It seems possible to sort politicians' thinking into levels of analysis according to how deeply they undertand an issue. The easiest and first form of thought is a focus on a simple outcome. The second level of analysis is more advanced since it sets the outcomes and other features into a conceptual description involving the relationships among the descriptions. The third level of analysis subordinates the issue with other issues into am explanation of what system organizes and produces the outcomes, that is, the general ideas surrounding the means of production which in politics is usually government versus the free market.
Issues become tools for analyzing politicians' theories of government. The issue of student diet in public schools gives a clear example of the difference between a level1/2 analysis and a level 3 analysis.
Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, has twice introduced bills to deal with foods other than the standard school lunch, which is regulated by Department of Agriculture. Several lawmakers and advocates for changes in school food believe that an amendment to the $286 billion farm bill is the best chance to get control of the mountain of high-calorie snacks and sodas available to schoolchildren. For this issue, the desirable outcome is a better diet for kids. An outcome is a "what". Now look at the "how".
Looking at how the outcome is produced requires an analysis comparing government controls versus protecting the free choices of students. If no thought is given to how and why we create a system of government to fulfill certain functions, then the outcome, the good intentions of making sure kids eat good diets is all there is to the politicians thinking. But regardless of whether the goal is desirable, a deeper analysis also considers how we want our government to work. We need a theory of government since it organizes our analysis of this school lunch diet issue and all others.
So we can take this diet issue and ask how well politicians produce the deeper third level analysis that serves as their theory of governmnt. How does Senator Harken explain why and how federal government should be used to take over control of what kids eat in school. Harken doesn't explain. Another politician does touch on a third level analysis. Fred Thompson says he wants the government to keep its hands off your dinner plate.
”I’m telling you, I don’t think that it’s the primary responsibility of the federal government to tell you what to eat,” Thompson said to applause when asked if his health care plan included any details on preventative care, a priority for Democratic candidates. “The fact of the matter is we got an awful lot of knowledge,” said the former Tennesse senator. “Sometimes we don’t have a whole lot of will power, and I don’t know of any government program that’s going to instill that.”
So, looking at candidates level 3 analysis in which they explain their theories of government, Thompson at least explains enough to let us know he is a fan of small government by saying that healthy living should be the responsibilities of families first. It's not a complete theory of government but gives us some clues. By contrast, Senator Harken describes the school lunch diets as an "issue" and therefore implies that it is a problem that federal government must solve. But that is all he says so we don't have an explanation from him as to why or how this is should be a function of the federal government.
