<Name>
<Professor>
<Subject>
1. Agenda setting can be a top-down or bottom-up process. What direction do you believe is generally favored in the policymaking process?
In the policymaking process, agenda setting could proceed in two directions – top-down and bottom-up. Before one could decide on the most favorable direction for agenda setting, it is noteworthy to lay out the differences between the two possible choices. Ultimately, policymakers would choose an agenda setting direction based on their policy preferences and management styles (Dye 32-44).
The top-down approach to agenda setting involves the elite being the influential actor in policymaking. Policymakers, government agency heads, the business community and other notable figures in both the public and private sectors serve as the people that shape public policy from a top-down perspective. Those who do not belong to the elite do not have a direct hand in influencing public policy. Any policy proposal that stands in the way of elites faces possible rejection (Dye 32-44). On the other hand, the bottom-up approach centers on the roles of individuals and groups in pressuring policymakers towards particular policy arenas. The influence of people under the bottom-up approach depends on the popularity of particular policy concerns, in which people would summon the government for solutions. Mass media serves as the main portal of people employing the bottom-up approach, in which they could see the real state of the masses alongside their demands (Woodly 109-120).
2. Discuss lobbying reforms, including the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and efforts under the Bush and Obama administrations. Will these reforms reduce the perceived corruption in lobbying activities?
Lobbying in the United States (US) require disclosure, which keeps its nature open and transparent to the public. Disclosure is an action proving that public officials and lobbyists have nothing to hide from the public view. By remaining under the scrutiny of the public eye, public officials and lobbyists would consistently follow the law in their interactions and transactions with one another. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 espouses rules on how to observe full disclosure on lobbying activities. Said Act requires lobbying activities to produce statistical data on transactions and findings that the public could view and easily understand. Organizing statistical data could come in the form of numerous breakdowns, depending on the kind of details devoted within any given lobbying activities. The Act clearly defines lobbying by emphasizing on the value of presenting research data and background material justifying the proposals of lobbyists (Lyon and Maxwell 561-575).
President George W. Bush signed into law the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 as part of the efforts of his administration to improve the conditions surrounding lobbying activities. In terms of lobbying, the Act prioritizes the full disclosure of information pertaining to lobbying activities in order to ensure that every lobbying activity runs in line with the law. The succeeding administration of President Barack Obama brought in more efforts to make lobbying activities would remain within lawful grounds. The Recovery Act Lobbying Rules, for instance, is a set of lobbying guidelines approved under the Obama administration. Among the reforms presented pertains to rules that strengthen the transparency in lobbying transactions, such as the prohibition on giving out and receiving lobbying gifts (Lyon and Maxwell 561-575).
3. The United States has never adopted clear policy guidelines regarding the use of force. When is military intervention appropriate?
Despite extensively using military powers, the US has yet to enact a single governing law on using force. The absence of a fixed set of rules on the usage of force makes the position of the US in military intervention unclear. Thus, the lack of a definite rule stating the extent to which the US could intervene militarily requires an informal way of determining the appropriateness of military intervention. Primarily, military intervention is advisable only if the purpose is to promote peace. In the case of the US military, it could embark on several peaceful means of intervention. Providing material relief is a substantial role the US military plays whenever it interferes. In the event of disasters, the US military is bound to assist victims especially if they station themselves within the area. Another aspect in which the US military could exercise its interference is through the imposition of various sanctions. Depending on the nature of offenses, the US military has the prerogative to apply pressure to particular personalities by imposing sanctions in the form of fines or other kinds of punishment. In that event, the US is exercising its role to maintain peace in its assigned areas without neglecting situations offensive to the rules it has agreed with. Finally, the most compelling instance in which the US military should intervene is natural or human disasters. The wide extent of damage usually inflicted by those kinds of disasters definitely requires the help of more people to labor in the recovery process. The US military, with its large membership, could certainly boost any effort to save victims of disasters. In that way, the US military truly becomes an embodiment of peace protection in the region (De Waal and Omaar).
4. Look at our current criminal justice policies. Do you believe they are "rational" and support the theory that crime is more frequent when deterrence is lax, and crime declines with the movement toward stricter deterrence policies?
Criminal justice in the US tends to espouse fairness and equality of opportunity, despite the presence of criminal records. The US system embodies a criminal justice system that is redemptive in nature. While criminals get the punishment due to their criminal acts, they still have the chance to redeem themselves after the duration of their imprisonment period, modifications in the ruling or a complete reversal of the judgment. The idea of incarceration proves as a mental challenge for all those imprisoned due to crimes, given that redemption in that sense comes in the form of various activities held inside the prison. Thus, there is balance in the way criminals gain treatment from punishment for their crimes, given that such enables them to redeem themselves when they gain freedom. In the case of crime prevention, the presence of strong deterrents to crime is essential for potential criminals to stop whatever they plan to execute (Charles and Rowe 109-120).
Given that the criminal justice system of the US finds basis on redemption, it is thus not too distant to talk about the importance of deterrents in preventing the rise of criminal activities. Verily, deterrents to crime tend to be very helpful in that such enable the government to discourage potential criminals to commit activities. Deterrents include heavy punishment and fines, social stigma brought by arrest and the like, alongside many other possible additions. Thus, deterrents in the given sense revolve around the combination of brushes against the law and the social shame that goes along with the situation. Without deterrents, there is a great chance that criminal activities and people who lost their way would arise. Without any sanction in place, anyone could just set arguments while on board (Charles and Rowe 109-120).
Works Cited
De Waal, Alex, and Rakiya Omaar. "Can Military Intervention Be "Humanitarian"?" Middle East Report 187 (1994). Web.
Dye, Thomas. Understanding Public Policy. New York City, NY: Hamilton Printing Company, 2001. Print.
Lyon, Thomas, and John Maxwell. "Astroturf: Interest Group Lobbying and Corporate Strategy." Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 13.4 (2004):561-597. Print.
Tittle, Charles, and Alan Rowe. "Certainty of Arrest and Crime Rates: A Further Test of the Deterrence Hypothesis." Social Forces 144 (2008):109-123. Print.
Woodley, Deva. "New Competencies in Democratic Communication? Blogs, Agenda Setting and Political Participation." Public Choice 54.2 (1974):455-462. Print.
