This afternoon, the Summer Institute of Civic Studies (a seminar of about 18 people) expands into a public conference: Frontiers of Democracy II: Innovations in Civic Practice, Theory and Education.  The conference will be live-streamed this Thursday through Saturday so you can watch it at your desk. At its heart will be a diverse set of rehearsed 10-minute talks on aspects of civic studies and democratic renewal, all of which will be live-streamed.

Speakers include grassroots practitioners, elected officials, scholars, civic advocates, a tech developer and more, from the U.S. and abroad. The entire schedule can be seen here.

You can watch and listen online here, as well as participate in the conversation by using the Twitter hashtag #demfront.

Frontiers of Democracy is a collaboration between the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, the Deliberative Democracy Consortium, and the Democracy Imperative.

I am co-teaching the Summer Institute of Civic Studies and blogging about roughly half of the 18 topics on our syllabus. This post summarizes an important debate about the structure and ethic of government that also influences how citizens should see their roles. The readings are:

• Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism (second ed., 1979), pp. 42-63; 295-313
• Michael C. Dorf and Charles F. Sabel, “A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism,” with a focus on pp. 270-338

Consider two radically opposed perspectives on democracy (in general) and the American republic (in particular):

1. The essence of government is deliberation, leading to law.

Deliberation is about principles. It can be conducted by citizens or by legislators, or both. There should be one discussion within each polity, and it should be open to and followed by all.

Law means general, durable, consistent, equitable rules that are predictably and efficiently enforced.

Public deliberation should be about law and should result in the passage of major statutes that widely effect society.

Meanwhile, ordinary life in society can involve particular people and firms that make their own decisions, changing their minds, acting according to self-interest, and negotiating with others. The framework for their free action is set by law.

The problem with our republic is that we have lost the distinction between society and government. Government is now a venue for endless negotiation among interest groups about malleable policies (not about law, in the classic sense.) Private interests are too influential, and government behaves too much like a private interest or like a manager of interest-group negotiations. The rule of law, deliberation, and equity are lost.

2. Governance means all the ways we shape our common world. It involves (and ought to involve) constant experimentation, learning and adjustment, negotiation, compromise, and the use of many tools to influence society, including moral persuasion, information, monetary incentives, prizes, rules, punishments, etc.

The government is part of that; it is one instrument of governance. Far from unitary, it consists of many levels, agencies, branches, and offices. They inevitably negotiate and compromise with each other. People who work for the government also wear other hats, as activists, taxpayers, residents, etc. Successful government employees are “policy entrepreneurs,” selling their ideas in the marketplace.

The problem with our republic is the excessive distance between the government and other entities that affect our common life. That gap causes inefficiencies and mistrust. We need more public/private partnerships, more flexibility in government, and more market-like methods.

Theodore Lowi argues for the first perspective; Dorf and Sabel, for the second.

A specific problem has arisen that feeds this controversy. Whether we think of it as the problem of the regulatory state, administrative discretion, or delegation, this is the concern: our constitution invests all legislative authority in the Congress and envisions the president debating with Congress and then implementing the law. But in reality, a modern Congress uses law to create administrative or regulatory agencies with broad discretion and autonomy. Congress passes statutes, but regulations, administrative law decisions, and government contracts are pervasive aspects of governance, composing a “fourth branch.”

Laissez-faire conservatives oppose that whole system because of their economic theory, but they support the same style of governance in their own favored areas. Theodore Lowi argues that the emergence of the Fourth Branch is a symptom of deep corruption that undermines liberalism.

Continue reading →

I am co-teaching the Summer Institute of Civic Studies and blogging about roughly half of the 18 topics on our syllabus. One of our topics yesterday was the work of Roberto Mangabeira Unger, the former Brazilian cabinet member and Harvard law professor (see my summary from 2010).

Here is a little fable (mine, not Unger’s) that illustrates how his theoretical position relates to everyday civic efforts:

A group of middle class students has volunteered to serve meals at a homeless shelter. They love the experience. During the reflection session later, one remarks, “Serving the homeless was so great! I hope that shelter will still be open in 50 years, so my grandchildren can serve.”

A progressive educator cries, “No! Our goal must be to end homelessness. You need to think about root causes, not just serve free food once a week. What are the fundamental causes of homelessness?” Chastened, the students do serious research and determine that homelessness results from poverty, which, in turn, is a byproduct of late capitalism.

They are trying to figure out what to do about capitalism when Roberto Mangabeira Unger happens to walk by. “No!” cries Unger. “You are assuming that the link between poverty and homelessness is natural or inevitable. You have seen patterns in our limited experience and have derived ‘lawlike tendencies or deep-seated economic, organizational, and psychological constraints’ from the data; these now limit your imaginations. We human beings have made the social world and we can change any part of it–not only the parts that you have identified as deep structures, but also any of the other elements or links.

“Your ‘confining assumptions … impoverish [your] sense of the alternative concrete institutional forms democracies and markets can take.’ By focusing on the biggest and most intractable factors, you guarantee defeat, whereas any part of the picture could be changed. It would be possible to have a capitalist society with poverty but no shortage of homes. What if we got rid of all zoning rules and rent control but gave everyone a voucher for rent? What if public buildings were retrofitted to allow people to sleep comfortably in them at night? What if some houses were shared, like ZipCars, and homeless people occupied the temporarily empty ones? What if …?

The readings were:

• Roberto Unger, False Necessity, Chapter 1 (pp. 1-40)
• Roberto Unger, Democracy Realized, “A Manifesto” (pp. 263-77)
• See also my Unger-inspired piece on innovation in government