How Change Happens or Doesn't- Kamarck

Kamarck argues that the "insiders" are generally pretty good at figuring out what people want, but sometimes they are wrong. How does the Reagan example on adding long-term care to Medicare represent an example of a "missed attitude"- that is, a strongly held public opinion that was not detected until it was too late?

Seniors didn't get long term healthcare but got other provisions they didn't want - Medicare costs skyrocketed- seniors were very angry - long-term care coverage and custodial nursing care were not included because of the expense - The "insiders" misjudged the "power of the public" on an issue that was immediate and real to millions of people

The inside players- 3 (sector of the "policy battlefield")

The President, Congress, the Federal career civil service, and the Courts - Who is in control of the branches? - Is the party in control unified or divided? - If the party is divided, is the faction opposed to the issue growing or shrinking in power and influence? - Are there strategies for preserving a bipartisan relationship?

Did President Obama have a "mandate" for health care reform in 2008, according to Kamarck? What did the decision to push for "Obamacare" mean for Obama's public standing?

No- had an opportunity that he took - approval ratings dropped -> not post-partisan - "out of touch"- care more about the economy than healthcare

When facing a persistent problem, the policy entrepreneur has to....

look for an opportunity or a "policy window"

How was the Marshall Plan an example of successful "bipartisanship"?

- isolationist wing of the Republican Party because the wing was in decline- republicans split along regional lines (Northeastern vs. mid western/western -in the area of foreign and defense policy where there is a longer tradition of bipartisanship - plan's ability to draw a diverse coalition around it - in post war years the rise of the communist threat made isolationism more and more difficult to sustain

What is the larger point that Kamarck is making in Chapter 1 with the story of how Pres. Truman was able to get support for the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe?

-Change can happen suddenly and it is often not straightforward as to why it happens -Failure of a president who's popular, success of president who's unpopular (Truman) -Popular presidents often fail to accomplish things that everyone thought they would while unpopular presidents succeed in accomplishing the unexpected (Background: Weak president facing hostile and isolationist Congress, enacts a large foreign aid package, 17 billion dollars, in a war-weary country that had had enough of Europe and of foreign entanglements)

The outside players- 4 (sector of the "policy battlefield")

-Does the public really have an opinion? -Do the insiders miss the real world impacts of the policy on the public? -Is the grassroots for real?

What does Kamarck argue is the "life cycle of a successful policy solution?"

1. Academic study or analysis: IDEA 2. Think tank version: CONSEQUENCES OF THE IDEA 3. Anecdote and press coverage: PRESS DOES OR DOES NOT NOTICE THE IDEA 4. Politician's speech: MENTIONS IDEA IN A SPEECH 5. Bumper sticker: IDEA IS ON A BUMPER STICKER Example. Bill Clinton- ending welfare

What are the characteristics of a successful policy solution?

1. Rooted in American values- FDR and social security (individualism and hard work) 2. Simple and understandable- Members of Congress usually do not read 1,000 page bills. Ex. Healthcare 3. Devoid of extensive uncertainty about unintended consequences- Have to know what the policy does ex 1. Immigration reform -> how many illegal immigrants? Would path to citizenship be good? - Impact -> good or bad for the economy? ex 2. Raising minimum wage 4. Solve multiple policy problems - Different interests are all on board ex. Marshall Plan -> the business lobby, labor unions, the anti-communists, the internationalists, and the humanitarians came together to support a plan for different reasons

What is an example of an issue that has moved "from the private sphere to the public sphere"? What other issue(s) are (or are not) likely to make the same transition according to Kamarck?

Ex. Private -> public: smoking, obesity (still making the transition) - Health consequences of smoking got stronger and stronger -> legislation began being passed in different states such as smoking bans - Obesity- costly, health consequences Ex. Bloomberg's attempt to ban super sized soft drinks Not making the transition- divorce when there are children (people are annoyed, still private)

In Chapter 3, Kamarck offers two examples of how a "persistent policy problem" was addressed during a "policy window." What are those 2 policy problems, and how were they eventually addressed?

Example 1: Military reform- coordination between Army and Navy -Problems with lack of jointness emerged during WWII, but the problem took nearly half a century to get on the agenda b/c of the victory Policy window- 1980's (military defeats and failures), confidence decreased in military. Addressed by legislation by Goldwater and Nunn Example 2: Healthcare reform- universal healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare) - Policy window- major landslide election of 1964 (Lyndon Johnson beat Goldwater) Introduced the Social Security Amendments that created Medicare - Obama signed the healthcare bill into law in 2010- decided to go for it after riding on a wave of discontent over President Bush's wars

In Chapter 3, Kamarck provides 2 examples of how "brand new" policy problems can suddenly come to public attention and demand policy responses. What are these two examples, and why did they suddenly become issues requiring a policy remedy?

Example 1: The environment- pesticide use increased (DDT increased) * policy window- Carson's book Silent Spring that explained the dangerous impacts to human health that could come when nature was unbalanced - Addressed by creating a commission mandated to deal with pesticide issues, the Environmental Protection Agency Example 2: Homeland Security *policy window- 9/11 terrorist attacks - Created National Homeland Security Agency- US border agencies (Dept. of HS) A BRAND NEW PROBLEM OFTEN RESULTS IN AN INSTITUTIONAL FIX

The solution- 2 (sector of the "policy battlefield")

If a problem is deemed appropriate for public action, then one must assess the proposed solutions to the problem - solution is rooted in US values, complexity, does it really solve the problem?, does it speak to different factions?

The elections- 6 (sector of the "policy battlefield")

Impact of an election on policy changes - Is the election a critical or realigning election? - Do newly elected officials believe they have a mandate for a certain major policy change? - Given that mandates are exceedingly difficult to come by, what risks does a politician take when he or she uses an election to move ahead with a given policy change?

Why did the immigration reform bill fail in 2007 despite "bipartisan" support, as represented by the top Democrats in the Senate and the House (Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) and the top Republican (George Bush)?

Bush failed to manage the factional politics within his own party-disagreement within both parties/ factions defeated problem on both sides Republicans- anti-immigration policies, broader geographic reach of the illegal immigrant problem helped to explain the outrage in the Republican base - Bush didn't have credibility to get everyone in agreeance after his inept response to Hurricane Katrina and the discontent over the war in Iraq and Afghanistan Democrats- there were also anti-reform factions in the Democratic Party they just weren't as vocal as the ones in the Republican party and there were factions within the party- self-described liberals (leaders of the party) and disadvantaged Democrats (financially insecure) who were far removed from the liberal elites that governed it

The strategy, tactics, and scope of conflict- 5 (sector of the "policy battlefield")

The more new players are added the more change is possible and the less predictable the direction of the change becomes. -Where can we best advance our cause? -Will involving interested insiders help? -What are the risks in taking this issue public? -Do we understand enough about how the public is processing the issue to present it correctly? -Once it is public can we control the perception of the issue?

The problem- 1 (sector of the "policy battlefield")

The policy problem itself (brand new, persistent, private-> public) - Has this problem been a long-standing or persistent problem? - Is this a brand new problem? - Is this a problem that has made the transition from private to public?

The difference between persistent policy problems and brand new policy problems

There has been no time for the development of a menu of solutions. Brand new problems do not have the same plethora of options and so the governmental response is not likely to be a piece of legislation. The government will most likely focus on the creation of an institution.