Policymaking in Context: Understanding and Interpreting the Political Climate

By: Celane McWhorter

One of the more important lessons that an advocate must learn is how to identify and use the political “climate” Who are the leaders in Congress? In the Statehouse? Are the Democrats or Republicans at the helm? What is the ideology - is the leadership conservative, liberal or somewhere in between? And is the conservatism or liberalism across the board on all issues - i.e. social vs. fiscal conservatism? The answers these questions will help you frame the way that you work to educate your lawmakers.

The commitment to fiscal conservatism has defined almost all of the legislative activities since the 104th Congress. For example, in the late 1990’s advocates faced an intense struggle to pass the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act. The struggle had less to do with the specifics of the bill - which primarily were help to provide supports and incentives for individuals to reduce or eliminate their dependency on social security through employment - and more to do with funding requirements of the bill. The ultimate struggle was deciding what other social programs would be sacrificed in order to pay for this new one. The lesson is a simple one. In current political climates, lawmakers continue to be more willing to explore how to better utilize the resources that are already available rather than start a new program.

Funding redistribution proposals are more likely to be taken seriously than requests for new funding. Fiscal considerations are even more of an issue than before, in the wake of September 11, 2001 and the war in Iraq and on terrorism. This means that you first must carefully examine what is already available in terms of funds and authorities and ask yourself, “Can they be redesigned for a more effective use? Is there money paying for outmoded approaches that could be better used? How much money in your state goes into supported segregated services that could more efficiently be used to support individuals in their community? In supported employment?

If after you have carefully surveyed the current scene and find that a new program is still needed, the approach must be in clear acknowledgement that you are going against the ideological tide but have very strong arguments for doing so anyway. Sometimes it takes years to accomplish a tough legislative goal, and there is never a wrong time to raise the flag for change. But, if your goal is to start the debate rather than a quick victory, it is important to establish a strategy up front to keep the troops rallied for the long term.

The successful message will include a fiscally responsible, economic stimulus spin. The message should be both quality of life and productivity. How many people will become more independent because of the new program? Will money spent now ultimately be a savings down the road to the public? How much more productive is it to use public money to support economic opportunity – to support individuals in becoming productive members of the labor force? Paying taxes and generating public revenues? Answer the questions before they are asked of you. Your goals should never be determined by the climate. Rather the strategies you employ for achieving those goals should clearly be structured around it.

So, how do you know what the climate is? Public awareness and a lot of common sense. Read the newspapers. Are the policymakers focusing on how many homeless people will be fed by their actions or how much money will be saved? Is there a commitment to tax cuts or social programs? We cannot know whether our future leaders will be driven by a social conscience or fiscal conservatism or something in between. What we can and must do is always be aware of the climate “du jour” and make sure that we continue to advance supported employment issues no matter what the climate.