Isarithmic History of the Two-Party Presidential Vote from d sparks on Vimeo.
via GOOD
-Shannon Ritchie
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Dark Side of American Health Care
When I think about bureaucratic politics, I think of the American health care system. I think of the bride-to-be who suddenly had to incur heavy medical expenses. I reflect on where we were in health care policy-making and how we ended up placing power in bureaucratic hands.
The typical American health politics story is one characteristic of lengthy periods of gridlock punctuated by sudden jiffies of reform. These seemingly minute incremental adjustments to the health care system channel into the recent bureaucratic politics. A distinct pattern governing American health care politics is that public authority over medicine has been ceded to individual physicians and other private sector bureaucrats. They now dominate health care legislation on almost every level of government.
Unfortunately, the accountability shift comes at a price. The emerging health politics is increasingly more controlled by the methodology and mindset of self-interested bureaucratic actors. Health care bureaucrats now play a greater role in formulating and implementing legislation with much less deference to the concerns of organized public interests. The much-detested administrative costs of American health care represent not simply a policy problem but also a prevailing political force.
I see “the dark side” of bureaucratic politics when the citizens’ concerns are stifled. With the American health care system, “this dark side” is ever more prominent because the burgeoning private sector authorities can be expected to pursue their own fiscal interests into the future.
-Susan Chen
The typical American health politics story is one characteristic of lengthy periods of gridlock punctuated by sudden jiffies of reform. These seemingly minute incremental adjustments to the health care system channel into the recent bureaucratic politics. A distinct pattern governing American health care politics is that public authority over medicine has been ceded to individual physicians and other private sector bureaucrats. They now dominate health care legislation on almost every level of government.
Unfortunately, the accountability shift comes at a price. The emerging health politics is increasingly more controlled by the methodology and mindset of self-interested bureaucratic actors. Health care bureaucrats now play a greater role in formulating and implementing legislation with much less deference to the concerns of organized public interests. The much-detested administrative costs of American health care represent not simply a policy problem but also a prevailing political force.
I see “the dark side” of bureaucratic politics when the citizens’ concerns are stifled. With the American health care system, “this dark side” is ever more prominent because the burgeoning private sector authorities can be expected to pursue their own fiscal interests into the future.
-Susan Chen
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The Need to "Adapt the Presidency"
As we learned from Neustadt, the power of the presidency is the power to persuade. Well, what if the forum to persuade is limited?
On 60 Minutes tonight, in President Obama's first interview since the election last week, he addresses this confinement. Here's a short excerpt from the transcript:
NARRATION: ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN OK WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE, HAS BEEN HIS EAGERNESS TO SPREAD HIS GOSPEL TO THE FAR REACHES OF BROADCAST /CABLE UNIVERSE. IT SEEMS LIKE HE HAS BEEN ALMOST EVERYWHERE. LENO AND LETTERMAN. MTV AND COMEDY CENTRAL, AMERICAS’ MOST WANTED AND THE VIEW. SOME HAVE FOUND IT DEMEANING AND UN-PRESIDENTIAL.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: The challenge right now, and you know this better than I do, than I do, Steve, is that—it used to be a President could call a press conference and the three major networks would come and he’d talk to them, and you pretty much reached everybody in America. And these days— the closest I can get to that is being on 60 Minutes.
But there are a whole bunch of folks— who watch The Daily Show¸ or watch The View. And— so I’ve got to adapt the presidency to reach as many people as possible— in as many— settings as possible so that they can hear directly from me.
Um, You know, but this is an example of where— on the one hand folks say, “Well, you know he’s a little too remote.” Then if I’m on The View, “Well, you know, he shouldn’t be— you know— on some daytime TV show
My attitude is— if I’m reaching people, if I’m talking to them, I’m willing to take the risks of— overexposure on that front.
-------
"Adapt the presidency". Obama's words suggest that he sees the need to re-shape the presidency as an institution. And in doing so, he furthers his effectiveness at the only power Neustadt suggests he has -- the power to persuade.
FDR used fireside chats. Kennedy was the first to hold a televised press conference. Embracing new media to shape public opinion is inevitable - so why is Obama villainized for going on The View?
-Shannon Ritchie
On 60 Minutes tonight, in President Obama's first interview since the election last week, he addresses this confinement. Here's a short excerpt from the transcript:
NARRATION: ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN OK WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE, HAS BEEN HIS EAGERNESS TO SPREAD HIS GOSPEL TO THE FAR REACHES OF BROADCAST /CABLE UNIVERSE. IT SEEMS LIKE HE HAS BEEN ALMOST EVERYWHERE. LENO AND LETTERMAN. MTV AND COMEDY CENTRAL, AMERICAS’ MOST WANTED AND THE VIEW. SOME HAVE FOUND IT DEMEANING AND UN-PRESIDENTIAL.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: The challenge right now, and you know this better than I do, than I do, Steve, is that—it used to be a President could call a press conference and the three major networks would come and he’d talk to them, and you pretty much reached everybody in America. And these days— the closest I can get to that is being on 60 Minutes.
But there are a whole bunch of folks— who watch The Daily Show¸ or watch The View. And— so I’ve got to adapt the presidency to reach as many people as possible— in as many— settings as possible so that they can hear directly from me.
Um, You know, but this is an example of where— on the one hand folks say, “Well, you know he’s a little too remote.” Then if I’m on The View, “Well, you know, he shouldn’t be— you know— on some daytime TV show
My attitude is— if I’m reaching people, if I’m talking to them, I’m willing to take the risks of— overexposure on that front.
-------
"Adapt the presidency". Obama's words suggest that he sees the need to re-shape the presidency as an institution. And in doing so, he furthers his effectiveness at the only power Neustadt suggests he has -- the power to persuade.
FDR used fireside chats. Kennedy was the first to hold a televised press conference. Embracing new media to shape public opinion is inevitable - so why is Obama villainized for going on The View?
-Shannon Ritchie
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Short Term Memories
With Republicans taking control of the House and making ground in the Senate, the question I have to ask is: Do Americans have short term memories? It seems only yesterday when there was so much discontent with Republicans that Democrats were able to rise up and take control of Congress. Discontent with Obama is well deserved, but do Americans forget when the recession started? Do Americans forget who started the first bailout? It seems that George Bush went from the girlfriend we wanted to dump, to the girlfriend we feel bad we cheated on.
Of course, the average American simply does not understand the complexity of politics and policies in place. Frankly, we as MPP students barely understand it. Which leads me to my next point. Why are Democrats horrible at marketing themselves, their policies, and against Republican counterparts? It is obvious that Republicans and Tea Partiers are able to connect with the average American, referencing current politics with easy to understand symbolism like "waves" and "tsunami." Why don't Democrats pick up this lingo? Maybe they just need to hire a better political marketing team. I hear a lot of laid off MBA grads are looking for jobs.
Of course, the average American simply does not understand the complexity of politics and policies in place. Frankly, we as MPP students barely understand it. Which leads me to my next point. Why are Democrats horrible at marketing themselves, their policies, and against Republican counterparts? It is obvious that Republicans and Tea Partiers are able to connect with the average American, referencing current politics with easy to understand symbolism like "waves" and "tsunami." Why don't Democrats pick up this lingo? Maybe they just need to hire a better political marketing team. I hear a lot of laid off MBA grads are looking for jobs.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Political chaos!
This week's This American Life had a neat little rundown of what is going on right now within each of the political parties. You can listen to it on thisamericanlife.org. What struck me is how impatient the Tea Partiers are to building a meaningful movement - their desire to have an immediate impact seems so much more important than really changing American politics the way they advertise - and how unwilling the Democrats are to build a coherent message. Would recommend it to everyone, even those having a hard time getting over the whole Juan Williams thing...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)