Chapter 9

Patriotism, Benevolence, and Public Administration

Initial Comments

This relatively brief chapter--more so than the others in the text--defines who George Frederickson is, how he understands the obligation of public service, and why is so widely respected in the field. Indeed, this chapter offers several provocative ideas to consider. I am certain that he would welcome thoughtful dialog with those having dissenting views.

Central to this chapter is Frederickson's thinking about patriotism, which differs considerably with the more typical "Fourth of July" nationalistic exaltations of many. Instead, he speaks of love for fellow citizens, citing the sentiments and actions of Danish society during the years of Nazi occupation. His reference here to another society sets up obvious comparisons with "patriotism" in the behaviors of various segments of U.S. society. Cearly, we can associate the legions of citizens and public servants (police, fire, and EMT personnel) who volunteered in the WTC and Pentagon rescue efforts—some even sacrificing their lives—with Frederickson’s discussion of Danish bureaucrats during World War II. Bit in terms of individual citizens in more ordinary times, we might ask how patriotic it would be to oppose a neighborhood residential half-way house because it threatens property values. And with regard to business, what is the extent of patriotism in overstating R and D costs as a component of pharmaceutical drug costs U.S. consumers bear. As for corporate patriotism, some observers note that business concerns in some European nations cannot fathom "profiteering" at the expense of fellow citizens--in sharp contrast to...well, some other nations. Should people working in positions of public authority exhibit more (of Frederickson's) patriotism and benevolence than other folks? Seemingly, a negative response would suggest little difference between those pursuing their individual self-interest in the public sector and those in business.

How do you react to Frederickson’s critique of careerism as an obstacle to the patriotism of benevolence in public service (or other professions)? Is it plausible that from time to time we “calculate” our actions to facilitate career advancement at the expense of concern for the public good? For sure, public service is fraught with a variety of pressures and constraints—the “politics” of the situation, budget limitations, group demands—that provide convenient “no other choice” rationales. But on the other hand, it could be argued that to promote benevolence in any measure, one needs to be a “survivor” (not a “fallen martyr”) to be around for the next day. Thus, it would follow that choosing one’s battles is especially important.

Frederickson’s commentary about the Founders’ regard for benevolence presents a clearly different spin on constitutional interpretation than we typically hear. It is more often assumed that folks like Jefferson and Madison fixated on “individual rights” at the expense of all else (even though history confirms that the Bill of Rights were “tacked on” as a last-minute political compromise to facilitate ratification of the Constitution). Silly as it sounds, I often wonder how those Founders—if we could somehow “revive” them—would react in observing the problems and issues of today’s society. Would they applaud Charleton Heston in his stalwart interpretation of the Second Amendment? Or might they show more compassion for the single mother in public housing who fears for the safety of her children amid all the firearms in surrounding apartments? Would the Founders be proud that the document they drafted over two hundred years ago is still in use, or dismayed that we have not since taken the initiative to hold subsequent constitutional conventions in the wakes of industrialism, urbanization, and (now) globalization? …At any rate, Frederickson’s notions of patriotism offer a unique perspective on public service in specific and society in general that challenges our individualist, utilitarian way of life.

Linked with Chapter Nine is the case study “Personnel or People?” which is my personal favorite among all of these ICMA cases. To put it bluntly, this one drives MPA students to distractions. They predictably and vociferously argue that this fellow Eleson deserves absolutely nothing in terms of special treatment. [Free tip: never ask for what you deserve!] And even if it is the benevolent thing to do, is Eleson worth risking one’s neck (that is, career) for? [calculation] What say ye here?

Objectives

  1. to give serious reflection to the notions of patriotism and benevolence, particularly in the context of your career situation.
  1. to evaluate US society as (fertile, barren) soil for patriotism and benevolence in public service.

Key Questions

  1. Do the heroic actions of the Danish bureaucracy under Nazi occupation offer an appropriately fair standard for evaluating our society/bureaucracy today?
  1. Which of the case studies assigned to date (excluding “Personnel or People?”) involve career-risking patriotism? Explain.
  1. Some cities have extended “sanctuary” to undocumented aliens (seeking refuge from the grasp of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service). Evaluate such a sanctuary policy in reference to Frederickson’s notion of patriotism and benevolence.
  1. Assuming very tight budget constraints, can the Honolulu Police Department justify committing personnel effort to finding lost Alzheimer’s patients? Would you as Chief retain this practice—if it meant significant budget reductions in your drug task force?

Portfolio Options

9-1 Evaluate the movie Marie or Patch Adams (available at video stores—do only one) in terms of patriotism and benevolence. 1 or 2 units

9-2 Draft a commentary about a patriotic/benevolent—and career-risking—action of someone you know. 1 unit

9-3 Discuss at least five forces—in addition to careerism—that discourage patriotism and benevolence in your work place. 1 unit.