Policy versus Politics
Running head: POLICY VERSUS POLITICS 1
POLICY VERSUS POLITICS 5
Policy versus Politics
Read also: "Academic Book Review: How to Complete It"
Policy versus Politics
Objective of the Report
Take Back the Streets anticrime program has undoubtedly proven its high efficiency. The intentions of the new governor to cancel further promotion of the program should not be allowed in any event, since the positive results that have been already achieved are likely to be forfeited entirely. Besides, the derogation of this campaign is likely to aggravate the criminal situation in the area as well as to derail the electoral support of the newly selected governor.
The objective of this paper is to encapsulate major argumentation points that can be raised by the campaign advocates to demonstrate to the governor that his intentions to terminate the program and employ old ill-faceted approaches will not be successful.
Federal Governance Issue
First and foremost, it is necessary to inform the new governor that his decree or any other enactment form will not be legally sufficient to cancel the program, since under the pending United States law all the rehabilitation issues are regulated by the federal law (Safire, 2008). Moreover, it seems to be relevant to communicate to him that the program was approved by the Department of Justice, and therefore respective decision of this institution is required to stop the program. The accountability of the program is linked to the authorized federal bodies, therefore his remarks can be left unanswered at all (Siegel, 2009). Sending a note to the Department of Justice informing the Attorney General and other high-profile commissioners that a relatively successful initiative is on the verge of the greatest catastrophe seems to be quite a viable strategy to convince the governor to cease his interference into the penitentiary system.
Secondly, it is reported that such programs are predominantly financed from the federal budget. This program is not an exception to this rule, and stopping it can inflict penalties to the program administrators themselves. Putting at stake our careers and public recognition for the sake of the new governors request of questionable legal substantiation seems to be a precarious venture.
The language that was used by the governor in his note can be hardly classified as appropriate for this type of correspondence. Frivolous, mamby-pamby programs teaching the ABCs and where cons learn how to hammer nails will perfectly suit the newspapers headlines tomorrow. The mass media agencies, especially those supported by the political opponents of the new governor will effectively use this situation as a mechanism to uproot his public support. The people will naturally re-consider whether they made a right choice voting for that candidate.
Probable Loss of Electorate and Public Support
However strong our legal and public support may be, the majority of the public policy advisors converge in their opinion that the most effective strategy to make mutually beneficial decisions is finding rapport and working in close cooperation with the opponents for the sake of common welfare. The press department of the program should respond to the letter of the government covering the following issues. Firstly, he should be informed that the law is on our side completely. Secondly, he should be communicated that the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, the Congress, and the President himself will be made aware of the arisen conflict. Thirdly, the mass media tools, especially those favoring his political opponents would be contacted and all the information will be given at their disposal. Excerpts from his letter will be published everywhere, TV and broadcasted, to ensure that every citizen of the state becomes familiar with the way their newly-elected governor conducts himself immediately after his inauguration.
In order to perplex his situation even more, it is also recommended to file a lawsuit, seeking damages for defamation and interference in the activity of a public institution. This strategy can be highly effective, especially in the light of the recent precedents occurring in the state of Texas and in Alabama, where the governors lost 3% and 5 % respectively of their previous electoral support for similar egregious conduct.
All the aforementioned options are to be assembled, analyzed, presented in a form of a single, concise report, and sent directly to the governor.
However effective the drastic strategy may seem to be, the majority of the contemporary public policy advisors strongly recommend finding common language with the opponents. In this particular case, after all our argumentation is communicated to the governor, instead of attacking him in courts, mass media platforms, Congress and Attorney General cabinets, we should offer him cooperation with us. The following benefits should be explained to him.
Firstly, the thrift of our rehabilitation program can be portrayed as his personal achievement in future. Considering poor political aspirations of the Chief Warden, these statements will cost us nothing, but will have a high ROI. Therefore, the army of the governors followers will be enlarged. Secondly, if he consents to give us organizational and financial support, the votes of the inmates can be guaranteed for him.
Summary of the Arguments
To sum, our argumentation includes the following strongest points. Firstly, the governor is in any event not authorized to dictate such a decision, since it is the matter of federal competence. Secondly, public support is on our side, and if we have these statements published and broadcasted, his career will be doomed. Moreover, we are likely to be supported by the federal authorities.
Having all these bargaining leverages, it is assumable that he will consent to cooperate with us and accept all our conditions of the future possible collaboration.
Safire, W. (2008). Safire's political dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siegel, L.J. (2009). Criminology . Belmont: Thomson Higher Education.