This is a great explanation of why process is policy, and why process matters so much. By getting the relevant agencies around the table you can ask and answer the questions - is it possible? Is it legal? What do our allies think? Who benefits (and importantly, does the U.S. benefit)? And of course, is it good policy? In the current environment the President comes up with an idea - Gaza - and the bureaucracy scrambles to construct a policy around it, and to explain that he didn't say what he said, or didn't mean what he didn't actually say. Good process makes good policy.
Another observer pointed out to me that sometimes perfect policy processes, peopled by true experts, can lead us right off a cliff too. The best and the brightest in the making of the Vietnam debacle being a conspicuous example. I had to concede the point, even while continuing to insist that I’d prefer flawed processes run by experts pursuing what they believe is the national interest than the delusions of a mad king (who one doesn’t suspect might be acting on behalf of the interests of anyone but himself and his friends.)
The focus of it was on process, or lack thereof. Would love to hear your take on the substance or wackiness details of each of these wacky proposals.
I'm not an expert and, while I'm seeing a TON about the orange messenger - naturally - I'm finding very little about the message(s). I can barely keep up with the policy and initiative barrage by the admin and find myself wading through lots of responses and commentary that consist mostly of derision and vilification by "both sides", often divisive and partisan.
It's all rather frustrating! I get the "wacky" ... but why are they any more wacky than what we've seen before? And how so? I thought you got close with your discussion of the wars in Iraq, for example. At the time those wars were considered far from wacky but were positively cheer-led by most pundits and commentators, as I recall.
But in hindsight they were not only wacky but incredibly damaging -- even evil.
Which substantive features of the current crop of wacky initiatives and policies can or should we focus on in order to avoid similar levels of carnage?
Most average Americans know little about and care nothing about process points. They just want change.
Thanks for the note, and for reading, and for your interest. The idea germinated in a discussion I had with students for a foreign policy course I am teaching. What is the most plausible explanation for such a wacky idea as the one to convert the Gaza strip into a seaside resort? On the face of it, shorn of any politics or history or the like, it almost makes sense. And talk about a festering monument to failed past policy. What a perfect (I hesitate to say final) solution! But delve into the context (as you would in the course of rigorous policy analysis), and things look different. The idea seems all but absurd. What about the people who live there now? Will they leave willingly? So will the president send troops to expel them, to ethnically cleanse the strip? What about the countries that we'd be calling on to accept the 2 million plus refugees (refugees from their current status as refugees, so refugees twice over)? How ironic that we would be calling on somewhat fragile states (Jordan and Egypt) to accept refugees they have resisted accepting up to now just as we--still the richest country in the world--are deporting people we long had more or less accepted. As for making Canada the 51st state, I'm pretty sure the Canadians themselves would have to support, and I'm pretty sure they don't. Does that mean we'd invade our single closest ally and partner in the world? Or does that mean it's a joke? Or an opening gambit... for what? I can go on down the list. It may be the substance is absence of substance. Kayfabe again, which by the way I mean as a serious analysis rather than as a gesture of dismissal.
As I was writing this post, I began disagreeing with the premise--for two reasons. One, the wacky ideas may reflect a total absence of policy coordination, but that's not the most germane point. I'm frankly not sure what the point is. To show he doesn't care? To underscore his contempt for the system? Does he have a real estate deal for the Trump organization in the works, and is planning to use the apparatus of the state to fix it? Is it the perfect picture of state capture? Or is he deliberately working to undermine the interests of his own country for some other nefarious reason. If you look at the pre-deal in Ukraine, that would also be part of it. For what it's worth. I'm having a hard time making sense of it (which explains my previous post).
Also, however, another critic has separately pointed out that I overvalue expertise in my analysis. The best and the brightest, leading a systematic policy process, have walked us off a cliff before. So maybe it's time to give winging it a shot. Somehow, I doubt it. I suppose I have more questions than answers, as usual.
Thanks, Alexis for a lucid description of how policy is developed at the highest levels. What worries me is that the allies and partners are not involved in planning major undertakings such as Ukraine or Gaza. When we go it alone without our major allies things usually go off track and we don't achieve our objectives.
Indeed. Foreign Affairs professionals like you know just how vital that (often overlooked, stateside) part of the puzzle is. Without overseas partners and friends, we are lost. Even so, I might have to amend my argument a bit. As someone else pointed out, even a rigorous process can sometimes go off the rails or suffer from tunnel vision or group think. Still, I’d take that risk above the delusions of a mad king.
This is a great explanation of why process is policy, and why process matters so much. By getting the relevant agencies around the table you can ask and answer the questions - is it possible? Is it legal? What do our allies think? Who benefits (and importantly, does the U.S. benefit)? And of course, is it good policy? In the current environment the President comes up with an idea - Gaza - and the bureaucracy scrambles to construct a policy around it, and to explain that he didn't say what he said, or didn't mean what he didn't actually say. Good process makes good policy.
Another observer pointed out to me that sometimes perfect policy processes, peopled by true experts, can lead us right off a cliff too. The best and the brightest in the making of the Vietnam debacle being a conspicuous example. I had to concede the point, even while continuing to insist that I’d prefer flawed processes run by experts pursuing what they believe is the national interest than the delusions of a mad king (who one doesn’t suspect might be acting on behalf of the interests of anyone but himself and his friends.)
Enjoyed this. Thanks.
The focus of it was on process, or lack thereof. Would love to hear your take on the substance or wackiness details of each of these wacky proposals.
I'm not an expert and, while I'm seeing a TON about the orange messenger - naturally - I'm finding very little about the message(s). I can barely keep up with the policy and initiative barrage by the admin and find myself wading through lots of responses and commentary that consist mostly of derision and vilification by "both sides", often divisive and partisan.
It's all rather frustrating! I get the "wacky" ... but why are they any more wacky than what we've seen before? And how so? I thought you got close with your discussion of the wars in Iraq, for example. At the time those wars were considered far from wacky but were positively cheer-led by most pundits and commentators, as I recall.
But in hindsight they were not only wacky but incredibly damaging -- even evil.
Which substantive features of the current crop of wacky initiatives and policies can or should we focus on in order to avoid similar levels of carnage?
Most average Americans know little about and care nothing about process points. They just want change.
Thanks again. Keep them coming.
Thanks for the note, and for reading, and for your interest. The idea germinated in a discussion I had with students for a foreign policy course I am teaching. What is the most plausible explanation for such a wacky idea as the one to convert the Gaza strip into a seaside resort? On the face of it, shorn of any politics or history or the like, it almost makes sense. And talk about a festering monument to failed past policy. What a perfect (I hesitate to say final) solution! But delve into the context (as you would in the course of rigorous policy analysis), and things look different. The idea seems all but absurd. What about the people who live there now? Will they leave willingly? So will the president send troops to expel them, to ethnically cleanse the strip? What about the countries that we'd be calling on to accept the 2 million plus refugees (refugees from their current status as refugees, so refugees twice over)? How ironic that we would be calling on somewhat fragile states (Jordan and Egypt) to accept refugees they have resisted accepting up to now just as we--still the richest country in the world--are deporting people we long had more or less accepted. As for making Canada the 51st state, I'm pretty sure the Canadians themselves would have to support, and I'm pretty sure they don't. Does that mean we'd invade our single closest ally and partner in the world? Or does that mean it's a joke? Or an opening gambit... for what? I can go on down the list. It may be the substance is absence of substance. Kayfabe again, which by the way I mean as a serious analysis rather than as a gesture of dismissal.
As I was writing this post, I began disagreeing with the premise--for two reasons. One, the wacky ideas may reflect a total absence of policy coordination, but that's not the most germane point. I'm frankly not sure what the point is. To show he doesn't care? To underscore his contempt for the system? Does he have a real estate deal for the Trump organization in the works, and is planning to use the apparatus of the state to fix it? Is it the perfect picture of state capture? Or is he deliberately working to undermine the interests of his own country for some other nefarious reason. If you look at the pre-deal in Ukraine, that would also be part of it. For what it's worth. I'm having a hard time making sense of it (which explains my previous post).
Also, however, another critic has separately pointed out that I overvalue expertise in my analysis. The best and the brightest, leading a systematic policy process, have walked us off a cliff before. So maybe it's time to give winging it a shot. Somehow, I doubt it. I suppose I have more questions than answers, as usual.
Thanks, Alexis for a lucid description of how policy is developed at the highest levels. What worries me is that the allies and partners are not involved in planning major undertakings such as Ukraine or Gaza. When we go it alone without our major allies things usually go off track and we don't achieve our objectives.
Indeed. Foreign Affairs professionals like you know just how vital that (often overlooked, stateside) part of the puzzle is. Without overseas partners and friends, we are lost. Even so, I might have to amend my argument a bit. As someone else pointed out, even a rigorous process can sometimes go off the rails or suffer from tunnel vision or group think. Still, I’d take that risk above the delusions of a mad king.