| OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2006 authors admitted that mediating structures may not be able to solve all problems, but indicated that "they could become the basis of far-reaching innovations in public policy, perhaps of a new paradigm for at least sectors of the welfare state" (Neuhaus & Berger, 1996, p. 158). Becoming part of the public policy making process would obviously involve cooperation with the government. Such cooperation seems inherent in the definition of mediating structures "those institutions standing between the individual in his private life and the large institutions of public life" (Neuhaus & Berger, p. 58). The idea is not to keep the two totally separate, but to adjust °r mediate them until they fit together. Maximalist Approach Improperly structured government can cause problems, as Besharov and Horowitz outlined. Former Clinton White House assistant deputy on domestic affairs William Galston agreed, observing that "much of modern government disem-powers through regulation, centralization and the displacement of public power" (1996, p. 59). However, rather than avoiding government as minimalists suggest, efforts should be made to improve government. "Properly structured government can serve as a positive force for empowerment, it can nurture mediating institutions; it can foster liberty, rightly understood" (p. 59). This is part of the paradigm mentioned earlier. Galston suggested three "shifts in governance" to better structure government to "contribute to the cause of individual and community empowerment" (1996, p. 62) fostered by Mediating structures. These shifts directly address the minimalist axioms and the problems they presented. The first shift involves limiting the government imposed regulations that so often strangle mediating structures. Galston, writing in 1996, referred to then Vice-President Al lore's National Performance Review as evidence that this shift had already begun. The National Performance Review, later renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR), was a task force created by the Clinton White House in 1993. The task force was charged "To create a government that 'works better, costs less, and gets results Americans care about'"(GovInfo, 2000). Prior to the Bush election in 2000 the task force made great efforts to make government more performance and results oriented. This program represented a start, but it seems clear that government should 136 in constant self-analysis mode in an effort to improve serv-lCes and relationships with other entities. Smaller and more effective government means more power and decision making a°ility is transferred to the hands of the people - which will go a long way in solving Horowitz's dilemma. Galston's second shift in strategy of governance involves a Principle that supporters of mediating structures have been l°ng clamored for. Galston hearkened back to the New Deal ^nen the federal government centralized social welfare. This Process must be reversed. Galston called it a "revitalized fed- eralism", citing the Clinton administration's offer of waivers of certain regulations to states that pursued welfare reform ideas (1996, p. 63). In the past such a call for an aggressive return to federalism has come primarily from the Right. Recently however all sides of the political arena have begun to see the effectiveness of putting control back into local hands. Local leaders have greater knowledge of what the problems are, and what resources are available; much better than does a federal agency. Ideally federal funds would be channeled to mediating structures through the local government. This may be the answer to Besharov's first minimalist axiom about creating the wrong winners and losers. Local governments are in a much better position to listen to the consumers and in turn find the best providers. "The relationship between government and the institutions of civil society must be reordered" (Galston, 1996, p. 63). Galston's third shift is perhaps the most directly related to our funding debate. "In some limited circumstances, government can act directly to invigorate local groups" (p. 63). Easing regulations and empowering local entities (rather than the federal government) are both fine ways to invigorate local groups. However, as was mentioned before, the number one reason faith-based organizations and other mediating structures do not play a bigger role in the social welfare system is due to a lack of funding. Staff members, materials, and buildings all cost money. True there are federal and other grants made available to such organizations, but as was already stated faith-based organizations are often denied access to these grants. Why? Because of the very factor that makes them effective, namely that they are religious! For years government has warily eyed relationships with any religion, not wanting to cross the dangerous line outlined in the First Amendment. But, as Galston said, if things are to improve and if mediating structures are to be implemented as public policy, the relationship between government and these institutions must be reordered. This reordering was envisioned by Neuhaus and Berger's maximalist approach. They said "our particular contention is that mediating structures, including religious institutions be utilized as much as possible as the implementing agencies of policy goals" (1996, p. 193). Given the positive and empowering effects of mediating structures the authors expected "increased public funding for the meeting of human needs in a wide range of policy areas;" (p. 193). Please keep in mind that this article was originally published nearly 30 years ago! One must question what has been done since then to implement mediating structures as the principal agents of social public policy. Faith-Based and Community Initiatives President Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (FBCI) program is perhaps the most recent step in an effort to implement mediating structures as public policy. FBCI, created by executive order, is the embodiment of President 55 |
