The Gardens of Democracy: A New American Story of Citizenship, the Economy, and the Role of Government

Apart from a few, relatively minor quibbles over specific policy issues, there's nothing in this book that I find particularly objectionable. In fact, the political philosophy advocated by the authors is more-or-less the same as my own, at least when it comes to "big picture" questions about what government should and shouldn't do, how the economy ought to be managed, and how to strike the right balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the community. So, why am I giving this book four stars instead of five? There are three basic reasons:First, there's nothing really all that new here -- at least not substantively. Sure, the garden metaphor is a creative way of explaining the political philosophy that the authors wish to promote; and they do bring up certain new paradigms in science and economics that lend support to their view of the proper role of government; but the actual political philosophy they advocate is far from original. It has been around for ages. One might even go so far as to argue that it used to be the "default" American political philosophy until our politics became so polarized that moderate voices got completely drowned out by all the partisan bickering. It's basically just old-fashioned, Anglo-American liberalism -- in the tradition of Locke, Jefferson, Smith, Madison, Mill, and Lincoln -- as it was practiced back in the good old days before liberalism split into competing progressive (positive liberty, public interest, social engineering, welfare state, regulated markets) and libertarian (negative liberty, private interests, laissez-faire, minimalist state, unfettered free market) factions. It's liberalism tempered by a healthy dose of American pragmatism and "Golden Rule", "Love thy neighbor" morality; but it's liberalism all the same. Strip away the framing metaphor of "Gardenbrain" vs. "Machinebrain" and all the references to the science of complex systems, and this book basically just presents the same old view of government that the majority of Americans would have taken for granted just a few decades ago. It's essentially the same view of government that Abraham Lincoln endorsed when he said: "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere." So, instead of presenting this as a clever new way of looking at American politics, the authors should have billed it as an updated, 21st century defense of the political philosophy that America was founded on, and that most Americans have embraced throughout our nation's history.Second, the authors are preaching to the choir. While most of the principles they espouse seem quite appealing to me -- a pragmatic liberal who supports the progressive pursuit of positive liberty (freedom via empowerment) as well as the libertarian defense of negative liberty (freedom via autonomy), but who has little faith in either social engineering or the "invisible hand" of the free market as the savior of mankind -- I seriously doubt that these commonsense principles would appeal all that much to committed progressives or to die-hard libertarians, much less to ideologically-driven socialists and radicals on the left or conservatives and reactionaries on the right. And, at least in my opinion, the authors don't do a very effective job of selling their ideas to those who don't already agree with them. The assertions presented in this book do have a certain "truthiness" to them, as Stephen Colbert might put it -- my gut tells me that they feel right -- but the authors don't bother backing their claims up with the sort of hard evidence that skeptics would (rightly) demand in order to be swayed. So, if this book isn't meant to persuade those people who don't already share the authors' worldview, what is its purpose?Third, the authors are big on the "what" but small on the "how". One of the slogans used in the book is "Big What, Small How" -- meaning, essentially, that instead of making the false choice between "big government" and "small government", what we really need is a government that thinks big when it comes to setting broad policy goals and figuring out how to pay for them, but one that acts small when it comes to implementing those goals, leaving the details of how to achieve them up to local communities and the private sector. Intentionally or otherwise, the authors do a pretty good job of following their own advice in this book, presenting some great "big picture" ideas, but being rather vague about the specific details of how these ideas can be put into practice. I'm a pragmatist. I care about what works. No matter how good an idea is in principle, it's essentially worthless if you can't figure out how to move that idea from the drawing board to the assembly line. You have to be able to turn that idea into something more than just a good idea. You have to be able to turn it into a process or a product that people can actually use. In other words, in order for an idea to have an impact, it must first be transformed or incorporated into an institution -- i.e. an established social, economic, political, or legal structure (e.g. a law, rule, policy, norm, custom, routine, standard operating procedure, organization, office, social role) that governs certain aspects of behavior, and that exists independently of the individuals who operate within that structure at any given time. I'm an institutionalist. I don't deny the power and importance of ideas; but I recognize that free-floating "memes" don't have the same impact as ideas that have crystallized into institutions. Institutions give ideas substance and force. Memes are like spores, blown by the wind, unable to do anything on their own, entirely reliant on blind chance to get them where they need to go. Institutions are like animate bodies, able to move where they want, and to act under their own power. A meme can spread; and if it spreads to enough people it can do amazing things. But it spreads purely by chance; and as it spreads it has a tendency to mutate and evolve in unpredictable ways. An institution is much more stable, and less random in its behavior. Moreover, an institution, once formed, has its own independent existence, and can continue to function for ages, essentially by inertia, even if the ideas that originally inspired its creation have long since been abandoned or forgotten. A meme, on the other hand, always requires active human hosts -- many of them -- in order to do anything; and it can only act through those hosts. If the hosts die without passing on the meme, then it dies with them. The authors of this book don't explain how to transform their ideas into institutions that can effectively act on those ideas. So, in essence, all this book offers is a bunch of free-floating ideas -- memes -- to be scattered on the wind like spores, in the hope that they will spread to enough people to make them effective. I'm not optimistic.If the ideas that the authors present in this book were actually to be incorporated into our nation's social, political, and economic institutions, they would do wonders. But how is this supposed to happen? The authors don't tell us. They don't propose any new laws or constitutional amendments that would require the government to adhere to the principles outlined in this book. They don't propose to create a new political party to champion the political philosophy they advocate; nor do they propose specific reforms in the platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties to bring them in line with these principles. So, how exactly are these principles to be put into practice? And how do we insure that these principles continue to be followed? The authors can't seriously expect that, after reading this book, the Democrats and Republicans in Congress will suddenly "see the light" and decide to put aside their partisan differences and agree to voluntarily follow the principles that the authors recommend. They can't be that naïve, can they? They insist that they are pragmatists; but if they seriously think that they can transform American politics simply by making some prudent recommendations and hoping that politicians and voters will be wise enough to follow them, they are being hopelessly idealistic. The partisanship that is causing so much gridlock in Washington right now is not going to be cured by good ideas alone. There's no shortage of good ideas available to American politicians. But partisans don't care about good ideas -- they only care about winning the political debate over their ideological rivals. Good ideas lead to "win-win" outcomes that benefit everyone. That's the last thing that partisans want. Partisans, almost by definition, see politics as a "zero-sum" game, where one side's gain is the other side's loss, and vice versa. So, in a highly partisan political environment, like the one we find in the United States today, good ideas will often be resisted by politicians precisely because they are beneficial to everyone, and therefore don't confer a political advantage to one party over the other. At the very least, the mere fact that an idea is good is no guarantee that it will be accepted or implemented. The ideas in this book are good. But being good may not be enough. Good ideas can be rejected for lots of bad reasons. So, it's not enough to come up with good ideas. You've also got to figure out how to get those ideas implemented in spite of any partisan political resistance they may encounter. Unfortunately, the authors fail to do this. No matter how good their ideas are, without a workable strategy for insuring that those ideas get put into effect, they are of little practical value.These are, in my view, the three most significant shortcomings of this book: it repackages a venerable old political philosophy, tacking on a few new bells and whistles, and tries to sell it as something innovative and original; its sales pitch seems tailored specifically for those who already hold similar views, and would almost certainly not sway anyone who subscribed to a different set of political values; and it neglects to explain how these ideas are to be implemented in our current political environment of crippling partisan deadlock. Apart from these three things, there is very little in this book that I would criticize. Most of the ideas the authors present are pretty good (or at least they would be if they could be implemented). I do have a few quibbles here and there, though. For example, I just can't see why they think it would be a good idea to give parents and community members more control over their local schools. I would argue that they have too much influence already. I'd much rather entrust the education of our nation's youth to non-partisan, professional educators working within the civil service than to elected local school board members, political appointees on state textbook committees, politicians in state legislatures, PTA members, and lobbyists for ideologically-driven interest groups that claim to represent "concerned parents". But that's a relatively minor point of disagreement. Most of the other points that the authors raise make perfect sense to me; and I would wholeheartedly endorse them. This book is far from perfect; but it does contain a number of good ideas. I just wish that someone would figure out how exactly to implement those good ideas in our current, highly polarized political environment.

What I know, from analyzing the US income distribution tables shared online by Econ Prof Emmanuel Saez (Cal-Berkeley) is that the American economy's rising prosperity was shared equitably from the Truman presidency thru Carter's presidency, with more than 60% of the new gains going to Americans in the Bottom 90% and always less than 10% of the new gains going to Americans in the Top 1%. That's a three and a half decade track record. And then with Reagan, the share of new gains going to the Bottom 90% got pushed below 40%. Even went negative for both the Bush 1 and Bush 2 presidencies. While the share going to the Top 1% shot up, into the double digits, in the 23% of total growth to almost 37% of total growth. So - from the point of view of the Bottom 90% - the American economy had things right in the three and a half decades that preceded Reagan, and then has had things terribly wrong ever since. So what I especially appreciated about the Liu and Hanauer book was its reframing of government's role from the static language of "spending" to the more dynamic language of "circulating." Plainly we had an economy pre-Reagan that was far more adept at "Circulating Prosperity" widely enough to reach the entire American workforce. And, from Reagan forward, we've had an economy that has been starving the "Circulation of earnings to the bottom 90%" in order to fatten inordinately the "Re-circulation of Earnings to the Top One Percent." What the Liu/Hanauer framework provides is a neat way of puncturing the Right's pretentious claim that enriching the one percent benefits everyone. The One Percent, and its agents on the Right, aren't in the "healthy circulation" business; they are plainly in the choked off circulation business as their way of promoting their One Percent Extortion Agenda. To paraphrase a well-known saying, "Reaganism wasn't the Solution to our Problems, Reaganism WAS THE PROBLEM." The job of taxes, Liu and Hanauer wisely argue, is not that of "spending." A wise citizen understands that taxes protect the "circulation" of prosperity through all the parts of the economy, and the society, that together need to participate in a system whose healthful circulation system is promoted and protected. Most readers will not have noticed the value of this critical insight, but if you have stared at the disastrous effects of Reaganism in de-circulating the flow of prosperity to the Bottom 90%, as I have, you will surely appreciate their agenda's helpful reminder that taxes are the tool by which a wise nation promotes the proper circulation of money, buying power, and rising well-being for ALL the elements of - what shall we say - "the body politic"? "The garden politic?" I would go for both at the same time. Their circulation metaphor is the key to healing what remains America's central cruelty - the de-circulation of prosperity among the poor in favor of the excessive diversion of money to the super-rich. Steve Johnson.

This slim volume lays out a new vision for (American) politics. This has two bases: a vision of a society engineered to help all thrive, and a claim that such engineering needs to be based on a gardening metaphor of flexible and responsive tending and guiding, rather than a machine metaphor of rigid design and control.The authors argue that this can lead to a society where everyone (individually) is better off when everyone (en masse) is better off. They critique both ‘small government’ libertarian-style right-wing politics (which they dub ‘small what, small how’: no vision, no implementation) and ‘big government’ left-wing politics (’big what, big how’: big vision, top down implementation). Instead, they advocate for a ‘big what, small how’ style: government with a big vision setting the goals, with a devolved flexible implementation by responsible citizens.The message is clear and worthy, but the route forward is somewhat lacking. Also, the very US-centric message is somewhat drowned out by subsequent political events there. The more detailed Doughnut Economics takes a similar systems view, but has a global perspective.

Review: Through the cosmic eyes. Understanding the world as networked,Trust is foremost among the social virtues that make healthy societies.The science of complex adaptive systems teaches us that small acts, little everyday choices, accrue and compound into tipping points.If there are two minds of souls; Machinebrain view and Gardenbrain view, how to see the things of the world would be different. For Machine, "trust is only for suckers." For Garden, "trust is what makes strong economies and nation."For Machine, "People are rational and selfish."For Garden, "Individual effort and contribution matter to success; the result of cooperating make the world a better place.""The power of one" really matters in this digital age, because everything I do, you do, we do, affect others. One time, I went to NY to have a look the way of American society works, for sightseeing. I was thrilled to look around the supermarket where things I have never seen before. I was too excited to find what they are by the package of the foods and spices on the shelves. It was a great English lesson I have ever had in my life. My eyes were too into the lack, a man's soft and tender voice captured in my ears, saying, "Excuse us."My English book in my head, there was no room for "Excuse and us." together. As I looked around, a man and his son were saying to me, "Excuse us." The father said first, and the son copied what his dad said. The Ailes was too narrow to pass for three people; they were afraid of passing through without words, "Excuse us."Thirty years ago, the heart-warming story I'd like to deliver, would take a lot of time to share. But now "a moment of light throughout goes world in an instant we are living." Again, "The power of one" really matters in this digital age, because everything I do, you do, we do, affect others for both; good or bad.The reason I am writing my comments via Amazon is my answer. "Creating Civic Contagions" means is not that you powerless, but you can set off a new chain of copying like "Excuse us." If only we could use "Excuse us." when you want to have something in exchange, the world makes a healthy society naturally, automatically instead of saying, "You are nothing.", "You have a space to learn from now on."If Amazon is a jungle, firm or field, whatever you call it, to cultivate our minds and hearts, the words that we write on the forest will spread the world from the top of the mountain to the civic country yard where I am living to form the ideal place to live for humans. I withdraw many words from this book to let the world shine. In return, amazon withdrew some money from my account for this book, and somebody would buy this eagerly saying, " I have to read this;The Gardens of Democracy: A New American Story of Citizenship, the Economy, and the Role of Government." which is my wishful thinking.PS: I am waiting for the word; "Excuse us." from Amazon would give us points for the comment to encourage purchase for the next excellent move and vibration before my eggs are transformed the soil.

This is one book I would highly recommend. It is low on theory and high on articulating a pragmatic vision for the evolution of our governance model which has been stagnant for much too long hence political turmoil we all find ourselves facing today.

Nick Hanauer was a very interesting speaker on a programme I watched on TV and this book will be a useful back up to the subject of equality and other aspects of capitalism

A wonderful book that frames the language we need to renew political thinking and discussion. Our political conversations are filled with misleading, outmoded language and metaphors. This book offers some great information and new concepts with which to rethink how we should progress our societies. Recommend this book - 5 Stars.