Opinion - Civil society is not dead just yet
How many of the cuts initiated by DOGE will be actualized? Will federal layoffs and reorganization stick or be reversed by the courts? Which new executive orders will be implemented? Will the 'big, beautiful' tax and spending bill cut Medicaid, youth programs and housing assistance? How much should we worry about a backlog of disaster aid requests as hurricane season approaches, or about the extreme economic uncertainty of an escalating trade war?
Given the pace and intensity of the changes happening in Washington, it is understandable for citizens to feel overwhelmed — to worry about who will come out ahead, who will be left behind and how each of us will be affected.
But before we let those questions turn to doubt over whether America can survive so much political turmoil, we should ask one more: Since when have we relied on politicians to provide for all of our economic, political and social needs?
After all, civil society has always connected and provided for Americans as much as, if not more, than the government. A federal government that does less may even reinvigorate our penchant for working together, reminding us that we are less divided and more capable than politicians would have us believe.
When French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville traveled across the U.S. in the 1830s, he was struck by the thriving associational life he found in the burgeoning democratic republic. Seemingly everywhere he turned, he saw local newspapers, workers' collectives, neighborhood groups and religious organizations actively participating in self-governance.
He saw individuals who primarily relied on themselves for their own needs eagerly join their neighbors in order to pursue collective goals and address social ills. For every problem or concern, Tocqueville claimed, you could find a group gathering to address it.
Ever since Tocqueville first observed this uniquely American art of association, observers have cautioned about its waning importance in daily life.
To some degree, they may have a point. Technological advancements have led to fewer bowling leagues and book clubs and more nights in front of the television or doomscrolling through social media. A decline in religiosity has stunted private social services, and perhaps vice versa.
Critically, the federal administrative state crowds out some charity and weakens our capacity for self-governance. Federal funding for research has made universities less independent. Municipal consolidation and federal policies have made schools larger and less adaptable. Many nonprofits rely on funding from federal grants. In 2021, for instance, over 100,000 U.S. charities received over $267 billion from the government.
It seems that in our search for government solutions to the complex challenges of modern society, we've ended up more reliant on Washington to ease our troubles.
Viewed this way, the changes the Trump administration is attempting could very well sever the already fraying political, economic and social fabric of America. A closer examination of America's commitment to the art of association, however, may help alleviate our fears.
As state and federal governments enact restrictions on educational curriculum, for example, parents, nonprofits and companies have stepped in to fill the gap.
Barnes and Noble offers a summer reading program where kids can earn free books. Dolly Parton's Imagination Library distributes free books to children across the world. Banned book clubs have sprouted up across the country. Private tutors, summer camps and homeschooling all provide alternative educational experiences that can spark creativity and provide the intellectual rigor that standardized curricula and testing often lack.
After disasters, it is often local associations that help spur recovery. They keep up communication among neighbors, provide necessary goods and services and signal a commitment to their communities.
Churches, coffee shops and community centers become hubs for providing meals, recharging electronics and accessing the internet and strategizing about next steps. Neighbors help one another and come together to petition the government for resources.
While it is understandable to worry about politics in Washington, it is also vital to remember that Americans also have a vibrant associational life. Our ability to come together, discuss issues, and experiment with solutions is what, in Tocqueville's eyes, made America great.
A modern America thrives on the recognition that everyday citizens can and do come together to solve problems.
Stefanie Haeffele is a senior fellow with the Mercatus Center's F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Virgil Henry Storr is Mercatus' vice president for Academic and Student Programs and the Don C. Lavoie Senior Fellow with the Hayek Program.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
8 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
European leaders to join Ukraine's Zelensky for meeting with Trump
KYIV, Ukraine — European and NATO leaders announced Sunday they will join President Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington for talks with President Trump on ending Russia's war in Ukraine, with the possibility of U.S. security guarantees now on the negotiating table. European leaders, including heavyweights France, Britain and Germany, are rallying around the Ukrainian leader after his exclusion from Trump's summit on Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Their pledge to be at Zelensky's side at the White House on Monday is an apparent effort to ensure the meeting goes better than the Ukrainian leader's last one in February, when Trump berated him in a heated Oval Office encounter. 'The Europeans are very afraid of the Oval Office scene being repeated, and so they want to support Mr. Zelensky to the hilt,' said retired French Gen. Dominique Trinquand, a former head of France's military mission at the United Nations. 'It's a power struggle and a position of strength that might work with Trump,' he said. Special U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff said Sunday that Putin agreed at the meeting in Alaska with Trump to allow the U.S. and European allies to offer Ukraine a security guarantee resembling NATO's collective defense mandate as part of an eventual deal to end the 3½-year war. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking at a news conference in Brussels with Zelensky, said, 'We welcome President Trump's willingness to contribute to Article 5-like security guarantees for Ukraine. And the 'coalition of the willing' — including the European Union -- is ready to do its share.' Von der Leyen was joined Sunday by French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Finnish President Alexander Stubb in saying they will take part in Monday's talks at the White House, as will the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Mark Rutte. The European leaders' demonstration of support could help ease concerns in Kyiv and other European capitals that Ukraine risks being railroaded into a peace deal that Trump says he wants to broker with Russia. Neil Melvin, director of international security at the London-based Royal United Services Institute, said European leaders are trying to 'shape this fast-evolving agenda.' After the Alaska summit, the idea of a ceasefire appears all but abandoned, with the narrative shifting toward Putin's agenda of ensuring Ukraine does not join NATO or even the EU. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday that a possible ceasefire is 'not off the table' but that the best way to end the war would be through a 'full peace deal.' Putin has implied that he sees Europe as a hindrance to negotiations. He has also resisted meeting Zelensky in person, saying that such a meeting can only take place once the groundwork for a peace deal has been laid. Speaking to reporters after his meeting with Trump, the Russian leader raised the idea that Kyiv and other European capitals could 'create obstacles' to derail potential progress with 'behind-the-scenes intrigue.' For now, the Zelensky meeting offers the Europeans the 'only way' to get into the discussions about the future of Ukraine and European security, Melvin said. But the sheer number of European leaders potentially in attendance means the group will have to be 'mindful' not to give 'contradictory' messages, he said. 'The risk is they look heavy-handed and are ganging up on Trump,' he added. 'Trump won't want to be put in a corner.' Although details remain hazy on what Article 5-like security guarantees from the U.S. and Europe would entail for Ukraine, it could mirror NATO membership terms, in which an attack on one member of the alliance is seen as an attack on all. In remarks made on CNN's 'State of the Union,' Witkoff said Friday's meeting with Trump was the first time Putin has been had heard to agree to such an arrangement. Zelensky continues to stress the importance of both U.S. and European involvement in any negotiations. 'A security guarantee is a strong army. Only Ukraine can provide that. Only Europe can finance this army, and weapons for this army can be provided by our domestic production and European production. But there are certain things that are in short supply and are only available in the United States,' he said at the news conference Sunday alongside Von der Leyen. Zelensky also countered Trump's assertion — which aligned with Putin's preference — that the two sides should negotiate a complete end to the war rather than first securing a ceasefire. Zelensky said a ceasefire would provide breathing room to review Putin's demands. 'It's impossible to do this under the pressure of weapons,' he said. 'Putin does not want to stop the killing, but he must do it.' Kullab and Leicester write for the Associated Press and reported from Kyiv and Le Pecq, France, respectively. AP writers Pan Pylas in London and Katie Marie Davies in Manchester, England, contributed to this report.
New York Post
8 minutes ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump stuns Wall Street, Washington with controversial BLS nominee
President Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is breaking the mold of his predecessors and causing alarm among economists of all stripes Commissioners of the BLS are usually academics or career civil servants with decades of experience in statistics and economics. But EJ Antoni, who Trump nominated to lead the agency after firing former BLS chief Erika McEntarfer on the heels of a disappointing jobs report earlier this month, has more bona fides as a pundit and conservative advocate than he does as a statistician. The choice of Antoni to lead a statistical division whose data is scrutinized by businesses and governments all over the world is getting major backlash from the economics profession and sparking concerns about the politicization of bedrock-level economic data. 'E.J. Antoni is completely unqualified to be BLS Commissioner,' Harvard University economist Jason Furman, who worked for the Obama administration, wrote on social media. 'He is an extreme partisan and does not have any relevant experience.' Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, echoed Furman's words. 'He's utterly unqualified and as partisan as it gets,' he told the Washington Post. Who is EJ Antoni? Antoni has been the chief economist of the Heritage Foundation's center on the federal budget for the past four months. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank that produced the wide-ranging Project 2025 policy agenda. Project 2025 took aim at the 'permanent political class' in Washington, and many of its budget-cutting recommendations have been carried out by the Trump administration. He held two research fellowships at Heritage prior to his current position and two other fellowships at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group led by billionaire Steve Forbes. Antoni submitted his doctoral dissertation in 2020, in which he defends positions associated with 'supply-side economics,' a conservative policy doctrine that became popular in the 1980s. Besides stints as an adjunct at a community college and as an instructor at his alma mater of Northern Illinois University, he's held no other academic posts. By comparison, McEntarfer worked for 20 years as an economist with the Census Bureau. Her predecessor William Beach was the chief economist for the Senate Budget Committee, and his predecessor Erica Groshen spent 20 years as an economist at the New York Federal Reserve and referees for about a dozen academic journals. Antoni is a frequent guest on a number of conservative media outlets. While BLS makes it a point to produce — rather than interpret — economic data, Antoni has been hitting talking points on recent BLS releases in media appearances, a stark contrast with the agency's typical cut-and-dry communications. Discussing the dismal July jobs report, he emphasized job growth among native-born Americans on former Trump adviser Steven Bannon's internet podcast. 'There was some good news in the report, too, that we should definitely highlight,' he said. 'All of the net job growth over the last 12 months has gone to native-born Americans.' The Heritage Foundation did not respond to a request for an interview with Antoni. Backlash from economists Economists aren't mincing their words about Antoni's credentials. One economist at the University of Wisconsin refuted one of Antoni's recent papers, showing it contained basic statistical mistakes and finding that it wasn't possible to replicate its results — an academic kiss of death. Alan Cole, an economist with the conservative Tax Foundation think tank, described the errors in the paper as 'stunning.' 'Stunning errors in a tweet are bad, but worse to do it in long form, where there's more time and effort involved,' he wrote on social media. Conservative economists have also been blasting the firing of McEntarfer after the July jobs report showed that a meager 106,000 jobs have been added to the economy since May. Trump accused the agency — without any evidence — of producing 'rigged' data, which many economists have said is poppycock. 'The totally groundless firing of Dr. Erika McEntarfer … sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau,' William Beach, a Trump appointee who preceded McEntarfer as head of the BLS, wrote online. Warnings to senators Antoni is expected to be easily confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate after he appears before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which will also need to approve his nomination. Antoni's critics are waging a long-shot effort to turn GOP members of the committee against the nominee ahead of his likely confirmation. Friends of the BLS, a group that advocates for the agency and that's chaired by Beach and his predecessor Erica Groshen, called out Antoni in a statement Wednesday, describing the debate about his nomination as 'contentious.' 'BLS now … faces the additional challenge of a contentious debate over the nominee for the next Commissioner, Dr. EJ Antoni,' they said. Groshen told The Hill they hope the nomination process will be 'very thorough.' 'The responsibility of the Senate HELP committee … is particularly important at this time,' she added. The Hill reached out to all Republican members of the committee about Antoni's qualifications, most of whom didn't respond. A representative for Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she wouldn't be commenting on the nomination prior to the hearing. What would politicized labor data look like? Antoni has already floated some massive changes to BLS data releases, including canceling regular monthly reports in favor of quarterly releases — a change that would alter the entire cadence of economic data output and affect nearly every private and public sector model of the U.S. economy. He told Fox News before his nomination that 'the BLS should suspend issuing the monthly jobs reports, but keep publishing more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data,' since BLS data is often subject to revision. Former BLS chiefs told The Hill they're keeping an eye on a regulatory standard known as OMB Directive No. 3, which governs the rules of BLS releases, for any sign that agency data could become politicized. 'Violations of that would be very unusual, and therefore indicative of something unusual underneath it,' Groshen said. Antoni has delivered some conflicting remarks on BLS data revisions, attributing them to 'incompetent' leadership under McEntarfer during his appearance on Bannon's podcast and then noting later that the problems pre-dated her time as agency commissioner. 'I think that's part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems,' he said before adding that 'this is not a problem unique to the Trump administration.' Real problems with BLS data In fact, the downward revisions in the July jobs report that prompted Trump's firing of McEntarfer were due to the late reporting of educational employment figures by state and local governments, along with the more pronounced seasonal effects in that sector since teachers don't work in the summer. That's fairly typical for the agency, current and former employees of the BLS told The Hill. Political narratives aside, the BLS has seen a substantial drop in survey response rates in the aftermath of the pandemic, a decline that has made the data less reliable, but that has affected statistical agencies in a number of countries beyond the U.S. 'This is not a failure of the BLS … This is a phenomenon that is worldwide,' Erica Groshen told The Hill. 'This is a slow-moving train wreck,' she added, exhorting CEOs across the economy to make a priority of the surveys. 'There is no silver bullet. Believe me – people have been looking for it for a long time.' Economists have been lamenting the survey response rates for years. 'Like Orwellian newspeak, [the U.S. employment report] can often mean the reverse of what it says it means. The household and establishment surveys portray contrasting pictures of employment (and both have shocking response rates),' UBS economist Paul Donovan wrote earlier this month, having noted declines since 2023.
