As a candidate, Barack Obama made the strongest case since Bobby Kennedy in 1968 that we need to engage Americans in changing America. His civic engagement theme was popular with voters (although largely unreported by the press), and I believe it helped him win the primaries.
But no one who has any influence in the party or the administration--other than possibly the president and the first lady--really understands the power of civic engagement. All the diagnoses of what's going wrong focus on top-down strategy: the Democrats are too arrogant or too cautious, they took too long or tried to rush too fast, or they focused on health care when they should have attended to unemployment. Now the advice from all quarters is to change legislative objectives and to craft a new "message." This whole discourse ignores what could be the unique advantage of having a community organizer in the White House.
The "Active Citizenship" Theme in the Campaign
Announcing his presidential candidacy, Senator Barack Obama said, "This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change."
Ten months later, as he campaigned to win the Iowa Caucuses, Senator Obama said "I won't just ask for your vote as a candidate; I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States. This will not be a call issued in one speech or program; this will be a cause of my presidency."
Candidate Obama argued that positive change comes from organized social movements, not from the government alone. Social movements should be broad-based, not narrow groups of people who all agree with one another. They should promote discussion and collaboration across lines of difference--including ideological difference.
As he said in May 2007, "politics" usually means shouting matches on TV. But "when politics gets local, when the person talking to you is your neighbor standing on your front porch, things change." In that speech, he called for dialogues in every community on Iraq, health care and climate change.
Further, Obama argued that social change requires work by many people. We must tap their skills, energies, networks and local knowledge. Government programs cannot substitute for public work; nor can rights or entitlements. The "work" theme was strong and consistent in his speeches.
Before the campaign, Barack Obama had been a broad-based community organizer, provoking moral discussions with diverse neighbors for social change. Because of his deep interest in the theoretical issues connected to that work, he was one of just two elected officials who joined Robert Putnam's Saguaro Seminar, a leading project on civil society. Michelle, meanwhile, ran an AmeriCorps program (Public Allies in Chicago) that emphasizes civic skills, and then she took the job of building better relationships between the University of Chicago and its surrounding communities. Civic engagement ran deep in the lives of this couple.
Did the Civic Engagement Theme Help Obama Win?
The press, including liberal columnists and bloggers, paid virtually no attention to the civic engagement theme in the campaign. Reporters regard a statement about "active citizenship" much like a comment about how wonderful it feels to visit New Hampshire in January. Yet videos of his speeches clearly show rising applause at the civic moments.
Within the campaign, policy advisers didn't pay much more attention to the civic themes than the media. The Democrats' proposals on matters like education and the environment included no concrete ideas for civic empowerment. The "active citizenship" theme slipped past Democratic Party elites just as it escaped the notice of the press.
On the other hand, the campaign was structured in ways that reflected Obama's civic philosophy. Volunteers were encouraged and taught to share their stories, to discuss social problems, to listen as well as mobilize, and to develop their own plans. There was a rich discussion online as well as face-to-face. This deliberative style was particularly attractive to young, college-educated volunteers, who felt deeply empowered and who played a significant role in the election's outcomes, especially in Iowa.
What Happened After the Inauguration?
Once elected, President Obama signed the Kennedy Serve America Act, which triples the size of AmeriCorps. That means that about 250,000 Americans--mostly young--will perform civilian service for a year or so. On his first day of office, the new president issued an executive order on Transparency, Participation and Collaboration.
But service does not necessarily build civic skills or address fundamental problems; besides, even an expanded AmeriCorps offers no role to most people. "Transparency" came to mean feeding information to organized interest groups, reporters, and a few independent citizens who have deep interests and skills in particular areas. Participation and collaboration have not been part of the agenda since Inauguration Day.
Service and transparency are not nearly "edgy" enough; there is no fight in them. People are angry - from the Tea Partiers to MoveOn. When citizens try to solve serious social problems, they identify enemies. They do not just hold hands and serve together; they strike back at those whom they perceive as threats. "Active citizenship" reduced to non-controversial "service" or downloading government data completely loses touch with the legitimate anger of the American people.
The White House chose to make health care its major focus and included no aspects of civic engagement in the deliberations about the bill, in its advocacy for the legislation, or in the design of the statute. There could have been real public discussions, instead of sham "Town Meetings" that were really speeches by politicians with time for Q&A. Progressive volunteers could have been encouraged to conduct face-to-face dialogues in their communities and to form relationships with one another (instead of merely finding themselves on the receiving end of an email list). The legislation could have included health co-ops as an experiment in engaging citizens in policy.
It is probably too late to try a civic approach on health care. Climate change is so obviously stuck in the Senate that it is the issue I would use. The inside game can't work. Since negotiation cannot yield an acceptable bill, the administration should try a grassroots strategy that includes a genuine element of open discussion, not just "messaging." And the legislation should include strong support for citizens' work (not just volunteer service) to reduce our carbon emissions.
With the strategy for ramming a deeply contentious issue like health care reform through Congress in tatters, the case for active citizen engagement in pursuit of climate change is stronger than ever.
*sigh*
It's interesting how you mention that you don't see people in the administration, except for possibly the President & First Lady, really seeing the true potential of civic engagement. There does seem to be a disconnect between his personal views & experience on this and the implementation of policy.
We are ready for someone who can govern as well as campaign with a focus on civic engagement...I'll still hold out hopes that it could be our current President who does this!
Part of what I think all our politicians have been struggling with this last year is coming to grips with the changes wrought by this new internet age - specifically the democratization of information. It seems to me that so much of institutional Washington is operating ten years out of date - thinking that things that used to work still do. Today's announcement of this spending freeze, as an example, has been interpreted in a variety of ways, virtually none of which are positive. What's misunderstood is that anything that smells like an empty gesture, that has no fundamental basis in principle, that seems shifty or hedging, will be mercilessly battered. Why? Because we have access to past records of public statements, campaign promises, histories of key players, the views of thinkers across the spectrum AND THEIR TRACK RECORDS, as well as all kinds of related data.
Information has begun the inevitable tarnishing of a lot of people and institutions who have previously been able to escape accountability. Those days are numbered.
I think the democratization of information will eventually lead to a power shift downwards. We're still in the phase of just processing the meaning and implications of what we're collectively learning about our government and leaders and other power players. I believe the next step will be organizing on a lot of levels, and the kind of civic involvement you discuss.
You've put your finger on the aspect I singled out some 25yrs ago: in a well designed system an individual doesn't have to compete with Subject Matter Experts. In a truly democratic system (Paolo Friere anyone?) an individuals opionion (hopefully rooted in their experience and based on some shared facts) stands as requiring attention. As I wrote elsewhere last week, "Even if we all agreed on the facts (not likely!) we'll still differ on what those facts meant".
We aren't likely to exhaust discourse anytime soon. I'm wondering when we're actually going to get started. (NB: "Discourse" ... IMNSHO pages of stand-alone comments are, at best, conversation.)
there is consumer empowerment to consider.
the myriad of skilled and unskilled labors and services that a alternative work force of volunteers can produce: lets say 100 million labors, 15 million skilled crafts, 30 million customer services, 45 million field works, 5 million artisan and academia contributions, 750,000 administrative and executive positions.
two questions: one, what can you produce with all of these who fall in line for service. two, can we subsidize GDP with these service (and produce a stimulas of growth if not supplemental revenue).
we could consider a national internship program.
we could resurrect the freedman's bureu
we could resurrect the Works Progress Administration
I guess, how we build a platform for the development of civic identity becomes the question.
-we have to diverge from satus quo
-we have to seek out dynamics such as altruism to create opportunities for manipulating social capital and structure i.e. a soldiers discipline, a mothers care, the patient-doctor relationship.
-we need to give the youth a motive and tools like fresh paradigms and truth telling; People in our past did great things because there were great things to do.