Four powerful agencies that deal with environmental regulation–the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture–wanted to know whether involving citizens improves their decisions by tapping local knowledge and energy and increasing the legitimacy of outcomes, or whether citizens merely make things worse because they lack scientific knowledge. So the agencies (without a touch of irony) asked the experts at the National Research Council to review the evidence about public participation. The experts’ verdict was favorable: well-designed processes that involve the public produce better outcomes.

Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decisi …
Read this FREE online! Full Book | PDF Summary

Listening to Michelle Obama last night, I thought about a conversation we had in October 2006. I hesitate to report it because I am a strong critic of the kind of politics that prizes personal interactions with leaders–as if other citizens cannot make good judgments based on the public record. Besides, no one should rely on the accuracy or fairness of a reporter, a staffer, or someone else who gets close to the famous–even if he gains access by accident, which is what happened to me.

On the other hand, Mrs. Obama made a strongly positive impression on me, and it has been seriously bothering me to see her misrepresented over the last six months. This is not only unfair to her as an individual; it also has consequences for women. Because she has been presented as an angry and challenging figure, she is going to have to compensate by coming across as completely nice. That will circumscribe her ability to lead.

The irony is that I found her very nice, indeed. She was the moderator of a panel at Campus Compact’s 20th Anniversary gala. I was a panelist, and we chatted for maybe 10 minutes as we waiting to go onstage. She seemed somewhat tired–short of sleep and exercise because of her demanding job, her two kids, and her husband’s constant travel. But she didn’t complain; this came up in the context of a dialog about being parents, in which she focused on my life as much as hers.

She professed not to feel at all comfortable in the glamorous DC scene. I smiled inwardly a bit, because she and her husband were already the most glamorous couple in town–she wasn’t going to have to stand by the cheese platter at a cocktail party, hoping someone would talk to her. But I took her insecurity as completely genuine, because she presented it as a shared problem. Neither of us would feel comfortable at a glitzy reception, she seemed to be saying–even though she would be mobbed by admirers and job-seekers whereas I would be very surprised to be admitted.

Above all, I remember talking about kids. I’ve got a daughter who falls right between Sasha and Malia Obama in age. Whatever you may think about having a First Lady who is thoroughly committed to her own children, Michelle Obama is that person.

PeerReview is a magazine published by the Association of American Colleges and Universities. The current issue is devoted to students and political engagement. My Tisch College (Tufts University) colleagues Rob Hollister and Nancy Wilson and I have an article, and there is a nice mix of other pieces on everything from civic engagement at a historically Black college to Facebook and politics .

Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama have now agreed to participate in a summit on national and community service in New York City on Sept. 11. This will be their first joint appearance after the conventions–not a debate, but a pair of in-depth statements by the candidates. For those of us who have floated around the “service” world for a long time, this is pretty exciting. (I was one of two token college students at a Wingspread summit on service in 1988, so I’ve been in it for 20 years.) There are important debates about whether the federal service programs should be rethought and also whether “service” is the best word or concept to advance the highest values of the movement. There is also a big question about whether Congress will fund a major expansion of service programs in an era of deficits, even if it authorizes an expansion. But it’s clear that service has momentum right now.

David Brooks argued yesterday that “[John] McCain and his advisers have been compelled to adjust to the hostile environment around them. They have been compelled, at least in their telling, to abandon the campaign they had hoped to run. … The man who lampooned the Message of the Week is now relentlessly on message …. The man who hopes to inspire a new generation of Americans now attacks Obama daily.”

This column provoked derisive responses from some liberal readers. Tom Fornholtz summarizes Brooks thus: “The American people have forced John McCain to run a dishonorable campaign.” It’s as if there were two possible culprits to blame for the strong negativity of the McCain campaign–the candidate or the audience–and Brooks was blaming the latter.

Clearly, the candidate bears some responsibility. But blame can also fall on the situation–the logic of the game. A presidential campaign is strictly zero-sum: a vote against Obama is a vote for McCain. Only one of the candidates can win the White House. By attacking the other person, you can improve your relative standing; witness the way that negative opinions about Obama have risen and his margin has fallen–for example, according to the LA Times–as McCain has attacked him. “All the negative attacks from the McCain campaign seem to have been paying off,” said [LA] Times Poll Director Susan Pinkus.

Now if you think that tearing down your opponent is morally bad, and the only reason you’re doing it is to enhance your own personal prospects, then you shouldn’t do it. But that’s not McCain’s situation. He no doubt believes that: (a) the attacks are at least partly justified and therefore actually informative, (b) there are principled reasons why he (McCain) should win the presidency; (c) thousands or even millions of people are resting their hopes on him; (d) negative campaigning works; and (e) negative campaigning is the norm and is likely to come from the Democratic side as well, sooner or later.

This is a classic situation in which two players are likely to harm the overall atmosphere in the pursuit of their own interests. One will attack the other, if only as a preemptive strike; and then his opponent will attack back. One way to mitigate the situation is to build up mutual trust through private and candid conversations. But that’s almost impossible for two competitors in the glare of national publicity. Another way is to put principle above self-interest, but that is always rare, and is especially unlikely when some principles seem to favor negative campaigning.

The solution lies not in blaming either the candidate or the public, but in structural reforms. The idea that McCain floated for numerous joint appearances–while obviously in his own self-interest–might also have mitigated the impact of negative campaigning in the race. Another idea is the kind of election coverage pioneered by public journalists in the 1990s: newspapers can stop reporting on campaign tactics and ads and start explaining policy differences. Finally, if the Obama “ground game” (thousands of paid local organizers) wins the election for him, it will show that increasing turnout through grassroots action is more effective than using ads to tear down one’s opponents. That may change the next election for the better.