The modern use of public debates for presidential and gubernatorial candidates adds little to the citizen dossiers of who these particular men and women really are. More unsettling, they do nothing to provide any prediction of their performance if elected to their respective office.

Debates do have a place, and I do not wish to see them go away. However, because of the television and video media are the dominate mediums for communication between candidates and voters, televised debates are restricted to sound-byte verbal battles over competing agendas and views on issues.

The prominence of issues and agendas presents a classic Paraeto-esque dichotomy. Despite the fact that they consume nearly all debate during elections, elected executives spend the minority of their time in office actually working on them. Instead, the vast majority of their time is (and should be) spent on their actual duties of office, from the mundane and day-to-day (i.e., overseeing agencies, proposing and managing budgets and payrolls) to the unexpected and critical (i.e., acts of terror and aggression, disaster response, crisis management).

The real environment a leader faces has little to do with agendas and issues. It has everything to do with personal philosophies, beliefs, and abilities. As such, electoral politics spend little time on these crucial attributes, and today’s debates offer little means of exploring and understanding them with each candidate.

I believe that one of the televised debates during the Presidential election process should be replaced with a 3-hour “Triathlon.” Three events would give voters a means of evaluating and comparing candidates on the ability to handle the rigors of the office that are often left undisguised during elections.

1. A “Quiz Show” round would place candidates in isolation booths to respond to a series of questions that test their knowledge of the Constitution, US History, Federal laws, and foreign affairs. Each candidate would respond without knowing the answers of others, or knowing if they were right or wrong until the round was over.

2. Each candidate would sit down individually for a face-to-face, job-style interview with 1 or 2 respected and experienced executives (public and private sector). Interviewers would be selected with the only prerequisite being they could not have donated to any of the candidates campaigns. Their candidate for the interview would be selected at random, and the candidates would remain isolated from one another.

3, Finally, a “war room” scenario would force candidates to show their ability to handle a mock crisis, evaluate and analyze information, and make leader-quality decisions. Candidates would not be aware of their “scenario” until 90 seconds before a session began where they would meet with “top officials” (played by actors) reporting on the incident, current conditions, and options for response. One actor would play the role of liar, purposely giving the candidate bad information. The candidate would have to put together a course of action for response and attempt to identify whom “the liar” was.

This event would not involve judges or pundits offering evaluations. That would be left to the voters, who would learn more in an evening about the essence of who these potential leaders of this nation really are than in years of campaign appearances, speeches, and advertisements.

The likelihood of such an event taking place is minimal. However, if we really want to be best prepared to make the right decision when choosing someone for our highest offices of leadership, we owe it to everyone to see them fulfilling the duties they have to uphold, not implement the agendas and campaign promises they want to keep.

Ferrazzi uses several personal examples from a career that included some time working for Hillary Clinton. He discusses glowingly about how the former Senator and current Secretary of State would spend almost every waking hour surrounded by others, seeking people out to talk to. Naturally, he contends that her personal “social network” and her commitment to never being isolated established her presence as a respected, formidable politician and leader.

I see similar traits in our current President, Barack Obama. One consistent theme throughout his term so far (politics aside) has been his constant presence in some form of social environment. Instead of secluding within the vastness of the White House, President Obama is seen almost exclusively with large groups of people, whether they be staffers, family, friends, or the public.

This is not necessarily a bad trait. In fact, almost anyone in a position of leadership has to have effective personal rapport with others. They have to be genuine, and in our modern era of 24/7 media coverage and celebrity culture, a permanent wallflower does not stand a chance.

Obama’s personality is similar to that of many of his 20th Century predecessors. President Teddy Roosevelt started a decisive trend toward “public” figures dominating the Oval Office. Their personalities blended elements of populism, celebrity, and strength in communication. For many of them, their support and integration of Progressivism into the agenda’s and political rhetoric only strengthened their visible appeal.

In short, Obama is only the latest in a long line of Advocates to serve as President. He joins both Roosevelts, Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon (yep, even him), Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and George H.W. Bush in this regard, as they all appeared to lead more from the position of the public podium than behind the isolated desk.

Obama not only represents the most recent Advocate President, but also one of its strongest Advocates. His campaign ushered in the effective utilization of social networking as a political weapon. His ability to control almost all traditional media outlets with respect to their coverage of him, while highly disturbing, is a feat only possible with one who clearly understands how to shape the means of his message to fulfill the ends on issues.  We know little about his internal philosophy, and everything about his external personality.

Of course, to say that Presidents are advocates would be a gross misrepresentation of the duties of the office. In fact, it was not until Teddy Roosevelt and his “bully pulpit” that Presidents even spoke or acted from a position of advocating actions taken by others.

Washington, Adams, Polk, and Lincoln really didn’t take the sentiments of their citizens into account when they made decisions. The historic speeches and letters that reaffirmed their arguments and justifications of their actions were usually well after the fact.   Their time was one where Leadership had, and could not afford, many distractions. Even in respecting the limited powers they understood granted by the Constitution, these men had little opinion or analysis to go on when making critical decisions that ensured our country’s survival and facilitated its growth as a land of liberty, freedom, and prosperity.

However, as Beck’s popularity grew, leading to further success as a television host, author of three best-selling books, and a series of sold-out stage shows, he also began to discover his own voice in the battle of ideas.  Within the last few years, Beck shed much of the “Republican” identity and strived to personalize his conservative and libertarian beliefs, transforming into an independent hellbent on uniting a willing public behind basic ideals of freedom, liberty, and limited government.

Since the inauguration of President Barack Obama, Beck has immersed himself in a self-organized mission to encourage a like identity for his like-minded followers.  His newest book, Glenn Beck’s Common Sense, is a personal reflection on the reasons for his discontent with modern politics, as well as a call for encouraging the disgruntled masses across the right side of the political landscape to join together for change in the context of a peaceful resolution.

With Common Sense, Beck attempts to create a literary indictment of Washington and its entrenched political elites, much the same way Thomas Paine succeeded with his legendary text of the same name.  Beck even includes Paine’s original work, just so you can see how their concepts and processes are similar, though Beck clearly creates an original work applicable to the complex environment of the present.

Beck’s focuses his arguments against the political and social ideology of progressivism, the enabling philosophical instrument for the socialist and statist movements that greatly defined world events in the 20th Century and the common identifier in our own Democratic and Republican Parties.  The examples and background provided on progressivisim are taken directly from Jonah Goldberg’s 2008 work, Liberal Fascism. In fact, Beck’s Common Sense, if nothing else, serves as an informative summary of Goldberg’s well-researched and informative history on the ties between American politics and similar movements of ill-repute around the globe.

Some may find the length of Beck’s original work to be lacking in-depth explanation of the general themes presented.  There are specific instances where I believe the author chooses to focus only on reasons for negativity that are known by others, rather than introduce new concepts.  For example, his examination of Congressional job security and the need for term limits only mentions two primary factors: money and gerrymandering.  Beck fails to include other, lesser understood reasons, including the exploitation of their increased Constituent service role and the competitive disadvantage of outsiders created by the preliminary “primary” voting stage.

However, Beck’s narrative is very effective in articulating and defending his primary arguments.  With Common Sense, he is following a trend I noticed this year and saw in full effect with the other great read I enjoyed this summer, Jim Collins’ How the Mighty Fall, of shorter, more succinct nonfiction.  Beck has already shown his ability to fit his arguments in a fashion that attracts the literary masses, as evident in his conceptually-unique bestseller An Inconvenient Book. His use of a political and philosophical classic with respect to form as well as inspiration shows his ability to adapt his ideas with the styles of the times, as well as connect them in context to history.

Beck also does something few writers successfully incorporate into works such as his: challenge his reader’s actions and beliefs without sounding like an elitist.  The beginning and end of the book include passages that subconsciously encouraged me to reflect on my life and deeds, especially given the fact that I am in one of the classes that draws his ire (bureaucrat).  He specifically targets the errs of our societal ways (living beyond means, dependency, immorality) and encourages acceptance of personal responsibility without falling into the language of condemnation found in the pages of other successful authors of life change, like Larry Winget and Dave Ramsey.

The only significant weakness in Glenn Beck’s Common Sense has nothing to do with his writing style, arguments, justifications, or sources (which are well documented in the back of the manuscript).  The biggest limitation of his work is the same as most political books: the solution.  In reality, the book serves as the mission statement for his popular 9-12 Project, an initiative that appears to be more of a social community for like ideologies than a purpose-driven political campaign.  While the future of these efforts is up to the author, Beck provides little in terms of steps of action, focusing instead on the general principles of taking a stand: wake up, rise up, speak out, etc.

However, this may be intentional for several reasons.  Primarily, Beck does not appear to be interested in positioning his movement for a specific political or social campaign.  Perhaps those who can take lead from his words and translate them into actions can build upon other recent efforts of uniting American conservatives and libertarians (i.e., tea parties).  In the end, this enables Beck to be much like Thomas Paine, an instigator of thought and ideals who serves more as an facilitator than leader, restoring the understanding of power over self that the like-minded need in order to succeed with reform in our nation’s leadership.

Regardless of this weakness, Glenn Beck’s Common Sense is an excellent book of discovery for anyone interested in politics.  If you agree with him already, you will better understand the maturation of his own philosophy and the manner in which he frames his part in today’s critical issue debates.  Those who disagree will learn a great deal not just about the author and his beliefs, as well as the evidence that serves as their foundation, but also about the grievances of America’s “do’er” class, an oft-dismissed and critical element of society that has too long been sequestered by mainstream politics under the drowning classification as the “silent majority.”

Whether Beck’s platform will serve to establish and strengthen unity amongst his disgruntled fans and supporters remains to be seen.  With his effort  to define Common Sense for the world of today, he has at least given America an agenda of concerns that we can compare individually to our own.

Traditional college and graduate school students face many challenges approaching and following graduation. Most notably, graduates must secure full time employment in the professional environment. Students in public administration programs gain experience through field internships and classroom experimentation, enabling them to showcase a suitable portfolio for consideration by potential employers. Eventually, we each receive a job offer, but that only serves as the beginning of the most important step in the process, making the job work for us economically.

Too often, newly-minted professionals focus on the financial rewards of their first jobs outside school, notably the substantial increase in base pay. At the same time, they act reserved to a point of fault when negotiating compensation for their services. This is especially true in fields like public administration, where students are not “taught” how to market themselves competitively and secure the best possible deal in the job market, unlike business majors and lawyers. While a good public administration school may provide an environment for developing contacts in the profession, the typical MPA holder is at a loss once faced with considering an employment offer, and a pure focus on the monetary benefit is a typical first mistake.

The same holistic cost-benefit approach to public policy learned in the classroom easily applies to personal decisions such as employment. Economic analysis includes consideration of financial factors, including direct compensation, but it also requires identification and evaluation of additional environmental elements, personal and external. Lack of comprehensive review and analysis often results in new professionals enduring troublesome first job experiences, feeling underappreciated and underpaid, never living up to the expectations often created from the material appeal of a big paycheck.

Key to effective economic evaluation is understanding that determining the level of direct compensation is the last part, not the first. Initially, the candidate should evaluate the additional costs and benefits of the potential job. This starts during the interview process, when the candidate has an opportunity to investigate the employer and surrounding environment. While some information will be provided by the employer, much more research is required on your own. Important considerations include:

• Livability costs, such as housing, food, and utilities. Do not look at them from a simple level of minimal expenses, but rather for the quality of life you will feel comfortable in.
• Taxes and regulatory costs. Depending on location and the potential pay level, jobs in states with more reliance on sales tax and less on income tax may be more advantageous.
• Employer-provided benefits. Often, first-time professionals do not pay close attention to this component, which can create serious problems later on. Examine the details of health, retirement, and other policies to make sure they are a good fit. For instance, not all health plans treat pregnancy expenses equally, which is important for a couple wanting to start a family to consider.
• Performance and evaluation requirements. Most governments have established policies regarding expectations of performance and periodic evaluation. This may include a probationary period at the start of employment. Make sure you are familiar with the impact of these policies, such as when you will be eligible for your first pay increase.
• Demographic characteristics. We are a heterogeneous nation, geographically-speaking. The location of your job should be appealing with respect to its people and overall society. This is especially important if you place importance on your religion or ethnicity. When starting out, you should not expect others to change just because you arrive on the scene.
• Quality of life characteristics. Will you have to commute for your job? Is the cultural scene vibrant enough? Life away from the office is very important, and not being able to enjoy it due to lack of compatibility will only worsen the workplace experience.

With an understanding of these influences in place, you will be better prepared to evaluate a potential offer. Comprehensive evaluation not only involves comparing them against one another for a given location, but also examining the opportunity costs associated with one offer against other possibilities. Many first-time professionals make the critical mistake of taking the first job offered, failing to recognize that another opportunity more in line with personal desires and wishes resides just around the corner.

Evaluating the situation from this holistic perspective, you will not only have a better idea if the position is a strong personal fit, but you will also be able to determine the necessary financial compensation with which to counter the initial offer. Too often, first time professionals accept whatever the employer initially presents them. The stronger your case for the position based on economic analysis, the stronger your case for the salary that recognizes the value of your work and enables you to live with reasonable financial security.

Of course, employers always present themselves in the stronger position when it comes to negotiating. Do not flinch. While they may have other candidates in mind, you always have additional opportunities. Typically, though, government personnel decisions are similar to those in the private sector in that a single candidate rises significantly above the rest. Even established policies on starting salary and pay grade position, often used by government employers to minimize their offer, are negotiable when they consider the costs of restarting a search due to not securing their first, and sometimes only, choice.

Do not let the fear of losing a job because of salary or benefits force you into an unmanageable long-term situation. Consider your personal goals, like starting a family, paying off college debt, or buying a home. Failure to be in a position to achieve goals like these creates an atmosphere of personal negativity that will adversely impact your attitude and performance at work. While one must be realistic about the present and future, making sure you are in a reasonably comfortable financial position will enable you to focus on maximizing and overachieving your professional potential.

Today’s workplace atmosphere for first-time professionals is far more transient and unfulfilling than in the past. In a large part, this is due to the lack of understanding and analysis applied by recent graduates in considering and selecting inaugural job offers. Serving the people as public administrators demands the establishment of a dedicated workforce that enjoys their tasks and believes they are being properly rewarded. If we take the initiative by utilizing the proper approach of economic evaluation, we will show our commitment to professionalism and embracing the challenges and opportunities of the future.

Please share with me your comments, and pass this along to those you think could benefit from this information. 

I started thinking about this problem last week and arrived at a solution that could be implemented on the Federal level with minimal cost or intrusion in the market.  It does not forgive the mortgage holder, nor does it make the Federal Government a mortgage holder.  In many ways, it is similar in theory to some of the assistance commitments we have made to failing investment banks over the past couple of months.

The issue of greatest significance with consumers in the mortgage crisis is the ability to pay off their mortgage.  That may not be as big of a problem as we would think, given the nature of panic found in the media coverage.  It is a problem, and it will only be exacerbated as more mortgages with exotic interest terms hit their target dates.  Of course, these borrowers had not intention of reaching these deadlines where their interest-only or reduced-principal terms would be replaced by exponential payment increases.  They thought all along that they would be able to refinance to a fixed term, but that is not the present case.

Since refinancing naturally requires a reassessment, and many are likely to find that their homes are below the principal value of their mortgages, the chances of success with a refinance are not great.  However, that does not mean that the borrowers could not afford to repay the refinanced mortgages at fixed rates and conventional terms, even if it meant extending them to 35 or 40 years.  The key is to provide a mechanism to cover the “equity gap” between the values of the home and the outstanding principal.

The Federal Government could establish an insurance program that does just that.  Borrowers could sign-up for the program as part of the refinancing package in a manner similar to how they would have signed-up for PMI with the original mortgage.  Most Americans would prefer that borrowers pay some type of insurance premium, but it could be subsidized to a certain degree.  If I am right and the payments are made, the cost of the government is negligible.  If the mortgages default, the government is not on the hook for the full value of the property, just the gap (which it could reclaim to some degree from the bank upon sale of foreclosure). 

Most importantly, this action enables the market to properly reset value on these properties in order to correct the valuation problems with the mortgage-backed securities without any direct government intervention or purchase of the securities themselves.  Also, the government does not loan money on the homes directly, as is part of a current program that was adopted earlier this year.  This is still a form of government rescue, though in a manner that I find to be rather minimal and enabling of private activity, rather than replacing or hindering it.

The concept of a Federal “equity gap” insurance for refinancing program would work well with other market-based reforms, especially changes to accounting and market rules that are currently undermining rational valuation of the mortgage-backed securities and other volatile assets.  Compared to other plans, especially the $700 Billion bailout put in place by Washington last week, its lower costs, avoidance of direct Federal ownership, and ability to enable necessary financial activity for troubled citizens of all income levels in the housing market, makes it deserving of consideration.

NOTE: I know I am not an expert on this.  If you know of 1, 2, or 25 good reasons this would not work or is a bad idea, feel free to share them.  If you thought about it or expressed it before I did, my apologies, as I was truly not aware.

I have thought for a while on what to say about Sarah Palin and her role as a potential Vice President of the United States.  With her debate with Joe Biden scheduled for next Thursday, and with some growing “buyer’s remorse” prevalent amongst prior supporters of McCain’s choice in the media, now was as good of a time as any.

Regardless of my political feelings on her candidacy and how it influences my feelings about McCain and Obama, my real interests with Palin are much more personal.  Perhaps it is the road I have traveled to this point in my life and the people who influenced me.  Maybe it could be that I am now a father of a wonderful daughter.  Or, it could be the nature of my chosen career.  Thinking about it, all of these reasons and more contribute.

First, and most importantly, Sarah Palin is the first female political figure on the national level who reminds me of the values and abilities of the women who have shaped my life.  In Governor Palin, I see the women who have taught, supervised, and mentored me over the past three decades.  Each of them, sharing multiple cultural and political views, shared values of hard work, wisdom, persistence, commitment to lifelong learning, and dedication to faith, family, and community.  They grew up amongst numerous challenges and often did not receive the opportunities now enjoyed by the ladies of my generation and the future.

Specifically, Sarah Palin resembles the most significant female influence in my life, my grandmother.  Those of you who know me understand what this means.  For those who do not, here is a brief description.  My grandmother, Frances Hunter, is the most versatile, intelligent, loving, faithful, honorable, poised, and energetic woman I know, period.  She has achieved personal and professional success as an amazing family matriarch and a trusted and dedicated public administrator (a 45-year career that still continues, nearly 10 years after she officially retired).

I take immense pride in my grandmothers accomplishments with respect to family, career, and the influence she has had on others.  I also realize that she did not have access to certain opportunities due to the generation in which she grew up.  She does not begrudge this, and I recognize that it takes nothing away from who she is and who she has been.  However, I do wonder who my grandmother would have been had college or other advantages been more readily available.  I believe she would be as committed as she is today to family and faith, and that the difference would be a greater role that she would play in leadership.  When I see Sarah Palin, I see someone who realized and embraced that potential and has put together an amazing life.

I have nothing against other female candidates of national notoriety, but they did not come from the same beginnings as Governor Palin.  Most of them grew up in some level of privilege (social, economic, or political), or they achieved political success in large part because of their spouses’ own aspirations.  Those are reasonable avenues to positions of leadership that have existed since our nation’s founding.  However, to say that one breaks or cracks the glass ceiling when they are already on the floor above it is a little naive when you consider those who start out on the ground floor.

Palin in the embodiment of my grandmother and countless others.  She put together a remarkable career built on hard work, determination, and the desire for knowledge.  She raised a loving family and developed a strength of faith that cannot be deterred despite constant attacks at the hands of elites fearful of her presence in their arena.  I believe that many people, whether they agree with her or not or believe she would be a good Vice President on political grounds, are proud of her level of accomplishment and look forward to her continued presence in our national political culture.

Finally, there is another characteristic in Palin’s favor that I wish to mention.  First, I do believe that Washington could use a leader who has experience in elected office at the local level.  The state of Federalism, the relationship between the levels of government in our country, is no longer what most people learn in the classroom.  Regardless of the population, a former “Strong” Mayor of an incorporated municipality can bring into the Vice Presidency an appreciation of the challenges that other cities and counties face, often due to decisions made by our national government.  Increased participation and upward movement by local leaders to the State and National level can achieve this same accomplishment in the future, and Palin is proof that these opportunities are possible regardless where the leaders happen to call home.  As a Public Administrator, I believe that the involvement of experienced local leaders like Palin on the national and global stage could move us in the right directions on matters of Federalism and local government excellence.

            Formal education in public administration prepares future government professionals for many situations with respect to formulating and executing policy.  However, the classroom and laboratory settings do not provide appropriate opportunities to practice and develop understanding in citizen relations.  Experience proves the resulting irony, as citizen response is the most important factor in the success or failure of a public policy.  Without effective communication and personal service skills, the knowledge and creativity public administrators put into improving the community are practically useless.

 

            Understanding the public you serve and learning how to interact appropriately turns a normal “bureaucrat” into a professional community leader.  Much of this relies upon appreciating common sense behaviors residing in each of us.  Utilization is key, as it is easy to meet a citizen question or complaint with a cold, impersonal, snobbish response.  Of course, these very responses create distrust that cannot be quickly changed.  The same as in business, one negative event can easily eliminate the benefit established by dozens, if not hundreds, of positive occurrences.

 

            Start your career in public administration by always being approachable and helpful to citizens.  Focus on communication.  Most public misunderstanding of government results from our failure to communicate appropriately with them.  Learn to listen effectively so you know exactly what they are inquiring about or requesting.  Communicate your understanding of their initial comments to ensure verification, then perform the work necessary to meet their needs.  Do not rely upon stock answers or general assumptions.  Match your response with what they want, not what you think they need.

 

            Public misconception often develops from our lack of attention to the little things.  Visitors to government buildings are often intimidated by their grandeur and representation of power, and these feelings can be reinforced by poor interactions with public employees.  Understand that customer service is not limited to the front desk or cashier office.  Every employee, regardless of rank, should respond to visitors in a manner that projects concern and commitment to the highest quality of service.  Ritz-Carlton adopted a pithy and appropriate slogan for customer relations that can be easily applied in the public sector: We are ladies and gentlemen serving ladies and gentlemen.

 

             Situations do arise that test our mettle.  Misunderstanding leads to anger, and some citizens feel no shame directing it intently toward government employees.  This is their right, as we must respect the fact that they are endowed with power bequeathed in limited form to us by covenant.  There are times, however, where we must respond firmly without retreat.  Be careful not to develop personal resentment, for it is not our place to disrespect citizens.  We can take solace if we can prove that our actions, though not accepted by some, represent the best interests of the public as a whole.

 

            Finally, when starting a career in public administration, take stock of your ideals.  Make sure you have a positive, appreciative attitude of the public.  Believe in the best in them.  We may not always be able to do as they wish, but we owe them our respect.  Good salesmen know that while happy customers may not always agree with them, unhappy customers never will.  The same is true with citizens, and it is our obligation to always interact with them in a respective, informative, and helpful manner.

Pinchot’s 11 Maxims for Foresters:

1. A public official is there to serve the public and not run them.

2. Public support of acts affecting public rights, is absolutely required.

3. It is more trouble to consult the public than to ignore them, but that is what you are hired for.

4. Find out in advance what the public will stand for. If it is right and they won’t stand for it, postpone action and educate them.

5. Use the press first, last, and all the time if you want to reach the public.

6. Get rid of attitude of personal arrogance or pride of attainment or superior knowledge.

7. Don’t try any sly or foxy politics. A forester is not a politician.

8. Learn tact simply by being absolutely honest and sincere, and by learning to recognize the point of view of the other man and meet him with arguments he will understand.

9. Don’t be afraid to give credit to someone else even when it belongs to you. This is the mark of a weak man, but is the hardest lesson to learn. Encourage others to do things. You may accomplish many things through others that you can’t get done on your single initiative.

10. Don’t be a knocker. Use persuasion rather than force, when possible. [There are] plenty of knockers to be had. Your job is to promote unity.

11. Don’t make enemies unnecessarily and for trivial reasons. If you are any good you will make plenty of them on matters of straight honesty and public policy and will need all the support you can get.

There was also the matter of where to start.  Obviously, the nature of my work prevents me from getting too involved in political discussion.  I have to pick my topics carefully, for they can be interesting and poignant and avoid inappropriate argument.

An ideal opportunity arrived when I found the following quote in a post by Denis Boyles on NRO’s The Corner commenting on the recent Irish referendum rejecting the EU Constitution:

Only by luck were the Irish given a chance to do what most Europeans would love to be able to do and vote on whether they wanted more government in their lives. They voted “no” by a convincing margin and saved Europe, at least until the EUniks can figure out another way to implement a far-reaching treaty without  bothering to ask the people what they want.

Of course, they could always engage the democratic process and arrive at a useful and appealing consensus, but that would mean trusting the voters. Bureaucrats trust process, not people.

The last sentence serves as a short, simple, and effective reinforcement of the negativity often heaped upon the profession of public administration.  If a bureaucrat is lucky, they lump it in a Pareto-esque pile of vocal minority rantings.  If not, they sulk in the growing negativity and strengthen their bitterness against the public they are assigned and paid to serve.

Hopefully, we grow as professionals to use opportunities such as these to evaluate our actions and recognize that while they often only represent perception, it is easy for others to equate this cynicism with reality.  It is easy for us, without the benefit of assessment on the part of ourselves or others, to grow insular with respect to our actions and argue justification on the basis of theory.  Whether proven empirically or not, the cold comfort of statistically-based social science often conflicts with the warmth and volatility of human nature.

I often wonder, as a practicioner, if a researcher has ever considered to include variables associated with characteristics of individualism into their empiracal analysis of public policy.  How do you measure the correlation of a citizen’s beliefs of freedom, libery, and personal faith with with respect to a given policy decision and the impact of its implementation?  How do we incorporate these externalities, often the foundation of citizen support or opposition to the “greater good” proposals of bureaucrats and their elected surrogates, so we can better determine whether we really do “know better”?

The obvious answer to these questions is that we really cannot achieve these types of measures and understanding with any degree of certainty.  Perhaps it is our society’s view of history as a series of facts that prevents us from understanding the great study of human nature it can provide.  Recently hearing author David McCullough’s arguement of similar notion, and noticing that most public administrators I encounter originate out of the disciplines of social science rather than humanities does lead me to think that the ongoing pursuit of improving public policy analysis should include increasing our understanding our appreciation of the individual element.

Looking closely, I do not think that Boyles meant “people” in the plural group sense.  He should have said “person” instead to effectively articulate his arguement.  After all, bureaucrats already understand the need to evaluate our ideas on the basis of how they effect our society of influence, or the “people” (plural) we serve.  Perhaps we should take it a step further and increase our awareness and respect for people as individuals.  Fundamentally, our nation was built upon the belief that they possess all power on the individual scale, and that our abilities to aide in enabling effective government and order come from their delegation through covenant.