Since we live very near Boston, friends are writing to inquire about our safety and to commiserate. A colleague from Mexico writes, “Dear Peter, I am so sorry for what happened. My Solidarity with you and all the people of Boston.” Official emails from our various schools and workplaces warn us that we may feel traumatized and we should be on the lookout for signs of depression and panic. Facebook has provided a steady stream of compassionate thoughts. National groups send blast emails of support to “members in Boston and throughout Massachusetts during this difficult time” (quoting from Gov. Dean’s message a few minutes ago).

If you or a person you care about was directly hurt or terrified yesterday, I am very sorry. And if you feel part of a community under attack, then I sympathize. But I would like to state that I was not attacked. I am not in danger. I was not even inconvenienced. And I think it is important to make those points because I don’t want the terrorists to count me as a victim. I don’t want to act in disproportionate or unwise ways out of a sense of threat, and I would rather not contribute to that feeling in the community at large.

After all, we are prone to make very stupid decisions when we feel threatened and violated. Already, Rep. Steve King (R-IA), has used the Boston bombings to argue against immigration reform. Senator McConnell (R-KY) has claimed that we’ve become too “complacent” about domestic terrorism and should now “recommit ourselves to the fight against terrorism at home, and abroad.” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) has cited the attacks as “proof, … if proof is needed” that sequestration is bad policy because it cuts funds for law enforcement.

Actually, we spend $43 billion per year on Homeland Security, we have engaged “in the practice of torture” against suspected terrorists, we have redesigned our public spaces and put ourselves to incredible inconvenience to prevent terrorism at home, and yet it has posed an unimaginably low risk to Americans over the last decade. We invaded two countries supposedly in response to 9/11, and just yesterday, 30 Afghans were killed by one US bomb at a wedding.*

I understand that one might feel Boston itself was the victim yesterday. Our State Representative emailed: “As a marathoner and also someone who has long loved Copley Square, I feel deeply the violation of a holy space by senseless violence.” I understand his feelings and I see some benefits to this kind of statement. Unlike philosophical cosmopolitans, I believe in loyalty and commitment to groups, including geographical communities. I must admit that I do not happen to identify with Boston, the Marathon, or Copley Place as our State Rep. does. That is a subjective difference that results from our relatively recent move here. I can sympathize with his feelings, which many neighbors, friends, and colleagues share.

Yet the best way to respond is to count on Boston to bounce back. Monday’s attacks were cowardly murders of individuals, but they did no permanent damage to our metro area of 4.6 million people. Boston was founded in 1630 and has survived many worse events. The attacks could ruin the Marathon and harm the city more generally–but only if we allow them to do so.

*This turns out to have been a hoax. Apologies.

The administration’s decision to cut entitlements in its proposed budget has mostly been interpreted as a tactical political move (whether smart or foolish). It’s treated as a pure compromise, the president giving up his real preference in order to achieve a deal with the Republicans or to make them look bad for not negotiating. In other words, it is interpreted as a shift rightward, either for tactical reasons or because the president is just wobbly as a liberal.

But there are hints that the administration sees longer-term entitlement cuts as good for their version of liberal priorities. The Times’ Jackie Calmes reports:

But to Mr. Obama, cost-saving changes in the nation’s fastest-growing domestic programs are more progressive than simply allowing the entitlement programs for older Americans to overwhelm the rest of the budget in future years.

Even so, he emphasized that his support is contingent on Republicans agreeing to higher taxes from the wealthy and new spending, in areas like infrastructure, to create jobs.

The president’s views put him at the head of a small but growing faction of liberals and moderate Democrats who began arguing several years ago that unless the party agrees to changes in the entitlement benefit programs — which are growing unsustainably as baby boomers age and medical prices rise — the programs’ costs will overwhelm all other domestic spending to help the poor, the working class and children.

Many contemporary liberals are struck by the effectiveness of particular programs that can be rigorously evaluated. They know about these programs because they are wonks who read research, and also because nonprofit leaders advocate effectively. This advocacy is not merely special-pleading, but involves real evidence of need and positive impact. Just for instance, see the dozens of educational interventions that have been found effective in randomized controlled studies, as collected by the US Department of Education. But the really big policies are usually not evaluated at all. For instance, there is no official evaluation of federal farm subsidies, although independent economists would almost all oppose them.

This combination leads to a sense that the government could be much more effective at achieving liberal ends if it could invest in innovation. That is the theory behind the White House Social Innovation Fund, which operates much like a private foundation. Its style of governance as investment/innovation fits the Zeitgeist. The same philosophy is taught in policy schools and learned on the job in the nonprofits, businesses, and foundations from which today’s government leaders usually come.

This worldview makes liberal policymakers want to hold money for discretionary federal  programs that are smart, accountable, innovative, and otherwise “21st century.” Given the aging of the US population, those programs will be squeezed by the older entitlement payments that were launched in the 1930s-1960s, unless the latter are trimmed. So the administration proposes $200 million in a competitive pool for state governments that cut energy use, while it reduces farm subsidies by $38 billion over ten years. The administration proposes to expand HOPE (Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation and Enforcement scheme), which is officially an “evidence based program,” but it cuts Social Security by $130 billion and Medicare by $380 billion.

What should the government be: a check-writing operation or an incubator of social innovations? It could be both, but given limited funds, choices must be made.

On one hand: it is possible that taking money from Social Security to spend on HOPE would maximize the net human benefits. Deep cuts in Social Security would reduce human welfare and also violate a promise, but modest cuts could pay for more effective programs.

On the other hand: I am worried about biases that result from (1) too much attention to data and advocacy in favor of small, evaluatable programs that are almost inconsequential compared to the entitlements; and (2) class backgrounds that make our liberal political leaders very interested in entrepreneurial innovations and not adequately concerned about the boring old check-writing operations.

See also: “the proper role of experimentation in social reform.”

Here are three speeches or lectures I’ll be giving soon:

“The Moral Core of Citizenship: Deliberation plus Collaboration and Civic Relationships.”
April 26, 2013, 12:00-5:00, Miner 224, Tufts University (Medford, MA)
Part of day-long symposium on “Philosophy and Civic Engagement” sponsored by the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship & Public Service and the Tufts Philosophy Department. The other two speakers are Anthony Laden (University of Illinois at Chicago), whose subject is “Taking the Engagement in Civic Engagement Seriously,” and Meira Levinson (Harvard University), who will discuss “Redefining Civic Action.” More information here.

“How Can Engagement Drive Economic Growth?”
Social Capital Inc.’s Social Capital Forum: “How Can Engagement Drive Economic Growth?” (with a special guest appearance by Somerville, MA Mayor Joe Curtatone)
Boston, MA, Friday, May 3, 2013 from 8:00 AM to 10:30 AM (EDT)
Register here.

Plenary Session: “A Defense of Higher Education and its Civic Mission”
American Democracy Project National Meeting
Denver, CO, Friday, June 7, 2013, 9 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.

Although I won’t literally read from the manuscript, these are three chips off the big block of my forthcoming book, We are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: The Promise of Civic Renewal in America, Oxford University Press (fall 2013).

The Los Angeles Times’ Alana Semuels reports, “The relentless drive for efficiency at U.S. companies has created a new harshness in the workplace. In their zeal to make sure that not a minute of time is wasted, companies are imposing rigorous performance quotas, forcing many people to put in extra hours, paid or not. Video cameras and software keep tabs on worker performance, tracking their computer keystrokes and the time spent on each customer service call.”

In a companion piece, she argues that the rising stress and longer hours also push down community engagement. She quotes me:

Political engagement often declines when the workplace is a harsher place. Unions were once a driving force behind civic engagement at work, said Peter Levine, director of the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University. Now that they’re such a small part of the private workforce, there’s no one at work encouraging employees to go out and vote, he said.

When people don’t like their jobs, or feel stressed at them, they’re also not predisposed to volunteer in the community, give blood, or participate in food drives organized through their employer (if, indeed, their employer still organizes food or blood drives or community activities).

“If they don’t like their employer, it’s not going to be a path to engagement,” he said.

I think the key issue here is the quality of work and the degree to which the employer empowers its workers (or they organize against the company). The sheer number of hours of work is less important.

In Bowling Alone (2000, p. 202) Robert Putnam argued that working more did indeed reduce hours spent on civic activities–but not by much. He estimated that rising economic pressures and the voluntary entry of women into the workforce had accounted for “less than one tenth of the total decline” of civic engagement that he found from 1970-2000.

Of course, Bowling Alone measured unpaid, after-hours work. If we’re fortunate, our paid work can serve public and democratic purposes, even if our employer is a for-profit corporation.

Besides, employment can raise civic and political engagement outside of work. We can be recruited at work and can find peers with similar needs and concerns. Skills that we acquire at work may translate into the civic and political domains. And just getting out of the house can give a person momentum. An old maxim says that if you want something done, you should ask a busy person. That could be because some people are just energetic and effective (a psychological explanation), or because busy people obtain networks and resources that make action rewarding and effective.

One would think that attending college while working substantial hours per week would force individuals out of civic life. However, in “The Political Participation of College Students, Working Students and Working Youth” (CIRCLE Working Paper 37, 2005), Sharon E. Jarvis, Lisa Montoya & Emily Mulvoy find that “student workers report higher levels of political interest, political skills, political mobilization and political participation than their college student and working youth peers.”

Having said all that, I think Semuels is onto an important story about the suppressive effects of work today. It’s not so much the longer hours as the lack of workers’ organizations, the fragmentation of the workforce, the weakening civic mission of many firms and organizations, and the atmosphere of surveillance that likely reduces civic and political participation.

Semuels writes, “Civic engagement has been proved to help people flourish, Levine said. They develop skills that help them at work, they’re less depressed and they live longer, he said.” Work that involves public problem-solving can therefore be good for the worker as well as the society. When work lacks a public dimension, unpaid civic engagement can be a partial antidote, giving the worker a sense of purpose and value (and also imparting skills and network ties that can lead to better careers). But if a job suppresses civic participation outside of work, then the negative psychological impact may compound. It will then be even harder for a person to get engaged in order to improve her community, her work environment, and her personal well-being.

See also: soft skills for the 21st century workplace: empowered teamwork or emotional labor?