Book Review: Co-Crafting the Just City

 

James A. Throgmorton, Co-Crafting the Just City: Tales from the Field by a Planning Scholar Turned Mayor (Routledge, 2022).

Yuval Levin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a former aide to Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush, gave a talk to the Bipartisan Policy Council this week previewing the next Congress which very likely will have one if not both houses under Republican control. Levin's talk was based on his 2013 book, The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left [Basic Books], which argues that Burke's and Paine's responses to 18th century monarchy define contemporary political divides. A lot got lost in the space-time continuum, particularly how the party of Trump can cast itself as the defender of institutions--see Gardner and Arnsdorf 2022, any account of the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, or for that matter Waldman 2014--but it was possibly helpful in understanding contemporary conservatives' self-image.

So it was refreshing to pick up the memoir of James A. Throgmorton, who served as mayor of Iowa City from 2016-2019. Even on that island of leftism in our state, Throgmorton and his allies on the City Council were not blowing up the city's institutions in the name of liberation, but rather trying to extend the promises of those institutions more inclusively: When I was mayor in Iowa City, the vision of fostering a more inclusive, just, and sustainable city acted as my "north star," and, to move in that direction, we took actions to reduce race-related inequities, increase the supply of affordable housing, adopt an ambitious climate action plan, improve relationships between city government and diverse marginalized communities, pursue more inclusive and sustainable land development codes/policies, and more (3). Nothing got smashed... no one got beheaded!

James A. Throgmorton and friends, from sppa.uiowa.edu

After an introductory chapter discussing his background and presenting his approach to the book, Throgmorton takes us year by year through his seven years on the City Council in the 2010s. He covers policy issues as well as details of the life of a Council member. Along the way, he explains his frustration with what he sees as a more managerial culture on the Council; he made it his mission to use his position to try to make the city more "just," and eventually found the capacity to encourage allies to run for and win a Council majority. The chapters are well-enough organized that neither the broad coverage nor the important details get overwhelming. His habit of referring to others involved in Iowa City politics by their first name and last initial (Rockne C., John T., Mazahir S.) is odd and gets distracting, although I myself frequently do it in correspondence.

In his quest towards the just city, Throgmorton focuses on city design issues--understandable for a planner--particularly increasing the population density of the downtown area, and on racial equity and inclusion. In his first two years on the City Council, "None of the economic development efforts [undertaken] focused on improving the lives of Iowa City's lower-income residents, especially those who were black" (54), yet Iowa City was not exempt from the wave of awareness that blacks around the country have less and encounter the police more and differently. 

Here Throgmorton clearly identifies an "oppressed" group for which the police department and a lot of other institutions clearly are not working. Yet, consistently, his response and those of his allies on the Council is not to smash the institution but to reform it, or to attempt to ameliorate racial disparities. In 2014, amid protests against the shooting of Michael Brown in Missouri, and release of a study clearly showing racial disparities in Iowa City's own police practices, Throgmorton argues to the city council for a three-pronged approach: (1) build stronger bonds based on mutual trust (between City government and the city's black community); (2) address the deeper inequities in education, employment, income, housing, incarceration, and so on presented in the equity director's two reports; and (3) devise programs that could potentially be funded with revenues generated by a revised [local option sales tax] (102).

Not revolutionary stuff. After he became mayor in 2016, there were more grants for affordable housing, the police are encouraged to further reduce disproportionality in contacts with blacks and whites, and five city departments tried out a Racial and Socioeconomic Equity Toolkit (133). A 2018 meeting with a group of black mothers yielded more suggestions:

First, there is not much for kids to do in Iowa City to stay out of trouble, regardless of color. he City could provide a place black youth could go for structured activities other than the City's two large recreation centers. Second, the place and activities would have to be well-managed, with on-site guidance and leadership being provided by African-American residents who would be part-time employees of the City. Third, the City could work with leaders in the black community and faculty at the university and Kirkwood Community College to help black youth gain a deeper understanding of African-American history. And fourth, the City could help small or new community organizations learn how to write successful grant applications. (152)

All this is much more Burke than Paine, assuming we can translate Paine's attitudes toward the 18th century British and French monarchies into 21st century civil rights policy. Moreover, Throgmorton's most consistent adversaries are defined, not by ideologies hearkening back to debates over the monarchy, but "neoliberal 'Boomtown' advocates (a.k.a. the growth machine)" at the local level, as well as "the conservative Christian, ethno-nationalist, free-market fundamentalist regimes that dominated state and federal government" (192). Does he contradict himself? I don't think so. The political manifestation of conservatism in America today is an awkward mix of "rigid orthodoxy for them, unbridled liberation for us," which neither sounds remotely like Burke nor acknowledges human sinfulness. There's a lot of short-term political advantage in it, too (see Rampell 2022).

To be fair, Throgmorton's book is about local government, which has for a long time been more pragmatically-focused than the national politics Levin describes (see Barber 2013). In his concluding chapter, Throgmorton describes the hard work required of a local mayor or council member, and the level of knowledge required, particularly to be a change agent (192-199). The pace of change makes it a long game, while the electoral cycle is short (199-204). The concept of "co-crafting" (207) acknowledges any city's complexity, the limited power of any individual to effect change, and the collaborative nature of any policy effort. Like Strong Towns' Chuck Marohn, Throgmorton does not cite Burke but shares his ambivalence towards easy fast answers.

P.S.--Throgmorton's account of politics in Iowa City during the 2010s is thorough and reflective, with lessons for citizens and practitioners everywhere, and so we can forgive his overlooking arguably the most galvanic night of June 30, 2015 (see also Cole 2015).

Busting unions or governing?

Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin 2011-2019

[I wrote the following as a "Facebook note" in 2011 when Wisconsin was making waves by busting public employee unions. Iowa is just getting to this endeavor in 2017. Our elected officials owe us more than magic promises and "take it down!" Alas, this six-year-old piece, with slight revisions, is still timely.]

I grew up in the 1960s, in a conservative house in a conservative town in a liberal era. When I was growing up, conservatism stood for small, efficient, clean, government, and a cautious approach to social change. Even so, there was room in the conservative idea for public goods. The civil rights, environmental, consumer protection and campaign finance legislation that passed during the late 1960s and early 1970s passed with conservative input and support.

In serving as a counterweight to the era's liberal zeitgeist, conservatism was at its best, and made distinctive contributions to American political and social life. It reflected skepticism about government activity and spending, reminding us constantly that we couldn't regulate or spend every problem out of existence. It stood for traditional American values, stating as the ur-conservative, Edmund Burke, did that societies contain accumulated wisdom that it is dangerous to overhaul with radical change, even or maybe especially when change is well-intentioned. It provided a voice for the private sector, for the businesses and industries that are the engines of the American economy. And, perhaps most important, it provided limits on the ability of liberalism to work its will. "Checks and balances, Jefferson," proclaimed John Adams long ago, in a letter arguing against religious establishment on the grounds that any group of people would oppress others given the opportunity, and concluding, "Human nature, know thyself!" Conservatism provided the necessary checks to balance liberalism.

Some time in the 1980s, conservatism moved from being the counterculture to being the zeitgeist itself. Perhaps, as Alan Wolfe has suggested, that led to a concern for power over ideas. I think it's just difficult to adjust to having responsibility for government and for formulating policy programs.

Whatever the reason, conservatism has lost the moral and intellectual mooring it had in previous generations. Far too much of what passes for conservatism these days is political appeals based on fear and loathing of others, and a smug rejection of any information that challenges their rigid doctrine.  Examples abound: the "Hell no!" strategy of congressional Republicans in 2009-10; the variety of bizarre rumors surrounding President Obama; and the anti-intellectual approach to accumulated data and experience on topics from climate change to the recession to economic inequality to government in general. Some programs surely waste money, but some programs produce social benefits far beyond their costs, and surely even rock-ribbed conservatives know this, but it's easier and flashier to say "Investment is just a Democrat (sic) word for spending."

State budgets are in a mess, to be sure. There's plenty of blame to go around. The budget-cutting strategy of our Iowa Republicans, however, seems more oriented to sticking it to groups they don't like rather than actually saving money. Besides going after teachers' unions and public employees' unions under the guise of budget savings, the state [Wisconsin then, Iowa now] targets family planning programs, public broadcasting, anti-smoking programs, railroads, preschools and even sabbatical leaves for professors at state universities. The savings from the last one are microscopic, but it sounds good, at least to those who think sabbaticals are paid vacations.

Conservative appeals today are based on fear and or loathing of unpopular groups. Around the country, there are bills to bust public employee unions, repeal gay marriage laws, and target immigrants, as well as congressional hearings this week on the menace lurking in Muslim mosques from undercover terrorists. This bilious pattern is based on no principle, but inflames suspicions, fans prejudices, and makes us less of one nation.

To, finally, the Wisconsin bill. This is not a positive example of functional government. It is an ugly, divisive political power play. Union-busting, in Wisconsin and the states like Iowa that hope to emulate it, achieves no public purpose. (The education budget savings in Wisconsin had already been agreed to, and were passed in a separate bill.) It targets a group, blaming them unfairly for state budget woes that were brought on by a collapsing economy and exacerbated by reckless tax cuts. Perhaps non-union members can be inspired to support this cause. (Perhaps not, from early public opinion polls.) More disturbingly,breaking a well-resourced Democratic-leaning interest group fits a pattern of extraordinary Republican efforts in the past decade to rig the system in their favor: denying black votes in Florida in 2000, recalling the governor of California in 2003, Texas's mid-decade redistricting, the Citizens United decision, and now this.

To participate constructively in the American political process, as they have for decades past, conservatives need to develop a vision for America, one based on achievement of ideals, not on narrow self-interest and sticking it to groups they don't like. Ronald Reagan had a vision in the 1980s, albeit a nostalgic one based on a misremembered past. Today's conservatives can't even claim that much.

They need to do another thing, too, which is to recognize that unchecked conservatism can't achieve everything society needs. It can make us more private. It can make us more armed. But it can't make the world more beautiful, unify the American people, provide public spaces and public goods, empower those who need opportunity, or secure the public from the occasional abuse of private power. For a lot of that government can help. And unions too.

SEE ALSO:
Allison Carr, "Framing the Labor Debate," Upside Down, 13 February 2017
Molly Duffy, "Iowa Teachers Rally Against Legislature's Collective Bargaining Bill," Cedar Rapids Gazette, 12 February 2017
Kathie O'Bradovich, "Collective Bargaining Smackdown Leaves Democrats Spoiling for Rematch," Des Moines Register, 17 February 2017

EARLIER POST: "Post #50: Who's a Liberal?" 11 August 2013

Post #50: Who's a liberal?

Political discussion across ideological lines would go better, and people with different ideologies would seem more sane and less rigid, if we understood that we are speaking different "languages," according to economist Arnold Kling, who has published an Amazon single entitled The Three Languages of Politics. These languages come with different assumptions and core values, and so give rise to lines of argument that others find incomprehensible, not to mention insensitive to their own core values.

Kling condenses the wide variety of perspectives across American politics into three main strains:

• libertarian, whose principal concern is individual freedom, and for which the main evil is coercion, particularly from government;
• conservative, whose principal concern is the maintenance of civilization, and for which the main evil is the barbarism that threatens that civilization; and
• liberal, whose principal concern is with oppressed people, and for which the main evil is the oppression from which they suffer.

(Note that this suggests divisions among today's right-leaning Republican Party are philosophical in nature [conservative vs. libertarian], while for the left-leaning Democratic Party they are matters of degree [somewhat liberal vs. strongly liberal]. This may oversimplify matters, and to be fair to Kling, he doesn't push it.)

Kling's definitions are redolent of others who have written on political ideology--I thought immediately of David T. Koyzis's book Political Visions and Illusions--with a useful focus on the strains most prominent in America. I'd find Kling's analysis more persuasive if he sharpened his definitions. Even though I try to shun the rabbit holes of semantic arguments that turn on the definition of one disputed word, I think Kling's phrasing is begging for just those semantic arguments. Liberal focus on the oppressed doesn't explain their concern with environmental conservation; conservative belief in economic markets is as concerned about government interference as the libertarians are; and who really likes coercion? So I'd rephrase his definitions this way, probably asking for arguments of my own, but finding it irresistible to alter someone else's draft:

• libertarian: individual autonomy, defined as freedom from government coercion (removing "particularly")
• conservative: maintaining traditional values, the alternative to which is chaos (here I'm totally indebted to a felicitously-phrased comment by Chris Wilson on the "Strong Towns" blog)... this allows us to combine support for markets with traditional moral values and a strong and unilateral international presence
• liberal: individual autonomy, defined as non-coercion of the less powerful by the more powerful... this allows us to include the economically disadvantaged, the socially unpopular, and plant and animal species, and to cast government as potential enemy (spying on dissidents) or friend (enforcing civil rights or environmental regulations)

Does that help? Maybe not. Let us press on.

Kling, like Koyzis, treats ideologies in their pure form. (It is ideological purity that Koyzis, from a Christian religious perspective, compares to idolatry.) But this can lead to pointless "straw man" arguments, not to mention stereotyping. An excellent comment on the "Strong Towns" blog by "Steve S." suggests it might be more accurate to describe people, for example, as "libertarian-dominant" rather than "libertarian," because they are likely to view some matters from conservative and liberal perspectives. Still, libertarian-dominant types are likely to come at issues with perspectives that are so different from conservatives and liberals that they seem incompatible in conversation or debate.

Kling's approach explains how people can look at the same situation and come to very different conclusions. In the interview with "Econ Talk" host Russ Roberts, he uses the examples of policies related to immigration and terrorism. On immigration, for example, liberals concerned with the plight of illegal immigrants might argue for looser border controls and amnesty for undocumented people already here, finding themselves on the opposite side of conservatives concerned about values like the integrity of the border and the laws on the books. They might find some sympathy with libertarians who aren't crazy about borders to begin with.

As the immigration example shows, different languages can lead to similar outcomes on specific issues. At the same time, ideological language does not determine issue positions. Again with immigration, liberals whose principal concern is with low-wage American workers (or with environmental habitats stressed by increased population) might argue for restricting immigration. Your position on abortion is probably less due to ideology than with whose autonomy or which traditional value you're defending.

SO! We're less concerned here with predicting issue outcomes than in understanding how differing perspectives can derail debate. On health care, for example, three years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, conservative objections based in market economics, and libertarian objections to the individual mandate, make no sense to liberals worried about the vast numbers of people whose health insurance is either inadequate, insecure, or non-existent. These liberal worries seem similarly irrational to conservatives and libertarians who tend to see government economic activity as vicious by definition.

Understanding each other's ideological languages can facilitate civil discussion of societal issues. To Parker J. Palmer, civil discussion is essential to effective democracy. It may also help persuade a broader range of people to your desired outcome. In the perceptive post on the "Strong Towns" blog that led me to Kling, Andrew Burleson argues that Strong Towns has had more success than other anti-sprawl organizations because they make their case using conservative language.

I would argue that one of the reasons we've had such rapid growth and adoption of our message is that Chuck [Strong Towns co-founder and president Charles L. Marohn, Jr.] originated this message from somewhere in the Conservative / Libertarian camp, whereas the majority of other organizations that are interested these issues come from a Liberal / Progressive point of view. For many, Strong Towns is the first group that has talked to Conservatives in their own language about the problems with built environment in America today, and how the effects of those problems ripple through into all areas of our life.

In other words, it's not enough to argue that sprawl has terrible effects on the environment and on the urban poor (which it does), if only liberals are speaking that language. Conservatives aren't, and are suspicious of the government regulation and societal change which limiting sprawl is going to involve. Better to make the argument that sprawl has largely been facilitated by federal government irrationality, and subsidizing sprawl as we now do is a profligate waste of taxpayer money. Values-oriented conservatives might be sympathetic to new urbanist efforts to rebuild traditional communities at the neighborhood level.

It's worth a try. Moderate liberals, at least, know how to speak market, even if there core concerns lie elsewhere. Market mechanisms are an important part of the Affordable (Health) Care Act (state-level insurance exchanges) and such proposals that have been made to address climate change (cap-and-trade for carbon emissions). Have they made any friends?

Kling is not naive. Not all the energy in contemporary American politics is being spent on the search for cooperative resolutions to policy conflicts. A lot, maybe more now than ever, is being spent on fomenting outrage which obstructs such resolutions. Kling made a resonant point in his interview with Russ Roberts: Most political punditry seems oriented, not to opening the minds on your own side, or opening the minds on the other side, but to closing the minds on your own side. I don't know that I can achieve a conversation with, say, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), because I don't think he wants one.

Burleson continues in his praise for the Strong Towns approach: Beyond [being able to speak the conservative language], though, we're strongly non-partisan (even anti-partisan) in our approach. These issues are bigger than any one political cohort, they affect everything, and we can't afford to descend into an "us versus them" battle. The hole we're in is deep, and all of us are going to have to work together if we're going to get out.

That is what I would have said about my approach to this blog, Holy Mountain, as well as to my teaching and public presentations. I started my blog in April thinking I could step away from the often-silly, often-irrationally angry, short attention span discourse of contemporary American politics, so I could focus on what's important. I'm not advocating for any political party, and have assiduously avoided getting into issues of personality in my posts here. Yet it's inescapable that when I identify the core obstacles to Americans being able to live together--economic opportunity for all, environmental sustainability, accommodating diversity--I'm pretty clearly speaking Kling's liberal language. I mean, I'm not worried about economic opportunity for the already-well-off, right? I'm worried about the marginalized, of course.

There is the dilemma of how much to acknowledge this in class and on the media. Kling, while acknowledging his own libertarian stance, suggests in his interview with Russ Roberts that it is possible to adopt a pure academic language of, say, economics. I've always advocated this, but am increasingly dubious this is even possible. Kling in his example contrasts a libertarian talking about government coercing him "with a gun to my head" with the economically-grounded discourse of Milton Friedman. I think Friedman is a dubious example; despite his exemplary contributions to economics and economic policy, his biases against any government policy action besides monetary policy, or the very existence of labor unions, were obvious.

While I work this out, I will throw myself upon the mercy of Parker J. Palmer, which seems to be expansive. Palmer, in Healing the Heart of Democracy, lists "Five Habits of the Heart that Make Democracy Possible": (1) An understanding that we are all in this together; (2) An appreciation of the value of "otherness;" (3) An ability to hold tension in life-giving ways; (4) A sense of personal voice and agency; and (5) A capacity to create community. Talking is good. Listening is good. Trying to understand and speak each other's languages is good. There is much each of us can learn from the other, and the conversation likely is more important than the policy outcome.

WORKS CITED

Andrew Burleson, "The Three Languages of (American) Politics," Strong Towns Blog, 25 July 2013, http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2013/7/25/the-three-languages-of-american-politics.html

"Kling on the Three Languages of Politics," Econ Talk Podcast, http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/06/kling_on_the_th.html

David T. Koyzis, Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003)

Parker J. Palmer, Healing the Heart of Democracy: The Courage to Create a Politics Worthy of the Human Spirit (Jossey-Bass, 2011)