while the influence of religion on political behavior is widely recognized, (1) theologically-rooted norms, and the elites who hold or are influenced by them, frame and shape American policy choices to an extent that is not appreciated; (2) the country?s increasing religious diversity is affecting our ability to forge consensus or to govern; and (3) disciplinary ?silos? have prevented scholars from developing a sufficiently comprehensive synthesis of existing scholarship to adequately describe the nature and effects of the religious underpinnings of contemporary political polarization. As a result, while lawyers, political scientists and others recognize the more explicitly religious components of America?s current polarization, we fail to appreciate the extent to which conflicting policy preferences are rooted in religiously-shaped normative frameworks. Much like the blind men and the elephant, we encounter different parts of the animal. We see a tree, a wall, a snake?but we fail to apprehend the size, shape and power of the whole elephant.
Continue reading “Religious Paradigms: Thinking in Red and Blue”
Category Archives: Academic Papers
Using Restraints: The Legal Context of High Risk Interventions
The treatment of children by mental health professionals–particularly in an institutional setting–implicates three sets of important, and frequently competing, interests.
Continue reading “Using Restraints: The Legal Context of High Risk Interventions”
Religious Paradigms and the Rule of Law: Thinking in Red and Blue
While lawyers, political scientists and others recognize the more explicitly religious components of America?s current polarization, we fail to appreciate the extent to which conflicting policy preferences are rooted in religiously-shaped normative frameworks. Much like the blind men and the elephant, we encounter different parts of the animal. We see a tree, a wall, a snake?but we fail to apprehend the size, shape and power of the whole elephant.
Continue reading “Religious Paradigms and the Rule of Law: Thinking in Red and Blue”
Holding ‘Governance’ Accountable
Public administration scholars and schools of public affairs increasingly use the term ?governance? to describe the processes they study and teach. Governance?rather than the older word ?government??is thought to be a more accurate descriptor of the reality of contemporary state structures, where an ever-increasing percentage of the work of the state is outsourced to for-profit, non-profit and faith-based organizations. It is the intent of this article to suggest that before policymakers and public managers accept third-party government as a fait accompli, to be reconceptualized and relabeled accordingly, we be sure that we really understand the implications for public administration theory and practice.
Continue reading “Holding ‘Governance’ Accountable”
Public Ethics, Legal Accountability, and the New Governance
We take issue with the notion that the transfer of sovereignty to nongovernmental agents is merely a management problem, because legal restrictions on the use and reach of public authority are fundamental to the United States? political and constitutional order. Explicit legal standards of right and wrong are a defining feature of American government (Frederickson 1993, 248; see also Rohr 1998). Substituting new forms of collaboration and management for hierarchical, bureaucratic chains of command cannot and should not mean abandoning traditional commitments to the public values of liberty, equality, and fairness.
Continue reading “Public Ethics, Legal Accountability, and the New Governance”