DemJournal #7: Required Reading for the Day

New issue of Democracy Journal now out. Here's what's on my immediate reading list from it:

» Wiki-Government (Beth Simone Noveck)
Noveck covers some examples (some in practice, some still hypothetical) of how the "wisdom of crowds" might benefit government decision-making. The aspect that she writes about from her own experience is relatively objective - patent review. I think there's room to take this approach to even some subjectively-based parts of government. For instance, the State Department essentially operates with this approach from their internal community of analysts. Conceivable, an external approach should be workable. Beyond that, I think the approach should be viewed for use by local and state governments as well. The challenge there will be in creating a working universe of collaborators. The smaller you get, the less effective you get. That doesn't rule it out for city government, but it is one more hurdle to clear in making it work.

» The Word War (Andrei Cherny)
Is the phrase, "Global War on Terror" a bumper sticker? Apparently, the Chaiman of the Joint Chiefs thinks so. Does that make him shrill? Andrei Cherny explores what that means, drawing more of a Cold War parallel to the current endeavor. As is pretty much always the case, I tend to agree with Andrei.

» Keeping the Faith (Mary Jo Bane)
Just another one of those lengthy, nerdy book reviews that I read with rapt attention. Bane is reviewing John DiIulio's latest book, "Godly Republic." In it, DiIulio tries to recover the promise that he sees as unfulfilled by the Bush adminstration's Faith Based Initiative. What's interesting to me in both this review and DiIulio's views is that I'm probably one of those targets to be persuaded. Specifically, Bane offers that progressives should be more open-minded toward what DiIulio strives to accomplish.

And yet, there are issues I have with the concept on it's merits while still being torn over any conclusive view on the matter. For one, DiIulio notes that much of what currently is in place among churches engaged in social work does so at the margins: either very minimalist involvement in those programs which require extensive commitments and only more polite forms of engagement (weekend volunteering at a soup kitchen, for instance) at the other end. And that's just among those who do get out and do some work. Bane notes that DiIulio believes churches should do more. And presumably, if more federal bucks flowed through to churches engaged in doing so, maybe they would.

But from the opposite side of the traditional church-state concern - that of one who would prefer his church be unencumbered by governmental meddling - I'm a bit averse to the concept of the state incentivising church actions. Instead, I take my cue here from Pastor Joel Hunter (or, as I call him, my other Pastor Joel) - that churches ought to be so far ahead of the state in social work that they're beating down our doors asking questions. Granted, the number of areas where that's the case is fairly small. And that's truly the shame of it all.

But at the risk of letting idealism be the enemy of progress, it's worth considering the dilemma of how modern American ideologies fail to fit within a Christian ethic. At it's worst, liberalism induces a number of federal programs which put social work out of sight for most of us. We pay our taxes, chalk it up to curing some problem or another out in the world, and fail to see the need to engage with the world. On the other side, conservatism tends to lead to an individualistic nature of man - favoring and rewarding those who endeavor over and above others, even if at their expense. That also guts the central claim of Christianity to "go out in the world" and join in community. It's no accident that several pastors throughout history have been labelled socialist for taking Jesus' teachings to heart.

I'd certainly point out that there are lessons policymakers should take from the best faith-based charities. I'm less convinced that they should be joined at the hip, but I'm also inclined to favor removing any barriers to the successful charities of the world facing. Muddying the waters even more, I'm not convinced that DiIulio's prescription seems politically feasible - that faith-based charities erect barriers to proselytizing as well as that they accept non-discrimination clauses for employment. On the surface, those policies seem to not be all that palatable. Whether that's just a noisy few or the prevailing sentiment, I don't know. But listening to the likes of Don Wildmon railing against Bush-41's signing of the ADA laws or listening to Rick Scarbarough rail against ENDA, I'm left with the conclusion that - much as I strenuously disagree with a single merit of their opinion on those two laws - I really don't care to see churches made into yet another special interest group relying on the strength of their lobbying power over the strength of the results they evidence by their actions.

» Loads of other good stuff still on my plate: Matthew Dalleck on DHS/FEMA; Rick Pearlstein on McGovern's lessons (and lack thereof) for todays liberal; Jim Sleeper with an education take that has my interest; and Tom Schaller on regulating "public bads." Among several others that may or may not interest you otherwise.