Do the federal public servants think of national policy vice domestic and foreign policy?

While a subject such as this could rate many books, the concepts are so simple and so profound that a post such as this can attempt to address the subject. Said another way, it is obvious that domestic and foreign policies are connected. Immigration is a good example. The question still remains, do our public servants think in terms of national policy? Or are they more poll and focus group limited to political actions that gain them perceived votes and power (on more limited domestic and foreign policies)?

Avoidance of any substantive policy action on social security is a domestic example. Passing House and Senate bills about Iraq that cross the line about war powers is a foreign example. How one answers these two questions probably says much about one’s opinion as to how well we citizens are being served by our federal public servants in D.C. It also says legions as to whether these public servants think about our Nation as a whole, and the defense of our Constitution and way of government established in law.

Let’s be more specific about how domestic and foreign are related as part of National policy. Can both Houses of Congress passing bills that set get out-of-Iraq dates (albeit very weakly written to look more like the President’s policy) cause further grief and perhaps greater mayhem in the future to our Country? While the answer is not for sure, the general consensus is yes. Can the foreign policies that promote globalization and free trade bring great stress and ruin to many communities in our Country? Again, while the answer is not for sure, the general consensus is yes. The point of these questions is this. If any policy is conceived and executed in its domestic or foreign policy aspect, then when the law of unintended consequences kicks in there will be adverse domestic or foreign consequences. In this case, it is time for voters to consider newer more enlightened federal servants.

National policies that drive domestic and foreign policies must come first. Defense of our peoples and Country is a national policy. Promotion of public policies that enhance our security, wellbeing, health, good jobs, and education are national policies. Any national policy, frankly speaking, must represent our most selfish interests to preserve and expand our way of life. While the term “selfish” has bad connotations, the application does not. As long as environmentalism is about people, then being selfish is just fine, as an example.

Let this post end with a current events practical application … what should our National response be to the abduction of 15 Brits by the Iranians? Using the lens of National policy, especially applied in a selfish sort of way, then possible courses of actions and perspectives on how to act (or react) become more limited and obvious to many citizens. One course of action is “don’t get mad, get even”. Let our National policy guide us in covert sorts of ways that, while we citizens might not know, the Iranians will know. Hitting them in the pocket book, with some more “detentions” of Iranians will represent our National interests. Whatever course of action our federal public servants do choose, if any, is up to them. One expects that the course of action will be in our National interest, and not some more limited foreign or domestic policy interest.