After reading the two articles it seems that one of the things they both have in common is that conservative politicians tend to believe that situations are caused by human actions based off targeted populations politicians and are prone to develop agendas and pass laws often based on bias information. They are also prone to develop policy that will entice target populations. For example if they need support and money they will write policy that the “advantaged” group will like or create policy to control the “deviant” group. Generally speaking they are always looking for ways to create policy to gain support and get elected. Unfortunately, historically the poor, minorities, and the working poor. are usually the population who is most often
…show more content…
One of the points of disagreement seemed to be that the Casual Stories article believes that “Casual argument is at the heart of political problem definitions. Problem definition is centrally concentrated with attributing bad conditions to human behavior instead of accident, fate, or nature.” (Stone, 1989, p. 299)Click and drag to move Where as the Construction of Target Populations article states “Social constructions of targets help us to understand the dynamics of policy change, even in policy areas as the distributive one.” (Schneider & Ingram, 1993, p. 346)Click and drag to move The Construct of Target Populations argued that policies need to be monitored whereas the Casual Stories and Policy Agenda article argued that there needed to be constraints on politicians and their agendas. It also showed us that “Casual theories predicated on statistical association can create alliances by mobilizing people who share risk factors but otherwise have no natural communication or association.”(Stone, 1989, p. 298)Click and drag to move This seems to be an example of politicians playing with human control. If you’re trying to change a policy, you’re trying to tell a story about why a problem people think is unintended and accidental actually is an issue that can be corrected by government policy
One of the points of disagreement seemed to be that the Casual Stories article believes that “Casual argument is at the heart of political problem definitions. Problem definition is centrally concentrated with attributing bad conditions to human behavior instead of accident, fate, or nature.” (Stone, 1989, p. 299)Click and drag to move Where as the Construction of Target Populations article states “Social constructions of targets help us to understand the dynamics of policy change, even in policy areas as the distributive one.” (Schneider & Ingram, 1993, p. 346)Click and drag to move The Construct of Target Populations argued that policies need to be monitored whereas the Casual Stories and Policy Agenda article argued that there needed to be constraints on politicians and their agendas. It also showed us that “Casual theories predicated on statistical association can create alliances by mobilizing people who share risk factors but otherwise have no natural communication or association.”(Stone, 1989, p. 298)Click and drag to move This seems to be an example of politicians playing with human control. If you’re trying to change a policy, you’re trying to tell a story about why a problem people think is unintended and accidental actually is an issue that can be corrected by government policy