Widespread Policy Disruption: Terrorism, Public Risks, and Homeland Security The author looks at empirical data to understand the potential effects widespread disruptions can have on obtaining notice from certain public elected officials. The author also looks into the possible effects on policy making and on the changing involvement of the federal government. The author expressed their concern for the potential threat that terrorism may pose. More specifically the threat that such terrorism may pose on subsystems. In the author’s empirical analyses they found that terrorism showed patterns of such sub system disruption which was previously hypothesized. The author then found that most attempts to have policymakers be noticed in regards to the threat of terrorism failed and did not improve the levels of policymaking. The author also found significant “muted impacts” in regards to federal agency involvement which resulted from the reorganization of the Department of Homeland Security. Overall, the author found that preventing damage from policy disruptions was possible with the use of policy subsystems. Such policy disruptions have the potential to completely change the policy field which is why it is very important to protect and prevent such policy disruptions. Such disruptions have the potential to damage and rearrange existing arrangements which can break down an existing sub system. A given subsystem is usually made up of multiple areas of policy making and a given set of actors which include agencies, interests, and committees, common issues, and lastly institutional ties. Policy subsystems have been around for a long time and have been protecting society from a variety of public risks. Therefore, policy disruptions can have a detrimental effect on our society. For example, terrorist attacks have the potential to drastically harm policy subsystems and therefore they should be prevented as much as possible. In order to uncover such risks the author looked into identifying the relevant subsystems. In order to do so the author identified public risks and acute risks. The author was able to uncover eight subsystems which included border protection, domestic preparedness, food safety, information security, natural disaster and preparedness response, public health emergencies, technological accident preparedness response, and lastly transportation safety. The author then goes over the federal agency's attention and involvement. The author looks into the events of 9/11 to analyze government involvement and government agencies responses to such an event. Many would expect such an event to have a widespread and collective, strong response; however the author found something slightly different. The author did find though that the government response to such an event was still widespread and the event was responded to across a wide variety of government bureaucracies and not just those which originally tended to such a policy area. “The Road to Somewhere: Why Health Reform Happened” The author looks into the interesting topic and public response of healthcare reform, specifically that during the time of 2009 to 2010. The author explains his confusion and interest in the public response to healthcare reform during this time period. He analyzes the studies of political scientists on such an event and explains his critique that they should analyze more public policy to understand such a situation. The author explains how political scientists tend to look into American politics and see it as a variety of actors which conduct themselves through elections and campaigns. The author points out how most of the political scientists studying American politics need to look more closely into the role of public policy and how it can have major effects on the political realm within America. For example, interest groups, partisan policy competition, and elite polarization all have the potential to drastically affect the policy realm. Considering the extreme polarization on the issue of healthcare in the United States there has been a major polarization amongst political leaders and the citizens. To understand such a unique reaction to the policy change the author asked two questions: “How did I end up in the crosshairs? And How did the nation end up with a new healthcare law?” (Hacker 3). The author looked at the possible influence of the passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The passing of the act involved an increase in the regulation of private health insurance and an increase in the insurance-purchasing organizations. The author also proposed the issues which occurred because American policymakers had failed to provide adequate coverage to American citizens. A significant change occurred when President Obama entered into office. Obama differed quite drastically from Clinton in regards to healthcare which is why Obama had promised his supporters that he would not repeat such mistakes that Clinton made. Obama wanted to tackle the issue of healthcare by handling such issues congressionally. Having a “congressionally centered process” essentially meant that the work being done would be conducted through Congress with presidential involvement occurring more sparingly only to ensure that such policy goals were being met. This new approach essentially ensured that cooperation was a priority and needed to remain as such to produce adequate and efficient policies within the healthcare realm. However, the bill which was eventually passed was very limited and included a wide variety of party ideals. The variety of such party ideals resulted in a major polarization on the issue as well, making unity on such an issue very difficult. After the “Master Theory”: Downs, Schattschneider, and the Rebirth of Policy-Focused Analysis The article explains the success of the “Downsian” era that took place during 1957, when there was an economist named Anthony Downs who was known to be a master theorist. Down’s was a very dominant political influence in American politics and was able to make a significant impact. The biggest theory that Downsian had was the prediction of politicians in a two party system and what their coverage was during the midpoint of the electorate ideological distribution that is known as median voter theorem. The framework of Downs was to use more models of policy formation that are within the democracies in the same way that there were models that were used in micro economics of literature. Also a lot of Downs framework also was well attracted because it had features that attracted many people's attention. It contained a very limited number of moving parts which also was coherent and was spatial competition in the electoral area. It also had a good balance of what the voter preferences are and the actions of the public officials. Anthony Downs provides an interesting perspective to political science and the political realm. Downs explains how politics is essentially a game and is played by a variety of different groups. The games usually are played through elections. Important aspects of elections include voting and campaigning illustrating the political game. Downs also specifies the importance of policy formulation and the formation of interest groups at the hands of policies. However, the author criticizes Downs' perspective since he believes that in fact the political realm appears much different than his perspective illustrates. The author instead relates Downs' perspective to E.E. Schattschneider. However, Down’s work has recently become more popular and supports a new perspective that emphasizes government's authority and government action over certain issues. Policies still play a major role as the author refers to them as a “prize” to certain players in the political game. The author also examines the asymmetric partisan polarization as well as the consolidation of income at the top of the pyramid.
