POL110 Week 10 Scenario Script: Domestic, Foreign and Military Policy Slide # Scene/Interaction Narration Slide 1 Introductory screen, containing the environment (an outside view of a government office building) and a title showing the scenario topic. There will be a “begin” button on the screen allowing students to begin the scenario. Slide 2 Scene 1 Amanda and Dr. Ryan standing in Dr. Ryan’s office. Dr. Ryan: Hello. It’s good to see you again. Last week we saw how the bureaucracy and the judiciary functioned within the federal government. This week, we’ll assess how domestic, foreign, and military policies are integrated. What do you think about these policies, Amanda? Amanda: This is an immensely broad set of subjects, Dr. Ryan, so I hope I can do them justice. Dr. Ryan: Well, Amanda, go ahead and give it your best shot. Amanda: Okay, here I go. I think we could begin by defining institutions as systems that help form a government and make it function. They include the armed forces, the church, the executive office, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the voting public, the economy, and the political process itself. If institutions are strong and respond to public’s will, then the government will function smoothly. But they could also be extractive. This is when they are used by elites to extract resources for their own benefit. Extractive institutions cause the state to be weak. Slide 3 Interaction Slide This will be a tabbed interaction that outlines ways of changing Social Security policies in the U.S. Social Security could: · Raise the retirement age · Reduce benefits for high earners · Raise taxes · Increase wage cap · Individual Investments Button 1: There are several ways that the government could ensure that Social Security continues to support retirees in the U.S. The first way would be to raise retirement age until 70 years old, so that the long-term funding gap would close. Button 2: The government could also reduce benefits for high earners, by cutting their monthly funds by about ten percent. Button 3: Taxes could be raised from twelve-point-four percent to thirteen-point-four percent, so as to cover the ever-increasing cost of social security. Button 4: Increasing the wage cap would mean that workers would pay Social Security taxes on a greater amount of what they earn. Button 5: Finally, the government could let individuals invest some or all of their Social Security funds into approved, safe mutual funds. Slide 4 Scene 2 Amanda and Dr. Ryan do a visual tour of a museum or historical exhibit in Capitol Hill that showcases the material that is covered. This is sort of a visual tour of Washington D.C. as well as a visual component to the conversation. Dr. Ryan: Institutions can be so weak and corrupt that they can lead to state failure like you see in Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, and Somalia. Now, can you see how this applies to our own government? Amanda.

1. POL110 Week 10 Scenario Script: Domestic, Foreign and
Military Policy
Slide #
Scene/Interaction
Narration
Slide 1
Introductory screen, containing the environment (an outside
view of a government office building) and a title showing the
scenario topic. There will be a “begin” button on the screen
allowing students to begin the scenario.
Slide 2
Scene 1
Amanda and Dr. Ryan standing in Dr. Ryan’s office.

2. Dr. Ryan: Hello. It’s good to see you again.
Last week we saw how the bureaucracy and the judiciary
functioned within the federal government. This week, we’ll
assess how domestic, foreign, and military policies are
integrated.
What do you think about these policies, Amanda?
Amanda: This is an immensely broad set of subjects, Dr. Ryan,
so I hope I can do them justice.
Dr. Ryan: Well, Amanda, go ahead and give it your best shot.
Amanda: Okay, here I go.
I think we could begin by defining institutions as systems that
help form a government and make it function. They include the
armed forces, the church, the executive office, the bureaucracy,
the judiciary, the voting public, the economy, and the political
process itself. If institutions are strong and respond to public’s

3. will, then the government will function smoothly.
But they could also be extractive. This is when they are used
by elites to extract resources for their own benefit. Extractive
institutions cause the state to be weak.
Slide 3
Interaction Slide
This will be a tabbed interaction that outlines ways of changing
Social Security policies in the U.S.
Social Security could:
· Raise the retirement age
· Reduce benefits for high earners
· Raise taxes
· Increase wage cap
· Individual Investments
Button 1: There are several ways that the government could
ensure that Social Security continues to support retirees in the
U.S. The first way would be to raise retirement age until 70
years old, so that the long-term funding gap would close.
Button 2: The government could also reduce benefits for high
earners, by cutting their monthly funds by about ten percent.
Button 3: Taxes could be raised from twelve-point-four percent
to thirteen-point-four percent, so as to cover the ever-increasing
cost of social security.
Button 4: Increasing the wage cap would mean that workers
would pay Social Security taxes on a greater amount of what
they earn.
Button 5: Finally, the government could let individuals invest
some or all of their Social Security funds into approved, safe

4. mutual funds.
Slide 4
Scene 2
Amanda and Dr. Ryan do a visual tour of a museum or historical
exhibit in Capitol Hill that showcases the material that is
covered. This is sort of a visual tour of Washington D.C. as
well as a visual component to the conversation.
Dr. Ryan: Institutions can be so weak and corrupt that they can
lead to state failure like you see in Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe,
and Somalia.
Now, can you see how this applies to our own government?
Amanda: All three types of policy depend on functioning
institutions in the United States.
For example, the president and Congress both determine the
trajectories that domestic policy will take. So if they want to do
something like amend Social Security or Medicare policy, they
will have to work together.
Governments in weak states would do this by decree, but here in
the U.S., we do this by consensus. We see that this is the mark
of mature institutional development.
Dr. Ryan: Keep in mind that consensus-building is all the more
important because these programs affect millions of people.
Legislation affecting them must be made by the president and
congressional majorities in order to be considered politically
legitimate.
This only makes sense because Americans pay more attention to
what’s happening at home, rather than outside the country.
Consequently, the president and Congress are extremely
sensitive to domestic political currents. They want to make sure
that the institutions serving the people are functioning well.
Amanda: That means they want our:
Roads,
Schools,

5. Libraries,
Hospitals,
Power plants,
Water sources,
Sewage treatment systems,
Law enforcement personnel,
Emergency services,
Building and food inspectors,
Transportation systems, and
Other institutions…that serve the public to work properly.
Right?
Dr. Ryan: Exactly! It also means that people expect their public
servants to manage the economy properly. This means they do
not allow unemployment or inflation to get out of control, and
they spend taxes wisely. In fact, of all the institutions people
expect the president and Congress to manage well, the economy
would top the list, followed very closely by health care.
Whether this will translate into a thriving economy and some
sort of universal health care system, we can only guess. But the
need for this is certainly there.
Slide 5
Check Your Understanding Slide
The success of domestic policy rests largely on the functioning
of:
A. the president
B. the Congress
C. the people
D. X institutions
E. the judiciary
Answer: D. If institutions are weak, then so is the government.
Weak governments are unable to advance a domestic policy that
benefits the majority of its citizens.
Slide 6

6. Scene 3
Amanda and Dr. Ryan do a visual tour of a museum or historical
exhibit in Capitol Hill that showcases the material that is
covered. This is sort of a visual tour of Washington D.C. as
well as a visual component to the conversation.
Dr Ryan: Now, let’s shift our attention to foreign and military
policy. What do you know about these aspects of American
policymaking?
Amanda: Honestly, I’ve always thought that it’s very difficult
to separate the two.
I would begin by suggesting that military policy is an integral
part of foreign policy, and that force projections are a
component of how other nations view us. If this is a valid
assumption, then we could extrapolate from it that weak armed
forces would send the message to our allies and adversaries
alike. This message would say that the US may not be willing
to protect its vital and national interests. This could also be an
extremely dangerous position to be in.
Dr. Ryan: So you’re saying that having strong armed forces is
the key to protecting ourselves and our friends?
Amanda: Absolutely! I don’t think you have to be a hawk on
national defense to want to stay safe.
As long as we use our armed forces intelligently, we should be
able to maintain a satisfactory level of security. Of course, the
issue for other states is what constitutes America’s intelligent
use of force. We may maintain that sending American forces
abroad for some purpose is defensive in nature, while others
insist that it’s an aggressive and unnecessary provocation.
Dr. Ryan: We must trust our leaders to make the right decisions
when it comes to placing men’s and women’s lives on the line.
And it’s a reason the president should be cautious about
deploying them.
It’s an enduring myth that Americans do not want their armed
forces to take casualties. This is because we will absorb these

7. casualties as long as the reasons behind taking them are
justifiable. If we’re going to lose people, we’re willing to do
so, but it had better be for the right reasons.
Amanda: I never knew that! (shocked)
Dr. Ryan: It’s true, and it’s been verified in survey after survey
ever since World War I. Violate this precept and you risk
engaging in an unpopular war, much like our involvement in
Vietnam.
Amanda: I’ve studied that.
Americans were squarely behind the Johnson Administration
until early 1968. Up to then, our military leaders insisted that
the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese were unable to mount any
sort of large-scale offensive. However people quickly turned
against the war after a coordinated series of attacks throughout
South Vietnam caught us totally by surprise. After that,
Americans felt like we were just wasting lives over there in
those jungles. It eventually forced the U.S. to end to war.
Didn’t it happen again in Iraq and Afghanistan after 2001? If
we aren’t making progress toward some tangible foreign policy
goal, Americans have little patience for any type of military
involvement… regardless of the initial reasons behind it.
Dr. Ryan: The interesting aspect of this is that it’s not just
political liberals who object to foreign excursions.
Conservatives were among the strongest opponents of getting
involved in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. This was because
they saw no threat to America’s vital interests in each case, and
they wanted no part of any ill-defined engagement.
Amanda: I totally agree! This was the fundamental reason
Congress adopted the War Powers Act in 1971. Nixon vetoed
the measure, but Congress overrode it. This was because
Congress wanted to be notified in writing by the president
forty-eight hours after the deployment of American troops into
hostile territory. In addition, within sixty days after these
troops were deployed, Congress had to approve the continuation
of their status.
Slide 7

8. Interaction Slide
This slide will be in the form of a tabbed interaction that
presents information on Foreign Policy and Public Opinion.
Backing the President:
· “Rally around the flag”
· Commander in Chief
Mass vs Elite Opinion:
· Public is poorly informed about foreign affairs
· Political elites tend to be better informed, but their opinions
change more rapidly
Political Polarization:
· Conflict over government policy
· Link between party affiliation and foreign policy
Backing the President: Americans have a tendency to “rally
around the flag” when they sense that their country is being
threatened in some way or when the U.S. confronts other
nations. Many Americans also feel a certain amount of
deference toward their Commander in Chief. This is a leading
factor in most, but not all, foreign military crises.
Mass vs Elite Opinion: The general public tends to be less
informed about foreign affairs than political elites. This is
because foreign affairs do not typically affect the everyday lives
of Americans unless it is a time of war. Political elites are
often better informed, but their opinions change more rapidly
due to an awareness of changing circumstances.
Political Polarization: Political polarization means that there is
a conflict over government policy, causing a divide along party
lines. There is a clear correlation between party affiliation and
foreign policy, which may cause this polarization.
Slide 8

9. Scene 4
Amanda and Dr. Ryan do a visual tour of a museum or historical
exhibit in Capitol Hill that showcases the material that is
covered. This is sort of a visual tour of Washington D.C. as
well as a visual component to the conversation.
Dr. Ryan. I think it’s intriguing to compare the initial reaction
of our country immediately after a crisis versus our sustained
reaction to that crisis. That is, look at every serious national
security event from 1960 until present day. We can start with
our U-2 spy plane being shot down in 1960 while on a mission
over the Soviet Union. Then you go right up to the
assassination of Osama bin Laden in 2011.
During these times you see a spike in American support for the
president. Then, if the U.S. becomes involved on the ground in
any of these situations without anything positive to show for it,
watch the drop in support for the president and his foreign
policy in relatively short order. We tend to be an impatient
people, so it’s virtually a given.
Amanda: I guess the lesson here is that if we can go in
somewhere and do something quickly, the public will be four-
square behind the administration. But anything that risks the
reduction of American power will create political polarization.
Dr. Ryan: Agreed. The reason the doctrine of containment was
so popular throughout the Cold War from 1947-1991 was
because it kept the Soviets from expanding into Western
Europe. And it did so without being at the expense of American
lives. It was financially costly, but it paid visible dividends, so
Americans never objected.
But once that same doctrine was applied to Korea in 1950 and
Vietnam beginning in 1958, realists saw the fallacy of trying to
contain a much more elusive brand of communism. As a result,
they no longer supported Truman or Eisenhower. We wanted
results, but no amount of funding for national defense could
assure the country that these wars would end successfully.

10. This might be a good place to stop our discussion.We’vecovered
quite a bit of ground.
Slide 9
Which of the following is FALSE?
A. The War Powers Act inhibits the president from keeping
troops deployed in a combat zone for as long as he wishes.
B. Containment was used to justify America’s involvement in
the Korean and Vietnam wars.
C. Americans tend to support their president immediately after
national security crises.
D. The American public will demand the withdrawal of troops if
casualties become too heavy.
E. Americans generally support a military policy if they can
see results that are worth the loss of life.
Answer: D. Americans are not as squeamish as many people
think, and as long as our losses come from what we consider a
worthy cause, historically we have supported the goals of that
military policy.
Slide 10
Scene 5
Dr. Ryan standing in his office.
Dr. Ryan: What can I say? You’ve done another fine job, as
usual.
We covered a lot of important topics about the U.S. government
today. We talked about domestic policy, including the
importance of institutions and the potential changes in Social
Security. Then, we discussed military policy, including public
opinion and general trends.
It’s exciting to see how much you’ve absorbed over these last
ten weeks, and the interest you’ve shown in our discussions.
You should now have a solid understanding of the United States
government.
Please continue with your outside reading on all of the topics

11. we’ve covered in this course, as well as your discussions on
related topics. This will keep you informed about what’s going
on around you in the country and in the world. Believe me, it’s
time well spent.
Before we part ways, I have great news for you. I have put in a
recommendation for you to one of my colleagues here at the
Congressional Research Service. He considered my referral,
and he has decided to offer you a position. Amanda, you’ve
been hired to work on Capitol Hill!
Congratulations. I know it’s going to be a big step in your
career. Moving forward, I hope you remember the topics we’ve
discussed here about U.S. government.
So long, Amanda. Best of luck with your new career.