Policy Art; and Why

So the FBI in the person of its director James Comey entered the fray of the Presidential campaign. And people wonder why this is a big deal. Whether you were on the side of Trump or Clinton, it doesn’t matter. But I’ll bet Clinton understands this major goof by Comey better than Trump.

Trump seems to be a literalist in all things related to government. It is a black and white issue for him. But we all have come to learn that if Trump thinks something is good for him, then it’s true; if not, then it is not true, rigged, maybe. You get the idea.

But Clinton knows that what people say in government can be construed in many ways. That’s why policy in and of itself is truly an art.

Policy. It is a statement or written protocol that guides use of government power so it serves the most people, not just special interests. It can do the latter, but not as an intended action.

Justice is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. But in this complex world there are many shades of gray concerning any event. It is not always black or white. Did someone kill someone intentionally, that is, murder another human being? If yes, then the next question is why. If there are mitigating circumstances – such as self defense, fear for one’s own life, etc. – then murder may not be the charge. Involuntary manslaughter might be the case, but then, full on self defense in which the slain person was the aggressor, the killer will most likely escape any charge. And that would be a correct call.

Once while I worked at the University of Illinois at Chicago, I encountered a student who acted very oddly. In further interaction I developed the sense his emotions were like a powder keg likely to explode at any moment. Calming him down, I questioned his situation to determine the cause of his upset. I could find none, at least none that he admitted to. So, I made an appointment to see him later in the day to share some research on another matter, and then went straight to the Dean.

We discussed the haunting thought that he might be a danger to himself – suicide – or to others – assault or worse. We examined our options. The Dean and I thought we had a responsibility to protect both the campus and the student from possible harm. We were not certain we were capable of diagnosing his situation or cause but then we had the tools available to have that brought to the situation (we had a full counseling service and a psychiatric student health service under our division’s management). So we contacted the Chancellor’s office and asked for legal assistance in the matter.

Joint discussions in short order guided us to declare the student a threat to himself and/or others and required involuntary detention for mental health assessment. Later that day when the student returned for his appointment with me, we informed him of the situation, and had a campus police officer ready to escort him to the psychiatric service. We had written notice for him and his parents informing them of the situation and his and their rights to easily take control of the situation.

In the meantime we protected the student and the rest of the campus from a potentially volatile personality and incident.

There are personal rights – both legal and constitutional – that we had an obligation to protect, but also to protect the student and the campus population at large. Not an easy situation to work through, but we did.

That was a policy decision, policy development opportunity, and policy action.

It is not easy to navigate. Not before being called upon to do so, or while doing it, or in any other manner. It is hard work to protect everyone.

But that’s what public policy is all about. It doesn’t protect the government or the employer or the citizen. It protects everyone. And that takes a broad view of reality.

In Trump’s case he is experienced with protecting himself or his business interests. A corporate policy is not like a public policy. The former is mostly one dimensional while the latter is multi dimensional.

Clinton has vast experience with public policy and she understands the complexity of setting policy and implementing it. Very ticklish. Think foreign affairs. Think US Justice Department affairs; think hostage negotiations (Waco, Texas memories, anyone?). Not easy matters to experience and manage.

Comey should have known better than to mix with politics. The Clinton emails issue was a political time bomb easily manipulated by everyone, especially political enemies. Still, no fundamental law was broken. Most elected officials and government agency staff have managed their routines using emails. Past Presidents have; and Vice Presidents, and past Secretaries of State. Where were the calls for justice in their handling of emails, and the deletion of millions of them to escape examination? And Comey knows this better than anyone. His career has taught him the fine points of policy and practice.

But he failed the big test. And now the reputation of the FBI is in question going forward under his leadership.

The FBI’s reputation for fairness and justice has been badly bruised. Sad but true. How will they and subsequent Presidents handle future relationships with the agency?

Keep your eye on this for the answer. It will become apparent.

November 11, 2016