7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
The Power of Public Ideas, July 17, 2004
The dominant model of political behavior - pluralism - assumes that people are self-interested and uses economic behavior as an analogy for political behavior. People organize themselves into groups to get their needs met, and these groups compete with one another to obtain rewards that are allocated through political processes. The role of government is to make sure that political competition is fair and open - possibly helping weaker groups organize themselves and helping them acquire the skills to compete effectively. The government will also provide public goods that cannot be provided through private market activity. In sum, the government, will try to make sure that people (at least those who are organized) get what they want, as efficiently as possible.
After introducing this dominant model, Robert Reich, the editor of The Power of Public Ideas, delineates the situations where it might best be applied:
"The prevailing philosophy comprises a useful set of precepts for guiding much of policy making, particularly where there is wide and enduring consensus about the nature of the problems to be solved, the range of possible solutions, and appropriate allocations of responsibility for solving them; and where solving the problems as understood is more useful than understanding them differently. The prevailing philosophy is less helpful - indeed, may forestall social learning - where these conditions are not met."
Reich champions a different model; one that assumes that people are motivated, in their political lives, by what they think is good for society. He cites some compelling evidence for this view: the civil rights movement, for example, can't be explained if politics is nothing more than self-interested competition among atomistic groups. Moreover, citizens must feel some concern and consideration for one another, or massive coercion would be required to keep order.
Because Reich thinks people are basically public-spirited, rather than selfish, he sees involvement in politics as a good thing, almost as a good thing in itself. For Reich, public deliberation strengthens public spirit in a type of virtuous spiral that makes society more durable. In his view, then, a primary function of government is to stimulate public debate and deliberation. New England-style town meetings would represent an ideal type of democratic government for him.
The objection to Reich's view, of course, is that people don't want to devote more time to politics. Most people are political bystanders because they are broadly satisfied. They can be aroused to action - to protest the Vietnam War, to demand civil rights for African Americans, to crack down on drunk drivers, and so on - when the government is unwilling or too slow to act on their concerns, or when their basic values or rights are infringed by the government.* But would this be a good thing? Those who are deeply dissatisfied with our society and seek transformational change would say yes. Those who are broadly satisfied with the status quo would likely say no.
I read four of the ten essays in this volume. Reich's introduction to the volume is covered above. Gary Orren's "Beyond Self Interest" provides quite a bit of evidence to show that people often behave in public spirited ways. It also critiques neoclassical economics and pluralism as models of behavior that allow government and leaders only a marginal role. In fact, of course, at policy "turning points" they may play central roles.
Reich's "Policy Making in a Democracy" examines two approaches to governmental policy making: interest group intermediation and net benefit maximization. In interest group intermediation, policymakers consider themselves successful if competing groups are placated. In net benefit maximization, policy makers identify a market failure and decide that there is an opportunity to increase efficiency. They typically use very sophisticated analytical techniques to propose a specific solution. Reich believes that the latter approach has contaminated the former, so that groups who cannot offer sophisticated argumentation are excluded from much governmental decision-making. As an alternative, he offers public deliberation. He examines three cases where public deliberation was used and concludes that they were at least qualified successes. Those who lack Reich's commitment to participatory politics will probably disagree.
"The Media and Public Deliberation," by Martin Linsky, finds that the news media, with its emphasis on reporting on events rather than ideas, is an obstacle to public deliberation. He makes some proposals for reform, some of which sound a bit silly. However, many of his proposed approaches have already been used to some degree by the political monthlies and by news shows like The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. For example, Linksy favors news coverage that presents contrasting opinions about an issue as this is likely to stimulate thought about alternative definitions of issues and approaches to solving them. He also wants news organizations to "make news" by sponsoring debates and similar events.
Based on my admittedly limited exploration of The Power of Public Ideas, I concluded that it is a competently researched and written volume of essays from a moderate leftist orientation.
* Carl Van Horn, Donald Baumer, and William Gormley, Jr., Politics and Public Policy, (Washington DC: CQ Press), 2001, 237, 238.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
