I was proud to serve on the board of AmericaSpeaks from June 2006 until today, when the organization had to close its doors–despite valiant efforts. In essence, the people and organizations that really care about nonpartisan, open-ended citizen deliberation don’t have a lot of money to pay for it, and that is a problem that affects more than AmericaSpeaks.

For those who don’t know the organization, AmericaSpeaks invented the 21st Century Town Meeting, a very large, representative gathering of citizens who discuss a public issue at separate tables within a large room while communicating and making collective choices electronically. AmericaSpeaks organized and ran more than 100 of these Town Meetings, in all 50 states. The formats varied. For instance, the 21st Century Town Meetings that strongly informed the rebuilding plan for New Orleans after Katrina were held concurrently in three cities and online, to accommodate people forced to leave the city.

The purpose of the organization was never simply intellectual–to learn about public deliberation. AmericaSpeaks aimed to change America by providing deliberative events frequently and widely. Considering that it was highly active for 19 years, it must be accounted a success, even on those terms. Yet the ultimate failure of the business model raises serious questions about elites’ support for civic engagement in America.

In addition to facing financial obstacles, AmericaSpeaks frequently encountered ideological skepticism. For instance, its national deliberations on “Our Budget/Our Economy” were attacked from the left for identifying the budget deficit as a central problem. But the deliberating citizens chose budget options far to the left of what Congress has seriously entertained. In any case, I was struck that ideological writers on the left missed any merit in the deliberative process itself. They didn’t recognize public discussion as a strategy for strengthening our democracy. Instead, their only question was whether the problem had been framed as they would frame it.

Nevertheless, despite opposition and indifference in some quarters, AmericaSpeaks ran a series of experiments from which much has been learned. Other deliberative processes–e.g., Study Circles and National Issues Forums–may sometimes do more to build local civil society, although AmericaSpeaks’ work in DC strengthened civic capacity there. And certain other processes can, like 21st Century Town Meetings, provide policymakers with excellent public input. (I am thinking of Deliberative Polls and Citizens’ Juries). But AmericaSpeaks was very unusual in its ability to turn public voices into political power. It was hard for policymakers in New Orleans after Katrina or in Manhattan after 9/11 to ignore the results of mass public deliberations. Thus these events were politically potent interventions, even though AmericaSpeaks was neutral about the outcomes.

Ghazala Mansuri and Vijayendra Rao of the World Bank write about “organic participation” (created by advocates) and “induced participation” (invited and supported by elites). In some ways, the 21st Century Town Meeting is a skillful blend of the two, with AmericaSpeaks playing an essential role in raising resources from various elites to put on events that allow citizens to influence the government.*

AmericaSpeaks leaves an inspiring legacy of examples and knowledge. But on its last day, I am worried that the demand for public deliberation is so weak.

See also:

• AmericaSpeaks’ own “Legacy Document,” released today.
• Carolyn Lukensmeyer’s book, Bringing Citizen Voices to the Table.
• my blog on Our Budget, Our Economy
• public participation in planning: lessons from New Orleans
• an evaluation of California Speaks
• my blog on AmericaSpeaks’ work in Northeast Ohio and New Orleans
• my blog on the DC One City Summit
• notes on ward-level engagement in DC

*”Can Participation be Induced? Evidence from Developing Countries,” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 16, no. 2 (2013): 284–304

The post reflections on AmericaSpeaks on its last day appeared first on Peter Levine.

(on a plane heading to Ann Arbor, MI) Tom Scocca’s article “On Smarm” is getting a lot of attention, including responses by Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker and Ryan Kearney in The New Republic.

Scocca argues that “snark” is not our problem. It is an appropriate reaction to “smarm,” which is the serious threat. His original piece is learned and insightful in the tradition of Harry Frankfurt on bullshit or Susan Sontag on camp. I recommend it and will not attempt to summarize it. I do miss two things, however. One is a set of true definitions (with necessary and sufficient conditions), as opposed to clusters of examples. What is snark? What is smarm? The other is evidence of trends over time. Everyone in this debate seems eager to posit that our moment is dominated by snark, smarm, or both. But one can easily think of examples from the distant past. (Juvenal was snarky; Augustus was smarmy.) On what basis do we think that either vice has increased of late?

I would propose that:

Snark (presumably a portmanteau of “snide” plus “remark”) means indirect critique. Instead of rebutting the facts or the logic of an argument, snark casts doubt on the sincerity or competence of the source. It is not a full-blown ad hominem argument but a suggestion that the target is untrustworthy. It is usually humorous, although humor doesn’t seem essential.

Smarm is the evocation of positive, sentimental emotions for the purpose of preempting criticism. For instance, bringing a person with Down’s syndrome onto the stage of the 2000 Republican National Convention was smarmy because it foreclosed criticism of the nominee. The particular form of smarm that concerns Scocca is the evocation of civility or niceness to preempt debate about the dominant person or established rules in a given situation.

Both snark and smarm violate a very high standard of deliberative reason, in which one should respond to any given policy, norm, or proposal by evaluating the evidence, norms, and logic behind it. A critical reaction should explicitly challenge elements of the argument, not the speaker. And the critic should be ready to propose and defend some alternative view.

Snark misses that standard because a snarky comment neither explicitly rebuts the target’s arguments nor offers an alternative position. Smarm misses the standard because it doesn’t offer an argument at all, just a sentiment.

But snark can provoke or advance a deliberative discussion. Typically, a snarky comment provokes a reaction, and that can take the form of an explicit defensive argument that then deserves a reasonable response. Thus snark can be an opening move or invitation to deliberation. Smarm, on the other hand, succeeds if it prevents a group from deliberating.

Further, snark is a tool of the marginal and dispossessed, the peanut gallery, whereas smarm (by my definition) is employed by the person in charge, whether that is the President of the United States or just a dad in the front seat of his SUV. I am therefore with Scocca that smarm is the more serious problem, and snark can be justified as a response to it. If smarm casts a feel-good spell that prevents critical thought, snark can break the spell.

The post on snark and smarm appeared first on Peter Levine.