My latest article on my blog at the Washington Times Communities, Public Square Today, is now live:

Obama Administration Falls Short On Civic Participation

On the morning of President Obama’s first State of the Union address, I published a rather dispirited prediction for the talk. One commenter asked me:

I am very downhearted at how casually people dismiss the possibility of our government doing much good. I definitely agree that the structures don’t feel like they are working.

I am cautiously reassured at how many of these points the president touched on. Not to exaggerate the point, but it almost felt like a speech that was consciously designed not to be the kind that inspires the skepticism you express here.

Any second thoughts?

Now that the dust is settling, I thought it might be worthwhile to look less at the state of the Union address itself, but at the state of the administration. As most readers know, my main focus is on civic participation and I look at government through that lens. In other words, one of the major problems I see in politics in America is that most people see no place for themselves in it. Under these conditions, government and politics is not about how we solve our problems together; it is how they provide us the services we need.

This is anathema to the fundamental notion of self-governance.

One reason candidate Obama gave such hope to many is that they sensed in his rhetoric and biography that his bias is towards collaboration and participation when it comes community problem solving.

Indeed, on his first full day in office, President Obama famously signed a striking executive order on openness and transparency in government. In this message, he says that government “should be transparent, . . . participatory, [and] . . . collaborative.”

What Progress On Participation?

So far, however, it appears that the vastly greater share of energy has been spent on the “transparency” piece.  This has been well-spent energy (although there’s a far piece to go in implementing the Obama transparency mandates).

But there are two other legs of the stool — participation and collaboration — where progress is lacking. An example of this is health care reform. This would have been a terrific area to actively, and authentically, reach out to people from all walks of life and craft what the proposals ought to look like. Instead, the political class developed its proposals and sold them to the public using fake town halls.

My friend Peter Levine has written a very thoughtful critique on the administration’s progress in the areas of participation and collaboration. He says, in part:

The agenda so far has been strong on service and transparency, but almost entirely missing participation or collaboration–equal pillars in the original executive order. Service does not necessarily build civic skills or address fundamental problems; besides, even an expanded AmeriCorps offers no role to most people. “Transparency” means feeding information to organized interest groups, reporters, and a few independent citizens who have deep interests and skills in particular areas.

These forms of civic engagement are not nearly “edgy” enough; there is no fight in them. People are angry, in America–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. If “active citizenship” reduces to non-controversial “service,” it will completely lose touch with the legitimate anger of the American people.

I agree with Peter’s critique, which is far better supported than this brief excerpt can do justice to. (So read it.)

Where Does Participation Go?

One critique of the civic participation movement is that it is all about talk and no action. This is a valid concern. Conversations on the community level can’t go nowhere; they need to connect to real changes.

Another friend of mine, Lars Hasselblad Torres, has put it this way, in a comment on Peter Levine’s piece: “We need to push through the veneer of ‘discussion’ as a good and reasonable outcome to policy implementation.” He’s right. He goes on:

I’d also like to see work up front, setting the policy agenda. The State of the Union is one such focusing opportunity. Instead of lecturing (possibly humiliating, alienating) Republicans, how about building truly post-partisan mechanisms?

At the same time, I applaud the work happening in the Office of Science and Technology Policy to engage the public participation community in framing up priorities for agency reform. Its a great start; now we need teeth.

So far, I agree: the focus has been on data and on internet-based outreach. This is insufficient, as both are far too subject to intermediaries and manipulation. Direct participation that takes the conversation into communities, states and regions is needed.

I agree with Lars, too. And this, in the end, is my critique of the State Of The Union address. The language has shifted from “we” to “me.” No longer are ordinary people being called on to work together — instead, the solutions come from moves made by the administration or by Congress.

The State Of The Union Falls Short

While there were excellent moments of humility in the address, and a laudable restraint when it comes to trotting out Main Street people as emblems of various things, the focus was all on government as doing things for the American people.

This is fine on one level. However, Obama has expressly portrayed himself as a different kind of political leader. Many of the markers that have led us to believe that this is the case, appear to have fallen by the wayside.

In a May 2007 speech, according to Peter, Obama said:

“[W]hen 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.

The call for neighbor to talk to neighbor about important issues of the day appears to be withering under the heat of actual governance.

Instead, we hear this, on jobs:

Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps [a jobs bill]. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. They will. People are out of work. They’re hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.

On financial reform:

Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We’ve got to get it right.

On climate change legislation:

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. And this year I’m eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate.

On education:

When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That’s why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.

On health care reform:

[T]this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, ”What’s in it for me?” . . .

[A]s temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed. There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.

Here’s what I ask Congress, though: Don’t walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done.

(The bold is added by me for emphasis.)

On all these issues, the picture painted is of a political class doing things for Americans. Obama faults himself for not “explaining” health care properly. But mostly, he calls on Congress to act in the ways he wants them to. (And harshly at that.)

Republicans complain that they are not treated as colleagues by the majority Democrats. They’re right. Meanwhile, Democrats say the Republicans have just become the party of “no.” They’re right too. Obama, for his part, chides Congress for arguing too much.

Ordinary people are left out of this troika. They have no role. This is my chief disappointment with the last year. I see little concrete action taken to invite ordinary people back into politics in any meaningful way.