Babies:Product or Service?
New reproductive technologies have fundamentally changed the way people can have babies and create families.“Baby M”was born in 1986 as the result of a contract between William Stem and Marybeth Whitehead，both married，though not to each other.The contract provided for Mrs.Whitehead to be artificially inseminated with Mr.Stem's sperm，to bring the baby to term in her womb，and then to give the baby to Mr.and Mrs.Stem to raise as their child.In return，Mr.Stem would pay Mrs.Whitehead$10，000，plus expenses.
After the birth，Mrs.Whitehead decided she wanted to keep the baby，who was，after all，her biological daughter.The case went to court.Although the immediate issue was who would win the right to raise“Baby M”，the policy question on everybody's mind was whether the courts should recognize and enforce surrogate motherhood contracts.Most states prohibit the sale of babies in their adoption laws.So the question of paramount importance was whether a surrogate motherhood contract is a contract for the sale of a baby or for a socially useful service.
On the one hand，Mrs.Whitehead could be seen as renting her womb.Like any professional service provider，she agreed to observe high standards of practice—in this case，prenatal care.According to the contract，she would not drink，smoke，or take drugs，and she would follow medical advice.Like any physical laborer，she was selling the use of her body for a productive purpose.By her own and the Stems'account，she was altruistically helping to create a child for a couple who could not have their own.
On the other hand，Mrs.Whitehead could be seen as producing and selling a baby.She underwent artificial insemination in anticipation of a fee—no fee，no baby.She agreed to have amniocentesis and to have an abortion if the test showed any defects not acceptable to Mr.Stem.She agreed to accept a lower fee if the baby were born with any mental or physical handicaps—low-value baby，low price.
Is a surrogate motherhood contract for a service or for a baby?
How can we make sense of a world where such paradoxes occur?In an age of science，of human mastery over the innermost and outermost realms，how are we to deal with situations that will not observe the elementary rules of scientific decorum?Can we make public policy behave?
The fields of political science，public administration，law，and policy analysis have shared a common mission of rescuing public policy from the irrationalities and indignities of politics，hoping to make policy instead with rational，analytical，and scientific methods.This endeavor is what I call“the rationality project”，and it has been a core part of American political culture almost since the beginning.The project began with James Madison's effort to“cure the mischiefs of faction”with proper constitutional design，thereby assuring that government policy would be protected from the self-interested motives of tyrannous majorities'.In the 1870s，Christopher Columbus Langdell，dean of the Harvard Law School，undertook to take the politics out of law by reforming legal training.Law was a science，he proclaimed，to be studied by examining appellate court decisions as specimens and distilling their common essence into a system of principles.There was no need for either students or professors to gain practical experience.
At the turn of the twentieth century，the rationality project was taken up in spades by the Progressive reformers，who removed policymaking authority from elected bodies and gave it to expert regulatory commissions and professional city managers，in an effort to render policymaking more scientific and less political.The quest for an apolitical science of government continues in the twentieth century with Herbert Simon's search for a“science of administration”，Harold Lasswell's dream of a“science of policy forming and execution”，and the current effort of universities，foundations，and government to foster a profession of policy scientists.
This book[2]has two aims.First，I argue that the rationality project misses the point of politics.Moreover，it is an impossible dream.From inside the rationality project，politics looks messy，foolish，erratic，and inexplicable.Events，actions，and ideas in the political world seem to leap outside the categories that logic and rationality offer.In the rationality project，the categories of analysis are somehow above politics or outside it.Rationality purports to offer a correct vantage point，from which we can judge the goodness of the real world.
I argue，instead，that the very categories of thought underlying rational analysis are themselves a kind of paradox，defined in political struggle.They do not exist before or without politics，and because they are necessarily abstract(they are categories of thought，after all)，they can have multiple meanings.Thus，analysis is itself a creature of politics;it is strategically crafted argument，designed to create ambiguities and paradoxes and to resolve them in a particular direction.(This much is certainly awfully abstract for now，but each of the subsequent chapters is designed to show very concretely how one analytic category of politics and policy is a constantly evolving political creation.)
Beyond demonstrating this central misconception of the rationality project，my second aim is to derive a kind of political analysis that makes sense of policy paradoxes such as the ones depicted above.I seek to create a frame work in which such phenomena，the ordinary situations of politics，do not have to be explained away as extraordinary，written off as irrational，dismissed as folly，or disparaged as“pure politics”.Unfortunately，much of the literature about public policy proceeds from the idea that policymaking in practice deviates from some hypothetical standards of good policymaking，and that there is thus something fundamentally wrong with politics.In creating an alternative mode of political analysis，I start from the belief that politics is a creative and valuable feature of social existence.
The project of making public policy rational rests on three pillars:a model of reasoning，a model of society，and a model of policymaking.The model of reasoning is rational decisionmaking.In this model，decisions are or should be made in a series of welldefined steps:
1.Identify objectives;
2.Identify alternative courses of action for achieving objectives;
3.Predict the possible consequences of each alternative;(https://www.daowen.com)
4.Evaluate the possible consequences of each alternative;
5.Select the alternative that maximizes the attainment of objectives.
This model of rational behavior is so pervasive that it is a staple of check-out-counter magazines and self-help books.For all of its intuitive appeal，however，the rational decisionmaking model utterly fails to explain Bob Dole's thinking or behavior at the time of the balanced-budget amendment vote.Did he attain his objective or didn't he?Did he win or lose?Worse，the model could not help formulate political advice for Dole beforehand，for if we accept his reasoning that he wins either way，then it doesn't matter which way the vote goes and he should just sit back and enjoy the play.Of course，Dole was not only reasoning when he claimed that losing was winning.He was also trying to manipulate how the outcome of the vote would be perceived and how it would influence future political contests between the Republicans and the Democrats.In fact，all the Republican credit-claiming and victory speeches upon losing the vote suggest that politicians have a great deal of control over interpretations of events，and that the political analyst who wants to choose a wise course of action should focus less on assessing the objective consequences of actions and more on how the interpretations will go.If politicians can attain their objectives by portraying themselves as having attained them，then they should be studying portraiture，not cost-benefit analysis.
A model of political reason ought to account for the possibilities of changing one's objectives，of pursuing contradictory objectives simultaneously，of winning by appearing to lose and turning loss into an appearance of victory，and most unusual，of attaining objectives by portraying oneself as having attained them.Throughout this book，[3]I develop a model of political reasoning quite different from the model of rational decisionmaking.Political reasoning is reasoning by metaphor and analogy.It is trying to get others to see a situation as one thing rather than another.For example，parades can be seen as public recreational events，or as collective marches to express an idea.Each vision constructs a different political contest，and invokes a different set of rules for resolving the conflict.Babies created under surrogate motherhood contracts are a phenomenon quite unlike anything we already know.The situation is not exactly like professional service，not exactly like wage labor，not exactly like a contract for pork bellies，not exactly like a custody dispute between divorced parents，and not exactly like an adoption contract.Legislatures and courts deal with the issue by asking，“Of the things that surrogate motherhood isn't，which is it most like?”
Political reasoning is metaphor-making and category-making，but not just for beauty's sake or for insight's sake.It is strategic portrayal for persuasion's sake，and ultimately for policy's sake.This concept of political reason is developed and illustrated throughout the book.[4]
The model of society underlying the contemporary rationality project is the market.Society is viewed as a collection of autonomous，rational decisionmakers who have no community life.Their interactions consist entirely of trading with one another to maximize their individual well-being.They each have objectives or preferences，they each compare alternative ways of attaining their objectives，and they each choose the way that yields the most satisfaction.They maximize their self-interest through rational calculation.The market model and the rational decisionmaking model are thus very closely related.
The market model is not restricted to things we usually consider markets，that is，to systems where goods and services are bought and sold.Electoral voting，the behavior of legislators，political leadership，the size of the welfare rolls，and even marriage have all been explained in terms of the maximization of self-interest through rational calculation.The market model posits that individuals have relatively fixed，independent preferences for goods，services，and policies.In real societies，where people are psychologically and materially dependent，where they are connected through emotional bonds，traditions，and social groups，their preferences are based on loyalties and comparisons of images.How people define their preferences depends to a large extent on how choices are presented to them and by whom.They want greater welfare spending when it is called helping poor children，but not when it is called welfare.Sometimes，as in the case of“Baby M”，they are not quite sure what they are buying and selling，or whether they have engaged in a sale at all.
In place of the model of society as a market，I construct a model of society as a political community...［I set］forth the fundamental elements of human behavior and social life that I take to be axiomatic，and［contrast］them with the axioms of the market model.I start with a model of political community，or“polis”，because I began my own intellectual odyssey in this territory with a simple reflection:Both policy and thinking about policy are produced in political communities.
The observation may be trite，but it has radical consequences for a field of inquiry that has been dominated by a conception of society as a market.To take just one example，the market model of society envisions societal welfare as the aggregate of individuals'situations.All behavior is explained as people striving to maximize their own self-interest.The market model therefore gives us no way to talk about how people fight over visions of the public interest or the nature of the community—the truly significant political questions underlying policy choices.
The model of policymaking in the rationality project is a production model，where policy is created in a fairly orderly sequence of stages，almost as if on an assembly line.Many political scientists，in fact，speak of“assembling the elements”of policy.An issue is“placed on the agenda”，and a problem gets defined.It moves through the legislative and executive branches of government，where alternative solutions are proposed，analyzed，legitimized，selected，and refined.A solution is implemented by the executive agencies and constantly challenged and revised by interested actors，perhaps using the judicial branch.And finally，if the policymaking process is managerially sophisticated，it provides a means of evaluating and revising implemented solutions.
So conceived，the policymaking process parallels the cognitive steps of the rational model of decisionmaking.Government becomes a rational decisionmaker writ large—albeit not a very proficient one.Much of the political science literature in this genre is devoted to understanding where and how good policy gets derailed in the process of production.This model of policymaking as rational problem solving cannot explain why sometimes policy solutions go looking for problems.It cannot tell us why solutions...turn into problems.It only tells us things are working“backward”or poorly.
The production model fails to capture what I see as the essence of policymaking in political communities:the struggle over ideas.Ideas are a medium of exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money and votes and guns.Shared meanings motivate people to action and meld individual striving into collective action.Ideas are at the center of all political conflict.Policymaking，in turn，is a constant struggle over the criteria for classification，the boundaries of categories，and the definition of ideals that guide the way people behave.
...Each idea is an argument，or more accurately，a collection of arguments in favor of different ways of seeing the world.Every chapter［in the book[5]］is devoted to showing how there are multiple understandings of what appears to be a single concept，how these understandings are created，and how they are manipulated as part of political strategy.Revealing the hidden arguments embedded in each concept illuminates，and may help resolve，the surface conflicts....
As I demonstrate throughout the book[6]，the political careers of most policy issues are not nearly so simple as this three-part formula would suggest.For example，people do not always perceive a goal first and then look for disparities between the goal and the status quo.Often，they see a problem first，which triggers a search for solutions and statement of goals.Or，they see a solution first，then formulate a problem that requires their solution(and their services).Nevertheless，I use this framework because it expresses a logic of problem solving that is widespread in the policy analysis literature and because it parallels the models of rational decisionmaking and the policymaking process.
［I then present a discussion］about goals—not the specific goals of particular policy issues，such as expanding health insurance coverage or lowering health care costs，but the enduring values of community life that give rise to controversy over particular policies:equity，efficiency，security，and liberty.These values are“motherhood issues”:Everyone is for them when they are stated abstractly，but the fight begins as soon as we ask what people mean by them.These values not only express goals，but also serve as the standards we use to evaluate existing situations and policy proposals.