The Practice of American Public Policymaking

The Principles of Machiavelli in American Policy
The first chapter in The Practice of American Public Policymaking lays out what the book examines in the succeeding chapters. First, Briggs and Helms (2015) define policymaking as “the activities, actors, institutions, practices, and technologies that combine to ‘deliver the goods’ to the American people” (p. 3). Public policy is defined as “the art and science of producing results” (p. 3). Thus, the book is primarily about American public policymaking and the focus is on conception and practice, which means that both the development and the implementation of policy are covered in the following chapters. Implementation is especially important because it refers to the process of monitoring and evaluating policy. Policy and management should be part and parcel, according to the authors as “there is no policy without implementation” and there is no awareness of the success of a policy without evaluation (Briggs & Helms, 2015, p. 3). The book does not focus on analysis but rather on practice primarily—on the what rather than the why.
Technology—from TV to budgets—is discussed in order to show that public policymaking is not just about how media is used but also about how budgets are managed and how projects proceed. Briggs and Helms (2015) point out that some of the most controversial public policies—like those on privacy or abortion—are byproducts of technological breakthroughs. Institutional and historical factors are also considered, as everything in the realm of public policymaking is viewed as a work in progress. Briggs and Helms (2015) explain that actors today are much different from the actors of a hundred years ago. Because the authors use the case study method for explaining public policymaking in America, they provide the history and background on their examples to facilitate contextualization. The authors also employ the technique of policy mapping to show how the practice and art of public policymaking is conducted.
In the second chapter, the authors examine how public policymaking is conducted in the 21st century. The second chapter is essentially an overview of public policymaking research and history, and the chapter starts with a discussion of policy from the standpoint of Machiavelli, who stated that policy was about using knowledge to inform statecraft and further the ends of the state. This is an important point because it should be noted that the idea is to further the ends of the state—not the people. The state is conceived as an entity unto itself, while in America there idea behind the government is that it is supposed to be for and by the people (Mizaur, 1993). Yet here in the outset of the book on policy, the authors openly state that American public policymaking has taken its cues from the master of statecraft and of putting the interests of the state—i.e., of the prince—first and foremost. In other words, the people are there to serve the prince rather than the prince being there to serve the state. If the policy approach of Machiavelli is the basis of policymaking in the US, then the American public has been fed a canard with the idea of democracy.
The question then must be asked whether American public policymakers are focused on serving the people or whether they are focused on maintaining and improving their own hold on power. If Machiavellian principles serve as their guide then it must be that the case is the latter. The authors, however, give in Figure 2.1 an image that shows a law being signed into effect followed by a bag of money that may either be the cost or the benefit of the policy and the outcome being a happy smiling face of a person assumed to be a member of the public. But considering what was just stated about Machiavellian principles serving as the foundation for American public policymaking the smiling face must belong to the policymakers themselves.
The authors do not investigate this particular aspect of their argument but instead shift into the difference between forming policy and implementing policy. They note that politicians often take credit for forming policy but rarely ever take or even want credit for the policy’s implementation. This may be because policy implementation so commonly runs off the rails at some point (DeLeon & DeLeon, 2002). To the authors’ credit, they argue that there should really be no separation between policy and implementation. They observe that policy formation is like the idealistic envisioning stage whereas the implementing is the real world, rubber meets the road stage. It is in this latter part that the policy has to be effective—otherwise it is of no use.
Ironically, the authors go on to say that Americans view public policy in terms of results rather than in terms of promises made or broken. There is a big problem with this, however. Policy is not for them but rather for those who create it. Americans have been led to believe that policymakers are making policy that is meant to benefit them when the reality, as the authors have already given away, is just the opposite: policy is meant to benefit the policy holders. That is why the policymakers do not insist upon promises to the public being made and broken. They insist instead on results. The policy might reach for the stars in an effort to mollify the public, but the policymakers know that the reality of the situation is not going to heaven on earth. They are not even interested in creating such a scenario for the public; rather, they are interested in achieving such a state for themselves.
A further illustration in Figure 2.2 attempts elaborate on the prior illustration by adding to the concept. The same figures of the law signed into action, the money bag and the smiling face are shown again, but they are preceded by three new figures: first, a raining storm cloud entitled “Situation,” and then an unhappy face entitled “Problem” and then a lightbulb entitled “Solution.” These three images lead into the second phase of policymaking. The point made in the figure is that policymakers are interested in solving real world problems that affect everyday Americans. Foul weather is not to be taken as a literal real world problem but rather as a figurative one. The problem with all of this, however, is that it is unclear just what the policy is and how it is meant to solve what problems.
The authors go on to explain that in public policymaking the beneficiary is meant to be the public—the people. Government is defined as the means by which the public is organized and cared for. The problem with this statement is that it contrasts with the principle of Machiavelli, upon which American public policymaking is based, according to the same authors. So either they are mistaken in terms of American policy or they are misled in their identification of the importance of Machiavelli’s principles in policymaking in the US.
It would seem, however, that the authors are not entirely ignorant of the groundwork they are laying, for they do point out that many private actors and interests go into making public policy—such as Kennedys and Rockefellers. But again if the policymakers are the beneficiaries then it stands to reason that the most powerful families in the country will want to have a stake in policy creation and implementation. Machiavelli focused his attention on politics, which is about maintaining power. The authors point out, also, however, that the struggle for power may not have anything to do with policy. This is a rather conflicting statement with what has already been put forward in the chapter, but the authors explain it by saying that under Machiavelli policy took a back seat to politics. In other words, politics took precedence over the developing and implementation of policy. Then the authors go on to state that Machiavellian politics has never taken root in America.
Yet in the very beginning, the authors stated that Machiavellian’s principles are the root of policymaking today and they also stated that American policymaking is really not much different from policymaking in other countries. Thus it cannot be said to be a national failing of character. What the authors do show is that Americans use technology to create their sense of policy. Policy is preferred over politics in America, according to the authors, but one may well wonder at this point whether the authors actually live in America because that is almost certainly not the case—especially since 2016. If anything, Americans today would rather fight over politics than talk about policy. Policy is almost a laughable word at this point because American politicians have shown themselves to be the hacks that they are. And if they are hacks then who is writing the policy? Americans may have a preference for policy, according to the authors but there is no way they are having that preference fulfilled.
Then there are the arguments such as this one—that Roosevelt’s New Deal policy became a source of confidence for Americans and their belief in the government to take care of them? Is this a revisionist history book? Most Americans were thoroughly discouraged by the New Deal and found it to be too little too late. The text goes on to show that technology changed the way Americans think about policy but at this point the authors seem to be making up the American character.
References
Briggs, S., & Helms, L. B. (2015). The practice of American public policymaking. New York: Routlege Taylor & Francis Group.
DeLeon, P., & DeLeon, L. (2002). What ever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. Journal of public administration research and theory, 12(4), 467-492.
Mizaur, D. G. (1993). Quality government is government of the people, by the people, for the people. Public Productivity & Management Review, 371-377.