Tiger GPS: Government and Public Service Blog

Recently I read The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alistair Smith. This book not only left me with a new outlook on politics but it also left me with some taunting questions. Do politicians really pick power over policies they believe in? Will the continuing divide of political parties and inequality hurt our nation in the long run?

In this book Bueno de Mesquita and Smith share their thoughts on selectorate theory, with the central thesis that leaders, whether an autocrat, president, or even a CEO, do not rule alone. These leaders or politicians are voted in and kept in power by their winning coalition, and depending on the size that may be 61 million (such as in the United States for those who voted for Pres. Trump) or 200 people (such as the Donju in North Korea).  This winning coalition helps to keep the ruler in power and pleasing the winning coalition will be the leader’s focus. The size of the winning coalition will ultimately decide if they will use private or public goods to stay in power. And, through these incentives and benefits to the winning coalition a ruler can solidify their power.

So, if we change our perception on politics and understand that “leaders cannot lead unilaterally,” requiring their winning coalition to stay in power, this should ultimately mean that those who want to stay in power must pick policies that please the winning coalition. Essentially picking power over policies. If we all viewed our democracy this way, it could be a powerful tool for voters. There are many factors on why voters select certain candidates, but why not focus on the candidate’s past voting records and proposals, over what they are promising by taking candidates “at face value on their motives”.

Furthermore, in the 2016 election 77% of Americans were eligible to vote, or the as the theory would call them the nominal selectorate (interchangeables), and only 42% voted or the real selectorate (influentials), and the winning coalition (essentials) was only 19% or 61 million as mentioned earlier. As you may remember, President Trump won by having 306 electorate votes, and not the majority vote, meaning the winning coalition is actually smaller than the majority of those who voted.

In the book it says “we have learned that just about all of political life revolves around the size of the selectorate, the influentials, and the winning coalition. Expand them all, and not the interchangeables no more quickly than the coalition, and everything changes for the better for the vast majority of people.” However, we are in a time where the partisan gap continues to grow (according to Pew Research Center). So as the partisan gap grows wider, the winning coalition essentially would continue to grow smaller. Party values become more extreme and bipartisan values become rarer, forcing people further to either side or to the middle.

Yet, I find myself wondering, as the inequality in America grows, will this force the majority of people to come together to form a winning coalition? There are many factors and questions to debate regarding this topic as our democracy does not necessarily implement wealth-equalizing polices. Nevertheless, according to Bueno de Mesquita and Smith “change the coalition size and you can change the world.”

The Spring Fling was memorable, fun, educational, stimulating, intellectually challenging, boundary expanding, and “a hoot.” Folks who attended got a chance to work on a case study, tour the Clemson campus, go to a football and a baseball games, tailgate, have meals together, taste some classic FRIED OKRA, and enjoy the company of fellow MPA students and faculty.

Lisztomania by Phoenix from “Mozart in the Jungle”

Without a doubt, my favorite (and most dramatic) piece of legislation is Colorado Amendment 64 of 2012, commonly known as the recreational marijuana bill. This amendment to Colorado’s state constitution has been the catalyst to countless conversations, debates, and arguments. The potential consequences of placing what was once considered a highly addictive gateway drug in the hands of the public is nothing to be taken lightly.

Proponents of Amendment 64 stated that the purpose of this bill was threefold: to maximize the efficiency and allocation of law enforcement resources, to produce revenue for public purposes, and to enhance the freedoms of the people of Colorado. Understandably, there were many who opposed this bill and these adversaries made compelling cases for its removal from the ballot. The case against marijuana was very strong, and while some of the fears were rooted in justified concerns, the proposed bill alleviated many of the concerns directly. In its essence, Amendment 64 viewed marijuana as no different than alcohol and believed the two substances should be regulated the same. Identification and age verification would be required prior to purchasing marijuana, just like alcohol.

However, regardless of initial fears and apprehension, there are studies that show that the legalization of marijuana has led to a decrease in adolescent marijuana use in both Colorado and Washington (see, for example, American Journal of Nursing, issue 10 in 2017). According to the Colorado Department of Education (CDE), approximately $90.3 million in revenue for CDE was generated by marijuana sales in FY 2017-2018. These funds went toward funding school construction, dropout prevention programs, anti-bullying programs, and hiring of resident health professionals.

The fears of handicapping law enforcement and subsequently causing danger to society with an influx of “high” drivers was also addressed in the bill. Very clearly, at the end of the legislation, there is a passage that states that nothing in the bill prevents law enforcement from arresting marijuana impaired drivers. Additionally, new devices are being developed that can measure THC on a subject’s breath and can determine if the subject has smoked or ingested marijuana in the last few hours.

Amendment 64 took a huge leap in combatting not only a failing war on drugs, but the failing war on freedom. Too many civilians have been incarcerated over possessing small amounts of marijuana and it’s time we as a people admit one simple truth: marijuana isn’t this ominous, dangerous drug. In my personal and professional opinion as a patrol officer for the Clemson University Police Department, it causes much less damage than alcohol abuse, but hey… what do I know?

Congratulations to my colleague and friend, Dr. Marc Bonica (@mbonica), for a great presentation of “Learned the Hard Way: A Model of Executive Leadership Competencies” at the American College of Healthcare Executives (ACHE) National Congress, held in Chicago in March 2019. Marc was able to present at the conference and the paper is forthcoming.  Link to the presentation and citation for the paper appear below.

Dr. Bonica is an Assistant Professor at the University of New Hampshire. We previously served on faculty at Baylor University together. As a fellow ‘master practitioner,’ I love the opportunity to keep one foot in academia and be associated with the Clemson MPA. Go Tigers!

Bonica, M., Mayhugh, C., and Mellott, M., (Forthcoming). Learned the Hard Way: A Model of Executive Leadership Competencies.The Health Care Manager. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1EUDRPV4R8&feature=youtu.be

Dear MPA Friends,

As we celebrate the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. this month and all of those who fought for civil rights before him and continue to fight against inequities today, I hope you will reflect on opportunities to choose inclusiveness in your professional and personal life.

I read a book recently which underscored the important difference between diversity and inclusion. Just because we have more people of color, race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, or origin in the room does not mean that these individuals or groups are “included” in a meaningful way.  My takeaway is that inclusiveness requires intentionally listening, hearing and using the diverse voices and ideas that human experiences bring. I trust we all can find ways to be more inclusive in our lives.   Lori

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) became a policy maker for same sex marriage (SSM) in 2015.  In a split 5-4 decision in Obergefell v Hodges, SCOTUS ruled that the remaining sections of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which gave states the choice to honor or perform SSMs, were unconstitutional. Obergefell followed Windsor v USA, which granted federal recognition of marriage for couples regardless of their sex.

Before 1996, a marriage performed in one state was honored throughout the other US states, thanks to the US Constitution.  After DOMA became law, it restricted same sex couples from marriage by not recognizing those relationships at the federal and state level. The view of same sex couples as deviant and appalling by lawmakers ensured denial of benefits and protections only available through marriage.  DOMA was thought to be a good compromise by providing states the autonomy to define marriage as they wished while keeping the traditional definition of marriage for federal benefits. It also provided a means to preemptively limit policy diffusion of SSM from Hawaii to the rest of the country.

The SCOTUS decisions followed another policy change regarding the gay and lesbian community called Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).  In 2010, the repeal of DADT, which barred gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military, came after careful review of its effects on military readiness, values, morale, and feedback from those impacted by the policy.  A major key in policy change on these issues involved revising the narrative of how gays and lesbians were viewed by lawmakers and the general population.  Showing the similarities between this community and the rest of the US population in raising families, community service, and other aspects of daily life was thought to enable this group and their families to benefits and protections against discrimination.  This narrative played a role in my personal involvement of sharing my story in both policy changes for the gay and lesbian community as a disabled Army veteran with over nine years of honorable service.

In 2012, my wife & I filed a federal lawsuit with the help of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) against the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for denial of benefits normally granted to veterans for their spouses.  The VA denied our claim, even though our marriage was recognized by our resident state of California.  Our federal lawsuit charged the VA discriminated against us by denying these benefits while granting them to spouses in heterosexual marriages. Cooper-Harris v USA resulted in a historic ruling in 2013 that declared sections of Title 38 of the US Code unconstitutional.  This statute prevented the VA from granting marital benefits to same sex spouses of veterans.  The US Federal Court’s decision in our case was the first to declare that veterans benefits must be provided to a married veteran regardless of the spouse’s sex.

As time goes on, I believe that anti-discrimination and protection policies for the gay, lesbian and transgender community will follow the same path as policy issues on discrimination based on race and sex. Legislation and court decisions to eliminate discrimination doesn’t necessarily change hearts and minds of those who view race or sex negatively. I believe that our roles as master administrators provide us with the opportunity to ensure that equity for our communities.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” 

So were the immortal words of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as he envisioned the dream of our nation. Dr. King’s words stirred passion and fear but also thought and vision. As we remember the life and legacy of Dr. King on January 21, let us be encouraged by the positive strides our nation has made to end discrimination of all types among our citizens. These positive accomplishments bring our nation closer to the dream Dr. King spoke of. However, let us honestly realize that each of us still has much to do so that collectively, one day our nation will achieve the dream.

Each of us must strive to see the good in others and respect the contributions, of whatever nature or degree, each person can make to better our society. We need to respect the opinion of others and honestly and openly debate our personal differences, without demeaning the debate by invoking discrimination. We need not be afraid of someone because they are different. These objectives could not be stated without realizing the difficulty each of us face in trying to accomplish them in our personal lives. Dr. King never said achieving the dream would be easy.

At the base of human existence is the desire and need to help others and band together at time of tragedy. We have witnessed kindness and strength many times recently and throughout our history as we, as a nation, have endured tragedy through the products of Mother Nature’s fury, or the violence of forces wanting to destroy our Nation, or the lone individual who commits a senseless violent act against the innocent. Each time we act with empathy and dignity, we move closer to achieving the dream. We are all capable of acting this way despite the absence of a tragic event. We can build on these actions and strive to accomplish more on an individual basis for our own good and the good of our nation. For as Dr. King also said, “We may have come over on different ships, but we are all in the same boat now.”

Advances in environmental science over the twentieth century are what have pushed our environmental policies forward. Measurement methods and an increased understanding of matter, particles, and substances led to federal regulations of air quality; these regulations are still politically-debated as scientists continue to discover causes of air pollution from our daily activities. The Clean Air Act regulates specific pollutants through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, and has established regulations on vehicle emissions. Similarly, for water pollution; the discovery of new harmful chemicals and additional sources of runoff into rivers and bodies of water have increased the regulations put in place to protect those natural resources. The Clean Water Act deals with the control of acid rain, acid mine drainage, mercury, and “priority pollutants,” especially in our drinking water.

In 2019, let us remember that transforming and revising established policy is key to keeping up with problems which science and research uncover in our nation. The initial chlorination of drinking water was done in 1908, some 6 years after the first studies of our water quality. A study of water pollution in 1925 led to the Clean Water Act. In 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act began to require our legislators to evaluate the environmental impact of every law passed, leading to numerous new laws and regulations showing more care for the planet.

As our knowledge and understanding of environmental issues has evolved over the last century, so has our environmental management policy. Such is the case with almost all issues that have research or scientific study behind them; as science progresses, so should the legislation.