Policy Paradox: The Art Of Political Decision Making
understand that the issues which are spoken about affect everyone. Both parties need to yield to the situation instead of each other in order to form a better solution.
Taking these two ideas in mind, through the scope of Follett you can see that giving orders is largely dependent on where your expertise and knowledge lies. In the case of Trump, it seems he knows how to grab attention and get people on his side to help with directives. For the case of Hillary it seems that she can create a goal with measurable objectives to help her voters understand what exactly the goal is. Both aspects work in similar fashion to one another, with comparable results. If there was one better way than another, if politics was better than business everything would have partisan influence and be directed by a government. On the flip side of that coin, politicians could be so corrupt that a business person could be in charge. It’s an …show more content…
Just as each system must check each other, they cannot contradict. The world of politics has many paradoxes which lead to quite the dilemmas. In Stone’s article, “Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making” each sub section gives a situation which is indeed a paradox of policy management. Through these different examples from an Irish gay and lesbian group marching in a St. Patrick’s Day parade, to babies being a product or service with the scope of surrogate motherhood. These different situations help us understand the environmental issues that are brought up between candidates in the race for the White House this year. For example, Trump has very general ideas about making money from tapping in to local resources, but could his idea of monetary gain be considered an ethical issue down the line with a certain Native American reservation? Could Clinton’s staunch numbers eventually condemn her plans and label her as a charlatan because she was unable to provide a compromise with benign
Taking these two ideas in mind, through the scope of Follett you can see that giving orders is largely dependent on where your expertise and knowledge lies. In the case of Trump, it seems he knows how to grab attention and get people on his side to help with directives. For the case of Hillary it seems that she can create a goal with measurable objectives to help her voters understand what exactly the goal is. Both aspects work in similar fashion to one another, with comparable results. If there was one better way than another, if politics was better than business everything would have partisan influence and be directed by a government. On the flip side of that coin, politicians could be so corrupt that a business person could be in charge. It’s an …show more content…
Just as each system must check each other, they cannot contradict. The world of politics has many paradoxes which lead to quite the dilemmas. In Stone’s article, “Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making” each sub section gives a situation which is indeed a paradox of policy management. Through these different examples from an Irish gay and lesbian group marching in a St. Patrick’s Day parade, to babies being a product or service with the scope of surrogate motherhood. These different situations help us understand the environmental issues that are brought up between candidates in the race for the White House this year. For example, Trump has very general ideas about making money from tapping in to local resources, but could his idea of monetary gain be considered an ethical issue down the line with a certain Native American reservation? Could Clinton’s staunch numbers eventually condemn her plans and label her as a charlatan because she was unable to provide a compromise with benign