Policy Studies Review, Summer 1989 VO!. 8, NO. 4, p p . 834-839

POLITICAL EDUCATION FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS Hank Edmondson

The problem I would like to address in this research is a need for greater clarity in U.S. public administration education regarding the treatment of democratic values. The need for clarity in this area begins with rudimentary problems of definition.

Democracy and it's relationship to bureaucracy is a major concern of political science. What do democracy and bureaucracy mean? How does one assign meanings to the terms; and how do meanings assigned determine questions posed and affect the solutions?. . . With regard to democracy the problem is severe." (Jones, 1982, p. 83).

Thus, far from being an idea outdated by computerized spread sheets and econometrics, a full scale effort to insure that administrators are prepared for the unique context of a republic is an idea whose time has fully come; and considering the quantum leaps of technology advancement, the idea comes none too soon. If an administrator can violate democratic principles in a pre-technological era, a late 20th century administrator can do the same with digital speed.

Ventriss fears that sound democratic preparation will be all but sub- merged in the pursuit of technical training for public administration stu- dents. Ventriss s ta tes tha t ". . . Citizenship, once the key word in most public administration schools, is being relegated to a secondary role" (Ventriss, 1987, pp. 29-30; 1982, p. 139). The "troubling" consequence of this "educa- tional proclivity" is that it, "if left unabated, might only further divorce public administration from the public i t serves, and, more important, divert attention away from asking difficult political questions that future public administrators need to confront" (Ventriss, 1987, p. 30).

My thesis argues that a prerequisite for more effective pedagogy in democratic education is a more coherent educational philosophy. My thesis further argues that a step toward achieving philosophic coherence is a greater understanding of the philosophic roots of American political educa- tion, especially an understanding of the incongruence between the political dimensions of the education of the American Founding period and John Dewey. This study suggests that an element of confusion emanates from this conflict a t the core of U.S. educational philosophy.

John Dewey has had a tremendous influence upon American educational philosophy and practice, and although his influence has been attended with controversy, Deweyian ideas of community, active learning, and democracy are frequently present in analyses of the current state of American educa- tion; moreover, Dewey is occasionally appealed to as a source of legitimacy for proposals aimed at educational change, although in both instances his influence is often unconscious. The Founders had definite ideas regarding American education. For example, they considered the proper education of the citizenry to be vital to the health and longevity of the country that the Founders had labored to establish. Notably, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Rush, and Noah Webster, wrote and spoke exten-

834

Edrnondson: Political Education for Public Servants 835

sively on education. I t is possible then to compare their ideas with those of one whose legacy rivals, if not supersedes their own.

DEWEY AND THE FOUNDERS COMPARED

In Dewey's conception of democracy; social, economic, and political con- siderations are inseparable. For him, democracy is understood very broadly as a "way of life" rather than principally as a type of government, identifi- able by prescribed institutions, processes, and ideals. Dewey adheres to what some would call a system of social democracy in which political equality must be matched by social, if not economic equality. By contrast, the Founding generation understood that political equality would often protect the unequal social and economic status of its citizens, not as an end p e r se, but as a consequence of protecting natural rights. In Dewey's opinion, political democracy alone is "barren and empty" (Dewey, 1927, p. 143).

D e w e y ex p r e s s e s p r o f o u n d di s s a t i s f a c t i on wit h t h e " p r ogre s s " o f American democracy and hopes for radical change. Although he warns against disorder, there can be no doubt that he views as hopelessly out- moded the present political order. His sentence upon American democratic practice and theory is harsh: I t is a "ghost which walks and talks, and obscures, confuses and misleads governmental action in a disastrous way" because it has failed to keep apace with "the factors of an industrial age." He calls for "the anarchy of the present competitive profit economy [to] be supplanted by a planning society in which production is democratically controlled for the good of all. , . . The supreme task of our generation is to bring about this transformation" as "present conditions in American society are such a s to constitute a real threat to our democratic heritage" (quoted in Horowitz, 1972, p. 810).

Thus, education, according to Dewey, is a "freeing of an individual capacity in a progressive growth directed to social aims" . . . society must have a type of education which gives individuals . . . "the habits of mind which secure social changes without introducing disorder" (Dewey, 1930, p. 115). Dewey's "Pedagogic Creed" states, "Education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform." Attempts a t change through legal enactments are "mechanical or outward arrangements" and "are transitory and futile." Education is first of all "a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness"; after this foundation is laid, the in- dividual is in place to engage in "social reconstruction" (Dewey, 1929, p. 15). The teacher's role is weighty indeed: . . . he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of proper social order and the securing of the right social growth and the usherer in of the true kingdom of God (Dewey, 1929, pp.

The Founders' idea of the type of education appropriate to a democratic regime is characterized by what has been aptly described as a tension between "revolution" and "tradition" (Brann, 1979, pp. 52-57). Fresh from an engagement with tyranny, a paramount goal of education must be t o sensitize the citizen to maintain a revolutionary's watchfulness, to guard his rights, and to recognize any attempts to undermine republicanism. The challenging task facing the educational theorists was to join both order and liberty if this experiment in republicanism were to succeed. A proper

16-17).

836 Policy Studies Review, Summer 1989, 8:4

democratic education, then, was concerned with constructing and maintain- ing institutions and processes, thus lending stability to the historically evanescent character of republican regimes as well as guarding against systemic abuses of natural rights.

The preamble to Jefferson's "Bill For The More General Diffusion of Knowledge" argues that education -- and especially the study of history -- is the best means to maintain a government "calculated. . . to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights." He argues that even the best forms of government, when "entrusted with power" may pervert it into tyranny." Fur- thermore, Washington, in an address to Congress, explained that "Knowledge is . . . the surest basis of public happiness" because it teaches "the people themsel- ves, to know, and to value their own rights; to discern and provide against invasions of them; to distinguish between oppression and the necessary exercise of lawful authority, between burdens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society. . . ." (Washington, 1932, p. 543) In this way the spirit of the revolution is kept alive.

Noah Webster frankly argued, "However detestable personal pride may be, yet there is a national pride and a provincial that are the noblest passions of the republican patriot. . . . For my own part, I frankly acknow- ledge, I have too much pride not to wish to see America assume a national character." In his essay "On the Education of Youth in America" Webster identifies a balance between civic virtue and liberty as the twin principles around which the national character must be formed.

Our national character is not yet formed; and i t is an object of vast magnitude that systems of Education should be adopted and pur- sued, which may not only diffuse a knowledge of the sciences, but may implant, in the minds of American youth, the principles of virtue and of liberty; and inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government, and with an inviolable attachment to their own country. (Tyack, 1963, p. 86)

SUMMARY

Dewey's education appropriate to democracy is different than that of the Founders largely because his understanding of democracy is different. Whereas by democracy the Founders basically understood representative government and political equality; democracy for Dewey has far-ranging social and economic implications. Democracy, or more accurately social democracy, "is more than a form of government, it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. . . ." (Dewey, 1915, p. 303). Expressed more concisely, democracy for the Founders is a type of government, for Dewey i t is a way of life.

Although Dewey condemns the "conventional type of education" as better suited to an autocratic society," whatever the shape of the system of govern- ment he ultimately advocates, i t must wield an enormous power to insure tha t individuals as well as society achieve the necessary standards of "growth," which is his supreme value. "Since Dewey eschews any transcen- dent definitions, an assessment of growth must constantly be supplied." This "supervision and regulation cannot be effected by the primary group- ings themselves" and so a "special agency must be created for this purpose."

Edmondson: Political Education for Public Servants 837

This agency Dewey calls "the state." The state plays the role of the conduc- tor of an orchestra, who makes no music himself but who harmonizes the activities of those who in producing i t are doing the things intrinsically worthwhile. Not even the boundaries of the family are sacred -- if the family is unable to "provide adequate conditions for 'growth', the s ta te must take the responsibility" (Dewey, 1915, pp. 304-306).

The ambiguity in Dewey's conception of growth was noted in an essay by Donald Meiklejohn commemorating Stephen K. Bailey's inauguration as Dean of the Maxwell Graduate School of Citizenship in 1963. Dewey's purpose was to publicize morality, that is, make it relevant to public con- cerns and not sequestered in private affairs; however, in his enthusiasm Dewey sends us wandering amiss so that "signposts and evidences of arrival often were hard to find. . . . Indeed, on strict pragmatic principles the maps and routes are always changing. I t is such an extreme of the principle of flux and variety tha t has driven many Americans back t o the traditionalist conceptions which Dewey labored to overthrow."

Dewey declines to stipulate what the shape of the new political order will look like after the necessary sweeping social changes take place. He is willing to entrust the political arrangements to individuals shaped by his educational system; although it is quite likely that new arrangements will arise "spon- taneously." He does not even stipulate that the necessary transformations will occur by the traditional political democratic processes. He is thus willing to discard an important safeguard established by the Founders of the country: While they felt virtue in leadership desirable, and were confident, generally speaking, in the enlightened mandate and confidence of the people; nonethe- less, they were careful to construct complex structural arrangements that relied upon formal and informal deterrents to the abuse of power. For example in Federalist Paper #51, Publius describes a hopefully water-tight arrange- ment in which the executive, legislative, and judicial branches check the ambitions of the other. This arrangement begins with formal structural arran- gements, but is designed with the hope that self-interest will neutralize self-interest when formality is exhausted. Dewey is willing, even anxious, t o discard this safeguard that seemed critically important in 1787.

Thus we find that, despite superficial similarities, the political dimensions of the educational philosophy of the Founders and Dewey are quite different. Whereas the Founders intended to teach students to be solicitous of state encroachments against individual rights, Dewey, no doubt contrary to his intentions, sows the seeds of a paternalism in his political education, a pater- nalism the Founders would have certainly denounced as tyranny. And although the Founders expended great effort in an attempt to lay a foundation for a system of civic education that had as a goal the stability if not the permanence to American structures and processes; Dewey, by contrast, designed education to propel a revolution, not a revolution to align intellect and sentiment with the accomplishment of the Revolution of 1776 and the Convention of 1787, but a social and economic revolution that undoubtedly could undermine the struc- tural and procedural accomplishments of both.

IMPLICATIONS

Rohr (1978) advocates reliance upon founding values for public ad- ministration simply because they are the values of those who founded the

838 Policy Studies Review, Summer 1989, 8:4

republic. However, we can suggest a more compelling rationale from this analysis, for choosing Founding principles as the backbone of democratic education, over the more progressive ideas of Dewey, We have illuminated a weakness in Dewey's political philosophy: In his zeal for social progress, Dewey places insufficient importance upon t h e sanct i ty of proven republican institutions and processes; in fact, they are often the petrified remnants of institutions of an earlier age, now ill-designed to house social and economic progress. Despite idealism, however noble in intent, such radical experimentism led Dewey into serious errors of judgment when faced with practical politics.

The most notorious was his support for Stalin's regime tha t Dewey publicized in the New Republic during and after his Soviet sponsored tour in 1928 (Bullert, 1983, p. 27). Although other liberals were much more reserved in support for the Soviet State, "Dewey sincerely believed that he was witnessing the implementation of his ideals on a national scale." As we have seen, Dewey is willing, a t least in theory, to allow heavy-handed oversight to achieve "democratic" results. To his credit, by 1932, Dewey became "wary of [the Soviets'] political ruthlessness," and by 1933, he withdrew his support (Bullert, pp. 129-130).

If we should choose to prefer the sounder political philosophy of the Founders, what implications might this hold for public administration education? The first is to suggest that a component of, or a prerequisite for, public administration graduate education should be a solid grounding in the sources of American democratic ideals through studies in Western and American political philosophy, history, and law.

A second implication from this analysis has to do with the democratic attitudes implicit in P.A. educational material. By this material, I refer to the wider organic body of literature composed of theories, paradigms, and descriptive historical accounts, much of which is subject to change as new ideas a re deemed worthy of consideration or others become obsolescent. In terms of normative direction, this is often the pedagogical vehicle used in the classroom. Students are encouraged to critique this material and reflect upon its relevance for administrative practice. Therefore, the material is implicitly if not explicitly pedagogical in the sense of offering solutions to moral and democratic issues, issues which will quite possibly be en- countered along the normative terrain of public administrative practice. Greater insight into the Founding/Deweyian roots of democratic values provides a critical tool for assessing the viability of these ideas.

This analysis offers one step toward pouring a sound philosophical foot- ing for the democratic education of public affairs leaders. Without adding to the paradigms already competing for acceptance, models with which public administration is already -- arguably -- super-saturated, I have of- fered a tool which might assist us in critiquing the models we already have; as well as inform the priorities we set in the P.A. curriculum.

REFERENCES

Brann, E.T.H. (1979). Paradoxes of education in a republic. Chicago: The

Bullert, G. (1983). The politics of John Dewey. Prometheus Books. University of Chicago Press.

Edrnondson: Political Education for Pubiic Servants 839

Dewey, J. (1909). Moral principles in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Dewey, J. (1915). Schools of tommorrow. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and i ts problems. New York: Henry Holt and

co . Dewey, J. (1929). My pedagogical creed. Washington, DC: T h e Progressive

Association. Dewey, J. (1930. Democracy and education. New York: T h e Macmillan

Company. T h e educational views of George Washington, based on his letters, diaries,

and addresses. (1932). The history of the George Washington bicentennial celebration, Vol. 1, p. 637. Washington, DC: U.S. George Washington Bicentennial Commission.

Horowitz, R. (1972). John Dewey. In L. Strauss & J. Cropsey (Eds.), History of political philosophy (p. 810). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jones, G.N. (1982). “Rise and fall of a professional ideal: Particulars con- cerning public administration.” American Review of Public Administra- t ion, 16(4), pp. 305-316.

Rohr, J.A. (1978). Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values. New York: Morcel Dekker.

Rohr, J.A. (1980, August 2). “Ethics for t h e senior executive service: Sug- gestions for management training.“ Administrcition and Society, 12(2),

Tyack, D.B. (Ed.) (1963). Turning points in American educational history. Lexington, MA: Xerox College Publishing.

Tyack, D.B. (Ed.) (1967). Turning points in American educational history. Lexington, MA: Xerox College Publishing.

Ventriss, C. (1987). “Two critical issues of American public administration: Reflections of a sympathetic participant.” Administration and Society,

Waldo, D. (1981). The enterprise ofpubl ic administration: A summary view.

Company.

pp. 203-216.

191, pp. 25-47.

Novato, C A Chandler and Sharp Publishers, Inc.