Monthly Archives: November 2009

what has no lobby

On the campaign trail, Barack Obama said that “active citizenship” would “be a central cause of my presidency.” To make that promise a reality, the administration and other players will have to implement an ambitious reform agenda. A preliminary outline of the necessary reforms is contained in the Strengthening Our Nation’s Democracy (II) report. That’s a coalition document and I don’t agree with every word, but I enthusiastically endorse the whole approach.

If you work through that list of reforms, you will find that none has an adequately powerful lobby behind it, but some ideas are better supported than others. Some reform proposals are on the agendas of organized advocacy groups; others fall through the cracks entirely.

One aspect of reform is improving opportunities for Americans–of all ages–to participate in public planning, rulemaking, and administration. The president laid out an agenda for this purpose very capably on his first day in office, when he signed an “Executive Order on Transparency, Participation, and Collaboration.” But there are several planks in the platform, and they have very unequal support. “Transparency” means making governmental information public, and there is a skillful set of advocacy groups that lobby and litigate for that principle. “Collaboration” means reorganizing executive branch programs so that citizens and nonprofits can participate. There is no lobby for that. Many of the mainstream liberal advocacy groups are actually against participation–and the conservative groups don’t approve of these programs in the first place. Thus when the Obama Administration cuts a program that has cultivated collaboration, no organized lobby complains.

Another aspect of reform is strengthening civic education for Americans of all ages, so that citizens and policymakers are better equipped to deliberate, collaborate, and self-govern. One piece of civic education is the “civics” class in high schools. When civics courses are cut, organized groups such as the National Council for the Social Studies respond. I am not saying that they have enough clout or support; they need our help. (I’m going to the NCSS conference in Atlanta tomorrow.) At the same time, it’s important to note that certain other aspects of a civic education agenda have no support at all. For instance, the Civic Mission of Schools recognizes extracurricular activities in schools as important opportunities to develop civic skills. But there is no organized lobby for extracurricular groups in general; only a few particular types of groups have effective supporters. Likewise, no one advocates for adults to have voluntary civic learning opportunities.

We could continue this analysis in much more detail, identifying civic reforms that lack advocacy. This list should not be limited to “process” reforms, but should also include a critical review of mainstream policy issues from a civic engagement perspective. For instance, maybe adding co-ops to the health reform bill would have strengthened active citizenship. No one advocated for that idea, because the whole civic renewal movement is small and weak, and many participants are committed to a rigorous form of policy neutrality. They want to create open spaces for diverse people to discuss issues like health care, but do not want to advocate specific reforms, even if that’s the best path to civic renewal.

Overall, it would help to have a single coalition that would identify tactical targets for policy reform while consistently articulating the overall vision of civic engagement. I am thinking of an analogy to my first employer, Common Cause, which began when John Gardner articulated a broad reform agenda in his book of the same name. He also created a new kind of organization, which depended on mass mailings, dues-paying members, and a professional lobbying corps in Washington (to which I once belonged). Gardner’s policy agenda is now dated, his organizational model no longer works as planned, and Common Cause itself has had to specialize in a few aspects of democratic reform. We urgently need a new campaign with similar purposes and ambitions, but different priorities and an innovative structure appropriate to our times.

they also serve at home

(On the way home from an AmericaSpeaks board meeting in Washington) “Recent veterans who have volunteered since returning to the United States show a better adjustment to civilian life than their fellow returned servicemen and women who have not volunteered, according to a new report issued in time for Veterans Day.” That is the lead of CIRCLE’s Veteran’s Day release, based on a survey of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans that we helped construct and analyze for Civic Enterprises. The implication is that we need to make sure returning veterans have opportunities to serve at home.

See also Civic Enterprise’s full report, All Volunteer Force, which we helped with and which was released in DC today with Michelle Obama and others in attendance.

Meanwhile, I thought the president’s speech from yesterday was magnificent. “Long after they are laid to rest – when the fighting has finished, and our nation has endured; when today’s servicemen and women are veterans, and their children have grown – it will be said of this generation that they believed under the most trying of tests; that they persevered not just when it was easy, but when it was hard; and that they paid the price and bore the burden to secure this nation, and stood up for the values that live in the hearts of all free peoples.”

service-learning, the Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad

The phrase “service-learning” seems to date from 1966. Nowadays, it means organized opportunities in schools or other educational institutions that combine community service with academic instruction as part of a curriculum or program of study. Since the late 1960s, the concept has been institutionalized with federal and state legislation, formal policies in schools and colleges, advocacy groups, and a body of scholarship. In 2008, approximately 35% of American high schools offered service-learning.

It is a much older idea, though. Buddhism, for example, emphasizes that true wisdom comes from serving others. “The Buddha himself bathed and clothed sick bhiksus [monks], cleaned their rooms, attended their daily routines, comforted their bodies and minds, and threaded the needle for aged bhiksus to relieve the pain of their poor eyesight” (Yun, 2008). The Buddha’s enlightenment came from his compassion, which grew from his service.

About 500 years later, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus uses the example of a woman who has washed his feet–an act of service–to teach his disciples about the forgiveness of sins (Luke 7:38).

The Arabic word sadaqah (which is etymologically and conceptually similar to tzedakah in Hebrew) refers to voluntary acts of charity or service that are both virtuous in themselves and signs of faith. In Islam, sadaqah can be educational. Abu Huraira, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad who died about 1200 years after the Buddha, reported that Muhammad said: “Verily what a believer continues to receive (in the form of reward) for his action and his virtues after his death is the knowledge which he acquired and then disseminated.”

Even secular service-learning is a venerable tradition. Three famous examples from before World War II are Hull-House, the Chicago settlement founded by Jane Addams, which closely connected education to service; the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee, which educated generations of labor and civil rights leaders using service experiences; and the Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided a whole curriculum along with its public work opportunities.

These days, I frequently argue in public discussions that the essential rationale for service-learning is moral; its moral premises deserve critical reflection; and empirical research that links service-learning to various outcomes (such as higher test scores) is mostly beside the point. I understand the tactical advantages of showing that what we value as an intrinsic good–in this case, service plus reflection–also pays off in standard utilitarian ways. But we shouldn’t let our tactics obscure our fundamental commitments. Nor should we leave our moral commitments unchallenged, because there are critical responses to the ideal of “service.”

Senator Coburn v. the online town meeting experiment

I have enthusiastically summarized a recent NSF-funded experiment in which Members of Congress deliberated with randomly selected citizens about the hot-button issue of immigration. I presented this experiment as “the right way to do a town hall meetings.” I noted, as one of the positive outcomes, that participants increased their favorable views of their elected officials as a result of the online deliberations. (We know that is a real effect because there was a randomly selected control group that didn’t deliberate.)

I should have seen the objection coming. In fact, it came on the floor of the US Senate, presented forcefully by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Texas), and was then picked up by prominent blogs and mass media. One of the study’s authors, David Lazer, has even graphed the way Coburn’s speech diffused across cyberspace:

The critical argument is nicely summarized on the Heritage Foundation’s web site: “This report urges Congressmen not to actually interact with their constituents, but to avoid them altogether by holding safe townhalls they can completely control. … Congress is actually using your tax dollars to pay social scientists to find ways they can avoid actually talking to their constituents while improving their chances of reelection.” Senator Coburn even used this project as an example of why the NSF should not fund political science at all.

On his blog, Lazer summarizes the various criticisms and responds with commendable civility. For my part, I would say: It was not a good thing in itself that participants became more supportive of Members of Congress. Some Members deserve low support–their reelection rate is, if anything, too high. But it is a good thing that people were able to exchange ideas and values in a civil format with national leaders. This is an educational process for both sides.

I mentioned the fact that politicians’ approval ratings rose because I do not think they will be instinctively enthusiastic about this kind of format. Contrary to the fears of the Heritage Foundation, politicians cannot control a true deliberative forum.* Thus we are not likely to see many online deliberations unless Members of Congress stand to gain somehow from participating. It was helpful to learn that their approval ratings rose, because that might motivate them to do more deliberations.

I can grasp a purist argument that any government is prone to protect its own interests, and therefore we should be vigilant about any effort that uses tax dollars and improves the reputation of incumbents. But if we are concerned about the unfair advantages of incumbents, the obvious issues to address are gerrymandered electoral districts, the huge fundraising imbalance, and free mailings for Members of Congress (the “franking privilege”).

When incumbents choose to do things that citizens actually like–such as deliberating online; or passing good legislation–their approval is likely to rise, but we can hardly complain. In Federalist 27, Hamilton writes, “I believe it may be laid down as a general rule that [citizens’] confidence in and obedience to a government will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration.” If deliberation is a form of “good administration,” it will increase confidence in and obedience to the government. That sounds like a good sign.

—-

*Heritage is concerned that “off-topic, redundant, unintelligible, or offensive questions were screened.” They’re worried that an angry opponent of federal policy would be blocked. Lazer responds, “As noted in the report, the possibility of screening anything as ‘offensive’ was theoretical. We did not actually exclude any questions for this reason. … That said, it is worth noting that the medium is potentially manipulable, and there is nothing to stop someone who is doing an online townhall from excluding difficult questions. (Of course, all communication media are manipulable in some way, so it is not obvious that this is an advantage or disadvantage of online townhalls.) We had a neutral moderator, and included all questions that time would allow, in the order that were posted. This included some that were pretty hostile to the Member. Our assessment (and recommendation) was that these very confrontations made the events more effective, because they reflected the authenticity of the event. In short, the Members approval ratings increased because they had done the right thing.”

amor mundi

Regressions, pentameters, dialogues,
Memoranda of understanding, plots,
Research contracts, policy briefs, lectures,
Op-eds, philosophical arguments,
Budget narratives, translations, fact sheets,
Hortatory afterwords, blind reviews,
Close readings, scatterplots, interview notes.
These are things I write but not as well
As they are written. I read and relish
Much better than I compose and create.
A poor place to be at age forty-two;
The biography shelf stands in reproach.
I plead restlessness and indiscipline.
Dissatisfaction, ambition, ego–
Susceptibility to the thin charm
Of seeing first name, last name, title in print–
Lure of the easy August downhill path
Plus unconfessed daydreams of synthesis
And a hapless, unquenched love of the world.