Steven Kelman's Hopeful View of American Public Policy

Overview of Kelman's Central Thesis

Steven Kelman's 1998 book on politics is entitled Making Public Policy: A Hopeful View of American Government. The title itself is a brief but accurate summary of the central thesis of Kelman's philosophy regarding what enables the American system of government to function as well as it does. Perhaps because of the contentious nature of the modern media, discussions of the American governmental system and political process tend to focus on criticisms rather than on praise of its ability to address social ills. However, it is this stress upon functionality — rather than upon dysfunction — that drives the structure, arguments, and philosophy advocated by Kelman's book.

Standards for Evaluating Policy-Making

In his introduction, Kelman states that he wishes to "evaluate how well the policy-making process works in the United States." In other words, Kelman wishes to rate the efficacy of the American government system in addressing the problems presented by changes in American society. Can government adequately keep pace with the challenges posed by the complexities of modern social life? Kelman states that he "evaluate[s] the policy-making process against two standards — the ability to produce good public policy and the less tangible effects of the process itself... [in] promoting our dignity as people and molding our character."

Kelman does not argue that the American system is without flaws. However, because of the nature of American democracy, he stresses that the type of discussion and debate fostered by the American system allows public policy to be highly responsive to the immediate needs of the public, while the system's checks and balances prevent it from becoming hyper-responsive to the passing whims of public opinion. This stands in direct contrast to, for instance, the parliamentary system in England, where a single party wields control of the majority of the government and exercises almost absolute control over the policy passed while that party is in power. Kelman suggests that because Americans do not always compare their system of government against previous or even current European models — Italy being an even more notorious example of disorganized government — they have a sense that their government works less well, rather than better, than it actually does.

Public Spirit and Democratic Participation

One reason the system works so well, according to this optimistic author, is that it is founded upon a sense of public spirit in the character of policy-makers and those who elect them, namely the American populace. "I argue that for the policy-making process to work well, high levels of public spirit on the part of participants in the process are necessary," he stresses. Unlike European systems of government, American government was founded not out of a particular historical tradition, but as an organized, constructed experiment in elected authority. Individuals in this democratic system, according to the system's founders, have to give of themselves — their time and effort — to enable the system to function over a prolonged period of time.

Unlike a system based on royal succession, there is no outstanding authority in America that continues to exert its power whether or not the current populace is active in government. The American people, through the election of representatives and by serving as representatives themselves, must invest time and effort to ensure that the machinery of their government works effectively — both to protect them physically and to protect their rights to be free.

This sense of public spirit at the heart of the policy-making process has ensured that there is a level of altruism woven into the very fabric of the American constitutional system. Because of this, representatives must function not simply in service of a specific Republican or Democratic Party ideology, but to advance a larger American ideal of the common good. This also means that voters must support representatives and senators who do not merely serve a local interest but also advance a broader national ideal.

"When people try to achieve good public policy, the result tends to be good public policy," the author states. This apparently self-evident observation carries profound implications because it suggests that elected representatives must strive to achieve something beyond the immediate goals of serving their constituents or responding to opinion polls. They must strive to achieve a larger social good.

Conclusion

Simply because public spiritedness is a noble and necessary value does not mean that this sense of public spiritedness can be generated in the hearts of the American people as the government currently functions. One wonders what Kelman would write from the vantage point of today. Even the early patriotism and enthusiasm generated in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks has grown more complex and divided as partisan politics has once again taken hold, and the national mood has become infused with more shades of gray than simple red, white, and blue. Kelman's hopeful vision of American government remains a valuable corrective to reflexive cynicism, but it is ultimately more useful as an aspirational framework than as a descriptive account of how American democracy actually operates.