Deep Civil Society and Collective Action

Journalism. Higher education. The federal bureaucracy. Nonprofits. The military. And now the law firms.

Across the United States right now, the same conversation is happening in these and other establishment professions. Career professionals are keenly aware that the Trump administration has put their institutions under enormous pressure to comply with their demands—some of which are lawful, many of which are not—in order to preserve their access to federal funds and avoid further sanction.

Recognizing the importance of the moment, and the systemic implications of lawsuits and pressure against any individual entity (Columbia, NBC News, Paul, Weiss) these professionals look to their owners, administrators, superiors, and founding partners for leadership and guidance. There are some positive signs of principled leadership from leading institutions, such as the recent Atlantic piece by Princeton University President Jonathan Eisgruber condemning Trump’s attack on Columbia, and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issuing a rare public statement on the independence of the judiciary branch.

But in the main, professional leaders in journalism, higher education, the military, and the legal profession have been mostly silent. And so these conversations—will the administration come after [members of my profession]? will our leaders defend [my profession] if they come after our own institution—continue quietly, privately, at the dinner table, in the group chat, with the doors closed and the phones off.

This is a collective action crisis for civil society. It is not an acute crisis for activists, movement leaders, and others who work at the forefront of resistance to the policy of all presidential administrations, past and present.* Rather, it is a crisis of the intermediate institutions that enable the functioning of civil society within the United States, what I call deep civil society. The legal profession, which provides activists and citizens with resources to press their demands and defend their rights. The educational sector that prepares young people for careers in the private and public sectors. Journalists who cover the most powerful politicians and oligarchs alongside the poor and the excluded. Federal workers who ensure that the laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed. And the security sector that ensures the safety and security of citizens and residents, at home and abroad.

Despite the constant drumbeat from social media and the administration’s social media propagandists about how these institutions are poisoned by woke and captured by radicals, deep civil society is, by its very nature, fundamentally conservative. These are institutions where rank, status, and seniority are broadly accepted as natural and appropriate. They are institutions where professional and administrative staff believe in their public mission, and their public responsibility.** There are countless links between the public and private sides of deep civil society, from federal funds that support advanced research to professional relationships between officer corps and the legal profession. Academics consult with the military because both sides believe that U.S. military power must be used wisely, judiciously, and effectively. Bureaucrats leak to journalists because they know and respect one another.

The puzzling feature of the current moment is that despite these many linkages, and despite their common concerns, there is very little public recognition of deep civil society’s common plight. It is a collective action problem in two senses. First, within each sphere, individuals recognize the value of a collective response, and fearful of sticking their head out over the ramparts. The law firms are waiting for some elite firm that will take a principled stand against the administration. Higher education is waiting for more Eisgrubers.

But second, it is a collective action problem in that each sphere—from journalism to the security sector—is strengthened by leadership from the others. A legal profession that refuses to knuckle under makes it difficult for any administration to target journalists and teachers. A military that refuses to obey unlawful orders will not intimidate bureaucrats and public servants. And so forth.

Overcoming collective action problems is notoriously difficult. It is especially difficult for conservative institutions facing real consequences for speaking out first. One way to incentivize collective behavior is to offer selective incentives to those who do the work of organizing and mobilizing. In this context, this means public leadership. One such selective incentive is acclaim. Some law firms, some administrators, and some bureaucrats will be remembered as Marshal Pétain. Others will be remembered as Charles de Gaulle.

The other way to overcome collective action is to reject its very framing. The individual incentives are real. But the collective incentives are also real. As many have said over the years, we hang together, or we hang apart. Deep civil society is fragmented, individuated; the current moment requires a collective response based on collective recognition of our mutual fate and our mutual strength. So be it.

NOTE

The header image is from Emily Flake in this week’s The New Yorker.

* There is plenty to worry about for these groups too. But that is a different essay.

** Ask a lawyer why they will do legal work that benefits terrible people. The answer is not because they deserve it. The answer is because our constitutional order requires it.