institutions that are not affiliated with the media organizations that issue the reports.  For example, a report may publish or broadcast scientific findings that are somehow relevant to a particular policy or policy area.  

Second, news reports may contain important information that is generated by investigative journalists who are members of the media ( and often on the staffs of the media organizations who issue the reports).  These journalists conduct research into a particular issue and then report their findings in a news story.  If their findings have significant implications for public policy, then their story may play a substantial role in the policymaking process.  For example, an investigative journalist may uncover evidence that a particular product is causing health problems for those who use or consume it.  The publication of this evidence may then prompt government officials to enact a policy that bans the sale of this product, or that requires business firms to inform consumers of any health risks associated with it.  In this way, the media does more than simply pass along information; it conducts its own research and generates original information that may lead to the revision of existing policies and/or the creation of new ones.

Information in Commentary
Media organizations may also publish commentaries that contain important information related to policies.  Like news information, these commentaries may be generated by their own staffs or by individuals and institutions that are not affiliated with them.  For example, the editorial staff of a media organization may offer its evaluation of a proposed policy or even propose its own policies.  Outside sources for commentaries include policy institutes (see section D), individual political commentators, as well as concerned citizens.  Citizens may publish their proposals in a letter to the editor of a newspaper or broadcast them on the radio by participating in a 'call-in' talk show (other methods for citizen advocacy are discussed above in our 'Strategy for Advocacy').

The Effect of Bias on Information and Ideas Provided by the Media
When evaluating the influence of ideas in the media, citizens should be aware that these ideas may reflect the biases of owners of media organizations and the journalists who work for them.  Biases are views and interests that affect the ways in which media organizations describe the nature and significance of political developments to the public.  The political views and economic interests of media executives and journalists represent major forms of 'bias' that are reflected in media information.  A newspaper would reflect a political bias if it published news stories that described events in a way that reinforced the political views of its owners.  Its commentary would reflect this bias if its editors advocated only those policy proposals that support the owners' views.  The paper would demonstrate economic bias if it declined to report on an event that cast a negative light on one of the businesses that buys advertising space in the paper.  It would also reflect an economic bias if it exaggerated the importance of scientific research findings in order to create a public sensation and sell more papers.  This latter form of economic bias is described, appropriately enough, as 'sensationalizing' information.  Another common form of economic bias is the superficial coverage of significant events and trends.  Often, news organizations provide only a brief description of events.  They may do this because they are afraid that a more detailed, comprehensive discussion of newsworthy events might cause some members of their audience to become bored and lose interest in their program or publication.  And if their audience 'tunes out,' these organizations will lose money from advertising fees and/or subscriptions.  This form of economic bias may make it very difficult for the public to gain a clear and thorough understanding of key events and issues.  It may also make it difficult for public leaders to provide the public with comprehensive explanations of their views and policies.

These two types of bias may reinforce one another if media owners provide news and commentary from a particular philosophical (i.e. ideological) perspective in order to attract a larger audience and thus make more money.

Another more general type of bias may be described as access bias.  In this form of bias, the media makes a deal with public officials.  In order to gain greater access to newsworthy information that is provided by public officials, reporters may report the news in ways that are favorable to these officials.  Similarly, commentators may gain special access to information by issuing viewpoints that support the views and policies of public officials.  This bias may be a form of economic bias, since greater access allows reporters to get the 'scoop' on important news stories before other news sources.  They may thus be able to publish or broadcast an exclusive story that would be very valuable to them and to their organization.  It may also reflect a political bias, since public officials may grant greater access to reporters, commentators, and news organizations that support their political views and policies.

The goal of 'getting the scoop' on a story, or being the first to report a particular news story, is certainly related to economic bias, but it is so important in the media that it deserves further discussion.  It may be termed the bias of priority, and it can lead to distorted and incomplete reporting if reporters and media organizations rush to circulate a story without carefully ensuring that the story is in fact an accurate and complete representation of facts.  This is an especially pervasive form of bias because reporters and their employers can gain a great deal of money and prestige if they 'break' an especially important story.  In addition to the respect of their peers, reporters who break a story may gain lucrative book deals and rapid promotions.

The bias of priority highlights the more basic bias of journalists' personal ambition, which is also related to other biases, but which deserves a separate discussion as well because it has a major impact on the quality of information that the public receives.  Journalists may, for example, sensationalize a rather unimportant story in order to gain recognition and career advancement.  They may even make up a story using sources of information that are difficult or impossible to verify.  This bias may reflect the economic bias of individual journalists, since prominent stories may lead to promotions and increases in their salaries.  Yet journalists may also distort or fabricate stories simply to gain notoriety in the field of journalism. 

These types of bias do not necessarily have a negative effect on the information that is produced by the media.  Information that reflects the views and interests of media executives, journalists, and public officials may still influence the policymaking process in ways that promote the common good.  For example, a newspaper may enhance its sales by gaining a reputation for accurate news reporting and intelligent commentary.  In this case, the paper's economic bias may encourage it to consistently provide policymakers with useful news and opinion.  Political bias can also be beneficial if the views of media owners and journalists are grounded in sound political theory, rigorous scientific research, and a broad understanding of history.  In fact, political bias is unavoidable in political commentaries, since these commentaries are opinions that are based on the political views or biases of commentators.  Nonetheless, these views or biases will enhance the quality of ideas in the media only if they are grounded in intelligent insights on political life.  

Access bias as well may be beneficial if reporting that favors the interests of public officials also turns out to be accurate and thus helpful to citizens seeking a clearer understanding of public life.  

The bias of priority may have even more desirable effects on the policy-making process, since it promotes diligent investigative journalism, a type of journalism in which reporters try to uncover any sort of project, practice, or policy that somehow affects the public good.  Often these subjects of interest are purposely concealed from the public by individuals and institutions associated with them.  Sometimes, however, good investigative journalists uncover facts and trends that are not consciously concealed or even recognized, but which are nonetheless issues of significant interest to policymakers.  Because of the value of the information that investigative journalists may uncover, the bias of priority may have a very positive influence on the policymaking process.

And finally, a journalist's ambition may be constructive if it motivates him or her to make a name for themselves by breaking an important story, as mentioned above, or simply by providing accurate, insightful news coverage and/or commentary on a day-to-day basis.

However, as discussed above, these forms of bias may also promote the interests and agendas of media owners, journalists, and public officials in ways that harm the public good.  They may distort information and ideas in ways the diminish the integrity and effectiveness of the policymaking process.  Citizens should thus be aware of these types of bias as they seek to understand and evaluate the influence of media information on platforms and policies.  (We provide a more in-depth discussion of bias in the media in Part III, section III, which examines the ways in which media organizations shape public opinion.)

In a more general way, the media influences policies by shaping public opinion.  Since public opinion represents the views of voters, politicians and parties keep a close eye on it.  The influence of public opinion on platforms and policies as well as the role of the media in forming public opinion are discussed further in section III below.


II.  The Influence of 'Special Interests' that Provide Votes and Donations to Parties, Candidates, and Elected Officials

In democratic societies, the political power of ideas is beholden to the power of votes and, often, to the power of money as well.  Political parties need substantial financial resources in order to function as organizations.  Candidates and elected officials need large amounts of funding in order to conduct effective campaigns for election and reelection (unless they are participating in publicly funded elections).  They also, of course, need votes in order to be elected or reelected.  Individuals and groups may thus gain influence in the policy-making process by donating money to public leaders and their parties, and/or by controlling large numbers of votes.  

The following types of individuals, institutions, and less organized groups may gain influence over platforms and policies by providing votes for candidates and/or by making donations to parties and public figures.  They are often described as the special interests that drive the policy-making process.  Their policy goals are the views, values, and specific provisions that they would like to have included in platforms and policy proposals.  The promises of votes and/or donations are the means of influence that they employ in order to encourage parties and public leaders to promote these goals.  An American steelworkers' labor union is an example of a special interest.  Its policy goals might include any policy provisions that increase sales of American steel.  Its means of influence may include the votes of its members as well as donations that it may offer to parties and candidates.

Many special interests employ individuals known as lobbyists who communicate their policy goals to legislators.  Some establish policy institutes that propose and defend the types of policies that they want legislators to support (see the section on 'Analytical Studies' above).  They may also form advocacy organizations that communicate their views to public leaders and the general public.  These organizations may be 'grass roots' institutions that invite members of the public to join them and support their advocacy efforts. 

By researching parties' and public figures' sources of funding and votes, citizens may be able to recognize the influence of special interests on the platforms and policies that they propose.  Information on funding may be found in reports that list the names of individuals and organizations who have given money to specific parties and public figures.*  Sources of votes may be discovered by compiling a list of organizations that have publicly endorsed a particular party or candidate.  These sources may also be revealed by opinion polls that measure the political preferences of individuals associated with the groups described below.

An analysis of the likely beneficiaries of a policy or platform may provide important clues about the special interests that may have influenced the platform or policy.  These beneficiaries may or may not be identified by a party or public official as they articulate the goals of their platform or policy.  Either way, after citizens identify the beneficiaries of a policy or platform, they may determine if the beneficiaries influenced the policy or platform by offering some sort of support to the party or public official who advocated it.

As they analyze the influence of special interests, citizens should try to gain specific and concrete information about the expectations that come with the promise of money and votes.  If possible, citizens should identify the specific policies that supporters want a party or candidate to endorse or reject.  If an influential individual or group has established a policy institute, then publications issued by this organization will clearly spell out these policies as well as the positions that legislators should take in regard to them.  Special interests may also make a public statement in the media that clarifies their position on an important policy issue.  However, if special interests are more secretive about their expectations, then citizens may have to try to connect the dots between their support and the political leverage that they hope to gain through it.


Party Members
Party members provide both financial support and a base of voters.  Since practically all candidates belong to political parties, their platforms reflect the interests of party members.  Members of parties often share other demographic characteristics (see below) besides their political affiliation.  When analyzing a platform or a policy being promoted by members of a particular party, one thus should ask the following questions:  Who belongs to this party?  Do members share economic, religious, racial, and/or ethnic characteristics?  Are disproportionate numbers of a particular gender, age group, or sexual orientation represented in its membership?  Do members espouse more 'liberal' or more 'conservative' views on politics and morality?  As these questions are answered, citizens may be able to determine how the interests of a party's membership are reflected in the policies that the party and its elected members espouse.

It is also important to be aware of organizations to which large numbers of a party's members belong.  These organizations may hold views that are not explicitly supported by a party in its public philosophy.  Yet the party may propose policies that reflect these views in order to appeal to those in the party membership who belong to these organizations.  Citizens should thus research the views of groups to which large numbers of a party's members belong (see below 'Groups that Donate to a Party, Candidate, or Elected Official' as well as 'Groups that Have Large Numbers of Members.')

Demographic Groups within a Population Affected by a Platform or Policy
Platforms and policies often represent the interests of groups of persons who share a common characteristic, such as race, economic class, ethnicity, age range, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.  Even if they do not belong to the same party, individuals who share one of these characteristics share many of the same opportunities and challenges.  It is thus likely that these individuals will collectively support policies that enhance the opportunities that they enjoy and address the challenges that they face.  Citizens should therefore try to identify the ways in which policies and platforms reflect the interests of groups of individuals who share these characteristics.  

Constituents (the residents of a district or state who elect legislators and are thus represented by them in a state or national house of congress)
In democratic societies, platforms and policies are very often shaped, in some way, by the concerns of a legislator's constituents.  For example, if a candidate lives in a district that is home to thousands of auto workers, then the platform of this candidate will likely reflect the interests of these workers.  Candidates and elected officials may even support policies that violate the basic principles of their public philosophies if these policies promote the interests of their constituents.  If they don't, they may jeopardize their chances of being elected or reelected.  The interests of constituents become 'special' interests when they shape a policy that affects a larger population of people.  For example, a United States Senator may propose a national policy that somehow promotes the special interests of constituents within their state.  When a group of constituents represents the entire group affected by a policy, their interests and views are not special interests, but rather the interests of the general public.  The public's views are collectively referred to as public opinion.  The influence of public opinion on policies is discussed in section III below. 

Groups that Donate to a Party, Candidate, or Elected Official
Groups that provide donations to candidates and elected officials may effectively 'buy' influence over platforms and policies.  (While recent campaign reform legislation has made this more difficult, there are still plenty of ways to channel money into organizations and projects that will benefit a party or public figure).  These groups may include businesses, trade associations (groups of business firms who produce the same type of goods or services), and advocacy groups.  Certainly, there are expectations that come along with this support; contributors hope to receive some control over policy decisions in return for their donations.  Citizens should thus try to determine which groups donate funds to different parties, candidates, and officials.  And, as stated above, they should try to obtain specific, concrete information about the expectations behind the donations.  They should try to identify the specific policies that the donors want the party or figure to endorse or reject.

Groups that Employ Prospective and Former Public Servants
Some business firms that donate money to political actors (parties and officials) insist that their employees be named to key government positions in return for their donations.  It is assumed that these former employees will promote their former employers' interests in the policymaking process.  Business groups may also promise lucrative jobs to government officials who promote their interests in key policy decisions.  After they leave government service, these officials promptly 'cash in' on the deal and make substantially more money in their new private sector positions.  These arrangements are collectively referred to as the 'revolving door' between the public and private sectors.  Private sector employees move into public sector jobs in return for donations, and public sector employees move into private sector jobs in return for their support of private sector interests.  While they may be less obvious than donations given directly to parties and public officials, these practices represent additional ways in which financial incentives influence the policymaking process.  As they evaluate policies and platforms, citizens should be aware of the ways in which this revolving door influences the decisions of public officials.

Groups that Have Large Numbers of Members
Whether groups give money or not, those that have large numbers of members who are likely to vote can gain influence over platforms and policies.  These groups may include faith communities, Chambers of Commerce, labor unions, civic organizations (such as Rotary Clubs), and advocacy organizations with a large grass-roots membership base.  Some groups may align themselves with a particular political party.  In order to maintain the support of these groups, the party may create policies that promote the group's values and interests.  It is important to recognize these alignments and understand how they may influence the policymaking process.  In addition, candidates may seek the endorsement of groups with large numbers of members.  In return for a group's endorsement, the candidate will agree to propose or support policies that promote the group's interests.  If the group decides to support a candidate, they will announce this decision to their members, who are then expected to vote for that candidate.  For example, a steelworkers' labor union may decide to endorse a candidate who will support policies that will increase sales of American steel.

The National Interests of Your Government
Foreign policies and treaties are shaped by the national interests of the governments that sponsor and support them.  These interests may be political, economic, cultural, moral, or even religious.  National interests are special interests in foreign relations because other nations are also affected by foreign policies.  Foreign policies may or may not serve the interests of all of these nations.  Furthermore, they may or may not serve the international common good that is broader than the interests of your nation.  The national interests of your nation are supported by the votes of all citizens who feel that they are represented by these interests.  Public leaders will thus appeal to these voters as they promote foreign policies on the basis of national interests.

The Needs and Interests of Other Nations
Your nation may also propose a foreign policy that furthers the interests of other nations and their citizens.  Leaders of foreign governments that will benefit from this policy may somehow encourage citizens in your nation to support the policy and the legislators who sponsored it.  They may, for example, make public statements of support for the policy and its supporters.  These foreign leaders may also appeal to citizens of your nation who can trace their roots to the nations that these leaders represent.  They may ask these individuals to advocate the policy and vote for the public officials that sponsored and support it.  For example, the Mexican government may urge Mexican Americans to support legislators who are proposing a foreign policy that will benefit Mexico.  

Wealthy and/or Charismatic Individuals
Individuals who are very wealthy may be able to gain influence by donating money to parties, candidates, and elected officials.  Highly respected individuals may also enjoy a great deal of influence over platforms and policies because their endorsement of a platform or policy may gain the additional support of those who admire them. 

Special Interests and the Common Good
The fact that a policy or platform supports the special interests of an individual or group does not necessarily mean that it is harmful to the common good.  While some groups may promote their own interests at the expense of the common good, it is certainly possible that the legitimate interests of particular groups may also serve the best interests of all social groups as well as the environment.  For example, policies that promote the success of small businesses may contribute to the economic prosperity of the entire nation.  It is unwise, however, to assume that a policy serves the common good just because its sponsor claims that it does.  Politicians often place a certain 'spin' on policies when they defend them in the public square.  That is, they may present a policy in such a way that it sounds like it will promote the public good when in fact the policy may serve some special interest at the expense of the rest of society and/or the natural world.  By using Part IV of our method to analyze the impact of policies and platforms, citizens can better determine whether or not the special interests promoted by policies and platforms are compatible with the needs and interests of the public good.

*  Reports on contributions to parties and public figures may be obtained from . . . 


III.  The Influence of Public Opinion

Public opinion refers to the views of individuals on topics related to public affairs.  'Surveys' or 'polls' of public opinion ask individuals to express their views on one or more topics.  These surveys may be conducted in a variety of ways, some of which include face-to-face interviews, phone interviews, questionnaires distributed through the mail, and questionnaires posted on the internet.  Opinion polls may focus more narrowly on the views of specific groups such as members of a particular party, or they may solicit the opinions of the general public.

Parties and public leaders keep a close eye on opinion polls as they craft platforms, propose policies, and take positions on important public issues.  Since polls reflect the views of voters, this is a prudent strategy for their political success.  It is also an appropriate strategy in democratic societies, since elected officials should represent the views of those who elect them when they make decisions.

Public opinion surveys influence policies and platforms in a variety of ways, depending on the type of information they gather.  Some surveys ask members of the public to identify the issues that they consider to be the most urgent priorities for government officials to address.  Priorities that are often mentioned include the economy, the cost of health care, education, national security, and environmental issues.  These polls help parties and leaders to identify issues that they should emphasize in their platforms and policy proposals.  Other surveys provide a measure of public support for a specific party, public leader, or policy.  These help parties and leaders to evaluate how well they are promoting and implementing their policy agendas.  Still other surveys try to gauge public reaction to events and trends that are relevant to public life.  These give leaders and parties a further glimpse into citizens' political views and concerns.

Parties and public officials do not simply respond to opinion polls.  They also try to shape public opinion as they communicate their views in the public square and invite the public to adopt these views.  Many other individuals and institutions also try to shape public opinion.  Some of these are discussed separately in this section as influences that shape public policy.  Various forms of media, for example, have an enormous influence on the public's views.  Traditional sources of political information include news and commentary from television networks, radio stations, and newspapers.  More recently, internet web sites have become important sources of information for the general public.  Public views may also be shaped by a broad variety of institutions that articulate their views in the public square.  Some of these include religious institutions, business associations, as well as advocacy organizations that promote the interests of such groups as retired persons or teachers.  In addition, noted individuals may use their celebrity in order to advocate views, values, and policies that they support.  And finally, scientific studies and analytical reports from policy institutes may inform public views on key issues.  As mentioned above, scientific studies are especially persuasive because of the respect and authority that they command in most modern societies.  

When analyzing the influence of public opinion on policies and platforms, we maintain that citizens should focus on two key factors.  The first is the amount of influence wielded by public opinion in the policymaking process.  Since public opinion represents the views of citizens, it should play a major role in the policymaking process.  However, regardless of the amount of influence it has, public opinion will only be a positive influence if it is well-informed, committed to the public good, and cultivated by 'opinion-shapers' in a constructive and rational manner.  Thus, the quality of public opinion is another factor that citizens should consider when analyzing its influence on platforms and policies.

A.  The Quality of Public Opinion

The quality of public opinion is 'good' if the public supports views, values, and policies that promote the public interest.  Conversely, it is not good if the public supports perspectives and policies that undermine the common good.  The 'virtues and vices' of those who shape public opinion -- and of citizens themselves -- determine the quality of public opinion.  

1.  The Effect of the Character and Competence of Citizens on the Quality of Public Opinion
For example, some individuals and groups may hold views that promote their interests at the expense of the public good.  In addition, if the public is not well informed about an issue, or if an issue is particularly challenging and complex, then the views of many persons may not reflect the best interests of society as a whole.  A majority of citizens may, for example, support policies that seem beneficial in the short term but ultimately do more harm than good in the long term.  In these cases, the influence of public opinion on public policy does not promote the common good.  Thus, the quality of public opinion depends in part on the degree to which citizens understand key issues and the commitment of citizens to the common good. 

2.  The Effect of 'Opinion Shapers' on the Quality of Public Opinion
The individuals and institutions who shape public opinion also have an effect on the quality of public opinion.  

The Effect of the Media on the Quality of Public Opinion
As discussed above in section I.E, the media plays a large role in shaping public opinion.  The media informs public opinion by providing news and commentary that are relevant to politics.  The media enhances the quality of public opinion when the news that it provides on political developments is objective and well-researched.  The influence of political commentary on public opinion is more complex, since commentators are offering their opinions on political topics.  These opinions are much more subjective than a simple news story.  Even so, we can identify some criteria that may be used to evaluate the influence of political commentary on the quality of public opinion.  As they analyze and evaluate events, public figures, and policies, commentators should

• represent actual events truthfully,

• appeal to political philosophies and theories in a clear and consistent way,

• appeal to any relevant research in the human and natural sciences, and

• refer to relevant historical events and trends in a clear and accurate way.

If these criteria are met, then the opinions of political commentators should shape public opinion in positive ways.  

The media also enhances public opinion when it pressures parties and public leaders to provide the public with useful and relevant information.  All too often, candidates are reluctant to take clear positions on important issues and propose specific policies that address pressing social concerns.  They may be vague and evasive because they do not want to alienate voters who might disagree with their positions and policies (see the section below on 'Political Risk').  They may also fear that their positions and policies will be criticized by those who believe that they do not possess an adequate understanding of complex issues.  Elected officials may be evasive as well when asked for details on the policies that they plan to propose or support.  When public leaders are vague and evasive, the public relies on the media to keep pressing them to clarify where they stand on significant issues as well as how they plan to address problems and crises that demand some response from the government.

The Effect of Media Bias on Public Opinion
The media diminishes the quality of public opinion if it covers key issues in ways that distort the public's understanding of these issues.  For example, the economic interests and political views of media organizations may lead them to report on events in ways that mislead or confuse the public.  As discussed above in section I.E, these interests and views are two forms of 'bias' that influence news reports and commentary in the media.  Economic bias may influence news coverage in many different ways.  In order to attract public attention and sell more papers, a newspaper may cover an issue in a way that makes it seem more important or exciting than it actually is.  This is described as 'sensationalizing' an issue, and it is a common illustration of economic bias.  Media groups may even fail to report on important events because they are not 'sensational' enough to attract a lot of public attention.  In another example of economic bias, a television news network may not report a story that is critical of the company that owns the network.  If this story has political implications, viewers of the network's newscasts will not be informed of them.  Perhaps the most common form of economic bias is the superficial coverage of the news.  In order to hold the attention of their audience, news organizations may not cover events and issues in much depth, thus making it difficult for the public to gain a comprehensive understanding of important public issues.  Because it may limit the public's ability to gain a clear grasp of issues, this type of economic bias may be especially damaging to the quality of public opinion.

We acknowledge that some economic bias in media coverage is unavoidable and even desirable.  For example, a newspaper may gain a wider circulation -- and earn more money -- if the public comes to depend on it as a reliable source of sound news reports and commentary.  In this way, the economic interests of the newspaper ultimately enhance the quality of public opinion.  Even so, the forms of economic bias described above often do not have this positive effect on media information.  Citizens must thus be alert to both positive and negative forms of economic bias.

Political views of media organizations may also distort information in ways that diminish the quality of public opinion.  For example, if the owners of a newspaper favor a particular political philosophy, the journalists who work for them may sensationalize an event in ways that reinforce their political views.  Or, if they are opposed to the views and policies of an elected official, their staffs may consistently report the news in ways that cast that official in a negative light.  In addition, their editors may not allow those with other political perspectives to publish commentaries in their paper.

As with economic bias, however, political bias does not always distort media information.  For example, a commentator who espouses a particular philosophy may provide an interpretation of an event that is thorough and accurate.  Political bias in the media only becomes destructive when media professionals try to distort facts in ways that reinforce their political views.

Such distortions may be particularly tempting when political and economic biases reinforce one another.  If a media organization adopts a political bias in order to attract more readers or viewers, it may be especially prone to distorting political information in ways that appeal to their audience's views and values.

We also have discussed the distortions associated with access bias.  In this form of bias, the media makes a deal with public officials.  In order to gain greater access to newsworthy information that is provided by public officials, reporters may report the news in ways that are favorable to these officials.  Similarly, commentators may gain special access to information by issuing viewpoints that support the views and policies of public officials.  This type of bias is only beneficial if news reports and commentaries that favor the interests of public officials also turn out to be sound and accurate (and thus helpful to citizens seeking a clearer understanding of public life).

In addition, the bias of priority and the ways in which it can both enhance and detract from the quality of information produced by the media.  If the rush to get the scoop on a story leads to inaccurate and/or incomplete reporting, this bias will obviously have a negative influence on public opinion.  If it inspires diligent investigative journalists to uncover information that is vital to well-informed public dialogue, then it will have a positive influence on public interest.
And finally, we have explored the basic bias of journalists' personal ambition.  In order to gain recognition and advance their career, journalists may sensationalize or even fabricate (make up) news stories.  Yet their ambition may also lead journalists to uphold high standards of excellence in news reporting and commentary.  So once again, the presence of bias does not always lead to the distortion of information and, in turn, to the distortion of public opinion.
 
To further complicate the problem of media bias, however, individuals and organizations may provide information to the media that is biased in favor of their own interests.  The media may then impart their own biases on this information as they report it to the public.  Thus, there are two layers of bias that citizens must sift through as they interpret information from media sources: one is the bias of the individuals and groups who communicate through the media, the other is the bias of the journalists and media organizations who pass on this information to the general public.  

The biases of media organizations and those who communicate through them are often described as the 'spin' that they place on the information that they provide to the public.  If citizens become more aware of the ways in which biases may distort public information, they can more readily recognize this spin and the ways in which it shapes the information that they receive from the media.  They may then interpret this information in a more conscious and critical manner as they form their views about public leaders and issues.  

Citizens can thus improve the quality of public opinion by critically evaluating the information that they receive from the media.  For their part, journalists, media organizations and those who speak through them can improve the quality of public opinion by minimizing bias or spin that distorts the information that they provide to the public.

The Effect of Public Leaders on the Quality of Public Opinion
The quality of public opinion also depends on the competence and character of the leaders who shape public opinion.  These leaders need not be politicians; they may come from any institution that has a voice in the public square.  Regardless of their affiliation, public leaders will enhance the quality of public opinion if they create a open, rigorous, rational, and civil atmosphere for public dialogue and debate.  They should encourage citizens to think for themselves and critically evaluate the views that leaders communicate to them.  Furthermore, they should encourage citizens to be truthful about their views and faithful to their views and values, yet also open to and respectful of the views of others.  Perhaps the best way for leaders to do this is to practice what they preach.  As an example of openness, leaders should communicate in a clear, rational, and straightforward manner, avoiding the layers of spin that may distort citizens' understanding of political issues.  As mentioned above, they should offer their positions and policies on important issues without hesitation or prompting by the press and the general public.  Beyond this, they should also acknowledge valuable insights of different parties and political opponents.  

In addition, leaders should have the courage to raise public awareness of issues, even if they are not sure how the public will respond to these issues.  They should also be willing to 'take a stand' against public opinion if they are convinced that the public is supporting policies that will harm the common good.  They may then set forth alternative perspectives that may challenge citizens to examine, evaluate, and refine their views.  In short, as stated in Part II above, leaders should know when to follow public opinion and when to try to lead it in new or different directions.

In contrast, leaders diminish the quality of public opinion when they do the opposite of these things.  They should not try to shape public opinion by employing persuasive strategies that are emotional and divisive.  More specifically, they should not promote views that are inspired by hatred, unfounded fears, or irrational enthusiasm.  They should not stifle open and critical dialogue so that they may shape public opinion in ways that serve their own political agendas.  Nor should they espouse certain views simply in order to project an image of themselves that might be attractive to the public.  These self-serving strategies may diminish the quality of public opinion by manipulating it in ways that serve a leader's 'special interests'.  And finally, leaders should not simply follow opinion polls and support only those policy positions that seem to have broad public support.

B.  The Amount of Influence Wielded by Public Opinion in the Policymaking Process

Regardless of the quality of public opinion, many of the other influences mentioned in this section may limit the amount of influence that it actually enjoys in the policymaking process.  For example, if political campaigns are financed by private sources of funding, then the influence of public opinion may be limited by the influence of the individuals and groups that donate funds to parties and candidates.  As a rule, however, if public opinion is well-informed and committed to the public good, it should be the primary influence that determines the shape of policies and platforms.  This principle reflects the basic spirit of democratic government.

Even if public opinion is short-sighted and misinformed, public leaders should try to change prevailing views and attitudes before enacting policies that the public does not support.  As discussed above, they should have the courage to try to enhance the quality of public opinion so that the public will embrace policies that truly promote the common good.

Summary
In summary, the influence of public opinion on policies and platforms depends on both the amount of influence wielded by public opinion as well as the quality of public opinion.  The quality of public opinion depends on the integrity of those who shape public opinion as well as the competence and character of citizens themselves, who should critically evaluate the various voices in the public square as they formulate their opinions.  The amount of influence may be limited by other influences described throughout this section.

We maintain that public opinion is a constructive influence on policies and platforms if it is well-informed and committed to the public interest, and if it is cultivated in a rational and constructive manner by all public leaders.  And, of course, if it is to carry any weight at all in the policymaking process, its influence must not be eclipsed by the influence of other factors that may not serve the public interest.


IV.  'Trade-Offs': Analyses of the Costs and Benefits Associated with a Policy or Platform
As they create policies and decide which policies to support, legislators conduct 'cost-benefit' analyses in which they try to determine whether the benefits or advantages of a policy outweigh the costs or disadvantages associated with it.  Parties also conduct these analyses for the various areas of policy within their platforms.  These advantages and disadvantages are often referred to as the 'trade-offs' associated with a policy or platform.  In Part IV of our method, we discuss the problem of trade-offs in greater depth.  We also describe how citizens can conduct their own cost-benefit analyses of platforms and policies.  Using our software applications (or printed worksheets), they may assess whether or not a platform's or a policy's advantages outweigh its disadvantages for individuals, social groups, the environment, and, if applicable, the cosmos as a whole.  In this section, we focus on the cost-benefit analyses that parties and public officials use in order to defend the policies that they propose or support.

When analyzing the influence of cost-benefit analyses, citizens should try to determine whether or not parties and officials have acknowledged, in a clear, credible, and comprehensive manner, the trade-offs associated with a platform or policy.  If cost-benefit analyses are realistic and accurate, then they will most likely a positive influence on platforms and policies.

Analyses of the Costs and Benefits Associated with Previously Enacted Policies
According to our 'experimental approach' to policymaking (see Part I above and Part IV below), sponsors of new policies should carefully evaluate the outcomes of past or existing policies that address the same issue so that they may learn from the successes and/or failures of these policies.  Proposed policies should thus be shaped by cost-benefit analyses of previous policies as well as analyses of their own likely costs and benefits.  If analyses of previous policies are conducted in a systematic and accurate way, and if insights gained from them are integrated into new policies, then it is likely that they will have a positive influence on platforms and policies.

Analyses of the Costs and Benefits Associated with Competing Policy Proposals
In addition, parties and public leaders may cite analyses of the costs and benefits of alternative policies proposed by other parties and public leaders in order to show how their policies are superior to these proposals.  For example, a candidate may cite cost-benefit analyses in order to explain how their policy proposals will achieve greater benefits and involve fewer costs than the policies of competing candidates.


V.  Risk and Uncertainty
Risks represent potential costs associated with platforms and policies.  Two types of risk have an especially significant impact on the policymaking process.  One is the risk associated with the outcome of policies.  Because social problems are so complex, it is possible that even carefully crafted policies will not achieve their goals.  The second type of risk is political.  When a party or public leader proposes or supports a policy, they may risk losing support among colleagues and constituents who do not favor that policy.  Both types of risk may have a substantial effect on the credibility and popularity of parties and public leaders.  They thus have a profound effect on the policymaking process.

Political Risks
As stated above, a policy is politically risky if a public leader's support for the policy may be criticized by some of their constituents, donors, fellow party members, or fellow legislators.  In other words, by advocating a politically risky policy, a public figure runs the risk of losing support among those who nominate them, fund their campaign, elect them, and work with them in legislative bodies (see also section II above and section VII below).  If they hope to get elected or reelected, public leaders must take into account the political risks associated with platforms and proposed policies.  Parties also take political risks if policies within their platform provoke criticism from their members and donors.  

Parties' and public leaders' assessments of political risk may have a positive or negative influence on the platforms and policies that they propose and support.  Political risk has a positive influence when parties and leaders believe that they will minimize their risk by promoting policies that enhance the common good.  It has a negative influence if parties and leaders believe that they will minimize their risk by promoting policies that diminish the common good.  For example, if an elected official is concerned about losing donations from special interests, he or she may propose a policy that serves these interests at the expense of the common good.  In this situation, the official's assessment of political risk has a negative influence on their policy.  On the other hand, large numbers of well-informed citizens may demand that the official advocate an alternative policy that promotes the common good, even if this policy may, at least in the short term, cost him or her the financial support of some special interests.  As the official contemplates the prospect of losing the support of a large number of voters, he or she may then decide that the risk of losing donations from some special interests is outweighed by the risk of losing a substantial number of votes in the next election.  In this second scenario, the official's assessment of political risk has had a positive influence on the policy.

Citizens thus have considerable power to shape the ways in which parties and public officials perceive political risks.  If they use this power, they can shape the ways in which political risks influence platforms and policies.  As citizens assess this influence on platforms and policies, they may ask themselves if they have helped to convince leaders that it is less risky to promote the common good than it is to serve special interests or honor party loyalties at the expense of the common good.

Risks Related to the Outcomes of Policies and Platforms
There are also risks related to the outcomes of policies and platforms.  By conducting the cost-benefit analyses described above, legislators carefully craft policies so that unnecessary risks and uncertainties regarding their outcomes are avoided.  However, policies that address complex and challenging problems almost always involve some degree of risk and uncertainty.  Even though they are planned with diligence and foresight, they may not attain the goals that they were designed to achieve.  Public leaders and the citizens whom they serve should be willing to accept this uncertainty.  Often, though, the fear of failure (and resulting public disapproval) discourages policymakers from proposing and supporting risky or uncertain policies that address challenging social problems.  If they succumb to this fear, legislators may slip into a 'state of denial' and avoid confronting difficult issues.  Or they may propose 'safer' policies that do not effectively address these problems.  

When analyzing platforms and policies, citizens should thus determine whether or not policymakers have effectively recognized and managed risks regarding their outcomes.  The influence of policymakers' perceptions of risk is negative if they fail to avoid unnecessary risks, or if they shy away from taking unavoidable risks as they address challenging issues.  The influence of this type of risk is positive if risks and uncertainties are clearly understood and openly acknowledged by policymakers and the general public, and then minimized by policymakers as they enact and implement legislation.

It is much easier to acknowledge and accept risk and uncertainty regarding the outcome of policies if citizens and their leaders are willing to embrace an 'experimental approach' to public policymaking.  This approach, which is discussed in Part IV of this method, accepts the fact that policymaking is an experimental process of 'trial and error.'  Whenever possible, it calls on public leaders to try a variety of promising strategies for addressing complex social problems.  Different strategies may be employed in different regions, or in the same region at different times.  Then, as results of these strategies are analyzed and evaluated, legislators may revise and refine policies so that they more effectively achieve their goals.  If it is not possible to try different strategies, leaders should at least be open to ongoing evaluations of policies, followed by refinements and revisions if these are deemed necessary.  In addition, when policymakers are addressing a particular issue, the experimental approach requires them to examine the outcome of all other policies that have been enacted in order to address the same issue.  This includes past and current policies that have been implemented in their own or some other jurisdiction -- even in other countries.  By assessing the outcomes of these other 'policy experiments,' policymakers may be better able to formulate promising policies for the future.

For their part, citizens should respect leaders who have the courage to adopt this approach.  They should support leaders who propose bold and intelligent solutions to challenging social problems, even if the outcomes of these policies are uncertain.  And they should not rush to judgment when a well-crafted policy does not achieve its goals, provided that the policy's sponsors are willing to review and revise it in light of the wisdom they have gained from the initial disappointing results.


VI.  The Timing of Elections
The timing of elections may have a substantial impact on the policymaking process because it affects the ways in which officials perceive the political risks associated with their policies.  For example, if elected officials are coming up for reelection soon, they may be less likely to propose or support policies that strive for long-term goals, particularly if the success of these policies requires some short-term hardships before long-term benefits are realized.  Instead, they may try to minimize their political risk by proposing and/or supporting policies that will produce quick, tangible results that are viewed favorably by a large majority of voters.  The timing of elections may also influence the ways in which policymakers deal with controversial issues.  Because controversial issues are so divisive, policies that address them may be strongly supported by some citizens and strongly opposed by others.  Policymakers may thus try to minimize their political risk by proposing controversial policies early in their terms of office.  In doing so, they hope that the citizens who opposed these policies will have had more time to 'cool off' before the official comes up for reelection.

These are just a few of the ways in which this factor may influence both the goals that policymakers seek to achieve as well as the types of issues that they are willing to address.  As they evaluate policies, citizens should try to determine how policymakers' concerns about the timing of elections influence their policies.  For example, if a policymaker's anxiety about an upcoming election leads him or her to propose policies whose impact is popular with the public in the short-term but destructive to the common good in the long-term, then this concern has had a negative effect on the policy.  Similarly, if a policymaker tries to force a controversial policy through the legislature early in his or her term, then this haste may lead to the implementation of flawed policies that have not been adequately discussed by legislators and the citizens whom they represent.

In a positive way, concerns about upcoming elections may cause elected officials to endorse sound policies that have broad public support, even if these policies are opposed by the special interests that donate funds to their campaigns.

It is also possible that concerns about the timing of elections will have little or no effect on the quality of a policy.  Even if, for example, a controversial policy is proposed early in an official's term, it may still be a sound and reasonable policy.  As they evaluate policies and platforms, citizens must therefore decide whether the political risks associated with the timing of elections have a positive, negative, or neutral influence on the policymaking process.


VII.  The Influence of Deal-Making Among Public Officials and Party Factions  
Political 'deal-making' may have a great influence on a policy or platform.  Sponsors of a policy must gain the support of a majority of legislators as well as the executive branch (i.e. President, Governor, Mayor, etc.) if they hope to win passage of their proposed legislation.  And in order to persuade some policymakers to support their proposal, they may need to revise their proposal so that it serves some interest(s) of these elected officials.  Lawmakers may also 'swap favors' as they build support for an initiative.  Their colleagues may promise to support their initiative only if they, in turn, agree to support legislation that these colleagues are proposing or supporting.  Sponsors may thus formulate policies in ways that make these deals more attractive.

It is very unlikely that the sponsor(s) of a platform or policy will openly acknowledge these deals when they defend the platform or policy in the public square.  The influence of these political strategies may therefore be difficult to recognize and assess.  Nonetheless, citizens must try to uncover the various political maneuvers that shape policies.  They must then determine whether or not these deals influence policies in ways that promote the public interest.

In a similar way, platforms are shaped by deals that are struck between different factions within a party.  The various factions or groups within a party may espouse a variety of views and policies that they would like to include in the party's platform.  It is not easy to get all of these groups to agree on one set of policies.  Thus, one faction may agree to support the policies of a second faction if the second faction agrees to support the policies of the first faction.  Or, one faction may withhold its support of the entire platform unless another faction agrees to revise certain key policies within the platform.  These deals may result in a platform which is not totally consistent with the party's public philosophy.  They may also affect the potential contribution of the platform to the common good.  However, these deals are often necessary in order to enable the party to speak with a common, unified voice.  As they analyze platforms, citizens will have to determine how these deals might affect the impact of the platform on the common good.

Part IV:  A Framework for Understanding and
Evaluating the Impact of Platforms and Policies

Below is the framework that we use to analyze the impact of platforms and policies on all four levels of organization discussed above.  It may be used to analyze both proposed platforms and policies as well as those that have already been implemented.  The first part of the framework focuses on the impact of domestic policies.  The second part can be used to analyze the impact of foreign policies as well as the impact of domestic policies on foreign relations.

Focus on Domestic Policy

I.  The Personal Level:  The Impact of Domestic Policies on Individuals

Our 'dynamic systems' world view suggests several important criteria that may be used to understand and evaluate the impact of platforms and policies on individuals.


A.  The Impact of Domestic Policies on the Different Dimensions of an Individual's Personality and Lifestyle
Our 'dynamic systems' approach assumes that all entities are composed of interrelated parts.  In this framework, we attempt to describe the various 'parts' of individual persons by identifying several dimensions of an individual's personality and lifestyle.  These include the physical, relational, intellectual, economic, political, cultural, moral, spiritual, and artistic dimensions of the human person.  We assume that individuals must develop all of these dimensions of their personality and lifestyle in order to exercise their freedoms and pursue some notion of personal fulfillment.

The physical dimension includes one's physical safety, health, and fitness.  To develop this dimension, one must live in a clean and healthful environment.  The relational dimension represents the capacity to form rewarding relationships with family members, friends, colleagues, and other citizens.  The intellectual dimension includes the ability to form a coherent world view, that is, a comprehensive understanding of the human person, human societies, and the natural world.  The economic dimension includes the development of vocational skills as well as an opportunity to gain adequate employment that pays adequate* wages and guarantees safe working conditions.  The political dimension includes a clear understanding of the political process as well as the ability to participate meaningfully in this process.  The cultural dimension is the ability to learn and pass on important customs of the social groups to which one belongs.  The moral dimension is the ability to articulate and consistently act upon a clear set of values and priorities that guide one’s everyday life.  The spiritual dimension includes the ability to reflect on questions of meaning and purpose in one’s life, as well as the cultivation of habits and techniques that deepen this reflection.  The artistic dimension is the ability to express one’s beliefs and values through some form of symbolic action.  This ‘self-expression’ may include the creation of artistic works or the cultivation of artistic tastes in music, the visual arts, and/or the performing arts.  It may also include such avocations as sports and hobbies.

Platforms and policies should promote each dimension of the person that is affected by them.  They should not hinder the development of any dimension.

*  'Adequate' wages for a full-time worker should pay for all of the living expenses of the worker and his or her family and allow for the worker to save some money for future needs.  This minimum wage level is often called a 'living wage.'

B.  A Developmental Perspective on the Human Person
Consistent with our 'dynamic systems' view of reality, our framework explores the impact of platforms and policies on individual persons as they change and develop over time.  We thus assume that these different dimensions of the person are related to each other in the process of human development.  When one cultivates the various dimensions, one meets needs and develops capabilities that are essential to well-rounded personal growth.  Theories of human development can help one to understand how this process moves forward.  Two of these theories may be found in Attachment 2: “Using Theories of Human Development in the Creation and Analysis of Public Policies.”  

Developmental Theories and Public Philosophies
The use of developmental theories plays a pivotal role in the careful analysis of public philosophies (see Part I of this method).  These theories can help citizens to determine whether or not parties and candidates adequately understand how persons thrive.  Many political philosophies have been criticized for having a vague, overly generalized, and unrealistic understanding of human nature and development.   Using these theories as criteria, citizens can identify gaps and weak spots in the views of parties and candidates.  In a positive way, these theories can help citizens to recognize political perspectives that have a clear grasp of human development.

Developmental Theories and Specific Policies
Developmental theories are also essential to the process of creating effective public policies.  First, they enable policymakers to more precisely pinpoint the exact needs and capabilities that they hope to address and develop through the implementation of a specific policy.  For example, job training programs may strive to enable persons to meet their needs for food, clothing, shelter, self-esteem, and meaningful work.  Moral education programs may be designed to help students to form a clearer sense of their identity and values.

Developmental insights also help policymakers to avoid the mistake of "hopscotching" over needs – trying to meet needs at "higher" levels of development while neglecting needs at "lower" levels. For example, enabling citizens to exercise their rights to free expression and self-government are certainly desirable goals, but they mean little to someone who has nothing to eat and no job.  Policymakers must therefore address these basic needs if they hope to successfully promote democratic forms of government.  Also, freedoms may be misused if individuals lack some type of moral formation that instills responsibility and self-discipline.  Thus, some form of moral education is another need that must be met in order for persons to enjoy the liberties to which they are entitled.

C.  Personal Liberties as Developmental Achievements
In short, the use of developmental theories may help citizens and policymakers alike to understand that individual liberty is a very substantial developmental achievement.  It is most effectively exercised when buttressed and directed by a strong foundation of capabilities that are necessary for self-determination.  Governments may have to help citizens to gain opportunities to develop these capabilities.  They may also help other institutions to provide these opportunities.  Either way, these theories make it clear that leaders cannot naively espouse personal liberties if citizens are developmentally impoverished in some way.

By the same token, it is not acceptable for public leaders to address basic needs but then frustrate citizens' higher aspirations for self-determination and self-government.  They may not sacrifice personal liberties while meeting basic needs for food, shelter, and safety.

In light of these developmental insights, policies aimed at helping individuals should reflect a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of human growth as they are described in these theories.  Platforms and policies must help persons to address their needs and cultivate key capabilities so that they may be able to effectively exercise their individual liberties in pursuit of their visions of happiness and fulfillment.


D.  Respecting the Full Range of Human Rights and Recognizing the Relationships between Them
These developmental insights may be more clearly understood when they are described in term of human rights.  Our understanding of human rights reflects both our dimensional and developmental views of the self.  In our view, human rights represent entitlements to basic resources, opportunities, and protections that are essential for holistic personal development, that is, for the development of all of the dimensions of the human person.  Individuals are entitled to these rights simply by virtue of their value and dignity as human beings.  Because they are grounded in human dignity and necessary for personal development, human rights may not be denied by governments, other institutions, or other individuals.  As discussed below, they may only be limited in special circumstances in which the exercise of some right threatens the common good or the overall welfare of other individuals, social groups, or the environment.

It is assumed that platforms and policies should support the full range of basic human rights that are essential for holistic personal growth.  The various types of rights listed below provide many of the same criteria for assessing policies as the dimensions of the human person (see item A).  They highlight the different aspects of one's personality and lifestyle that one develops by exercising one's rights.  In addition, though, some types of human rights more explicitly protect individuals from abuses that may be perpetrated by governments, other institutions, and other individuals.

Economic and physical rights include 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.  They also include rights to food, shelter, and health care if one is unable to work due to personal disability.  Civil rights include freedom from discrimination on the basis of one's creed, race, ethnicity, or gender.  Political rights include rights to civic education,* to peaceful public assembly, to form and participate in political associations, to vote, and to petition the government.  Juridical rights include 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 include the freedom marry and establish a family and the right to form and participate in religious and civic institutions of all kinds.  Cultural rights include the freedom to express the customs and values of one's culture.  They 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 guarantee the ability of citizens to share their views in the public square.  They include the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the right to artistic expression.  Rights to education entitle all individuals to a level of education that enables them to form a coherent world view.  These rights also include the educational dimension of the economic, political, and cultural rights described above.

*  Civic education teaches individuals about political life in their own and other nations.

The Relationships between Human Rights in the Process of Human Development
As mentioned above, human rights are entitlements to resources, opportunities, and protections that are essential for personal growth.  We thus affirm that all of the rights listed above, like the different dimensions of the human person, are related to one another in the process of personal development.  Developmental theories describe how 'lower' needs and capabilities must be addressed and developed before one can address and develop 'higher' needs and capabilities.  Since human rights represent the resources needed to address needs and develop capabilities, these theories also reveal how human rights are related to each other in the process of personal growth.  The effective exercise of some rights, such as the right to free expression, requires the development of skills in literacy, critical thinking, moral reasoning, and interpersonal communication.  These skills are, for the most part, developed in educational institutions.  Thus, in order to exercise these rights, one must be able to exercise the right to an adequate education.  And in order to take advantage of one's right to education, one must be able to exercise one's rights to basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter.  In addition, those who pay for one's education must be able to realize their right to adequate wages.

Clearly, the exercise of some rights meets needs and develops capabilities that are essential for the exercise of other rights.  In other words, the exercise of some rights is a prerequisite for the effective exercise of other rights.  If individuals cannot exercise their rights to basic needs such as adequate wages, safe housing, and a sound education, then they will not be able to fully and competently exercise their rights to free expression and self-determination.  It is difficult to express oneself if one is illiterate; it is impossible to determine one's destiny if one cannot feed one's own family.

Developmental theories also show how some rights represent the fulfillment of other rights.  For example, the rights to self-expression and self-government represent the fulfillment of the rights to get a general education and, more specifically, to receive vocational training.  If individuals receive a well-rounded education that includes vocational training, they will develop a sense of competence, purpose, and identity.  According to developmental theories, these individuals will naturally seek to express themselves and direct their lives according to this sense of purpose and identity.  The rights to self-expression and self-government enable them to do so.  If they cannot exercise these rights, they will be frustrated in their quest for personal fulfillment.  Once again, relationships between different types of rights are revealed in the dynamics of human development.

In summary, in order to promote individual rights and freedoms, platforms and policies must reflect an awareness of both the developmental character of liberty and the developmental relationships between human rights.  Developmental theories describe how some rights are prerequisites for others.  If this relationship is ignored, policymakers run the risk of 'hopscotching' over basic rights that develop skills and capabilities that are necessary for the exercise of other rights such as the right to self-government.  These theories also show how some rights represent the fulfillment of other rights.  The right to a well-rounded education, for example, develops capabilities and aspirations that are fulfilled when citizens are able to exercise the rights to self-expression and self-determination.

Limits to the Exercise of Rights
The exercise of individual rights may be limited for several reasons.  One may not, for example, exercise rights in ways that violate the rights of others.  In addition, one person's exercise of one or more rights may be limited in order to provide others an opportunity to exercise this right (these rights).  For instance, in societies in which there is a great gap between higher and lower economic classes, it would be appropriate to redistribute some wealth from more affluent individuals to impoverished persons so that the latter may have an opportunity to exercise their physical, economic, and educational rights.  In this example, the property rights of the wealthy are limited in order to enable poor individuals to exercise basic rights on some minimal level.  In sections V-VII, we describe how such limitations often, in the long term, benefit those whose rights are limited and those who are empowered by a sharing of resources.  In other words, those whose rights may be limited in the short term often enjoy expanded rights in the long term.  This is because the limits imposed on them shore up the foundations of a peaceful, stable, and prosperous society.

More broadly, rights may be limited by the need to promote the common good, that is, the welfare of the social institutions and ecological systems that support and foster individual growth and well-being.  This also is discussed in greater detail below in sections V-VII.  In this section, we simply wish to make the point that policies must respect the fact that no rights are 'absolute'; all are exercised within prudent limits imposed by the needs of other individuals, by the needs of social institutions that support individuals, and by the needs of the ecosystems that sustain all human societies.

Afterword:  The Scope of Human Rights
We are aware that this list of rights may be broader than the range of entitlements traditionally guaranteed by some nations.  We have taken an ambitious approach to human rights for two reasons.  First, we maintain that all of the rights listed above are related to each other in the process of personal development (see above).  If policymakers hope to promote the liberty and happiness of their fellow citizens, they cannot pick and choose between them.  Second, we believe that this full spectrum of rights should be promoted simply because our civilization possesses the resources necessary to do so.  While a scarcity of resources may have been an excuse to compromise on some types of rights in the past, we are confident that the collective wealth of human societies in our own time is more than adequate to provide a broad range of opportunities for all people.  If less affluent nations cannot afford to extend some of these rights to all persons, then wealthy nations should help them to do so through aid and development programs.  We further maintain that it is in the interest of all nations to promote these rights in order that more stable, prosperous, and progressive social conditions may be achieved around the globe.


E.  The Relationship between Rights and Responsibilities
Entitlements such as human rights benefit individuals and society only if individuals are willing to bear the responsibilities associated with them.  Individuals must take on these responsibilities in two key ways.  First, individuals must bear the responsibility to take advantage of the resources, opportunities, and protections provided by their societies in the form of human rights.  If they avoid this responsibility, individuals limit their potential for personal growth as well as their ability to contribute to society.  Second, as mentioned in section D above, individuals must exercise these rights in responsible ways that respect the rights of other individuals, strengthen institutions, and preserve the natural world.  If they fail to do so, then, in the long run, individuals will constantly infringe on each other's ability to exercise rights, social institutions will be less able to provide and protect rights, and the environment will not sustain individuals as they seek to exercise their rights and freedoms.

As they promote human rights, policies and platforms should thus clarify how the enjoyment of these rights also implies responsibilities that individuals must assume.  In addition, they should empower individuals to assume these responsibilities.

Our developmental theories suggest that this focus on responsibility is especially important in adolescence and young adulthood as individuals are developing a capacity for self-determination.  This capacity will find a wider public purpose as they assume the responsibilities of citizenship and participate in democratic self-government.

F.  Integrating Individual Initiative and Social Support
This discussion of rights and responsibilities sheds light on a central issue in political thought -- the relationship between the individual and society.  This issue is discussed in greater length in section V of this framework.  In this section, we only highlight one key aspect of this issue: the debate about the roles of individual initiative and social support in the process of personal development.  Historically, some schools of political thought have placed great emphasis on the role of personal initiative in the quest for personal fulfillment and social progress.  Others have focused on the 'social nature' of human beings.  They emphasize the many ways in which individuals rely on social institutions for the support and resources that they need in order to thrive. 

Our relational and developmental perspectives clearly demonstrate that both individual individual initiative and social support are essential for personal growth.  Like all other entities, individuals are intimately related to one another in human societies.  Throughout their lifetime, individuals rely on the support and resources of social institutions such as their families, the schools that they attend, the institutions for which they work, the civic organizations to which they belong, and many different government bodies.  Yet our theories of human development (see Appendix 2) state that individuals must develop a sense of personal identity and responsibility if they are to lead fulfilling lives.  They must choose their values, initiate projects and relationships, and assume specific roles within social groups.  We thus propose that policies must acknowledge the roles that both personal initiative and social support play in the well-being and development of individuals.




II.  The Impact of Domestic Policies on the Social Level of Organization  

1)  The first is clarity in the mission of the institution.  When an institution clearly states its mission, it enables members to identify key goals and objectives as they carry out this mission.  It also allows members -- as well as the general public -- to understand more specifically how the institution contributes to society as a whole.  In addition, it helps individuals both inside and outside of the organization to determine whether or not the institution is consistently faithful to its mission.

2)  The second principle is a commitment to excellence in the development of the specialized skills that members need to master in order to pursue the institution's mission in a way that serves the common good.  These may include technological expertise, skills in managing projects, as well as interpersonal skills that are used in the delivery of human services.  Regardless of the specific capabilities that are needed, institutions should strive for the continual improvement of relevant skills among all of their members.

3)  The third principle is a commitment to constructive relationships between members of an institution.  To achieve this goal, groups should encourage competence in the basic skills necessary for forming healthy human relationships, including a capacity for empathy, communication skills, and the ability to cooperate as a team toward desired goals.  All institutions should also clearly articulate the values and norms that should be respected by their members as they relate to each other.

If an institution has employees, it should promote just economic relationships between them.  This is discussed further in the section on relationships between management and labor in the market sector (see section II.B.2.a).  We note here that these principles apply to all organizations that employ individuals, whether they are businesses, government bodies, or nonprofit organizations.

4)  The fourth principle is a commitment to establish and maintain constructive and civil relationships with other institutions.

5)  The fifth principle is inclusion.  It is relevant to the mission of a group, its membership, and its decision-making processes.  As they pursue their missions, institutions should not deny individuals the resources that they need for self-development on the basis of their race, creed, age, economic class, gender, ethnicity, national origin, area of residence (i.e. rural or urban), sexual orientation, or political views.  For example, a job training program should be open to all persons, regardless of race, creed, class, etc.  Furthermore, institutions may have to take extraordinary measures to ensure that all persons and groups enjoy equal opportunities to benefit from their programs. Using the above example, an institution that sponsors a job training program should make a special effort to recruit participants from lower economic classes and from historically oppressed groups.

Institutions should also open their membership to all individuals, regardless of these personal characteristics.  We will concede that some groups may legitimately limit their membership if these limits are essential to their mission.  For example, some educational institutions may wish to create a learning environment that is tailored to the special needs and circumstances of one gender or members of lower economic classes.  But for the vast majority of institutions, particularly economic and political institutions, the norm of inclusion should be strictly respected.  Furthermore, institutions should make a special effort to recruit members from disadvantaged groups so that all persons may feel welcome to join them.

Institutions should also be inclusive in their decision-making processes.  They should allow all stakeholders -- that is, all who are affected by a decision -- to play some meaningful role in the decision-making process.

6)  The sixth principle is accountability.  Institutions are accountable for the well-being of all those whose lives are touched by their programs and policies.  The accountability of institutions may be promoted in a variety of ways.  First, institutions should set forth a code of ethical principles and practices.  This code should specify how an institution will pursue its mission in ways that promote the common good.  Institutions must also create strategies for holding members, employees, and/or constituents accountable to this code.  As discussed above, they should also establish inclusive decision-making processes.  When all stakeholders have input into an institution's decisions, they can hold that institution accountable to their interests and to the common good.  In addition, institutions should allow their policies, procedures, and decision-making processes to be examined and evaluated by other parties.  Depending on the type of institution, these other parties may include employees, members, citizens, clients, and governments -- once again, any individual or group that has some stake in an institution's conduct and welfare.  The media should be included among these groups, since they provide information to the various stakeholders.  Even very private institutions such as families and faith communities should accept outside assessment (and help) when it is necessary to protect the well-being of their members.  

The values, policies, and procedures of institutions are described as transparent when they are open to public examination.  Maintaining this transparency is essential if institutions are to be held accountable to the common good.

We will allow that some information may be kept from public view in order to respect the privacy of individuals and the intellectual property (such as patents) of businesses.  Some medical records, for example, may be considered private and confidential, and businesses may not wish to share their strategic plans and proprietary information (such as the 'secret recipes' for soft drinks!).  Without some very compelling reason, however, institutions should be willing to allow monitoring groups or the general public to review their proceedings.


Platforms and policies should help all institutions affected by them to promote the common good.  They should also encourage institutions to respect the five key organizational principles described above.

1)  Special Institutional Focus on Governments within Your Nation
Governments on all levels -- local, state, and national -- are charged with the responsibility of enacting and enforcing the laws that order societies.  State and federal governments must also maintain military organizations that provide security for citizens, the nation as a whole, and the nation's allies.  Because governing institutions play this pivotal role in public life, we devote a special section to them.  The general institutional principles described above can be adapted into more specific principles that encourage ethical and effective government practices.  Principles related to the internal operations of government and the regulatory functions of government are also set forth in other sections of this framework.  For example, in the section below on relationships within the government sector we discuss the principle of checks and balances between the branches of governments.  In addition, other sections of this framework examine the impact of government policies on individuals, social groups, the environment, and the cosmos as a whole.  However, even though some of this information is redundant, we believe that it is helpful to describe how these principles apply to governments as well as other institutions.

1)  Establishing the Rule of Law
On the most basic level, it is essential for governments to establish and maintain the rule of law.  That is, they must be able to exert the power and control that is necessary in order to successfully enact and consistently enforce legislation.  And according to the ideals of democracy, the rule of law is legitimate only if it is exercised with the consent of the people.  This consent is expressed through the democratic election of government officials.

If governments are unable or unwilling to establish and maintain the rule of law, they will not be able to govern in an ethical and effective manner.  Two factors are especially threatening to the rule of law: instability and corruption.  The rule of law cannot be established in a chaotic society that does not have a functioning government.  In addition, the rule of law is compromised if a government is corrupt.  Governments are corrupt if individuals or groups gain control over government institutions, often without the consent of the people, and then use the powers of government in order to pursue their interests at the expense of the common good.  Corrupt governments may change laws arbitrarily -- without going through any sort of democratic legislative process -- in order to pursue their interests.  They may also enforce laws inconsistently -- only when it favors their interests to do so.  These strategies dramatically undermine the rule of law and betray citizens' trust in their governments.  Measures designed to avoid and fight government corruption are discussed further in the section below on "Accountability" and in section II.B, which examines the impact of policies on social sectors. 

2)  Promoting the Common Good
As with all other institutions, governing bodies should pursue their missions in ways that promote the common good.  They should enact and enforce legislation that protects the full range of human rights, promotes social progress, and preserves the environment.  Conversely, they must avoid problems such as corruption and incompetence that prevent them from responding effectively to the public interest.  

3)  Clarity of Mission
While it is understood that all government institutions should promote the public good, all government bodies should clarify the specific ways in which they are commissioned to do so.  For example, the mission of The Securities and Exchange Commission is to promote the public good by regulating the trade of stocks and bonds.  All platforms and policies should enable government bodies to adhere faithfully to their missions.

4)  Standards of Excellence
More specifically, governments should promote standards of excellence in policymaking and citizenship.  Regarding the policymaking process, government officials should cultivate the skills and attitudes that enable them to work effectively with each other as they carry out the duties of their office.  They should also diligently gather information relevant to the issues that they address through the policies that they create.  Related to this, they should invite input on key public issues from a variety of experts both within and outside of government.  They should pay particular attention to scientific studies that are relevant to policy issues.  In addition, governments must provide opportunities for citizen participation in the policymaking process by holding public forums, measuring public opinion, and by taking into account the views and opinions of citizens who communicate with officials through such means as letters, phone calls, and e-mails.  When public officials propose, defend, and cast votes on specific policies, they should clearly state how all of these sources of input -- as well as their own philosophical assumptions -- have influenced their proposals and decisions.  Finally, government leaders should embrace an 'experimental approach' to policymaking (for an explanation of this approach, see Part II above as well as Section VIII below).

To promote standards of excellence in citizenship, governments (as well as nongovernmental organizations such as civic groups and faith communities) should help citizens to gain the knowledge and skills that they need in order to participate in the institutions and processes of democratic government.  Governments may do this by requiring all schools to include some form of civic education in their curricula.  This instruction should include strategies for political organizing, dialogue, analysis, and advocacy such as those set forth in this curriculum.  Government officials should also provide citizens with timely and accurate information regarding important issues and policies.  For their part, citizens should uphold standards of excellence in public life by staying informed on important issues, by engaging in dialogue with other citizens, by communicating with government officials in the ways described above, and by casting their votes in elections.

5)  Accountability
To encourage accountability in government institutions, the decision-making processes of all government bodies should be transparent, or open to public review and evaluation.  The public should be able to identify who makes decisions.  They should also be informed of the criteria and justifications that guide decisions.  Decision-making processes should also be inclusive, encouraging broad public input from citizens and advocacy groups (see below).  In this way, governments may held accountable by all citizens, not just a select few.  In addition, the system of checks and balances between government branches holds governments accountable to the public good.  And finally, governments must set forth codes of ethics that specify ethical guidelines for institutional programs and policies as well as the behavior of individual public servants.  For example, these codes could describe how legislators should avoid conflicts of interests by abstaining from votes on policies that directly affect their own economic interests and/or the interests of their friends and families.  Principles related to accountability are especially important as safeguards against government corruption and the abuses of power that arise from it.

6)  Inclusiveness
As mentioned in the previous section, governments' decision-making processes should be inclusive as well as transparent.  Policymakers should solicit broad public input as they propose, discuss, enact, and implement legislation.  Governments should be inclusive in their mission as well.  They should strive to enhance the lives of all citizens, regardless of their economic class, race, creed, age, ethnicity, gender, area of residence, political views, national origin, and sexual preference.  For more on this aspect of inclusiveness, see the section below on 'Socio-cultural Collectivities.'  Finally, governments must be inclusive in their membership.  No citizen should be denied the opportunity to run for public office or gain government employment on the basis of any of the above characteristics.

7)  Promoting Constructive Relationships 
Finally, governments must encourage constructive relationships both within and outside of government institutions.  They should promote good relationships among government officials, between political parties, between government branches, between other institutions and agencies within government, and between individual citizens.  As they promote constructive relationships in all of these contexts, they will create a greater spirit of civility in public life.

All platforms and policies must enhance the ability of governments to respect these principles for ethical and effective public administration.

8)  Military Preparedness and National Security
Your national government must also be able to support a military force that is capable of defending the nation's interests and values.  This military force must be equipped and trained in an efficient manner; military expenses should not drain resources from important social programs that promote the welfare of citizens and the environment.  In the quest for national security in a fractious world, it seems easy to justify massive expenditures on defense.  Yet history has shown that flawed domestic and foreign policies often breed more unrest and conflict than any real or perceived weakness in military capabilities.  Put positively, effective domestic and foreign policies that improve individuals' lives are the best guarantees of peace and prosperity.  Policies and platforms must acknowledge this broader conception of national security that includes military strength as well as the general welfare of individuals, social groups, and the environment.  These issues are discussed in more depth in the framework on foreign relations below.


B.  Impact on Social Sectors
Different types of social institutions may be grouped into three social sectors, or collections of institutions that have a similar mission and function.  They include the market sector, the state or government sector, and civil society.  

1)  Definition of Each Sector
The market sector is comprised of institutions that have as their primary goal the exchange of goods and services for a profit.  In other words, they sell goods and services in order to make money.  This sector also includes political advocacy groups that represent the interests of business firms.  The various institutions that direct the political process comprise the state or government sector.  This sector includes the three branches of government as well as all agencies and commissions that enact and enforce government policies.  The last sector, which may be called civil society, is comprised of organizations that provide individuals with opportunities for personal development, service, and political participation.  Some examples of these organizations include faith communities, schools*, civic groups, service organizations, and environmental organizations.  They also include political advocacy organizations that represent the interests of groups such as the elderly, the handicapped, and the mentally ill.  In addition, as discussed below, political parties and media organizations may be considered part of this sector, though they may also function in ways that are characteristic of other sectors.  We thus describe them as 'hybrid' organizations that belong to two or more sectors.  While some institutions in civil society may charge money for the services that they provide, most do not seek to make money or earn a profit from these transactions.  They are thus called 'nonprofit' or 'not-for-profit' organizations.  Those that do seek to earn profits may be considered to be hybrid institutions that belong to both the market sector and civil society. 

'Hybrid' Institutions

The Media
Some institutions share characteristics and functions of two or even all three sectors.  The media, for instance, informs and educates the public.  As discussed below in the section on 'Relationships between Sectors,' the media also keeps a critical eye on the market and state sectors.  In these capacities, it functions like an institution in civil society.  Yet most media organizations are for-profit businesses and thus also part of the market sector.  If media organizations are affiliated with a government, they may also be part of the government sector.  Because of their hybrid character, citizens should carefully analyze the ways in which media groups affect the dynamics within and between sectors (see below).

Political Parties
Political parties may share characteristics and functions of both the state sector and civil society.  Within governments, parties nominate candidates for elected office.  They also play important roles in legislative bodies.  For example, they determine the membership of committees within legislatures, and the leaders of majority parties decide which policies will be considered by legislatures.  Beyond this, parties provide citizens with opportunities for political education and advocacy.  They provide opportunities for advocacy by responding to the views, concerns, and interests of the citizens who comprise their membership as they decide which policies to propose and support.  They may also educate their members regarding principles of responsible citizenship and the dynamics of the political process.  In these functions, they operate as institutions in civil society.  

Government Enterprises
In addition, government enterprises share characteristics and functions of more than one sector.  These institutions are established and often managed by governments at the federal, state, or local levels.  They are thus part of the government sector.  Yet they also provide goods and services such as liquor, electric power, passenger rail transportation, and mail service.  They are thus part of the market sector as well.  Governments establish them for a variety of reasons.  They may be created to generate revenue for government programs (i.e. liquor stores), to avoid abuses of private monopolies (i.e. electric power companies), to offer services that cannot be profitably provided by the private business sector (i.e. Amtrak passenger rail service), or to coordinate complex and expensive research projects, such as the development of new satellite technologies, that may be too costly and risky for private businesses to pursue.

While they do not fit neatly into one sector, this framework of social sectors should help citizens to understand these hybrid institutions' unique characteristics and functions.  They may then more effectively analyze their relationships with institutions in all three sectors.

* While public schools are funded through taxes and regulated to varying degrees by government bodies, they function more like institutions in civil society.  For example, they provide a nonprofit service to society.  In addition, public colleges and universities enjoy 'academic freedom' that enables faculty members to teach and write what they wish without fear of government interference.  This autonomy, in addition to their educational function, clearly distinguish them from the state sector, which focuses on enacting and enforcing public policies.  Moreover, these institutions may sponsor studies and conferences that evaluate how effectively the programs and policies of institutions in the market and state sectors serve the public good.  As discussed below, this evaluative role is a key function of institutions in civil society.

2)  Relationships within and between the Sectors
Relationships within and between the sectors are of great importance to social progress and the common good.  The following discussion of these relationships will clarify the ways in which the three sectors and the institutions within them perform functions that are essential to the common good.  It will also describe the ways in which the sectors and their institutions may be made accountable to the public as they perform these functions.

a)  Relationships within Sectors
Relationships between different organizations within sectors may be cooperative or competitive.  Neither cooperative nor competitive relationships are necessarily constructive or destructive.  Some cooperative relationships promote the public good, while others do not.  Similarly, some competitive relationships enhance the public good, while others are obstacles to progress.

Adversarial Relationships within Sectors

The Market Sector

Constructive Adversarial Relationships
When business firms must compete with each other for customers, each will try to gain an edge over its competitors by trying to offer better products and services at lower prices.  This competitive dynamic within the market sector is the engine of economic and technological progress.  Entrepreneurship, or the establishment of new businesses, promotes both competition and innovation.  Without competition, firms often produce inferior products and charge excessive prices, since they have no rivals to challenge them.

Relationships between Management and Labor in the Market Sector
Another key interaction within the market sector is the often tense relationship between the different levels of employees in a firm -- between the lower-level workers and the higher level managers and owners who set wages and control working conditions.  The interests of these groups may often conflict, at least in the short term.  Lower level workers (usually called 'labor') often seek higher wages and better working conditions.  Managers try to keep labor costs down in order to increase profits.  They will thus pay workers as little as possible.  And they may be reluctant to spend money on strategies to increase worker safety.  We maintain that managers and owners should provide workers with safe working conditions and a level of compensation that enables them to meet their basic needs and support their families.  Governments should help to regulate this relationship through legislation that sets minimum wages as well as standards for safe working conditions.  This is discussed below in the section on relationships between sectors.  However, workers may still consider it necessary to bargain collectively through a labor union in order to gain higher wages and more favorable working conditions.  Business managers and governments should allow them to do so without fear of reprisal or discrimination.  Should workers choose to bargain collectively, they should, for their part, make reasonable demands that do not cripple a firm's ability to compete in the marketplace.

If it is handled effectively, the often tense relationship between management and labor can promote the public good in the long term.  Safe working conditions minimize injuries in the workplace.  This reduces the compensation that employers may have to pay injured workers.  In addition, workers who are well paid stimulate the economy as they use their wages to purchase goods and services.  All business owners benefit from the economic growth that is created by this consumption.

Destructive Adversarial Relationships in the Market Sector
Competitive relationships between business firms may also undermine the common good.  As mentioned above, business firms try to gain a competitive edge over their rivals by selling their goods and services for the lowest possible price.  In order to do this, they must constantly strive to lower the costs of producing the goods and services that they sell.  Businesses may seek to lower their costs by paying their workers extremely low wages.  Their workers may then be unable to meet their basic needs and support their families.  

Yet workers and their families would not be the only ones to suffer from low wages.  If workers and their families consume low levels of goods and services, economies tend to stagnate or even shrink.  This would make it difficult for entire societies to attain the level of prosperity that they desire.  In addition, low wages may lower workers' morale and discourage them from working as hard as they would if they were paid more adequate wages.  As a result, the overall productivity of their employers will suffer.  Furthermore, low wages create animosity between management and labor.  Workers may even go on strike, or stop working, in order to protest low wages.  This would almost certainly diminish the productivity of the firms that employ them.

In a similar way, competitive pressures may cause firms to produce goods in ways that harm the environment.  Manufacturing processes often produce waste products that pollute the environment.  Firms must spend money on processes that dispose of this waste in ways that minimize harm to the environment.  However, they may try to save money -- and gain a competitive edge -- by avoiding their responsibility to dispose of wastes in an environmentally safe manner. 

These destructive relationships can be minimized by responsible action in the market sector.  Management and labor can work together to reach agreements on wages and working conditions.  Coalitions of business firms can agree to minimize the environmental damage caused by their manufacturing processes.  However, it is often necessary for governments to step in and regulate environmental and labor issues in the market.  This is discussed below in the section on relationships between sectors. 

The State or Government Sector
An elaborate system of checks and balances between government branches must be in place in order to promote accountability and efficiency in the government sector.  The legislative branch (Congress) enacts laws.  The judicial branch may review these laws in order to determine whether or not they are consistent with the principles set forth in a nation's Constitution.  In addition, the executive branch (the President or Governor) may veto legislation that he or she deems harmful to the public good.  In turn, the legislative branch may 'override' this veto and enact legislation over the objections of the executive branch.  This system of checks and balances prevents any single branch of government from exerting too much control over public affairs.

Within the legislative branch, political parties may check and balance one another as legislation is debated and voted on.  Through a variety of mechanisms, each party can prevent the other(s) from gaining too much control over the policymaking process.

In addition, citizens can check the power of the legislators who represent them by proposing legislation through a referendum.  Normally, citizens elect representatives (i.e. legislators) who then propose and enact laws on behalf of their constituents (i.e. the citizens who elect them).  This is the basic process of representative democracy.  However, citizens may also propose a piece of legislation and then either enact or reject it through a popular vote or referendum.  This process is commonly referred to as direct democracy.  When citizens employ this strategy, they are exercising their right to petition the government (see 'political rights' in section I.D above).  Citizens who wish to propose legislation in this manner have to collect a certain number of signatures from fellow citizens who also support the proposal before they can put their proposal up for a popular vote.  Citizens can resort to the referendum process if they do not believe that legislators will faithfully represent their views and interests.  For example, if citizens are convinced that legislators will not enact a certain law because they have been bribed or corrupted by special interests, they may insist that the law be voted on by the general public through a referendum.  Some governments even allow citizens to use a referendum to recall an elected official, or remove them from office, if a majority of voters believe that the official is not executing the duties of his or her office in a competent and ethical manner.

The referendum process of checking the power of government officials can be abused, however, if citizens are not wise in their political judgments.  For example, citizens may vote to lower their taxes through a referendum.  They may then conduct another referendum in which they pass a law that obligates the government to provide more services.  As a result, they may force their government to spend more money providing these services than it takes in through tax revenues.   

Checks and balances between branches of government can also be destructive when, for example, the legislative and executive branches are completely unable to work together in order to address important public issues.  Without some 'give-and-take' or comprise between the different branches, governments may be unable to carry out their legitimate functions.  In the same way, struggles between political parties may make it impossible for governments to respond to important issues.

Civil Society
Competition is also valuable for organizations in civil society.  For example, civic organizations such as community service groups may compete with one another for members within a community.  This competitive relationship may motivation each organization to continually improve its programs and extend its outreach to the community.  As a result, the civic organizations and the community as a whole benefit from the competition.  In their role as advocacy organizations in civil society, political parties may compete with each other in order to best represent the views and interests of citizens.  This competition is essential for maintaining a vibrant democratic society.  Competition in civil society may become destructive, however, when it discourages groups from working together in order to address important social issues and problems.

Cooperative Relationships within Sectors

Constructive Cooperative Relationships within Sectors
Cooperation within sectors is also crucial.  Many technological, ecological, and social problems cannot be adequately addressed without pooling the resources and coordinating the programs of many different institutions within (and between) sectors. In the market sector, it may be necessary to combine the resources of many business firms in order to develop complex technologies.  In civil society, a variety of different civic groups, churches, and educational groups may need to join forces in order to effectively address concerns about such issues as civil rights or environmental problems.  In a similar way, different branches of government and government agencies may have to work together to meet challenges faced by a state or nation.

Destructive Cooperative Relationships within Sectors
However, cooperation in the market sector does not always serve the public good.  Business firms should not be allowed to cooperate or collude as they set prices for the goods and services that they sell.  Rather, they should be forced to compete with each other, as discussed above.  This competition will motivate them to offer the highest quality goods and services at the lowest prices.    

b)  Relationships between Sectors

The three sectors interact in many ways that may either promote or threaten the common good.  These interactions may be cooperative or adversarial.  Once again, cooperative relationships are not necessarily good, and adversarial relationships are not necessarily bad.  Rather, policies should encourage the kinds of adversarial and cooperative relationships between sectors that promote the common good.  

Constructive Cooperative Relationships

The sectors may cooperate in many ways that are vital to the common good.  For example, the state may cooperate with business firms in the market sector in order to develop some important new technology.  These two sectors may also work together to create legislation that promotes a fair and open commercial environment -- one that encourages entrepreneurship and rewards ethical business practices.  The state may cooperate with churches in order to deliver much needed social services to impoverished populations.  Charitable organizations in civil society may be supported by business firms that wish to serve their community.   

In addition, the media may gather and report information that helps governments to make more informed decisions.  Commentators in the media may also provide insights that enable government officials to better understand and respond to important public issues.  Beyond this, the media may use its capacity to communicate with the public in order to promote public safety and informed political participation.  Governments may use television and radio stations to alert the public regarding dangers such as infectious diseases, unhealthy lifestyles, and terrorist attacks.  Print and broadcast media may provide political candidates with an opportunity to communicate their platforms to the public, provided that each candidate has an equal opportunity to do so.   These are all examples of constructive cooperative relationships between sectors.

Constructive Adversarial Relationships

Constructive relationships between sectors can be adversarial as well.  The three sectors must “check and balance” each other just as the three branches of government hold each other accountable to the common good.  Governments must monitor regulate institutions in all three sectors, starting with themselves.  They must enact policies that hold government officials and agencies accountable to standards of good government.  The other sectors should help them to enforce these standards.  The state must regulate the market in order to ensure that business firms conduct their operations in an ethical manner.  More specifically, as mentioned above, governments must create labor and environmental regulations in order to ensure that competitive pressures within the market sector do not lead firms to exploit workers and damage the environment.  Governments must also issue regulations that prevent business executives from misusing funds invested in their firms.  These measures should also ensure that executives give a truthful accounting of a firm's financial status.  In addition, governments must pass anti-trust laws that prevent firms from colluding or making agreements to sell their goods at higher prices.  Finally, governments must ensure that consumers of goods and services are protected against dangers posed by defective products and by services that are not provided in a competent and professional manner.  In turn, business firms should prevent the state from taking on economic ventures that would be more effectively and efficiently pursued by the market sector.  They may also resist regulations that they consider to be excessive or unnecessary.  And they should ensure that governments enforce economic regulations in a fair and equitable manner, without showing favoritism to any firms.

Organizations in civil society may have to pressure the state and the market to better serve the public interest.  In turn, the state must regulate organizations in civil society in order to ensure that they raise and use their funds in an ethical manner.  

Constructive Adversarial Relationships between 'Hybrid Organizations' and the Three Sectors

Constructive Adversarial Relationships between Political Parties and the State
In democratic societies, it is essential for political parties to be able to voice their views on government policies, institutions, and officials, particularly when their views do not agree with existing government policies.  This is an especially important function for minority parties*.  These parties may not enjoy much power in the state sector, yet, as part of civil society, they still advocate the views and interests of the citizens who comprise their membership.  As they voice alternative views, parties may provide citizens and public leaders alike with a variety of perspectives on a particular public issue or problem.  Their participation is thus an essential aspect of the democratic process.

* A party is designated a 'minority' party when its members hold less than half of the seats in a legislative body.

Constructive Adversarial Relationships between the Media and the Three Sectors
As mentioned above, media organizations such as television networks and newspaper publishers are 'hybrid' institutions that share functions and characteristics of the market sector and civil society.  They may also be part of the government sector if they are sponsored by governments.  Because of these different characteristics and functions, the media may be involved in constructive adversarial relationships with all three sectors.  As a part of civil society, the media serves as a "watchdog" that exposes unethical behavior in governments, businesses, and even in other groups in civil society.  The media can serve as an effective watchdog only if a society's constitution protects the freedom of the press to express ideas without government control or censorship.  Policies and platforms must always preserve this limitation on the power of the state and the freedom of expression that it guarantees.  

In turn, media organizations that operate as businesses in the market sector are subject to economic regulation by the government.  The state should be especially vigilant in its efforts to limit the number of media outlets that can be owned by a single media firm.  This policy is necessary for economic as well as broader cultural reasons.  Economically, the state should encourage competition in the media so that media organizations will charge reasonable prices for advertisements and subscriptions.  From a cultural or civic perspective, this policy prevents one or a few large media firms from gaining too much control over information in the public square.  It may thus give the public access to a greater diversity of perspectives on public affairs.

In addition, individuals and groups in all sectors must serve as 'watchdogs' that monitor the accuracy and objectivity of news reports produced by the media.  Some groups in civil society are devoted solely to this purpose.  Media watchdogs must first ensure that laws against libel, or intentional and malicious lying by the media, are enforced.  

Beyond this basic function, they should help citizens to understand that the media may not simply report the facts associated with newsworthy events.  Rather, these organizations may report the news in ways that reflect their views and interests.  As discussed in Part III of this method, these views and interests are described as biases and include economic bias, political bias, access bias, as well as the bias associated with the personal ambitions of individual journalists.  The biases that affect media information are often referred to as the 'spin' that the media places on its news reports.  Media watchdogs can also alert citizens to the biases of public figures, political parties, and other organizations.  These biases will determine the spin that these individuals and organizations place on information when they speak through the media.  

Finally, media watchdogs should help the public to critically evaluate the political commentary that is produced by the media.  Since commentaries are opinions, and thus more subjective, it is assumed that they will reflect the political views of commentators, or the spin that these commentators place on political topics as they interpret and evaluate them.  Even so, the interpretations of commentators should reflect coherent and consistent political perspectives.  They should also be supported by sound scientific research and accurate historical data.  Media watchdogs must therefore help citizens to examine them closely in order to determine whether or not they are sound and credible interpretations of political events, policies, and trends.

If media watchdogs enable citizens to better assess the news and commentary provided by the media, citizens may then make more informed decisions about parties, candidates, and policies.  In addition, if public figures and media groups are aware that citizens are carefully evaluating media information, they may reduce the spin that they place on this information.  In the long run, this may improve the quality of communication in the public forum.  Citizens should thus ensure that public policies promote and protect 'checks and balances' between the media and media watchdogs in all sectors.

Constructive Adversarial Relationships between Entertainment Media and the Three Sectors
Organizations in all three sectors should also hold entertainment media, such as movies, music, art exhibitions, books, plays, and video games, accountable to some standards of public decency.  These types of media do not play the same role in political life as the news and information media discussed above.  However, they do play an important role in shaping the views and values of popular culture.  And they may, in fact, convey messages that are relevant to politics.  The monitoring and regulation of entertainment media is thus a frequent topic of debate in public life.  Entertainment industry groups, such as the Motion Picture Association of America, rate various forms of entertainment as appropriate for persons of a certain age or level of maturity.  Religious institutions and other groups in civil society may also rate entertainment according to codes of morality that they espouse.  In addition, governments may censor entertainment content that is deemed to be excessively obscene or violent.  Government regulations may also limit the consumption of some forms of entertainment to persons over a certain age.  While these regulatory policies should protect public safety and uphold standards of public morality, they should also respect artists' and entertainers' right to express themselves.  Thus, when citizens evaluate policies that regulate entertainment media, they should carefully determine whether or not limits on artistic expression are justified by a reasonable concern for public safety and morality.

Constructive Adversarial Relationships between Government Enterprises and the Three Sectors
In a similar way, all three sectors must ensure that government enterprises provide goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.  These 'hybrid' institutions should be carefully monitored by government representatives, experts in business management, as well as groups in civil society that represent the consumers who are served by these enterprises.  The decision-making processes of these enterprises should be transparent, or open to public scrutiny, so that they can be evaluated by the aforementioned individuals and groups.  All policies that impact government enterprises must facilitate these strategies for holding them accountable to the public good.

All of these relationships between sectors, both cooperative and adversarial, contribute to the common good.  Destructive relationships between sectors are very common, however.  Like constructive relationships between sectors, these may be cooperative or adversarial interactions.  

Destructive Relationships between Sectors

Destructive relationships between sectors can have a profoundly negative effect on the common good, endangering the livelihood of persons, the freedom of conscience, and the integrity of the democratic process.  As with constructive relationships, these negative relationships may be cooperative or adversarial.

Destructive Cooperative Relationships   

The sectors may cooperate in many ways that are harmful to the common good.  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.  It has led many democratic governments to insist that a separation must be maintained between governments and religious institutions, that is, between 'church' and 'state'.*

* The actual extent of this separation is a topic of much debate in many democratic societies.  In western democratic societies, a broad consensus supports the principle that governments should not establish any religion as an official state religion that dictates the spiritual beliefs and morality of its citizens.  Rather, they support the freedom of citizens to choose and to practice their religion.  Many also believe that government resources may not be used by faith communities in order to promote their doctrines and/or recruit individuals to join their communities.  However, many do believe that governments may provide funds to faith communities that wish to provide basic social services, such as housing for the poor, as long as these groups do not use the funds in order to proselytize or recruit the individuals whom they serve.  This is a sample of just a few of the issues and positions within this contentious and ongoing debate.

The media may become involved in destructive cooperative relationships with the state and the market.  Media organizations may agree to provide news coverage and commentary that are favorable to governments in return for political favors, financial payments, and/or exclusive access to newsworthy information that is provided by government sources (see the sections in Part III on 'access bias').  Similarly, businesses may somehow reward media organizations for providing news and commentary that are favorable to their commercial interests.  

Destructive Adversarial Relationships

Conflicts between sectors may also threaten the common good.  The state, for example, could enact regulatory policies that give some business firms unfair advantages over other firms.  Or governments may pass laws that undermine trade unions' efforts to secure fair wages and safe working conditions for the workers whom they represent.  In addition, the state and the market could try to suppress civic and religious organizations (in civil society) that threaten their political or economic power.  

Destructive Adversarial Relationships between Hybrid Institutions and the Three Sectors
Hybrid institutions may become involved in destructive adversarial relationships with all three sectors.  Dominant political parties within governments may try to suppress the voices of other parties that are trying to advocate the views of their members in legislatures and in the broader public square.  They may even prevent the establishment of other parties that may oppose them.  In these ways, the power of some parties in their governing functions may become involved in a destructive adversarial relationship with the roles of other parties in both the state and civil society.

Because media organizations have so much control over the spread of ideas and opinions in the public square, they may be vulnerable to government censorship and intimidation, particularly if they espouse views that are critical of government policies.  This is true for media groups that provide news and social commentary as well as organizations that produce entertainment media such as books, plays, movies, and documentaries.  As mentioned above, societies can prevent this destructive relationship by guaranteeing the freedom of the press and the freedom of artistic expression.

In a more subtle way, government leaders may withhold newsworthy information from news sources that have been openly critical of their views.  In turn, as discussed above, they may provide information to media groups that are generally supportive of their views and policies (once again, see the discussion of 'access bias' in Part III of this method).

In addition, businesses may try to use their economic power in order to coerce the media to withhold information that is critical of their policies and/or projects.  A firm may, for instance, threaten to stop advertising in a newspaper if the paper is about to run a story that exposes the firm's unethical business practices.  For their part, media organizations may unfairly criticize the policies of government officials and political parties that do not share the organizations' political views.  The media may also provide inaccurate information that portrays business firms in an unfavorable light.  As discussed above, media 'watchdogs' should hold media organizations accountable to high standards of balance and integrity.  Otherwise, 'misinformation' in the media will diminish the quality of public discourse.

 


Conclusion
    In order to promote social progress, it is essential to maintain appropriate relationships both within and between the three social sectors.  Citizens must therefore understand and evaluate the ways in which platforms and policies affect these relationships.


C.  Impact on Different 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.  These levels of social organization range in scope from the family to the global community.  In this section we will present concepts and principles that will enable citizens to understand and evaluate three key criteria related to the impact of platforms and policies on different levels of social organization.  

• The first criterion is the ability of parties and public leaders to recognize the full scope of social issues -- that is, all of the levels of social organization that are affected by particular issues or problems. 

• The second is the ability of parties and public leaders to identify and respond to the issues that affect the highest levels of social organization and thus the largest number of people.  

• The third is the impact of platforms and policies on the ability of individuals, governments, and non-governmental institutions to effectively respond to issues and problems on the appropriate level(s) of administration.

These criteria are related to each other as steps in a policymaking process.  Parties and public figures must first recognize the full scope of an issue -- all of the levels of social organization affected by it -- before they can identify the most urgent issues.  And they must identify the most urgent social issues before they can identify the level or levels of organization on which these issues may best be addressed*.

* The importance of establishing the full context of public issues, not simply their social context, is explored in section V below.

1.  Recognizing the Full Social Scope of Social Issues and Problems
    Some issues are clearly local in scope -- they affect only neighborhoods, cities, and/or counties.  An example would be a decision regarding the types of taxes that a county will levy or charge in order to fund public services such as a police force, fire department, and school system.  However, our 'dynamic systems' approach highlights relationships and connections between all things, including levels of social organization.  We thus acknowledge that many issues do have significant implications for higher levels of social organization such as the state, national, and international levels.  In fact, we would assert that one should presume that an issue has some relevance for higher levels until it is proven otherwise.  In light of this assumption, we believe that it is essential for parties and policymakers to carefully construct the context of issues and clarify their full scope before they propose ways to address them.

    Unfortunately, it is often tempting for public officials and citizens alike to shy away from the daunting task of understanding and addressing social issues in their full social context.  Elected officials may focus more on the relevance of issues for the constituents who vote for them; citizens are often most concerned about the impact of issues on their local region.  Citizens must therefore make a conscious effort to look beyond their 'back yard' and demand that platforms and policies recognize the implications of issues for higher levels of social organization.  In doing so, they are actually promoting their own interests in the long term, since the well-being of lower levels of social organization often depends upon the effective functioning of institutions on higher levels of organization.  Thus, if social issues are not addressed at higher levels (when this is clearly called for), then institutions and individuals on lower levels will suffer the consequences.  For example, if a state government is unable to enact effective policies for promoting economic growth, then local governments within that state may not have an adequate level of funding for the public services that they must provide.  In addition, individual citizens will suffer from a lack of economic opportunity. 

2.  Recognizing an Order or Priority that Should Govern Responses to Issues on Different Levels of Social Organization
    This does not mean that broader social issues should be addressed solely by policymakers on higher levels of government.  This issue of the locus of political decision-making is discussed below.  However, it does imply an order or priority that policymakers should follow when composing platforms and proposals.  According to this order of priority, issues with a broader social impact may require more urgent attention, since they affect many individuals, groups, and ecosystems.  Stated another way, platforms and policies should acknowledge that needs on higher levels of social organization may take priority over needs on lower levels of social organization.  When this priority is respected, entities on all levels of society will be better served by policies, simply because lower levels depend upon higher levels to create a social environment in which they may thrive.  (This order of priority also applies to relationships between the four levels of organization that comprise the main elements of our this part of our method.  It is discussed further in sections V and VI below.)

3.  The Principle of Subsidiarity:  Determining the Appropriate Locus of Decision-Making for Initiatives that Address Social Problems and Issues
    After policymakers have recognized the full scope of social issues, as well as the specific issues that are most important and urgent, it is necessary to identify the level(s) of organization or administration on which a response to particular issues should be coordinated.  The level(s) of administration that they select may be called the primary locus of decision-making for a particular issue.  For issues and problems that impact higher levels of social organization -- and even for complex and challenging local issues -- there is much debate concerning the appropriate levels on which they should be addressed.  The question often arises: “Should a particular issue or problem be addressed on more local (i.e. lower) levels or on more centralized (i.e. higher) levels of administration?”  Historically, some public philosophies favor local administration in business, governmental, and civic affairs.  Others have claimed that central coordination and control is necessary in order to address social issues and projects in an efficient and thorough manner.

We maintain that one must strike a delicate balance in the relationships between local and centralized levels of political administration.  On the one hand, policies should promote local responsibility and decision-making.  Local decisions and initiatives enable individuals and local groups to develop a sense of responsibility, a capacity for self-determination, and a vision for their future.  As local groups of citizens and their leaders address issues, they must articulate collective goals and work together to achieve them.  As they attain their goals, they feel a sense of pride and investment in their local community.  However, platforms and policies must also acknowledge that many complex projects and issues can only be effectively addressed by coordinating strategies and resources on higher, more centralized levels of administration.  The scope of some issues may extend beyond lower levels of organization.  Or local levels may simply not have the funding and expertise to handle challenging local issues and projects.  

We may integrate these insights in the principle of subsidiarity.  This principle states that political decision-making should be as local as possible and as centralized as necessary in order to effectively serve the common good.  Thus, if an issue can be effectively addressed on a more local level of administration, then decision-makers on higher levels should allow local governments to handle it without interference.  Yet leaders on local levels should respect the need to respond to complex issues and problems by enacting and implementing policies on higher levels of administration.  If it is determined that higher level coordination is needed, then officials on higher levels should still allow those on lower levels to take as much initiative and responsibility as possible in the planning and implementation of important projects and policies.

In reality, responses to many issues and problems can seldom be coordinated on local or centralized levels alone.  Rather, cooperation between lower and higher levels of government is essential.  So it is foolish to disregard the legitimate roles and functions that each level of organization must assume if social problems are to be addressed effectively.  Local and more centralized levels must work together, with each level respecting the knowledge, experience, and initiative that the other levels can contribute to the creation and implementation of sound public policies.

In summary, parties and public figures should first establish the social scope of public issues.  They should then identify the issues of greatest urgency -- those that have a significant impact on the largest numbers of persons.  Third, they should follow the principle of subsidiarity as they identify the level(s) of public administration or decision-making on which they should coordinate their response to these issues.

4.  Applying the Principle of Subsidiarity to Nongovernmental Institutions
In the previous section, we applied the principle of subsidiarity to decision-making by governments.  Yet it may also be applied in a broader social context that includes other types of institutions.  

a)  Applying the Principle of Subsidiarity to Families
For example, citizens and government leaders may come to the conclusion that some social issues and problems are best addressed by families.  In these cases, leaders may recognize that government involvement is unnecessary or inappropriate.  Or they may decide that governments on all levels should somehow help families as they confront social problems.  Governments may, for instance sponsor mentoring programs in order to help parents to persuade their children to stay in school and pursue a career path.

b)  Applying the Principle of Subsidiarity to Economic and Civic Institutions
In addition, policies may be designed to promote the development of small businesses.  These smaller economic initiatives may be especially valuable because they can be built upon the innovative ideas of individuals or small groups of entrepreneurs*.  They may also be able to use the natural resources of local communities in unique and innovative ways.  In other dimensions of social life, policies may encourage the establishment of local groups that promote the arts, education, and various types of community outreach.  These groups can help harness the energy of local communities that wish to find new ways to meet the needs of their members.  Like local self-government, these economic and civic initiatives give individuals a sense of responsibility for their community and a sense of control over their own lives. 

* An 'entrepreneur' is a person who establishes a new business firm.

5.  Social Processes and Dynamics that Include Many Institutions, Sectors, and Levels of Organization
    Some social phenomena cannot be clearly analyzed by exploring decision-making processes within any single type of institution or social sector.  It is thus important to recognize social systems, processes, and dynamics that include many different institutions, sectors, and levels of organization.  For example, the democratic social process may be understood as the process through which key public policy issues are discussed in the public square.  This broad social dynamic may include input from the media, government figures, trade unions, business firms, faith communities, civic associations, as well as individual citizens.  Because they include so many groups and individuals, these broader social dynamics are on a higher, more inclusive level of social organization.  Consistent with the principle described above, it is a priority to preserve the effective functioning of these higher-level processes, since the welfare of entities on lower levels depends upon their proper functioning.  Furthermore, it may be necessary for some individuals and institutions on lower levels to make short-term sacrifices in order to preserve these higher level systems, since, in the long term, all institutions and individuals will benefit from their effective functioning.  

For example, it is legitimate to require that some groups and individuals limit their right to free expression in the form of campaign donations in order to preserve a truly democratic social process in which all groups and individuals -- regardless of their financial resources -- enjoy an equal opportunity to have a voice in the policymaking process.  In the long term, by promoting the effective functioning of this democratic process, the right of all citizens to freedom of expression will be greatly enhanced, simply because their representatives will represent their views rather than the interests of those individuals and groups who have donated money to their campaigns.

We may also speak of a market system that represents a higher level of social organization.  This system encompasses all individuals, institutions, and sectors that are involved in economic activity.  It includes business firms as well as the government bodies that regulate them.  It also includes groups in civil society that promote ethical economic practices.  As we discuss above in the section on social sectors, this system should encourage healthy competition between business firms.  It must also regulate firms so that they promote the welfare of all individuals, groups, and ecosystems that are affected by their activities.  Because the market system includes all entities involved in economic activity, it exists on a higher, more inclusive level of social organization than any individual institution or sector that comprises it.  All entities within it depend on its healthy functioning for their own long-term well-being.  The needs of this larger social process therefore take priority over the needs and interests of any of its constituent institutions and individuals.  If individuals and organizations attempt to further their interests by hindering the proper functioning of the market system, their efforts should be resisted by citizens and their elected officials.

As a general rule, policies and platforms must safeguard the proper functioning of these large-scale social processes or systems.  They must not allow individuals or institutions that comprise these systems to manipulate them in order to pursue their own interests at the expense of the common good.

6.  Foreign Relations:  Special Focus on the International Level of Social Organization
The impact of domestic policies on foreign relations should technically be included in this section.  However, it involves many complex international issues regarding personal development, social groups, and ecological dynamics.  These issues are addressed below in the framework for analyzing the impact of foreign policies and foreign policy platforms.  We thus recommend that citizens use the foreign policy framework in order to analyze the impact of domestic policies in the international arena.


D.  Impact on Socio-Cultural Collectivities
Assumptions:  In the social section of this framework, we also group persons according to income, ethnicity, national origin, gender, creed, age, race, sexual orientation, and area of residence.  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.  As a result, these oppressed individuals may be excluded from participating in educational, economic, spiritual, political, and civic organizations.  They may therefore lack access to essential resources for growth.  In addition, one's area of residence may affect their opportunities for development.  For example, persons living in rural areas may lack adequate access to basic services such as clean water, sewage, electricity, and communication networks (i.e. phone wiring).  In addition, rural schools may lack adequate resources for educating their students.  Thus, this geographic characteristic often has economic dimensions as well.

We propose that equal opportunity and inclusion are the key principles that should govern relationships within these socio-cultural groups.  Persons of all classes, races, nationalities, genders, faith traditions, areas of residence, age groups, 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.  Furthermore, 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, societies should enact and vigorously enforce anti-discrimination laws.




III.  The Impact of Domestic Policies on the Ecological Level of Organization  

B.  Relationships between Species, Ecosystems, and the Biosphere
Individual species depend on other species in many different ways.  For example, an animal species depends on other species that it eats.  It also depends on other species that eat its members and thus control disease and genetic defects within the species.  In addition, some species provide habitats for other species, as trees do for the birds that roost and nest in them.  Species may also play a role in the reproduction of other species.  Many insects, for example, help plants to reproduce by pollinating their flowers.

The balance and stability of ecosystems depends on all of the species that live within them.  Each species plays some role in the cycles of growth and renewal that sustain healthy ecosystems.  Plant species trap energy from the sun.  As they are consumed, they pass this energy along to a host of animal species.  In turn, these species produce waste products that provide nutrients for plants to use as they trap more of the sun's energy and renew the cycle.  Because each species plays an important role in an ecosystem, it is essential to preserve the great variety of species that comprise ecosystems.  The variety of species within an ecosystem is described as the biodiversity of that ecosystem.

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 stability and integrity of the biosphere as a whole.  If there is some significant change in the components of the biosphere, all organisms and all ecosystems may be somehow affected.  For example, changes in the atmosphere, such as acid rain and the buildup of 'greenhouse gases,' are carefully studied because they are large-scale phenomena that may affect the entire biosphere and all of the ecosystems within it.  Changes in ocean temperatures, levels, and currents may also affect many different species and ecosystems.

C.  The Impact of Human Activities on the Natural World
At the present time, human activities are having a tremendous impact on species, ecosystems, and the biosphere.  As habitats are altered or destroyed, species are forced to adapt to these changes or perish.  Some 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 climate change.  Environmental problems 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 degradation of ecosystems and the biosphere affects all people for long periods of time; indeed, much damage to the environment may be irreversible.

D.  Promoting Sustainable Technologies and Lifestyles through Public Policies
Intelligent and far-sighted public policies can dramatically change the negative impact of human activities on the environment.  As we learn more and more about the relationships between human societies and the environment, we are developing new technologies that enable us to meet our needs in ways that minimize air, water, and soil pollution; preserve the integrity of ecosystems; and conserve limited resources such as fresh water, metals, minerals, and farmland.  

Some of these 'green' technologies include cleaner ways of producing energy, less polluting forms of transportation, more efficient processes for manufacturing goods and recycling materials, ecologically sound forestry, farming, fishing, and mining practices; energy-efficient designs for houses and office buildings (known as 'sustainable design' practices); and more energy-efficient electronic devices, including appliances, light bulbs, and computers.  We are also learning how individuals and families can change their lifestyles in ways that conserve resources and protect the environment.  For example, they may drive less polluting automobiles, use mass transit, purchase energy-efficient appliances and lighting technologies, install energy-efficient windows and doors, insulate their houses, install solar panels on their roofs, and recycle trash.  They may also live in 'smart growth' communities that are designed to use land more efficiently, reduce traffic, and promote public transportation.  In addition, they can have fewer children in order to reduce the pressure that the growing human population is placing on the Earth's limited resources.

Technologies and lifestyles that preserve the environment and carefully manage resources are described as sustainable; that is, they enable us to meet our current and future needs without disrupting the natural cycles of growth and renewal within ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole.  Public policies should promote or at least not hinder the development of sustainable technologies and the adoption of sustainable lifestyles.

E.  Preserving Endangered Species
We are also learning more about the value of individual species.  To many persons, individual species are valuable in themselves as unique life forms.  Yet they are useful to human beings in a variety of ways.  Studies of the physiology of many organisms have, for example, led to breakthroughs in medical research.  Scientists have discovered that many substances produced by plants and animals are useful as treatments for cancer and heart disease, among many other ailments.  In addition, as discussed in section B above, each species within an ecosystem plays a role within that ecosystem.  Thus, the extinction of one species may trigger other extinctions through a 'domino effect.'  This process may ultimately threaten the stability of entire ecosystems that sustain us.  

In summary, because of their value as unique forms of life, their role in ecosystems, and their value for health care and technological research, citizens should assess the impact of platforms and policies on endangered species and their habitats.  Citizens should also assess the impact of platforms and policies on habitats -- such as tropical rain forests -- that may contain undiscovered species that are valuable for the own sake and for their potential utility to human beings.

F.  Preserving Wilderness Areas
Wilderness areas are areas of the natural world that are not significantly altered by human settlement or activities.  These areas benefit species, ecosystems, and the biosphere in many ways.  They provide crucial habitat for many species, endangered or not.  In doing so, they preserve the biodiversity of ecosystems -- the great variety of species that help to maintain the balance and stability of ecosystems.  Also, because they are not affected by human activities, the soils and plants within them can more effectively clean the air and filter the water that moves through them.  Human beings may also enjoy wilderness areas as long as their activities have a minimal impact on these regions.  Because these areas shelter species, cleanse the environment, and provide opportunities for recreation and renewal, state and national governments may designate specific regions for protection as wilderness areas.  Policies and platforms should preserve regions that are already designated as wilderness areas and, whenever possible, designate new regions for protection.

G.  Environmental Policies in Platforms
Some policies focus explicitly on environmental issues.  Conservation policies protect wilderness areas that provide habitat for many species, endangered or not.  Environmental policies can also promote the broad implementation of sustainable technologies and the adoption of sustainable lifestyles.  These domestic policies can address global problems such as climate change on the local, state, and national levels.  All parties and candidates should include environmental policies in their platforms, and these policies should address the challenges described in sections E, F. and G.

H.  Assessing the Environmental Impact of All Policies
All public policies, even those that do not specifically address environmental issues, should promote or at least not hinder the implementation of sustainable technologies and the adoption of sustainable lifestyles.  They should also protect species and their habitats.  Political candidates and public officials should clearly explain and defend the environmental impact of all of their policy proposals.  In addition, citizens, governments, and environmental groups should carefully assess policies in order to predict their long-term effects on species, ecosystems, and the biosphere as a whole.



IV.  The Impact of Domestic Policies on the Cosmic Level of Organization      

    This framework attempts to analyze the implications of platforms and policies for individuals, social groups, the environment, and even the cosmos as a whole. It is important to analyze the impact of policies on all levels of organization simply because this impact is seldom limited to one level or another.  Rather, all of these levels are dynamically related to each another. Policies aimed at individuals also affect social groups and the environment.  Policies designed to promote social institutions also affect individuals and the environment.  Environmental policies inevitably have an impact on individuals and social groups.  

    When these relationships are overlooked, policies may, in the long run, fail to achieve their goals.  For example, a policy that develops individuals while undermining social institutions and damaging the environment may appear to be successful in the short term.  However, in the long run it will be a disaster because the environment and social institutions will no longer be able to provide the social and natural resources that are necessary for personal development.  Similarly, a policy that strengthens some institutions in the short term while oppressing individuals will ultimately lead to social conflict, which will, in the long run, undermine many institutions.  Thus, if policymakers are unable or unwilling to embrace this holistic perspective, they run the risk of creating short-sighted policies that produce unpleasant and unintended consequences on one or more levels of organization.

    This task of predicting the long-term impact of policies on all levels of organization is the unavoidable challenge presented by this framework. One may have to consult research in such diverse fields as psychology, sociology, and ecology in order to gain a realistic understanding of the full impact of a policy. This holistic, systematic approach is worth the effort, however, since it may enable policymakers to avoid the unhappy discovery of unintended negative consequences that result from the implementation of flawed policies.  Put another way, it will help policymakers to create policies that maximize benefits for all levels of organization while minimizing costs.

    In the section below on 'trade-offs,' we provide guidelines for understanding and evaluating the positive and negative outcomes of policies for entities on different levels of organization.  These guidelines will enable citizens to identify policies that have the best possible long-term impact on all levels of organization.

    The process of analyzing trade-offs begins with a clear awareness of the impact of platforms and policies on all levels of organization.  It also requires an understanding of the hierarchy of value or order of priority that exists among the different levels.  This hierarchy will, for example, help citizens to determine whether or not a policy's benefits to social institutions outweigh any costs that the policy may impose on individuals.  It is discussed in the next section.



VI. Recognizing the Hierarchy of Value that Exists Among the Different Levels of Organization

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 sustenance and well-being.

    It thus seems reasonable to propose that there is a hierarchy of value 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 the more comprehensive, higher levels of organization of which they are a part.  Individual development depends on effective social institutions that provide opportunities for individuals to address their needs and exercise their personal freedoms.  In turn, all social groups depend on the health and stability of ecosystems for their survival.  As discussed in section II.C above, there is also a hierarchy of value on the social level of organization.  It is based on the insight that smaller social groups depend on the larger social groups and processes of which they are a part.

    These insights are not ideological opinions. They are facts that can be empirically proven through psychological, sociological, and ecological research. When institutions break down, individuals suffer from the lack of opportunities to develop and better themselves.  When ecosystems break down, societies experience a much lower quality of life, and individuals inevitably suffer as parts of these societies.

    This hierarchy of value implies an order of priority that should be honored by platforms and policies.  The first priority is to preserve the integrity of ecosystems upon which societies and individuals depend for their sustenance and well-being, and prosperity.  Next, it is essential to create and maintain dynamic institutions that enable individuals to lead full, satisfying lives.  Government officials on all levels must respect this order of priority. As stated in the previous section, they must never create policies that encourage individuals to seek their interests at the expense of institutions. They must never implement legislation that allows individuals and societies to pollute the environment in pursuit of short-term goals that ultimately lead to ecological crises.

    As we set forth this order or priority, we do not wish to minimize the importance of individual rights, the traditional pillars of free, democratic societies. We simply insist that platforms and policies must 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 visions of happiness. Outside of society and the natural world, individual liberties mean nothing.

    Having said this, we remind the reader that this hierarchy assumes that social institutions must promote the common good -- the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment.  It is thus not acceptable for institutions to claim that they must oppress individuals in order to preserve themselves.  Instead, all institutions must work to create social conditions that enable them to achieve their goals while, at the same time, promoting the welfare of individuals and the environment.  For example, it is not acceptable for business firms to claim that, in order to earn a profit, they must pay low wages that do not meet the basic needs of workers and their families.  Instead, these businesses should work with governments and international organizations in order to establish a minimum just wage that all business must pay to their workers.  In doing so, they will create economic conditions in which businesses and their employees may prosper.  The same principle applies to environmental concerns.  It is not acceptable for business firms to claim that it is impossible for them to survive without degrading the environment.  Instead, they must work with governments to establish environmental regulations all businesses must follow.  In doing so, they will create a climate for business in which businesses will be able to compete with each other without damaging the environment. 

    Similarly, this hierarchy assumes that legitimate governments must promote the common good.  They should not be allowed to deprive individuals of their rights unless it is absolutely necessary for the common good, that is, for the safety of their citizens or the preservation of the environment.  For example, governments may restrict the movements or citizens in order to control the spread of a contagious disease.  Legitimate governments may also detain individuals who threaten to incite acts of violence against other citizens.  However, it is never acceptable for oppressive governments to deprive citizens of their rights in order to prevent citizens from objecting to unjust policies and practices.

    In section VII below, we discuss the implications of this order or priority for dealing with trade-offs -- the costs and benefits associated with platforms and policies.  We will provide guidelines that will help citizens to identify platforms and policies that maximize benefits for all levels of organization while minimizing costs.



VII.  Dealing with Trade-offs Regarding the Costs and Benefits of Domestic Policies

In many situations, it is impossible to create a policy or platform that achieves some goal(s) or benefits without any costs or negative consequences for individuals, social groups, and/or the environment.  One must therefore deal with trade-offs.  For example, a policy that benefits one ethnic group may place some hardships on members of other ethnic groups.  Similarly, a policy that preserves ecosystems may diminish the profits of one or more business firms.  When dealing with such trade-offs, as a general rule, one should support policies that maximize benefits while minimizing costs or drawbacks.  Below we describe more specific guidelines that will help citizens to refine and apply this general principle.  These include the priority of long-term over short-term benefits, 'orders of priority' or 'hierarchies of value' both between and within the different levels of organization, and the principle of justice.  We will also discuss trade-offs related to political strategy and the ways in which they may affect the impact of policies.  Some of these criteria have been explained in previous sections of this framework.  This is simply a restatement and review of those.

Our software applications and worksheets will enable citizens, parties, and public officials to summarize all of the trade-offs associated with policies and platforms in comprehensive 'cost-benefit' analyses.  They should ensure that the probable benefits of a policy or platform clearly outweigh any potential costs or disadvantages associated with it. 

The Most Fundamental Trade-off:  The Costs of Providing the Benefits of Government Services
There is a basic 'fact of life' that applies to practically all good things that we enjoy: you don't get something for nothing.  This 'fact of life' poses a special problem for democratic societies: the public wants the government to provide useful and necessary services, but the fact is, citizens are often reluctant to pay for these services.  As a result, public leaders often promise the benefits of government programs, but they may be very reluctant to propose ways to raise the revenues needed to pay for these programs, since raising revenues almost always involves the assessment of taxes.  Tax cuts are very popular policies, tax increases are not.  Yet if citizens hope to enjoy the benefits of sound government programs, they must accept the costs associated with these programs.  And they must encourage their leaders to propose fair and adequate ways for collecting government revenues such as taxation and other fees (tolls for roads, registration fees for automobiles, etc.)  Policies and programs must thus recognize this basic reality and encourage the broader public to embrace it as well.  For its part, the public must accept this reality and allow public leaders to propose fair and adequate tax policies without the fear of committing political suicide!

The Need to Find Lasting Solutions to Social Problems:  Long-Term Benefits Versus Short-Term Benefits
It is often a struggle for individuals to forego immediate gratification in order to pursue more meaningful long-term goals.  In the same way, supporters of policies that are aimed at long-term benefits are often opposed by those who advocate policies that seek short-term benefits.  For example, one may support a policy to build a public transportation project that will enable commuters to travel from their homes to their workplace by using mass transit instead of their cars.  The long-term benefits include less traffic (and fewer headaches), less air pollution, lower average transportation expenses, and greater economic development as businesses move in to take advantage of the convenient access provided by this transit system.  In the short-term, however, area residents will probably have to pay higher taxes to fund the project.  They will also have to detour around construction sites for the next few years.  Looking at these short-term burdens, many residents may instead support the construction of new roads.  This policy will address the traffic problem more quickly, and may reduce congestion for a time.  It will not, however, address the long-term problem of air pollution.  It may not even do much to relieve congestion in the long-term as development (and traffic) increase in the areas surrounding the new road.  This is a classic example of a debate between short-term and long-term benefits.

Public leaders are often reluctant to propose policies that require the public to bear short term costs in the pursuit of long term benefits, particularly if these short term costs are fairly high.  This is an especially big challenge when the unpleasant effects of social problems will not be experienced until some future date.  Unless the public is 'feeling the pain' of specific problems, it can be difficult indeed to promote policies that will avoid these problems through gradual measures that involve short-term costs.  Classic examples in the U.S. are the Medicare and Social Security programs.  Both programs will go bankrupt in the next couple of decades if plans are not made now to provide them with funding.  Yet politicians fear that the public will be opposed to raising taxes now in order to avoid this future bankruptcy.  So no plans are proposed and nothing is done to address these problems.  This reluctance to tackle long-term problems before they become severe may be the single greatest weakness of democratic societies.  It may cause public leaders to ignore looming problems until they become painful and immediate realities.  In short, it may cause leaders to 'govern by crisis.'  And when a society practices government by crisis, the solutions to social problems will have to be drastic and even more costly than they would have been had long-term solutions been implemented before the crises developed.  In the case of the Medicare and Social Security programs, the bankruptcy of these programs would create a crisis.  Responding to this crisis would require a significant increase in taxes or a significant cut in the benefits provided by these programs.  Either possibility will be unnecessarily painful and may cause disruption in the provision of other government services, such as environmental protection and education. 

Because of this fundamental weakness in democratic societies, trade-offs between short and long-term costs and benefits may be the most important trade-offs of all.  Platforms and policies must therefore acknowledge and embrace the short-term costs of policies and programs so that citizens may enjoy their long-term benefits.

Evaluating Trade-Offs According to the Hierarchy of Value or Order of Priority That Governs Relationships between the Different Levels of Organization

Trade-Offs Involving the Environment and Society
Some trade-offs may be justified by respecting the hierarchy of value discussed in section VI above.  For example, a policy that reduces air pollution will benefit the entire biosphere.  However, as a trade-off, it may also diminish the profits of firms that produce energy, at least in the short term, since these firms must spend money to redesign their power plants in order to produce ‘cleaner’ energy.  As discussed in section III above, the biosphere represents a higher level of organization than utility companies, which are part of the social level.  All living things depend on a healthy biosphere for their survival, including individuals who own stock in utility companies!  The need to preserve the biosphere is thus more important than the financial burden that will be placed on the utility companies.  This is therefore an acceptable trade-off.

We acknowledge that not all trade-offs between environmental and social levels are so easily resolved.  This is particularly the case in impoverished regions that are trying to raise their citizens' standard of living.  In order to do so, it may be necessary to pursue economic projects or build housing developments that have some undesirable effects on the environment.  Even so, as discussed in section VI above, businesses and governments must make every effort to minimize these negative effects through careful planning and through the use of environmentally friendly technologies.  In the long run, public policies should help societies to meet their needs in sustainable ways that preserve ecosystems, endangered species, biodiversity, and wilderness areas.

International trade also presents special challenges for trade-offs involving the environment.  One nation may respect the priority of environmental needs and require its business firms to produce goods in sustainable ways.  However, firms in other nations may not be required to follow the same regulations.  As a result, they may be able to produce the same goods more cheaply.  They would thus enjoy an unfair advantage over environmentally responsible firms in the global marketplace.  This situation points out the need for international trade agreements that require firms in all nations to produce goods in an environmentally safe manner.  Without such agreements, governments for individual nations will be reluctant to enact sound environmental policies that place their industries at a disadvantage.  Trade-offs between environmental preservation and economic activities must therefore be managed within a global perspective.  Domestic economic policies that strive to minimize environmental costs must be complemented by international agreements that require firms in all nations to follow a common set of environmental regulations.

Trade-Offs Between Individual Rights and Needs on Higher Levels of Organization
As discussed in section VI above, individuals may have to limit their exercise of some rights in order to protect and promote the welfare of social groups or the environment.  For example, public laws may limit an individual's freedom of expression if that individual expresses him- or herself in a way that incites violence toward a group of persons.  This sort of 'hate speech' not only threatens the physical safety of a social group, it also undermines the social conditions that are conducive to open and civil dialogue.  It may thus create a situation in which the inflammatory speech of some endangers the free and peaceful expression of all citizens.  In this situation, society may limit the speech of some individuals in order to promote public safety and preserve a social climate in which all individuals may enjoy greater freedom of expression.  

However, because human rights are so essential to a free society, trade-offs involving individual rights must be carefully evaluated before limits are imposed on the exercise of rights.  Such limits are only acceptable if there is a clear and present threat to other individuals, social groups, or the environment.  The priority of social needs cannot be used as an excuse to oppress individuals for economic or political reasons.  Using the examples from section VI, business firms cannot claim that they must deny their employees' right to a just wage in order to remain competitive and make a profit.  If it is impossible to pay a just wage and remain profitable, firms should advocate the establishment of a minimum just wage that they and their competitors must pay their employees.  If they face competition from foreign firms, they may also have to advocate international labor agreements on just wages so that their foreign competitors have to abide by the same rules.

For their part, governments cannot infringe on rights in order to silence their critics, favor their supporters, or for any other reason that does not serve the common good.  If governments deem it necessary to limit rights for the sake of public safety or national security, they must clearly identify and explain the specific threats.  And these policies must be open to judicial and congressional review.  In this way, the system of checks and balances between the branches of government will help to ensure that limits on individual rights are truly in the public interest.  On the grass-roots level, individual citizens should evaluate proposed limits and share their views with their elected officials.  Citizens may further promote their views through citizen groups in civil society.  These groups enable citizens to share their views with a more powerful, unified voice.  In this way, checks and balances between the social sectors (the market, the state, and civil society) will also help to ensure that government policies on human rights promote the public interest.

The Resolution of Trade-Offs between Different Levels over the Long Term
As discussed in the section above on short- and long-term benefits, it is easy to become short-sighted when analyzing trade-offs.  It may appear that entities on lower levels are the losers and entities on higher levels are the winners.  However, by quickly and intelligently adapting to the needs of higher levels of organization (such as the biosphere), entities on lower levels can serve their own interests in the long run.  For example, if the power company mentioned above were proactive and adaptive, it would invest in new technologies that would enable it to produce energy in profitable ways that are sustainable for decades to come.  Otherwise, it would still end up spending money on lobbyists and campaign contributions in order to thwart the passage of new environmental regulations.  It may also be sued by individuals who suffer health problems caused by the air pollution that it generates.  In addition, it may have to hire public relations specialists in order to deal with its negative public image.  Worse yet, as the energy market becomes more competitive, its customers could simply decide to buy power from other sources that produce energy using more environmentally sound technologies.

Thus, in the long term, trade-offs between different levels of organization do not necessarily produce winners and losers.  They may encourage the individuals and groups affected by them to pursue their interests in more intelligent and far-sighted ways that enhance rather than harm the public good.

Trade-Offs between 'Special Interests' and the 'Common Good'
This section is simply a re-statement of the principles described above in terms that are more familiar to political discourse.  The needs and interests of the 'common good' represent the needs and interests of entities on higher levels of organization -- larger social groups, the ecosystems that sustain them, and, the cosmos as a whole (if this level is relevant to one's political views).  Special interests represent the needs and interests of entities on lower or less inclusive levels of organization.

As discussed above in Part II of this method, we must first affirm that the special interests of individuals and groups are not necessarily at odds with the common good.  For example, if a policy helps to reduce the level of poverty within a particular social group, then the benefits of the policy will almost certainly extend to the common good, simply because the group will become better able to contribute to the welfare of society as a whole.  Similarly, if policies support the development of business firms that manufacture environmentally friendly products, then all people as well as ecosystems will benefit from the policy.  It is unfortunate if the interests of other firms suffer from such a policy, but this is an acceptable trade-off.  The section above affirms that the needs of entities on higher levels of organization take priority over the needs of entities on lower levels.  And in this case, the needs of the public good, that is, the needs of all societies as well as the ecosystems that sustain them -- represent a higher level of organization.  The policy is therefore a good one.

On the other hand, if a policy's trade-offs promote special interests at the expense of the common good, then these trade-offs are unacceptable.  For example, if a policy seeks to expand production of environmentally harmful products, it would promote the interest of firms that manufacture those products while neglecting the needs and interests of the rest of society and the environment.  It would thus violate the basic principle that the needs of the common good must always take precedence over the interests of entities within it.

Trade-Offs on the Social Level

A Social Hierarchy of Value
Trade-offs within the social level can be very complex, but these same principles apply.  As mentioned in section VI above, there is a hierarchy of value within the social level as well, and it must also be respected by policymakers.  Smaller social groups depend on the welfare of larger social groups and processes of which they are a part.  All social groups depend on the general well-being of society as a whole.  Therefore, when considering policies, it may be acceptable for smaller social groups to make some sacrifices for the welfare of larger social groups and social processes (such as the democratic social process discussed in section II.C above).  Of course, all of these smaller groups should bear their fair share of the burden when sacrifices must be made.  

Trade-Offs between Members of Different Socio-Cultural Collectivities
Another criterion is often used to justify trade-offs on the social level: the principle of justice, which requires that all individuals and groups enjoy comparable opportunities to develop themselves.  As discussed above in the section on socio-cultural collectivities, it may be appropriate for members of more privileged social groups (i.e. some classes, genders, ethnic groups) to sacrifice some opportunities for self-development in order for members of all groups to enjoy comparable opportunities for self-advancement.  

In some policies, this trade-off may be considered a sort of remedy for past injustices against members of some race, creed, ethnic group, or gender.  If some persons do not find this argument to be very convincing, we would also claim that such policies should appeal to the enlightened self-interest of the groups called upon to make sacrifices.  It seems reasonable to propose that, over time, all social groups should benefit from policies that seek to improve the lot of historically oppressed groups.  When more just and equitable relationships prevail among different races, classes, etc., societies are certain to be more stable, dynamic, and prosperous over the long-term.  As mentioned above, such trade-offs are not necessarily 'win-lose' situations.  In the long run, they may contribute to social conditions that promote the interests of all groups, even those groups that endure sacrifices in the short term.

Trade-offs Related to the Principle of Subsidiarity:  The Pros and Cons of Administering Social Policies on Different Levels of Social Organization
There are also trade-offs related to the principle of subsidiarity, which states that the administration of social projects should be as local as possible but as centralized as necessary.  This principle encourages local groups to take responsibility for their affairs and determine their own destiny.  Such local control is ideal, but not always possible.  When addressing problems and projects that are national or international in scope, it is often necessary to coordinate policies on more centralized levels of organization.  In doing so, policymakers may achieve a greater level of efficiency and coordination but lose some degree of local initiative and empowerment.  This may be viewed as a necessary and acceptable trade-off.

In other situations, however, it may be possible to address problems at the local level.  But even here there are trade-offs, since there may be fewer persons in local governments (or businesses or nonprofits groups) who possess the expertise necessary to address challenging problems.  Local bodies may compensate for this trade-off by consulting with experts who can advise them as they create and implement policies and programs.

Trade-Offs on the Individual Level
Some policies may involve trade-offs on the individual level.  These trade-offs are sanctioned by the principle of justice, which states that it may be appropriate to limit some individuals' exercise of certain rights so that all persons may have a greater chance to exercise these rights. For example, it may be appropriate to redistribute some portion of the wealth and property of affluent individuals so that less affluent individuals will have the opportunity to improve their standard of living, receive a good education, and make a substantial contribution to society.  This trade-off is justified by a basic sense of justice, which demands that all individuals have opportunities to enjoy a sense of security and to develop themselves toward some vision of fulfillment and happiness.  It is also justified because, as mentioned above, the long-term benefits of a trade-off very often extend to those who have to make sacrifices in the short term.  On the individual level as well, what looks like a 'win-lose' trade-off in the short term often leads to long term benefits that are enjoyed by all.  In the case of the redistribution of wealth, exponentially larger amounts of wealth are created when more individuals are making transactions in an economy.  If they manage their resources wisely, more affluent persons will almost certainly share in this newly created wealth.  In fact, they may actually become wealthier than they were before they relinquished some portion of their assets.

Justification for trade-offs on the individual level may be easier to understand by appealing to the dynamics of human development.  We maintain that trade-offs on the individual level may be acceptable if they meet the core needs of disadvantaged individuals – needs for physical security, education, economic opportunities, and self-determination.  Thus, policies may shift public resources from those who have met these needs to those who have not.  In this trade-off, more privileged individuals may have access to fewer resources for personal growth, but, on the other hand, all individuals will have access to an adequate level of support.  And, as stated above, privileged individuals very often benefit in the long term from sacrifices that they may endure simply because their societies will become more stable and prosperous.

Policies for Which Trade-Offs Are Very Uncertain
It should also be acknowledged that, when dealing with complex social problems, one cannot always know exactly how trade-offs will play out as policies are implemented.  Some policies do not achieve the benefits that were anticipated by their sponsors and supporters.  Some policies have costs – disadvantages -- that were simply not foreseen.  This uncertainty is no excuse for inaction, however.  Rather, it calls policymakers to create and implement policies in a more experimental, open-minded way.  With the support and encouragement of citizens, public officials must constantly review and revise policies so that they more effectively maximize benefits and minimize costs.  This 'experimental' approach to policymaking is described in greater detail below.  In this section, we will simply note that when trade-offs cannot be predicted with great precision, it is essential to revise and adapt policies in light of lessons learned about their actual costs and benefits.

Trade-Offs Related to Political Strategy
As mentioned in Part III of this method, sponsors of policies may have to make deals with other legislators in order to gain their support for their proposed policies.  For example, sponsors may have to change some aspect of a policy in order to persuade a colleague to support it.  Or, sponsors may have to vote in favor of other policies proposed by colleagues in order to gain these colleagues' support for their own legislation.  If these deals somehow diminish the effectiveness of a policy, they create a trade-off between the need for broad support and the effectiveness of the policy.

It can be very difficult to avoid this type of trade-off.  The need to pull together a coalition of support for a policy without watering down its effectiveness can be a great challenge for even the most skilled politicians.  This challenge can be summarized using the model of the cost-benefit analysis described above.  The benefits of deals are the support that they garner.  The cost is the diminished effectiveness of the proposed policy.  The cost of deals is only acceptable if a proposed policy is still able to achieve its goals, even if these goals are not achieved to the extent that its sponsors may have hoped.

In a similar way, as a party is formulating its platform, it is often necessary to strike deals between different different factions within the party.  For example, one faction may be convinced to support the policies of a second faction if the second faction agrees to support its policies in return.  Once again, if these deals diminish the effectiveness of the platform, they create a trade-off between the need for unity within the party and the effectiveness of its platform.  This trade-off is only acceptable if the platform still achieves the goals set forth in the party's public philosophy.




VIII. The Primacy of an ‘Experimental Approach’ to Creating and Refining Domestic Policies

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. Thus, like any other complex human project, solving social problems requires a process of trial and error.  This process can be described as an 'experimental approach' to public policymaking.  In this process, specific policies are viewed should be viewed as experiments that must be formulated, implemented, evaluated, and, if necessary, revised on an ongoing basis.  Ideally, policymakers should tackle difficult social problems by trying a variety of sound policies. They may try different policies in different regions, or implement different policies in the same region over successive time periods. They may then c