***Democracy Topic Paper 2013-2014

Submitted by Zane Clarke-Waxman (thanks to everyone who was willing to consult with me on many of the ideas too many to name, which is why I love the people in this community!) The day that the Senate blocked universal background checks my Facebook feed blew up in outrage. Although people from all different walks of my life were commenting, debaters composed the majority of the people expressing frustration with a Senate more responsive to the NRA than to the People. Although that day left many hopeless for our democracy, I felt hope because I saw a community of my friends, teachers and role models speaking out. This topic paper is borne out of that hope. The question I pose is simple: many of us have expressed disgust with the United States federal government, what are we going to do about it? There is only one issue in this countrycampaign finance reformI have become driven by the view that practically every important issue in American politics today is tied to [campaign finance reform]for both the Left and the Right, until this one issue gets fixes, there wont be progress on a wide range of issues. Until it gets fixed, governance will still remain stalledWe will, I fear, simply tolerate the corruption, as a host tolerates a parasite that is not life threatening. Until it is. Yet I write with hope. If we understand the nature of this corruption, its solution will be obvious. The challenge, then, will be to build a movement to bring about that solution. Such a movement is possible. It has been built before. But to build it will require a different kind of learning. This reform will need the willingness to move between the two very different worlds of the academic and the activistI am certain it will evoke criticism from the purists in each world. But if above that din, there are citizens who can glimpse a path to reform, that criticism is a small price to pay. --- Lawrence Lessig, Director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard, quoted from the Preface to Republic, Lost. What does it mean to live in a democracy where only 50% of the people vote and 85% of us think Congress is failing miserably? What does it mean to live in a democracy where 0.00042% of Americans (that's 132 people) gave 60% of all Super PAC donations in the 2012 elections (Lessigs TED Talk)? What does it mean to live in a democracy where its functionally impossible to track the tentacles of these funds? Do we live in a democracy when the politically knowledgeable and rhetorically powerful citizens of the nation are content to play a game that relies on the fantasy of either a functional, ethical, smoothly operating government or a global, immediate, peaceful anti-imperialist/egalitarian/perfect revolutionary movement to come and save us from the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Khalilzad, Tickell, Royal, and Kappeler)? Climate and energy policy, financial regulations, healthcare reform, the Bush tax cuts, gun control---each of these issues have been debated over and over in our community, whether as affirmatives (this years college topic, the social services poverty topic) or in the form of the politics DA. Weve spent years researching how crucially important these issues are to the , yet weve conveniently ignored the one issue that unites all of them in their failures: campaign coffers. If a risk of infinity is, indeed, infinity, youve got an infinite interest in choosing this controversy area. Many of us have won more than a few debates arguing that fear motivates action, if thats true than a vote against this paper is a vote for Spark and/or Lanza. There are two themes that have dominated the majority of the debates that Ive participated in over the last 7 years. First, the world is burning. Everyone on the policyK spectrum seems to agree that we are Living in the End Times. Second, the government wont do anything to fix it. Our presidents political capital is finite and his focus is essential, the divided congress will block any meaningful reform. Alternatively, the USFG doesnt care about solving our shared problems in its quest for global, megalomaniacal, imperialist domination.

survival of life on Planet Earth

There is a third, and even more prevalent theme. Signing your ballot will save us! The USFG should pass the plan! Reward our political decision-making skills, our opportunity-cost analysis and advocacy training, and save the world too! OR, your signature will spark the coming Revolution! Marx, MLK, Occupy never achieved global peace for one obvious reason: YOU NEVER UTILIZED THE ROLE OF YOUR BALLOT!!! We all spent our time in high school learning the necessary portable skills to affect change. Were adults now. We have voices and we must use them. This topic is an opportunity for us to actually engage in a political issue that affects all of us on a daily basis. As Zephyr Teachout puts it (Quoted in Republic, Lost): citizenship is a public office. Citizens are fundamentally responsible for the integrity of their government. Lessig 11 (Lawrence, Head of Center for Ethics @ Harvard and for prof at Stanford Law, (2011-10-05). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It (pp. 317-319). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition. ) Tempting as these fantasies are, however, they are just fantasies. We cant wait for some deus ex machina to save our republic. Our republic is ours to save. Or better, it is only ours if we save it. It wont be billionaires. It wont be geniuses with brilliant code. And it certainly wont
be politicians. For our politicians are Yeltsin. Their problem is an addiction. This magnificent republic melts away, and they cant stop themselves long enough to save it. They cant stop themselves because they are being pulled in a way that they cant yet control. They are being pulled, and they dont resist. We all understand this pull. We all know addiction. There isnt a person among us who hasnt suffered, or caused, Yeltsins harm, if only at the level of a family or among friends. So think about that harm. Recognize its nature. Think about the alcoholic and his plight. He might be losing his family, his job, and his liver. Each of these is a critically important problem, indeed, among the most important problems a person could face. But we all recognize that to solve any of these most important problems, he must solve his alcoholism first. Its not that alcoholism is the most important problem. Its not. It is just the first

Whether big government or bad health care; complicated taxes or global warming; a ballooning deficit or decaying schools. But we wont solve these problems until we solve our first problem first: a dependency that has corrupted the core of our democracy. We can love the agents of that corruption. We can even reelect them. But we must get them to change. The only souls that can do this are citizens. Not politicians. Not former politicians. Not wannabe politicians. But citizens. Indeed, citizens who swear off elected politics. For we need a politics that is not about politicians. We need a people who devote themselves to saving this republic without others wondering whether they are simply trying to secure a job for themselves. We need a way to engage that is not about just listening. We need to take responsibility for the government we ask the politicians to run. We need to fix it, and then give it back to them to run. We citizens. You. Me. Us. We need to launch a generation that stops simply hacking at the branches of evil, to steal from Thoreau one last time, and learns again to strike at the root. We need a generation of rootstrikers. When Ben Franklin walked out of Independence Hall, the work of the Constitutional
problem. So, too, with us. There is no end to the list of problems we as a nation face. Convention completed, he was stopped by a woman and asked, Mr. Franklin, what have you wrought? A Republic, madam, Franklin replied, if you can keep it. A republic. Meaning: A representative democracy. Meaning: A government dependent upon the People alone. We have lost that republic. We must act to get it back.

This is a topic paper designed to deal with Special Interest Corruption. There are multiple avenues worth exploring, possible areas for the community to adventure into. This proposal is also designed to respond to the question of possible agents. When I initially proposed this paper on Facebook I proposed: R: The College Debate Community (CDC) should increase its democracy assistance to the United States federal government --- this was partially polemical, but also a realistic idea. We could also add another clause to the Rez that says something along the lines of, by getting money out of the political process, or something, if we wanted to. The term is well defined and limiting. I also think that the definition fits the purposes of this topic paper well. Heres an oldie but goodie:

Democracy assistance is the transfer of funds, expertise, or material to foster foreign institutions and groups working toward democratization Lappin 10 (Richard, Ph. D candidiate at Leuven Centre for Peace Research and Strategic Studies, What We Talk About
When We Talk About Democracy Assistance: The Problem of Definition in Post-Conflict Approaches to Democratisation)

Democracy assistance can be defined as the nonprofit transfer of funds, expertise, and material to foster democratic groups, initiatives and institutions that are working for a more democratic society.163 In addition, it is essential that the distinction between democracy assistance and democracy promotion is established. Although democracy promotion is often used interchangeably with democracy assistance, the latter should be recognised as only a small and distinct part of a much broader democracy promotion approach. As the table below illustrates, democracy promotion comprises several instruments, both positive and negative, both explicit and implicit, of which democracy assistance is only one distinct part. On the negative side, you have direct military action, which includes military intervention to promote democracy, and can be either explicit (to install a democratic regime , as in the second Iraq war) or

implicit (to curb anti- democratic regime, as in the first Iraq war). In addition, there is also the explicit tool of negative political conditionality, or naming and shaming, in which membership from international organisations may be suspended, economic sanctions applied, and embargoes enforced. On the positive side, you have the implicit instrument of classical development aid which seeks to foster improved socio-economic conditions, which, by consequence, may lead to democratic developments. Additionally, there is the positive instrument of international interim administrations, as was the case in East Timor, where the democratic transition is directly controlled and managed in its entirety by international actors. There is also the explicit instrument of positive political conditionality, which can include offers of membership in intergovernmental organisations such as the EU or OAS, security aid and guarantees, or economic and trade benefits. Finally, on the positive side, there is the distinct instrument of democracy assistance. Democracy assistance differs from all other forms of democracy promotion in several ways. First, it is distinct from military action insofar that it does not enforce democracy, and from international interim administration insofar that it does not manage democracy. Second, democracy assistance is directed exclusively at fostering democracy, as opposed to classical development aid where democracy is usually only a secondary concern. Third, democracy assistance is distinct from positive political conditionality insofar that it encompasses direct and active measures, rather than passive tools. Democracy assistance can be further differentiated from political conditionality insofar that it is neither a reward nor a punishment , neither a carrot nor a stick, but rather a booster to internal groups that are already working towards democratisation. Indeed, democracy assistance explicitly recognises that the primary motive force for democratisation is and must be internal to the country in question,164 and that the exclusive intention is to help domestic actors achieve what they have already decided they want for themselves.165 A topical affirmative would involve the debaters themselves working with one of the many groups currently working toward reducing the role of special interests in the political process. We could spend the summer developing the expertise (in the form of research) to transfer to congresspeople (Pelosi, the author of the DISCLOSE Act, for example), bureaucrats, or activist organizations. Or, teams could focus on the material aspect of the process, getting involved volunteering with groups like RootStrikers, OpenSecrets, the Sunlight Foundation. If you wanted to you could have a bakesale to raise funds to support any of these organizations. Or, think bigger, you could focus your energy on creating a platform to gain large amounts money in donations that can then be transferred to these groups. This topic is about DOING, not THEORIZING. Echoing Lessigs call to the citizenry to straddle the fence between academia and activism, I quote Henry Giroux: it is increasingly important that higher education be defended as a democratic public sphere and that academics be seen and see themselves as public intellectuals who provide an indispensable service to the nation[based on]the civic obligations and duties performed by such intellectuals. Unfortunately, too many academics retreat into narrow specialismsor align themselves with dominant interests that serve largely to consolidate authority rather than to critique its abuses. Refusing to take positions on controversial issues or to examine the role they might play in lessening human suffering, such academics become models of moral indifference and examples of what it means to disconnect learning from public life. This is a form of education, as Howard Zinn notes, where scholars publish while others perish. (http://www.henryagiroux.com/links/higher%20edu%20under%20siege.pdf At this point in the paper, if youre still reading, thank you. Youre probably far from sold about the possibility of this topic actually being debatable. I understand your concern and 100% believe that we can figure out a way to debate this. The reason I am writing this topic is larger than any strategic concerns, though. We need to be thinking about our lives in 10, 20, and 30 years. Having a CORRUPT, Gridlocked, dysfunctional government will impede ALL OF US from achieving our goals in life, whatever they are. We have an obligation to our future selves, and the generations yet to come, to try and fix this issue as soon as possible. I fundamentally believe in all of us, and our ability to change the world for the better. It wont be easy and it will require us to change our ways, it may make for a confusing first few tournaments, hell, maybe itll be a confusing season, but it will definitely be meaningful and well all be better off for it. Ive got some ev, too Dr. Scott Harris 13 (Head Coach of the Jayhawks, infamous intramural star @ KU, has yet to effectively guard a single one of my jump shots, This Ballot)

This ballot [topic paper] is a call for reflection. If debate is to be truly a home we all need to look beyond our narrow self-interest of winning debates or pursuing our own social agenda and think about the reality of how we treat others around us. I have faith in the people in this community. I have faith in argument and arguing. I believe that the way to win debates is to make better arguments and that better arguments are what get rewarded in debates . I believe that one of the most important things said in the final round was the claim made by Northwestern that debate is bigger than any one person. I believe in debate. I believe in the debate community. I believe that debate is one of the most valuable educational programs in the country and I am proud that it is my home. Do we have faith in our ability to make well-researched, politically persuasive, socially relevant, historically based, and world-changing arguments? I do. Do we care about our collective future and the fate of this system of government? I do. Are we willing to step up to the big leagues and actually try to affect some change OUTSIDE OF THIS CLOSED COMMUNITY? We must. This topic paper is scary. We would be exploring entirely new intellectual territories. This topic paper is exhilarating. We can change the world. But what about Magnitude, Timeframe, and Probability? What about the models of argument were used to? Many of them will be irrelevant, many of them will be significantly more relevant (that comes in the next few sections of the paper). This paper raises a more fundamental question, if the models of argumentation that we have gotten used to are so inappropriate for dealing with one of the most important public policy challenges of the 21st century, isnt that some sort of wake up call? Can we continue to pride ourselves on being policy relevant when many of our debates rely on a nostalgic dream of a functional government long gone (if it ever existed). The rest of this paper is going to demonstrate that this topic is entirely debateable if we are willing to utilize our imaginations and break free from some of the templates weve grown to know and love. Our government officials have grown addicted to a model of political gamesmanship that prevents them from addressing the pressing problems of the 21st century. If we are going to call on them to overcome this addiction, we must be willing to overcome our own vice: policy debate as it currently exists. Were debate junkies, theyre Super PAC junkies. Kumbayah. The 'tipping point' has occurred folks. NOW is the time to account for the changes which have occurred in how this community debates. Rather than continue with stale framework-based "clash of civilizations" debates, we as a community need to not merely acknowledge what's going on, we must account for it. The resolution debated the first year there was a National Debate Tournament makes it clear that our current template for resolutions is not "how we've always done it." ---Michael Hester The transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new one from which a new tradition of normal science can emerge is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals, a reconstruction that changes some of the field's most elementary theoretical generalizations as well as many of its paradigm methods and applications. During the transition period there will be a large but never complete overlap between the problems that can be solved by the old and by the new paradigm. But there will also be a decisive difference in the modes of solution. When the transition is complete, the profession will have changed its view of the field, its methods, and its goals. Thomas S. Kuhn

So, what are some topical affs

Congressionally, there are a series of bills that have been dedicated to dealing with this issue. An aff could get in contact with the politicians who have supported these bills and figure out what research/advocacy work needs to be done, creating formals link between the debate community and political institutions. If you can prove that debating about the hypothetical enactment of these bills is essential to developing the expertise necessary to effectively advocate for it, then you could read the aff in a pretty conventional way. At the same time, you could focus your energy on getting your district/state politicians to support it, or something along those lines.

First, the DISCLOSE Act to eliminate secrecy in Super PAC spending. (http://www.discloseact.com/, the list of supporting members is available at this link) And, its inherent, it was blocked in the Senate (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/17/politics/senate-disclose-act). Second, the FAIR Elections Now Act --- From the text of the bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr269/text) SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. (a) Undermining of Democracy by Campaign Contributions From Private Sources- The House of Representatives finds and declares that the current system of privately financed campaigns for election to the House of Representatives has the capacity, and is often perceived by the public, to undermine democracy in the United States by-(1) creating a culture that fosters actual or perceived conflicts of interest, by encouraging Members of the House to accept large campaign contributions from private interests that are directly affected by Federal legislation; (2) diminishing or appearing to diminish Members accountability to constituents by compelling legislators to be accountable to the major contributors who finance their election campaigns; (3) undermining the meaning of the right to vote by allowing monied interests to have a disproportionate and unfair influence within the political process; (4) imposing large, unwarranted costs on taxpayers through legislative and regulatory distortions caused by unequal access to lawmakers for campaign contributors; (5) making it difficult for some qualified candidates to mount competitive House election campaigns; (6) disadvantaging challengers and discouraging competitive elections, because large campaign contributors tend to donate their money to incumbent Members, thus causing House elections to be less competitive; and (7) burdening incumbents with a preoccupation with fundraising and thus decreasing the time available to carry out their public responsibilities. (b) Enhancement of Democracy by Providing Allocations From the Fair Elections Fund- The House of Representatives finds and declares that providing the option of the replacement of large private campaign contributions with allocations from the Fair Elections Fund for all primary, runoff, and general elections to the House of Representatives would enhance American democracy by-(1) reducing the actual or perceived conflicts of interest created by fully private financing of the election campaigns of public officials and restoring public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the electoral and legislative processes through a program which allows participating candidates to adhere to substantially lower contribution limits for contributors with an assurance that there will be sufficient funds for such candidates to run viable electoral campaigns; (2) increasing the publics confidence in the accountability of Members to the constituents who elect them, which derives from the programs qualifying criteria to participate in the voluntary program and the conclusions that constituents may draw regarding candidates who qualify and participate in the program; (3) helping to reduce the ability to make large campaign contributions as a determinant of a citizens influence within the political process by facilitating the expression of support by voters at every level of wealth, encouraging political participation, incentivizing participation on the part of Members through the matching of small dollar contributions;

(4) potentially saving taxpayers billions of dollars that may be (or that are perceived to be) currently allocated based upon legislative and regulatory agendas skewed by the influence of campaign contributions; (5) creating genuine opportunities for all Americans to run for the House of Representatives and encouraging more competitive elections; (6) encouraging participation in the electoral process by citizens of every level of wealth; and (7) freeing Members from the incessant preoccupation with raising money, and allowing them more time to carry out their public responsibilities. Third, Lawrence Lessigs Grant and Franklin idea Lessig 11 (Lawrence, Head of Center for Ethics @ Harvard and for prof at Stanford Law, (2011-10-05). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It. Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition. ) Assume with me that every voter in America produces at least fifty dollars in revenue to the U.S. Treasury. Ninety percent of Americans pay some tax revenue to the federal government. 5 And we can assume the percentage of voters who pay some tax revenue is even higher. Given this assumption, consider the outline of a system to finance political campaigns that would not produce the cynicism that stains the current system: First, we convert the first fifty dollars that each of us contributes to the federal Treasury into a voucher. Call it a democracy voucher. Each voter is free to allocate his or her democracy voucher as he or she wishes. Maybe fifty dollars to a single candidate. Maybe twenty-five dollars each to two candidates. Maybe ten dollars each to five candidates. 6 The only requirement is that the candidate receiving the voucher must opt into the system. Second, if the democracy voucher is not allocated, then it goes to the political party to which the voter is registered. If the voter is not registered to a party, then it goes to supplement funding for the infrastructure of democracy: voting systems, voter education, and the Grant and Franklin Project. Third, voters are free under this system to supplement the voucher contribution with their own contribution up to $ 100 per candidate. One hundred dollars is nothing to about 2 percent of the American public. It is a great deal of money to everyone else. Fourth, and finally, any viable candidate for Congress could receive these contributions if he or she agreed to one important condition: that the only money that candidate accepted to fund his or her campaign would be democracy vouchers and contributions from individuals of up to $ 100 per citizen. That means no PAC money and no direct contributions from political parties. The only external funds such a campaign would receive would be democracy vouchers plus, at most, one Ben Franklin per citizen.

Within the statutory side of the solutions, there is a deep debate between a voucher system, pure public funding, or a matching system where small-dollar donations are matched at a particular ration (say, 6:1) by a public funding system for prospective politicians who opt into the system, heres a debate on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXhFYzT9aXI
The possible areas of controversy between these options regard feasibility/likelihood of opt-in by politicians. Also, accessibility to non-millionaire potential candidates. For more info, the debate gives many different perspectives. Before moving onto other mechanisms, it is worth pointing out that there is a serious and legitimate set of arguments claiming that super PACs are still over-regulated, and that regulation has adverse consequences on our nations democracy. Thus, it is possible, and entirely defendable to switch sides on the question of the topic in its entirety: http://intelligencesquaredus.org/education/item/748-two-cheers-for-super-pacs-money-inpolitics-is-still-over I think that this topic should be understood as debating about the best STRATEGIES for democratization. Strategic Affirmatives could be grounded in experiential knowledge (not necessarily in terms of trauma, re: Gabes facebook post, but in direct experience attempting to advocate for a particular change or working with a particular group of activistsIE, REAL political experience). Yes, this topic would be expansive because it would be designed to foster creativity and innovation in terms of strategieshowever, there is a structural

limit and a consistent negative strategy in every debate: read your aff/strategy as a counterplan! This would require you to learn how to compare your strategy to those of other advocates, and also require case specific research to derive net benefits/criticisms of opposing strategies. Many people have raised the concern Why wouldnt the neg always lose on the permutation if they agreed campaign finance reform was necessary? What would the impact to solvency/strategy based net benefits be that could outweigh the net benefits to the permutation? There is some merit to this concern, definitely. At the same time, there is a legitimate time/energy tradeoff between competing strategies. One thing this topic is designed to demonstrate to debaters is that theres no easy button of fiat in the work of hard political advocacy the solvency for any particular movement is grounded in hours and energy committed to change. Yes, an affirmative could just say, perm: do both, but just because you should do both does not mean that you can do both. Even if you could, because judges would be rewarding on the ground experience, an affirmative couldnt just win because the permutation was possible, they would have to demonstrate that they have effectively synthesized the competing strategies and actualized that synthesis. This dynamic of repeated comparison/critique could push all of us to be developing and refining our strategies as the year goes on. As for the question of the net benefit, time/energy are REAL net benefits, after all, what else do we have? Another concern that I have heard is Zane, I would never want to be put in a position to tell someone else that what they are spending their time doing is stupid or wrong. My answer is simple and classic: Non Unique. Each time you criticize an opponents argument, you are telling them that the argument they have spent their time and energy constructing is stupid. Researching, writing, and arguing are all things that get done by debaters, and then subsequently criticized by their opponents. Additionally, I maintain trust in the community that we could keep our disagreements respectful and productive. Were all in this together and one of the goals that we all value is having a space for open, reasonable deliberation. If we can achieve this standard in regular debates, theres no reason we cant achieve that level of mutual respect in these debates. With all of this in mind, The next few affs are possible affs and competing strategies that would be available to negative teams if an affirmative team chose a different solution. As a separate genre of affs fulfilling the legal knowledge recommendation, and also as a genre of negative counterplans against affs that choose a congressional remedy, debaters could focus their research on creating amicus briefs to file to the court regarding several court cases. Here is a list of different cases over the past thirty years related to campaign finance: http://www.fec.gov/law/litigationmajor.shtml. More relevant, though, here is a list of Ongoing cases that involve the FEC and various PACs/other organizations, maybe in the process of resolution writing we could decide a few ongoing cases to focus on (not sure which ones are most important, yet)--- http://www.fec.gov/law/litigationrecent.shtml What would a 1AC look like, in this world? It could be the text of your amicus brief. In terms of how this could be worded in the resolution writing phase, I think Kade brought up some solid ideas on Facebook, here is his post copied: I have a random idea that breaks up the flow of this discussion, but consider: The 2006-2007 legal topic would have been substantially better with a different type of resolution, and variations on that resolution could provide a model for toying with current resolution structure. For example, the 20062007 resolution could have read: "The Supreme Court incorrectly decided (or the Supreme Court held incorrectly in) one or more of the following cases . . ." This would have have resulted in the following: A) Teams that were not fans of defending governmental actions would not have been topically required to. A team could have argued against Milliken's intent standard or Casey's limited reading of substantive due process without defending fiated federal government action. B ) This would have made the policy debates better; I believe this type of resolution may justify an affirmative that bypassed process questions. The affirmative could more logically defend that the original decisions were incorrect at the time of the decision only for historical, doctrinal, or social reasons. This would have removed the amendment counterplan and court politics option, which would have made the topic more interesting and educational. (Of course the counterfactaul politics scenario could have been an option if teams tried to

pigeonhole this new resolutional structure to an older resolutional structure. But I have some faith in the debate community). C) The topic would have been more tied to the literature. As we quickly discovered, few scholarly articles requested the Supreme Court to overrule a particular decision. They all discussed the doctrinal, historical, and consequential benefits/problems of each decision. A topical mechanism could call on/imagine a court overturning the legal precedents set by Buckley v Valeo or Citizens United in one of the ongoing cases currently involving the FEC. Perhaps it could be simpler, a team could write their opinion on a particular case (using justifications that overturn past precedent) and submit it as an amicus brief. The negatives job would be to argue against the logic of that particular ruling. Heres another strategy: host a political campaign to challenge an incumbent in your district, or, more generally your state. A team could spend their summer finding potential candidates willing to challenge incumbents unless they accept small dollar campaign regulations. A team could focus their energy and prep setting up the campaign, creating the PR Platform, gaining support for the candidate, publicizing the effort over the internet or door-to-door, who knows. Lessig describes the details of this strategy: Lessig, Lawrence (2011-10-05). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It (pp. 276278). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition. We need a bit of peaceful terrorism. No guns. No bombs. No hijacked airplanes. Instead, peaceful, legal action that terrifies the enemy. We know who the enemy is. They live within the Beltway. They depend upon the status quo. We need to give them a reason to flee the status quo that is more compelling than the comfort of things as they are. The single most terrifying idea for an incumbent is a primary challenge. As I described in chapter 9, the vast majority of seats in Congress are safe seats. Safe seats mean the general election is just a coronation. And so, too, the primary: well-disciplined parties teach young and up-and-coming candidates not to rock the primary boat. Wait your turn, and youll get a turn. Step out of line, and a thin red or blue line will keep you out. Peaceful terrorism would disturb this comfortable pattern. It would produce primary challenges. But not by other politicians. Instead, by citizen politicians: candidates who affirmatively state that their purpose is not to become a politician. Their purpose instead is to push an incumbent to do the right thing. Now, that idea alone wont go far. Local challenges by people who expect to draw 10 percent (if lucky) from an incumbent arent exactly newsworthy. But an interesting loophole in the Constitution as written does provide a very interesting news hook, and a chance to rally a much larger force. 1 Heres a quiz: Whats required to be elected to the House of Representatives? Youd think that one requirement is that you be a resident of the district from which youre to be elected. In fact that is not true. All the Constitution requires is that at the time of the election, you be an Inhabitant of that State in which [you] shall be chosen. That means you could live in San Francisco, but run for Congress in LA. Or run in LA, and in San Francisco. And in Oakland and Sacramento and Eureka. You get the idea. Theres nothing in the Constitution that forbids a single candidate from running in multiple districts at the same time. Of course, she couldnt become the congresswoman from multiple districts. But her candidacy could be waged in multiple districts at the same time, all under a single, clear platform: that she (and the others who are doing the same) will remain in the race so long as the incumbent does not commit publicly to supporting citizen-owned elections. To make this work, the supercandidate must be a certain kind of soul. She must be a prominent, well-liked leading citizen from the state who is, again, and this is important, not a politician. Indeed, the party organizing and supporting these peaceful terrorists must demand that the candidates affirm that they have no intention to run for office again for at least five years, except in this supercandidate role. To be credible, this must be seen as the act of a disinterested citizen whose only objective is to change the system for others. Not the objective of becoming a congressman or other politician. Like a juror called into service for a limited time, these supercandidates would be called into service for a limited time, with a promise to go home. But if, across key states, this movement could organize a handful of prominent souls to join in this challenge candidacy business-people, scientists, former presidents of universities, even lawyers then the protest could begin to resonate. In the first round in 2012, in the early primaries, the campaign could target a handful of districts where incumbents had not committed to citizen-owned elections. Those candidates could all leverage their candidacy off of a common and free set of Internet resources. The districts would be selected on the basis of which were most likely to produce a result. Producing a result early on would feed more candidates in more districts later in the primaries. And then once the primaries were over, the campaign could shift to the general election: targeting seats that were not safe, where even a single point could flip the seat from one party to the

other. The advantage of this system is the advantage of all terrorism, good and evil. Incumbents are deeply risk-averse. They are quick to position themselves to avoid a fight. And so if this campaign could launch in a convincing and transparent way, many would shape-shift. They would position themselves in a manner that avoided any potential challenge. Much of this peaceful war could be fought before even a single virtual shot was fired. The advantage, too, is that this may be the most effective technique against the so far leastengaged party in this debate, the grass-roots Republicans. Citizen-owned elections are an extremely popular idea among both grass-roots Republicans and Democrats. Indeed, in a number of polls Ive seen, the idea is more popular among Republicans than among Democrats. Thats because, for many Republicans, the idea of special-interest influence is the corrupting force in government today. Everything they complain about is tied to that idea. Likewise, you could focus on working with people who have already started campaigning on this kind of platform, for congress or for president, Buddy Roemer is one such example Lessig, Lawrence (2011-10-05). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It (p. 282). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition. As we enter the election of 2012, it is the Tea Party again that has the chance to insist upon a presidential candidate who will push for real change. And as this book goes to press, there is at least one candidate who is demanding the kind of change that I have described: former governor Buddy Roemer (R-La.). Roemer has focused his campaign on a single issue: the role of money in politics. He has committed to taking no more than $ 100 from anyone. He will take no PAC contributions. He will disclose every contribution regardless of the amount to any organization that wants to audit. Free to Lead is the slogan of his campaign. And his promise is to leverage the mandate he would receive into a demand to change Congress. In launching his campaign, Roemer embraced four principles that must guide any legislation designed to restore independence to Congress. As he described these principles in a lecture at Harvard: Another, independent strategy could be based around joining in the movement for a constitutional convention or amendment. Either by focusing on exerting pressure on congress to propose amendments or for working to create grassroots, local and state-based government support for a convention. Lessig, Lawrence (2011-10-05). Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It (pp. 292294). Grand Central Publishing. Kindle Edition. In addition to these extraconstitutional means of constitutional reform, however, the Framers added two more tools that were internal to the Constitution itself: First, a simpler method by which Congress could initiate amendments to the Constitution. Second, a more complicated method by which a convention could propose amendments to the Constitution. Under the first path, Congress proposes an amendment to the Constitution, if two-thirds of Congress agree. Under the second path, Congress calls a convention for proposing Amendments if two-thirds of the state legislatures ask it to. Amendments proposed either way get ratified if three-fourths of the states agree. The first path has been the exclusive path for all twenty-six amendments to our Constitution. Every amendment has been first proposed by Congress and then ratified by the states. The second path has never been used. Indeed, in the first one hundred years after the founding, there were only ten applications calling for a convention submitted by the states to Congress. 7 But even though no convention has been called, the calls for a convention have had an important reformatory effect, most famously in the context of the Seventeenth Amendment (making the Senate elected), when the states came within one vote of calling for a convention, and Congress quickly proposed the amendment the convention would have proposed. 8 Even though it has never happened, however, a constitutional convention is the one final plausible strategy for forcing fundamental reform onto our Congress. 9 It is also the most viable grass-roots strategy for forcing reform onto the system. Its going to be easier to organize movements within the states to demand fundamental reform than it will be to organize Congress to vote for any particular amendment to the Constitution to effect that reform. And more important, its going to be much easier to get a conversation about fundamental reform going in the context of a call for a convention than it will be through any other plausible political means. The reason is an important strategic opportunity that a call for a convention would offer and that a demand for an amendment would not: different souls with different objectives could agree on the need for a convention without agreeing on the particular proposals that a convention should recommend. Some might want an amendment to give the president line-item-veto power. Some might want a balanced-budget amendment. Some might want term limits. Some might want to abolish the Electoral College, or ban political gerrymandering. And some might want to demand a system for funding elections that restores integrity and independence to Congress (me!). All of these different souls

could agree at least on the need to create the platform upon which their different ideas could be debated. That platform is the convention. And if the convention then recommended some of these changes, those changes would be sent to Congress to be sent to the states for the purpose of ratification. They would remain invalid, mere propos[ als], until they were ratified by thirty-eight states. As explained by Al Gore, another aspect of democracy assistance could be about creating pressure to reform legislative rules that allow obstructionism (filibuster, baby): Gore, Al (2013-01-29). The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change (Kindle Locations 7038-7040). Random House. Kindle Edition. Two priority goals for those who wish to take action are limiting the role of money in politics and reforming outdated and obfuscatory legislative rules that allow a small minority to halt legislative action in the U.S. Senate. Likewise, Mann and Ornstein identify an overriding source of dysfunction in our legislative rules that have created a serious mismatch between the political parties, which have become as vehemently adversarial as parliamentary parties, and a governing system that, unlike a parliamentary democracy, makes it extremely difficult for majorities to act. ^^^ Mann and, Thomas E.; Ornstein, Norman J. (2012-05-01). It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With
the New Politics of Extremism . Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

Perhaps many of you think that these reforms would never get passed, however, in this topic, that would not be a reason why the negative would lose. There is still a normative aspect to an affirmative proposal because the aff claims that a particular action would be beneficial if implemented. This topic is designed to recognize that the normative affirmative of a particular action cannot, and must not, be separated from the action required to realize the benefits of said action. The beauty and meaning is in the journey, the sooner we learn to have fun doing the hard work, the better. Before I move on to some of the wackier aspects of the topics potential benefits, I want to address another concern that Ive been faced with. Zane, why does this need to be the topic in college policy debate? Its just a game after all. The wrong forum concern makes a ton of sense. This topic would be unprecedented and lead us into uncharted territory. I have a few responses. First, there is nowhere else to go right now. Ive known most of you for the majority of my intellectually engaged life. Ive developed respectful relationships with many of you and trust your judgment. You are some of my greatest friends. The infrastructure is here, I think we ought to take advantage of it. Additionally, I really think the gaming aspect of this activity actually makes it even more valuable. The work of changing our political reality should be FUN, EXHILARATING, JOYFUL, and FRIENDLY. There can be a sense of competitive spirit combined with witty interplays between debaters who share an ultimate goal. Each argument that is brought up against an opponent is made in the hopes of improving their advocacy skills. Weve got plenty of work to do but thats no reason to feel despair! In fact, its a reason we should be even happier. Weve got lives full of collaboration and meaningful, challenging, stimulating work ahead of us, surrounded by our best friends and colleagues since our teenage years. As for critical affirmativesfirst, I think many of the aforementioned affs could take on a critical twist by discussing the importance of agency and activity. Additionally, any affirmative teams that do not want to spend their focus on governmental action could focus their energy on working with non-governmental/local organizations working towards democratization (a Potential resolution wording could identify the United States as opposed to the USFG as the object of assistance). Inclusion/Participation Affirmatives---teams could dedicate time to coming up with a platform to increase the accessibility of government to particular groups whose voices are currently excluded (youths, women, LGBTQ peoples, minority populations, socioeconomically underserved groups). The way I originally envisioned this aspect of the topic, teams could focus on the internet as a mechanism for increasing participation. Imagine if, instead of spending 30-70% of their time making calls to rich potential donors, people in our government spent

all of that time videochatting excluded constituents to discuss legitimate grievances, areas of concern, and ideas for reform. What if this was a MANDATED aspect of government service? Why shouldnt it be? Why dont you make your voice heard and make it so. http://challenge.gov/ is an example of an online platform designed to increase collaboration between government officials and citizens (especially the youth), what about a website along the lines of www.debate.gov ??? Affs that focus on different definitions of democracy --- perhaps you find purely institutional understandings of democracy to be small-minded, well, target your democracy assistance at a different form of democracy!

Lappin 10 (Richard, Ph. D candidiate at Leuven Centre for Peace Research and Strategic Studies, What We Talk About
When We Talk About Democracy Assistance: The Problem of Definition in Post-Conflict Approaches to Democratisation)

definitional ambiguity that surrounds democracy assistance conceals a more profound disagreement over the very nature of democracy itself . If the international community is to address the problems already cited with the democracy assistance terminology, then it is fundamental that they also confront or at least acknowledge the problem of defining democracy . For when all is said and done, we still need to be able to answer the question: what democracy are we assisting?
The Does the international community favour a minimalist model of democracy based on Joseph Schumpeters concept of an institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the peoples vote (1947: 269)? Cer- tainly several other influential authorities favour a minimalist, electoral-based approach (Dahl 1971; Huntington 1991: 7; Przeworski et al . 2000) . Or does the international community prefer a more expansive, maximalist definition of democracy which emphasises the normative underpinnings and the sub- stantive virtues of democracy which stresses the importance of participation, citizenship, and political

might also ask to what extent is there space for local appropriations of democracy? And to what extent do these local interpretations skew our (Western) understanding of democracy and the benefits it is intended to bring to peacebuilding? (Karlstrom 1996; Paley 2002) Naturally, the merits and limitations of the various models of democracy and how each may contribute to peacebuilding demands a far greater exploration that goes beyond the remit of this article . However, the values and assumptions that are attached to democracy by international organisations have been left largely unexplored (Jarstad 2006; Lappin 2009) . Democracy remains a fundamentally contested term, and one which can have a far reaching impact on post-conflict democracy assistance . As Wim Van Binsbergen (1995: 6) states, if democracy means different things to different people, the process of bringing about or enhancing democracy, may refer to distinct and quite different phenomena . Luc Reychler (2001: 216) concurs, arguing that the dispute over the operational definition influences the transformation process to a large extent . Moreover, the definition of democracy that organisations are working towards can play a significant role in evaluating strategies, establishing funding priorities, and deciding when a country has reached an adequate level of democracy
activity (Barber 1984: xiv; Held 1996; Young 2000: 3) . We

These types of affirmatives could focus their energy on working with groups who are working towards social and economic justice and claim that these goals are integral to a REAL Democracy. Debates ABOUT Debateif the community were to accept this topic, then we would qualify as one of the groups, initiatives and institutions that are working for a more democratic society in the United States, which means, conceivably, affirmative projects could be entirely focused on how we can effectively democratize the debate community itself. The possibilities here are endless. Maybe these kinds of affs seem wild, but it seems to me that many of the Elims this year were already dedicated to debates about debate, so formally making these types of affs topical seems important. Additionally, our friends in High School public forum may be outdoing us in terms of selfreflexivity. As one of my students at Brophy pointed out to me this year, several years ago a proposed PF Topic was about the Ground Zero Mosque. The topic was agreed upon, but, after the formal voting processes many students expressed concerns that it would force them to argue against their personal spiritual beliefs. As a result, the PF Community worked together and decided to debate the following topic instead: R: Public Forum Resolutions should not address controversial issues (or something along those lines). For at least a DECADE established members of our community have argued that the way we are constructing topics is explicitly unsettling to them because of their social location and life experiences. In fact, this year, the national champions were making exactly this argument. If the High School Public Forum community was willing to debate about itself as a result of dissent against a SINGLE topic, we should be willing to make the same move after years of these grievances being expressed in and out of rounds. Debating about debate and its possible rearticulations could be an incredibly valuable exercise for the community at this juncture in time. Yes, we could reserve these kinds of debates to the CEDA Forums and places like the OLC Forum, but why shouldnt we take advantage of the place where the majority of coach and student energy is dedicated, the debates themselves!? Instead of having the same clash of civs debate, lets turn our attention toward our own community and spend some time debate about how to better

ourselves. If you are someone who is interested in this idea, perhaps we could even have a more limited topic, or a plank of a topic, dedicated to solely democratizing the debate space. Honestly, why cant the option: R: the College Debate Community should democratize itself ALWAYS BE A TOPICAL OPTION. There can and should still be SPECIFIC, CONCRETE, PLANS OF ACTION---but imagine the progress we could make toward solving our collective problems and moving forward if this was an option. Maybe that resolutional statement I just proposed was too broad, but Im interested in what any of you think about the core of the idea. Perhaps we could test this out as an option or teams who dont want to affirm whatever rez gets chosen during the 2013-2014 topic?

Lundberg 10 (Christian O, Master of the House of Theory, Professor of Communications @ University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Tradition of
Debate in North Carolina in Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century By Allan D. Louden, p306-313)
While these arguments address the first critique of debate, they are also the kinds of claims that underwrite much of the force of Greene and Hickss critique of debate as a cultural technology. I take Greene and Hicks as exemplars of the idea that debate creates an insular conception of democracy, in part because of their recent reception by the debate community, but more specifically because Greene and Hickss argument taps into a significant cultural meme regarding debatethat debate creates an arrogance regarding proper analytical and dem- ocratic practice that works at cross-purposes to valuing other modes of delibera- tion. It is worth noting that Greene and Hicks are not arguing against debate per se, but rather against the cultural appropriations of debate, and that despite their critique they have been supportive of debate as a pedagogical practice. The primary point of Greene and Hickss critique is that

debate is a technology, that is, a habituated

technique for

organizing speech

. In their reading, debate, as a technology of discourse, regulates not only what can be said in public, but how it will be said, and to what broader cultural and political effects this technique can be yoked. In this reading, debate as a technology is open to any number of cultural appropriations, which reaffirm the desirability of a mode of democratic deliberation in ways that may be both productive and destructive. In this light, it is possible to say that debate has benefits for the individual student partici- pants, but also that the larger cultural implications of debate are that it has too often served as a mode of legitimating an American democratic exceptionalism at the expense of other forms of political speech. One of the implications of marking debate as a cultural technology, and more specifically as a habituated

the character of debate is not given in advance, but is open to constant rearticulationas a technology debate can be articu- lated to certain undesirable ends, but it is also amenable to being articulated differently. This, in fact, is one of the great virtues of debate compared to other means of dialogue: that it not only invites a constant reinvention but also creates strategic incentives for such reinvention. Debate shares this commitment to reinvention with democracy : one of the great virtues of democracy, noted in Greek antiquity and reiterated by modern-day theorists from John Dewey to Jacques Derrida, is that democracy is amenable to critique, reformulation, and improvement . Dewey captures this notion in the idea of creative intelligence, which holds that the very contingent conditions that invite democratic life together in the first place also allow for the cre- ative and deliberative reformulation of democracy in response to its challenges (Dewey and Moore 2007). Derrida (2001) has argued similarly that democracys best feature is that it is both revisable and perfectible. The implication of de- mocracys revisability and perfectibility extends both backward into an account of democracys founding conditions and forward to its ideal future: to a democracy yet to come (Derrida 2001). Perfectibility and revisability imply that the democracy we have now is neither perfect, complete, nor guaranteed in advance. At the same time, perfectibility and revisability imply that whatever democracys failings, the founding condition of democracy also invites the pos- sibility that democracy will exceed its current iterations and be made anew, into something that is better. As democratic technology and technique, debate builds a structural commitment to perfectibility and revisability into democratic discourse, by suggesting that current conditions of democratic life be open to critical analysis and that our common democratic life might be lived differently. Because debate practice highlights both the revisability and perfectibility of democratic life, on balance, the best answer to the drawbacks of debates current cultural articulations is, to put it bluntly, more debate. Specifically, by the very practice of holding critical questions up for public con- test, debate pedagogy inculcates an ethos that sees democracy as not already here, but as something in the making, so much so that a commitment to debate embodies both the strongest critique of and best hope for perfecting democratic politicsdebate practices, by their nature, relentlessly rearticulate democracy . More pointedly for Greene and Hickss critique, the best way out of a broader sense of democratic insularity lies in turning debate toward the presuppositions of American exceptionalism, a move present in the most simple act of debate: that is, in pointing out that there is something flawed in the status quo or in our conventional approaches to fixing it. Debate practice contains within itself the conditions for exceeding the current articulation of democracy and simultane- ously cultivates capacities that provide concrete political hope that we might realize a democracy that is different from the one we have now . The alternative, to give up on debate,
technique for discourse, is that leaves not only the insularity of debates articulation to democracy intact, but more important, leaves the whole edifice of American exceptionalism, which is rooted deeply at many sites beyond debate, fundamen- tally untroubled.

The final critique of debate pedagogy that I address is that debate practice pro- motes a naive conception of the speaking citizen that is inappropriate to our current democratic context. This critique of debate, while useful in highlighting the changing conditions of governance that implicate all of us, fails on two ac- counts. First, even though the citizen speaking in public may not hold the same sway it once did (if it ever did), speech does make a difference in a number of The Allred InITIATIve And debATe Across The currIculum 311 democratic processes: political speech influences how people vote and to whom they contribute money, and it makes a significant difference at a number of sites in the administrative apparatuses of modern government (for instance in public notice and comment practices). More important, even if the romantic vision of the individual citizens

political speech makes an important difference in noninstitutional practices of political socialization : political speech not only influences who we will vote for but also sets the bar for what we will put up with, profoundly influences our views regarding the legitimacy of public policies, and determines the range of opinions to which we are exposed. Thus, even if debate
speech changing the course of democratic life is a bit overblown in our context,

practices do not directly access the levers of power, they might play a significant role in the production and reformulation of our political culture. Specifically, It seems to me that teams like Emporia would be able to find ample ground to construct affirmatives designed to democratize the debate space. Same thing with teams who have focused energy debating about afropessimism. I cannot claim to have any experiential knowledge about the identity portions of these argument, as I have been born into the world in the privileged position of a white male, but I can say that I have shared the pessimism toward our currently arranged civil society (hence, a large part of the impetus for writing this paper). At the same time, given that many of my friends who make these arguments consistently participate in debate tournaments, spaces which could reasonably count as particular instantiations of civil society, I believe that most of us share at least some form of optimism for THIS PARTICULAR SPACE, and I think that it would be very possible to take the optimistic position that changing debate for the better would be a valuable step forward. Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token save it from ruin which, except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and young, would be inevitable. And education, too, is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking some thing new, something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renew ing a common world. HANNAH ARENDT

So, Whats the neg ground?

Ive provided a baseline answer to this question above, but here are some other specific ideas. The greatest thing about this topic proposal is that there is so much room for creativity and innovation, and I trust that many of us could come up with plenty of interesting negative possibilities as we delved into the work of democracy. Likewise, a lot of negative arguments would be generated as the process of getting involved with the topic is undergone. We (myself included) dont know enough, collectively, about the work of political change, so we would be able to generate negative arguments based on our experiences with what does and doesnt work in the field of engagement. There are some really interesting debates i could imagine. One team says we should mobilize support at grassroots levels to protest, the neg says we should focus our energy on government officials/speaking their language because protest is not a valuable tool in this day and age and actually backfires because of media/public backlash (as demonstrated by OWS). A team could focus their energies on creating momentum at the level of the student population (both high school and college), while another team could claim it is more important to generate the support of adults/professional communities who have more experience, more developed connections, and deeper pockets. The styles of advocacy required to get those two communities on board are Clearly very different, and there is definitely room for clash. The way you convince your dorm-mate to sign on and the way you convince a lawyer with a work schedule, a family, and individual aspirations are vastly different. On the critical side---the entire historical/philosophical debate about the values that should inform our government and the different variants of democracy come into play, everything from de tocqueville and rousseau to the federalist papers, from Wilderson to Stavrakakis. Additionally, the Lappin evidence clearly defines military action as a negative instrument of democracy promotion which is distinct from democracy assistance, that means that many variations of the burn it down alternative are defined as negative ground from the get go. On top of that, there are very legitimate questions about whether or not democracy is a model of governance capable of responding to the challenges of the 21st century given the lack of political and technical literacy among some citizens (Rights Malthus, anyone?). But honestly, as the problems we face become global and interconnected, many people have argued that centralized, unquestioned governance will be crucial to navigating new threats. On the opposite side, the

grandparent of all Ks, the anarchy counterplan, is an idea that could be tested, and may need to be. With the evolution of peer-to-peer networking, the need for a centralized, authoritative political power may be waning.

Aff says that we should increase citizen collaboration with the federal government by taking advantage of new and evolving internet platforms, neg says we should test out new governemnt architecture at the States/local level before the federal level --- possible disads to starting with FG: Hacking/cyberwarfare making USFG more vulnerable, Troll Wars on government platforms, other general internet bugs that could be detected and solved with localized experimentation. In this sense, the States counterplan would actually be about the substantive debate between federal and local action, states as laboratories of democracy, rather than Unified States Action as the accomplice to the Politics DA. On top of that, neg teams could talk about how campaign financing is adversely effecting local elections (for example, the sheriff of Arizona gets 80% of his funding from outside the state)---neg says that we should focus our energy on particular, local election where we could actually sway the voting in order to send a signal that people are willing to vote against candidates who refuse to optin to small dollar campaigns. These strategies may be more effective because local governments are more willing to test out clean elections laws (States as diverse as Arizona, Maine, and Massachusetts have already begun experimentation). Aff is super high tech and detailed on the policy level -- neg says that arguments that are overly detailed are ineffective at mobilizing public support, need more motivational/thematic/simplified forms of public advocacy/framing strategies to set the agenda and get people on board ---Questions advocacy, strategic framing and effective communications campaigns are CENTRAL to getting change implemented---we dupe ourselves into believing that the best, most well-researched and effective policies get implemented all the time. This ignores the

stark reality that every policy or social movement is accompanied by a battle of spin doctors in the mediawhether you want to become a policy advocate or be an effective activist, we need to be recognizing that soundbytes can kill campaigns and the words and techniques we use are entirely important.

Andress 2 (Lauri, MPH, JD, Texas Program for Society and Health, Rice University and Doctoral Candidate, University of Texas School of Public Health, Topic: Strategic Frame
Analysis & Policy Making: Where Does SFA Fit into our Strategic Plan?, http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/ezine18.html? searched=environmental&advsearch=oneword&highlight=ajaxSearch_highlight+ajaxSearch_highlight1) From time-to-time after a presentation on strategic frame analysis, a group will ask how to apply this information to achieve their primary task of passing legislation, advancing a policy at the legislative level, convincing a targeted group of the public that a policy position should be supported, or creating a communications campaign to promote a specific policy position. This section is presented in an effort to ground the art and science of framing a message in the larger strategy and tactics that your organization must undertake to advance its public policy resolutions.

Strategic Frame Analysis (SFA) is a key building block in the policy making process and every activity that you undertake in pursuit of policy-making. Used effectively, SFA can become the foundation upon which your organization builds its policy advocacy strategy.
The key point we hope to advance is that
In order to not distract us from our primary goal we will use a simplified model of the public policy process. This will allow us to more clearly demonstrate the benefits of SFA. In this case it is not the steps of the policy process or the model that we want to emphasize but the role of SFA in the process. Accordingly, the use of a standard model of policy making allows us to deconstruct the process indicating where SFA fits in each step of the policy model. Let's look at the phases of the policy making process as traditionally identified in the policy literature. Problem identification/gaining agenda status Policy Formulation and adoption Policy Implementation Policy Evaluation/adjustment/termination In order to illuminate the contribution of SFA to policymaking, we will first discuss policy making in general, presenting a normative view of the process. We will then shift to a definition that more closely matches the objectives of SFA. Next we will quickly review each policy making phase, culminating with an emphasis on the first phase, where SFA plays such a vital role.

We will use examples from public health throughout this analysis. We do this for the following reason. Health outcomes are determined by a wide variety of factors that range in nature from individual behavior to medical care to socioeconomic factors. Accordingly, the decision making process involved in naming the health problem, and selecting a policy solution and intervention provides us with excellent examples to use in exploring how SFA interacts with the public policy process. Thus, it is by focusing on public health issues, we believe, that this analysis can best realize its' goal of helping you discern why SFA needs to be interlaced into your policy efforts.

Policy Making

policy making is described as an assembly line of the elements required to make policy: first the issue is placed on the agenda and the problem is defined; next the executive branches of government objectively examine alternative solutions based upon
Typically, factual data, then select and refine them; then the executive agencies implement the solutions while interest groups often challenge the actions through the judicial branch; and sometimes the policy is evaluated and revised or scrapped.

this model fails to portray the essence of policy making which she as "the struggle over ideas" [2002]. Ideas are a medium of exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money, votes and guns. Shared meanings motivate people to action and meld individual striving into collective action . Ideas are at the center of
However, scholars of the policy process such as Deborah Stone say that describes all political conflict. Policymaking, in turn, is a constant struggle over the criteria for classification; the boundaries of categories, and the definition of ideals that guide the way people behave [Stone, 2002, 11]. Using Stone's image of policymaking matched against the purpose and objectives of SFA, we can begin to see the importance of framing and how it applies broadly at every level of the policy making process. We have said that framing is a communications tool that transmits conceptual constructs able to tap into people's deeply held values and beliefs. We have also tried to indicate that

behind policymaking there is a contest over conflicting

conceptions of the

policy based on equally plausible values or ideas.

The question at each step of the process then becomes: what frame transmits the policy with concepts that represent the values and worldviews of the public, policymakers and other key groups that you need to persuade? Accordingly, framing is the key
mechanism that animates the policy process.

For example, the second step in policymaking is policy formulation and adoption. In this step, elected officials, house or senate committees, or the President's cabinet identify, evaluate and select from among alternative policy solutions. A rational, generally accepted view of decision-making based on reason requires the identification of objectives, the prediction of the consequences of alternative courses of action, and finally the evaluation of the possible consequences of each alternative.

a rational step-by-step method for policy formulation based on objectivity, facts and reason is not accurate. Humans use models, metaphors and other techniques to impose structure on the world and to reduce considerations. We use stories and exclude stories as we seek order. Policy formulation as a part of policy making is, once again, nothing more than reasoning by analogy, category and metaphor where those involved, based on their values and views, strategically select the data, facts and information that will be most persuasive in getting others to see a situation as one thing rather than another.
However, adhering to the definition of policymaking as a struggle over values and ideas, we can see that A good example of framing in relation to the description of health problems and the formulation of public health policy is Nurit Guttman's [2000] explanation of the role of values that underlie various health interventions. Guttman explains that public health interventions are not always chosen because they are effective but because they have a stronger link to certain social values over others [2000]. Health education strategies targeting individuals with persuasive techniques raise the issue of individual autonomy and privacy because they reduce the ability of individuals to freely choose among options [Guttman, 2000]. On the other hand, regulatory strategies restricting the marketplace or protecting the environment draw on the values of justice and equity and the requirement to provide people an opportunity to live in environments that promote health and minimize risk [Guttman, 2000]. Thus the regulatory restrictive health intervention is inherently associated with the values of self-actualization and the promotion of the public good [Guttman, 2000]. Various methods or strategies can be employed for the purpose of achieving the goals of a public health communication intervention. Strategies may include the use of fear arousal appeals, asking individuals to put social pressure on others, or teaching people skills such as the use of self-monitoring devicesValues clearly play a central role in the choice and application of such strategiesQuestions about the morality of coercion, manipulation, deception, persuasion typically involve a conflict between the values of individual freedom and self-determination, on the one hand and such values as social welfare, economic progress, or equal opportunity on the other hand [p. 80]. Milio, [1981] explains another frame and related underlying values to describe the selection and use of particular public health strategies and policies. The obligation of health policy, if it is to serve the health interests of the public, does not extend to assuring every individual the attainment of personally defined "health". In a democratic society that seeks at least internal equanimity, if not humanness and social justice, the responsibility of government is to establish environments that make possible an attainable level of health for the total population. This responsibility includes the assurance of environmental circumstances that do not impose more risks to health for some segments of the population than for others, for such inequality of risk would doom some groups of people- regardless of their choice- to a reduction in opportunities to develop their capacities [Milio, 1981, p.5].

Behind every step in the policy process there is a contest over equally plausible conceptions of the same abstract goal or
The key point is that, while policymaking is a process, it is also a human endeavor and as such it is not based on objective and neutral standards.

value [Stone, 2002]. Remember, those participating in policymaking are also driven by their belief systems, and ideology. These values and ideologies precede and shape the
decisions along every step of the policy process.
Steps in Policymaking Now let's take a look at how framing plays a role in each step of the process. We will begin with step two in the policy making process, leaving the first step for closer examination later. Policy Formulation and adoption occurs if an issue achieves agenda status. Policy formulation involves analyzing policy goals and solutions, the creation or identification of alternative recommendations to resolve or address the identified public problem, and the final selection of a policy. The U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and most public health experts support exchanging clean needles for used ones as a way to reduce the spread of H.I.V. infections. New Jersey- a state with more than 9,000 orphans who lost their mothers to AIDS, 26,000 people with AIDS, the nation's third highest rate of intravenous HIV infection and the nation's highest rate of infection among women and children- not only refuses to pay for needles, it used under cover police to arrest those distributing clean needles to prevent AIDS activists from violating the state ban on distributing syringes [Clemons and McBeth, 2002.]. Former Governor Christine Todd Whitman (R) was adamantly opposed to needle giveaways, claiming it sent the wrong message to children about drug use. Former President Bill Clinton (D) who admitted the benefits of a needle exchange program -also failed to support the effort due to pressure from the then Republican majority in Congress. [Clemons and McBeth, 2002.]. AIDS activist lost this war of ideas that occurred at the policy formulation stage of the process. Possible policy solutions considered were increased sex education in schools; education about and free distribution of condoms; and the distribution of needles to IV drug users [Clemons and McBeth, 2002.]. Facts, reason and objectivity should have induced the elected officials to select a policy of needle exchange. However, these policies invoked a series of images and ideas antithetical to the values of powerful groups in the country such as the religious right [Clemons and McBeth, 2002.]. These same groups then framed the policy solutions in such a manner as to make them "about" the behaviors they recognize - illegal drug use, illicit sex, and addiction -as opposed to the prevention of HIV and the death of women and children. The framing of the problem limited the policy options.

Policy Implementation occurs within organizations, typically administrative bureaucracies, directed to carry out adopted polices. Occurring at the national, state and local levels, implementation begins once a policy has been legalized through a legislative act or a
mandate from an official with authority to set policy. Administrators make decisions about how to deploy resources, human and financial, to actualize a policy.

The war of ideas and values continues to play out even at this level because administrators must define and put into operation key terms and ideas in the legislative policy. There is often great disparity between the intentions of a policy and how it is carried out. The outcome will be affected by how the policy is interpreted, the values, ideologies, and views of the administrators, and the resources available and selected to implement the policy.
Consider the national policy that over hauled the welfare program during the Clinton administration. The phrase "welfare-to-work" was termed. The President's administration made a great effort to frame the legislation as a means to transition from welfare into jobs that allowed the recipient to establish a means of livelihood. Values expressed in this case might have been "doing-no-harm", or self-actualization. But later, in the execution of the legislation, some states emphasized the transition off of welfare to jobs, while others chose to see the policy simply as a call to decrease welfare rolls. The values invoked in these kinds of programs might be described as market autonomy, utility, or efficiency. Let us also reflect on the public health mandate to decrease smoking as enunciated by the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Healthy People 2010. The goal is to reduce the number of adults over age 18 who smoke by 12% by the year 2010. The Healthy People 2010 website provides information for individuals on how to stop using tobacco. The federal agency also invested in public service announcements featuring Bill Cosby on a variety of topics including the tobacco issue admonishing individuals about the dangers of smoking. No mention is made in the strategies on the website regarding market place regulations or structural remedies such as the tobacco lawsuits, banning smoking in public places, or the marketing of cigarettes. Guttman [2000] says that, consciously or unconsciously, the implementation of public health communication interventions involves the application of values. For instance, the execution of stop smoking programs at the individual level assumes that individuals should be responsible for the solution to health problems and simply need to have their refusal skills improved. On the other hand, the decision to implement a program at a societal-structural level identifies the locus of solution as external to the individual. Social problems are time, place and context bound. The way the health issue is framed as a problem (or not) is likely to reflect certain priorities or ideologies of the more dominant stakeholders. The mere identification of the problem itself presents a value judgment: the particular view of the ideal state is what determines what is considered problematic, thus requiring action. Is the problem conceived as poor motivation on the part of individuals who do not adopt recommended practices? Perhaps the problem is a result of structural socioeconomic conditions such as limited access of smokers to smoking cessation programs. The locus problem can be identified at different levels, as a lifestyle issue versus an issue mainly associated with societal structures and distribution of resources [p.74]. Policy Evaluation The final stage of the policy process determines what occurred as a result of the selection of a policy and makes corrections in the current policy or program as needed. Essentially, the final stage of the policy process assesses what has occurred as a result of the implementation of the legislative policy.

there is also no neutral, rational, objective way to measure and calculate the benefits or harms resulting from a policy. All the same considerations of
Just as there is no escape from values into an objective, fact-based mode for selecting one policy in lieu of another, values-based framing come into play in this seemingly "objective" phase as well.

To begin to evaluate a policy, several pieces of information must be established: the goals or original objectives of the policy; a means by which to measure the extent to which goals have been met; and the target of the program or who the program was intended to affect. Assembling this information involves value laden decision-making including the views, and values of the organizations involved, the analysts, clients or the target population, and the general public who may be paying for the program with
their tax dollars.

When assembling the indicators of success for a policy evaluation, priorities and values become important. A particular indicator that may gauge success by one value-laden goal [efficiency] may not capture the success of the policy for another goal [community
[Guttman, 2000]. An example provided by Deborah Stone shows us how a value laden evaluative criterion figures in something as seemingly straight-forward as measuring the efficiency of a library [Stone, 2002]. Scholars agree that an efficiently run library is one that builds up a good collection of books and that a particular library in California might be more efficient if it replaced some highly paid professionals and spent the money on building the collection of books [Stone, 2002]. It is possible to imagine several challenges to the evaluative criterion of efficiency. Some citizens may value the resources available in the library in the form of storytelling for children, or jobs for teenagers [Stone, 2002]. Some might debate what a "good book collection might include [Stone, 2002]. Finally, others might say an efficient library is one that would save the users time by providing the maximum amount of assistance while the patron is using the services [Stone, 2002].

solidarity]

to go beyond the vague slogans and apply the concept to a concrete policy choice requires making assumptions about who and what counts as important The answers built into supposedly technical analyses of efficiency are nothing more that political claims" [p.
On the use of efficiency as an evaluative criterion, Stone says it "is always a contestable concept 65]. "By offering different assumptions, sides in a conflict can portray their preferred outcomes as being most efficient" [Stone, 2002 p.66]. Ultimately, evaluation of a policy becomes nothing more than a selection among criterion based on values and ideologies. In the example below, one can see clearly how the selection of the evaluation criterion extricates different values. [In] ... an intervention to prevent adolescent pregnancy that chose the strategy of persuading adolescent girls to use a contraceptive implant, a likely evaluation criterion would be the relative frequency of pregnancies before and after the intervention in the target population. For stakeholders who define the problem as based on sexual promiscuity or for those who believe the girls engage in abusive sexual relationships because of low self-esteem however, this criterion would be irrelevant because these adolescent girls may continue to engage in premarital sex and may have simply adopted enhanced contraceptive practices. Stakeholders who are interested in preventing youth from being infected with sexually transmitted diseases are not likely to find this criterion satisfactory. The contraceptive implant may protect the adolescents from pregnancy, but they may continue to be exposed to infection [Guttman, 2000]. Problem identification/gaining agenda status

the first step in the policy process for last because it is here, more than at any other stage, that framing becomes critical. The first step involves getting a problem onto the radar screen of the legislative body that must deal with that issue [Clemons & McBeth, 2001]. Problems gain legislative attention in many ways, but typically gaining agenda status happens once there has been a value -driven, subjective determination that an issue is now a "public problem". The question then becomes: why do some issues become public problems reaching agenda status and others do not? The answer to this question has to do with frame construction in the sense that an issue must be constructed so
We saved

that it is perceived as qualifying as a social problem (Best, 1995). This is a key objective in getting the attention of the legislative body in charge.
This assertion is derived from the notion that issues get attention when they are labeled as social or public problems (Best, 1995).

How an issue becomes a social problem is not based entirely on objective measures of the severity of the condition but rather on a host of factors related to how society perceives or constructs the information presented regarding the issue (Best, 1995). Accordingly, SFA is used to help determine the organizing constructs or values that may be used to frame an issue
in order to convert it into a social problem that then captures the minds and concerns of the public and its elected officials.

First, a few ideas on why a social condition is not automatically a social problem and why it must become one before it can become a priority with the legislature.
Joel Best (1995) asserts that until something is labeled a "social problem" it does not rise to a level of importance sufficient to attract the attention of the public and policymakers. His view is called the subjective, constructionist perspective in that it says a social condition is a product of something defined or constructed by society through social activities (Best, 1995).

when advocacy groups publish a report, they are constructing or framing the issue using claims that help build the issue into a social problem.
For example, when a news conference is held on crack houses or a demonstration on litter, or investigative reporters publish stories, or Malcolm Spector and John Kitsuse [1977] use the term "claims making" to define the activities of individuals or groups making assertions of grievances and claims with respect to some putative conditions that result in social problems. According to all of these definitions, it does not matter if the objective condition exists or even that it may be severe. It only matters that people make claims about it in such a way that it invokes the subjective mental construct that will frame the issue in such a manner that it is believed to be a public problem of magnitude and worthy of attention. In other words, social problems are the result of claims making activities that frame the issue so that it triggers organizing principles attached to an individual's deeply held worldviews and values (Best, 1995).

Claims making activities draw attention to social conditions and shape our sense of the nature of the problem (Best, 1995). Through rhetoric, every social condition can be constructed as many different social problems. A claims makers' success [or
framing] depends in part upon whether their claims persuade others that X is a social problem or that Y offers the solution (Best, 1995). In the area of public health, the construction of a problem explicates embedded values and ideals of those who made the health problem in the first place [Guttman, 2000]. The results of that construction further determine whether the problem gets on the agenda as well as the range of policy solutions that appear natural or appropriate. For instance, using claims that frame the problem at the organizational level assumes a major cause of the problem is based in organizational arrangements or practices [Guttman, 2000]. The problem of an overweight America is defined as people's lack of time or facilities at work to exercise or food at work that is high in nutritional value [Guttman, 2002]. Identifying the problem of overweight adults at this marketplace level may involve a frame that links the problem to the industry's quest for profits through the marketing of inexpensive food products high in calories instead of nutritious products that are more expensive and thus made less accessible [Guttman, 2002]. In this instance, the description of the problem involves a frame and claims that value the public good over market autonomy.

In order to evaluate the relative merits of different frames applied to the social problems we wish to take into the policy process, we need to ask the following kinds of questions: Would such a frame make this problem a public issue that gets the attention of the legislature? In the instance above involving the problem of obesity, we would
ask: Framed in this way, would the legislature then consider marketplace restrictions on advertising or regulations on food content?

A lot of the research for this topic would be first order (experiential, on the ground) as opposed to what we are normally used to, second order reading of data/facts gathered by others. Both are useful, but we are way too reliant on the latter, and usually we could produce research of a higher quality than the stuff we read in debates if we put our heads together. We could actually dig into the details of whose campaigns get funded by what corporations, cross-check campaign finance reports with voting records, get into the true function of our governmentsounds important McClean, 01 Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, Molloy College, New York
(David E., The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope, Presented at the 2001 Annual Conference of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy, www.american-philosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion %20papers/david_mcclean.htm

The new public philosopher might seek to understand labor law and military and trade theory and doctrine as much as theories of
surplus value; the logic of international markets and trade agreements as much as critiques of commodification, and the politics of complexity

as much as the politics of

power (all of which can still be done from our arm chairs.) This means going down deep
often unpleasant, imperfect decisions that affect other peoples' lives, and it means

into the guts of our quotidian

social institutions, into the grimy pragmatic details where intellectuals are loathe to dwell but where the officers and bureaucrats of those institutions take difficult and

making honest attempts to truly understand how those institutions actually function in the actual world before
howling for their overthrow commences.

What standards and types of research are we promoting? Could we be better? Malgor put it pretty well in a CEDA Post: I harped on this a lot on the energy policy paper- we voted on a paper and constructed a resolution mostly written by lobbyists who do pseudo-research so they can make sweet, sweet cash. Democracy assistance was an awesome idea but so recent no high quality scholarship came out about until the end of the season. Immigration was good but still avoided the central question on immigration that academics were concerned with: illegals! the core controversy areas (aff and neg ground) and terms of art should be derived from academic literature. i'm tired of reading through affs that make broad sweeping claims (nuclear power will make us a

manufacturing economy again allowing us to contain China!) only to find they are from sources that don't provide citations, or footnotes, or are not peer-reviewed, or are a lobbying organization that is paid to generate said research. We are training ourselves to be irrelevant in terms of generating viable, real-world practices that help people. The research process has devolved into rewarding teams for finding someone on the internet that agrees with their argument, as if that's some sort of challenge that invigorates our critical thinking skills. We are all in the university setting, we all recognize that authority of the speaker and quality of THEIR research process is of central importance when determining what constitutes a reliable basis for policy change. Yet we emulate the worst scholarship, often blatantly biased and paid for. Right now we are training students who are INCREDIBLY SKILLED at coming up with persuasive stories about how the government is going to save the day, those people are called lobbyists and politicians. There are definitely many people in politics and lobbying who have excellent, virtuous intentions, but we must be honest with ourselves about what an over-reliance on these actors can, and has, produced: systemic failure, bloated corporate welfare, and intense citizen cynicism.

Finally, this topic could add some serious value to debate in the eyes of the outside world. Remember how outraged most of us were about the negative article about debate/the Finals? Burshteyn put it best: Yes this is ridiculous and idiotic but there is a lesson to be taken here from how the debate community views itself compared with how the broader world, to the extent that anybody in it cares at all, views the policy debate community. Community members could do a better job of providing information so that a wikipedia entry about Louisville in 2000 doesn't become a go-to source. Maybe more debate teams could have blogs where students post articles about tournaments and argument trends? The problem is, nobody has time for that because everybody is too busy cutting an extra uniqueness card (possibly from the Weekly Standard). If we could show administrations, politicians, professors, and fellow students the TANGIBLE RESULTS of our topics I believe that wed be in much better shape when the budgets get debated. This may change the tenor of the community from a purely private affair to one with more outside engagement. That seems like just what we need. Additionally, students would be making valuable connections with experienced, influential, well-connected people over the entire course of the year. The relationships we could establish in the process of debating this topic would be incredibly fruitful in terms of our futures. Recommendation letters from leading academics or leaders of the FEC attesting that we are capable of getting things done would go a long way in a difficult job market, making debate an even more important and valuable activity for all of us! This type of topic would shake the grounds that weve taken comfort in during the recent history of policy debate. The world around us is changing drastically, and we cant hide from reality in the enclave of debate. We must face these challenges head on, putting our brilliance into action! "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." --- Albert Einstein