1. How did the Cold War provide for a congruence of House members’ and senators’ goals of good public policy and re-election?
2. How did the fall of the Soviet Union and the decline of the Cold War threat lead to a conflict in members’ policy and political goals?
3. How might the political logic of incrementalism get in the way of the government adequately responding to the changed policy context? What happens when the goal of maintaining good policy is not reinforced by politics but rather is in conflict?
4. How would the establishment of a panel on military base closings help overcome the problem of collective action and help Congress respond to the changed foreign-policy environment?
5. Why would members of Congress sacrifice their autonomy on making military policy by establishing such a commission?
6. If establishing such a commission made it more difficult for members to achieve their re-election goals, why might they support it?
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.1. How did the Cold War provide for a congruence of House members’ and senators’ goals of good public policy and re-election?
The Cold War provided for a congruence of House members’ and senators’ goals of good public policy and re-election due to several reasons. First of all, the nation needed a good base and support in its administration so the reasons for the Cold War could be justified. This was a chance for House member’s and senators’ to act together and in team. By giving people certain visible and touchable support, depicted in good public policy they ensured re-election for themselves. This was rationality principle, because they politicians in that period needed legitimacy for spending enormous amount of money on military bases....