Opinion: Steve Pomerance: Lessons from ‘The March of Folly’
Recent months have been really scary. Everyone is
threatened by the coronavirus. Testing is way behind where it should be. The
stock market is dropping at record rates, and the economy as a whole is slowing
dramatically. Many people are being pushed to the edge, both economically and
health-wise.
But within this bleak scenario, there are things to be
thankful for. Our local and state governments are doing a very good job with
the resources and technology that they can access. Walking in neighborhoods is
a pleasure, with people greeting each other — at the appropriate physical
separation. We have our open space, where we can get out and enjoy nature. I
recently hiked the southern portion of the Mesa Trail and was greeted by truly
spectacular views of the Denver skyline and the eastern plains. The air was
clearer than I ever remember seeing in my 50-plus years in Boulder.
I also had time to read a book that I’ve put off for
years — “The March of Folly,” by Barbara Tuchman, first published in 1984.
(Full disclosure: My aunt Barbara lived near my parents, and I would
occasionally visit with her while she wrote.) This book is an analysis of four
events: why the Trojans took in the wooden horse, how the Renaissance popes
provoked the Protestant succession, why England lost the American colonies, and
how the U.S betrayed its own interests in Vietnam. But it is also “a moral
essay on the crimes and follies of governments, and the misfortunes the
governed suffered in consequence,” per the New York Times Book Review.
For Tuchman, a “folly” is pursuit of policy contrary to
the welfare of the governed. It must have been perceived as counterproductive
in its own time, not just in hindsight. There must have been feasible
alternative courses of action available. And the policy must have been pursued
by a group, and not just at the direction of one authoritarian individual.
She describes “wooden-headedness,” the source of
self-deception, as a critical factor leading to a folly. “It consists in
assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or
rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing
oneself to be deflected by the facts. … Wooden-headedness is also the refusal
to benefit from experience.”
From my perspective, Boulder has avoided such outcomes
to the extent that the citizens have been directly involved in policy
formation. Some examples: Our fundamental growth control measures — the Open
Space program, the 55-foot height limit, and the Blue Line — all resulted from
direct citizen activism. The creation of the first Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan heavily involved local residents. Our first campaign finance laws,
instituted in 1999, came from a group of citizens, and the recent updates
resulted from a cooperative effort between citizens and staff members. Our
nationally-known energy efficiency programs resulted from an intensive effort
of a whole host of citizens working with staff and city council members, as has
the municipalization effort, which woke up some investor-owned utilities to the
need for more renewables.
But in many areas citizens have not been appropriately
involved. Some examples: The East Boulder Sub-Community Planning process
involves “stakeholders,” but it lacks broader citizen involvement in creating
the appropriate context. After all, what happens in East Boulder relates to
what happens elsewhere, and we still lack a citizen-determined context for
growth-related decisions. The implementation of online petitions was turned
over to the staff with no citizen involvement, in spite of the success of the
previous joint citizen-staff update of our initiative and referendum charter
processes and campaign finance laws. Now, even after a year’s work, nothing is
yet in place. Boulder city government has been having a hard time attracting
residents to apply for certain city boards and commissions, a big change from a
few decades ago. But, as far as I know, this problem has not been opened up to
the citizens to help solve.
Finally, per a recent consultant’s report, in many areas
city staff morale is very low. Perhaps it’s because staff members work hard as
directed, but then many times face strong negative feedback from citizens,
because the direction staff was given was not in alignment with what the
citizens know and want. As our history shows, it works far better for everyone
if the citizens are part of the process right from the beginning, the wisdom of
Boulder’s wide-ranging citizen expertise is respected, and policy formation is
a joint effort, where council members, staff and knowledgeable citizens work
cooperatively.
x