The "Washington" narrative consumes us too

I was proud three years ago, when thinking about what everyone says about cultural heritage tourism and reconciling why the City Museum did not succeed, when I made the point that the world defines Washington through the prism (narrative) of the National Experience, making the marketing and communication of local history a market development problem of almost unparalleled proportions. (I hate to use the word unique, but it is a relatively unique situation compared to other cities across the United States.)

See the blog entries:

-- Who ♥ DC? -- More about DC tourism
-- Central Library Planning efforts and the City Museum, how about some learning from Augusta, Maine ... and Baltimore?
-- Tourism Marketing and DC
-- You (Don't) really like me--DC and its suburbs
-- More About DC Tourism Marketing.

I was talking to a colleague the other night and he was telling me about how an organization that he is on the board of, hired a good assistant director for relatively low pay "from the hinterlands." (The same thing goes for some of the people applying for the job that I have currently on interim basis--I have to reapply too. They think "Washington! I want to work there!" Little do they know...)

We discussed how it is that people want to come to Washington because they are attracted by the same narrative that attracted us... That policy matters, that you work on important issues, because you're in Washington. That you can make a difference.

It's true. But it's just as messy, if not more so, than anywhere else. It's definitely not necessarily better than trying to do this kind of work elsewhere.

This morning I was reading a review in last Sunday's New York Times about the failure to progress in the "war on terrorism." See "Our War on Terror," by Samantha Power of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. While reading, it occurred to me that the same kind of willingness to command or order instead of lead, and shirk off Constitutional protections and command imperiously rather than working with others because of the pressing demands to "win" the war on terrorism "trickles down" to all levels of government in terms of the cavalier treatment of citizens, participation, and democracy.

From the article:

The president, apparently, remains determined to treat the American people as if they have no role to play in what will, in fact, be a “global struggle of uncertain duration.” In a January interview with Jim Lehrer, Bush was asked why he hadn’t called for more Americans to “sacrifice something.” He said: “Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night.”

Citizens aren't that important. That Constitutional principles aren't that important. That democracy extends to elections, but autocracy afterwards. And most of the time, we are "customers."

I have come across a book (which I haven't yet read) that seems interesting, The New Public Service by the Denhardts. According to the publisher's description, the book is:

organized around a set of seven core principles:
(1) serve citizens, not customers;
(2) seek the public interest;
(3) value citizenship and public service above entrepreneurship;
(4) think strategically, act democratically;
(5) recognize that accountability isn't simple;
(6) serve, rather than steer; and
(7) value people, not just productivity.

The book asks us to think carefully and critically about what public service is, why it is important, and what values ought to guide what we do and how we do it. It celebrates what is distinctive, important and meaningful about public service and considers how we might better live up to those ideals and values.

This came up, sort of, at the "Community Heritage Project" assessment session the other night. I had a side conversation about the issue of "leadership development and civic engagement" and how to do it.

Most funders in the city, especially developers, aren't too interested in using Dream City and Between Justice and Beauty as base texts overlaid with work on the Growth Machine (sociology, Logan and Molotch), the Urban Regime (political science, UMD's Clarence Stone) and other "academic" concepts to build Empowered Participation and Deepening Democracy (political science, Fung, and Wright and Fung respectively).

The local institutions operate within (and are funded by) the same system of institutions that is part of the development agenda. Even I am making decisions these days to not speak out on certain issues or to testify on issues before City Council, even if unrelated to my job, because it could (even more than it already does) impact me and my ability to keep my job.

Still, we need a "DC 101" politics course that works to build a foundation of understanding based on systems and structures and processes that transcends the personal and parochialism that tends to dominate local politics at the neighborhood, ANC, Ward, and City levels.