speeches by amb. coats

Good morning.

Over a year ago, Consul General Dan Harris shared with me an idea for a conference -- a forum where Germans and Americans could share their collective experiences in dealing with social problems and social welfare systems. During the past year, we have had numerous discussions on this topic and so I am very pleased to be here today. I want to thank Consul General Harris for bringing this group together to discuss these very important issues. I would also like to thank the Hubert Foundation for providing this venue and supporting the conference.

Civil society is not the topic that most people are focused on today, but I must admit it is somewhat of a relief for this ambassador to set the topic that is on all our minds aside for a few hours and return to another theme of lasting importance and great significance. I welcome all of you here today to participate in this discussion.

Minister Schartau, it is a pleasure to see you again. We met a year ago. Thank you for being a part of this event.

And a special thanks to our two guests from the United States, William Galston and Michael Foley. As you may know, the East Coast of the United States, including Washington, has just been hit by one of the heaviest snowstorms in recorded history. Airports have been closed and roads have been clogged. I am sure it was not easy for our two guests from the United States to make this trip here, at least to get out of Washington. I am pleased that some beautiful Northern Westphalian-Rhine Valley weather awaited you when you arrived. When you first agreed to come, you probably thought you would be leaving a mild Washington for a harsh German winter. Just the opposite has occurred.

Finally, I would to thank all our guest experts. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

When the United States was founded -- primarily through the efforts of European immigrants -- the Founders foresaw a decentralized role for government. The role of government was to do only for the people what the people could not do for themselves. America was a nation of self-reliant people with a distrust of centralized government and a preference for government authority at best devolved or reduced to the lowest possible level -- the local level and the community level, certainly no higher than the state level. That pretty much characterized the role of government versus the role of local institutions, and even local authorities relied heavily on the church and volunteer associations that proliferated throughout the United States in the 19th and the 20th centuries.

In the 1830s, the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville traveled through the United States. One of the things he observed in his travels through this new country was that "strong families, workers associations, educational institutions, neighborhoods, town governments, religious groups, local institutions are to liberty what primary schools are to science. They put liberty within people's reach," he stated.

And Tocqueville learned about the spirit of self-reliance that was so characteristic of America -- then and now. He used the following anecdote to underscore the differences he saw in America. He wrote of a French farmer on his way to market. A tree had fallen across the road in a storm the night before, blocking his way. He turned around and traveled several kilometers in the other direction to the next larger town to notify the governing authorities that the road was blocked and that something should be done. By contrast, Tocqueville described the conduct of an American farmer in the same situation. Instead of taking a significant time-consuming detour to complain to the local authorities, the American farmer went to the nearest farmhouse and told his neighbor, "There is a large tree across the road. Will you help me move the tree?"

In the early 1960s President John Kennedy asked Americans, not to ask what their country or their government could do for them, but to ask themselves what they could do or what they could contribute to their country. That was a vision that called upon the self-reliance and self-help that has characterized American society for nearly two centuries, the self-reliance that Tocqueville described.

After President Kennedy's tragic death in 1963, Vice-President Lyndon Johnson became President. He instituted a series of well-intentioned centralized government programs to support elements of our society that had fallen behind. That was the start of significant federal efforts -- the Great Society and the War on Poverty -- to address, justifiably, some very serious social problems.

The War on Poverty went on for over three decades. It was a massive effort, but when assessing the results of those efforts, Americans were disturbed by the fact that we had not achieved the goals that had been set.

In l965 just months after my graduation from college, I joined an organization in Chicago whose purpose was to help implement President Johnson's Great Society programs.

One of my tasks was to go door to door in very poor neighborhoods advising residents on a new federal government housing program. Their current homes were to be pulled down, and in their place, modern high-rise buildings were to be constructed. I carried with me a book of pictures showing what the new apartments would look like. Often I sat in homes with inadequate plumbing and electrical facilities, and yet as I would show the pictures and describe what the government was going to do for these people, I was continually amazed by their response. Instead of a welcome and a thank you, many of them protested, even wept when hearing the news, that they were being forced to leave their homes. To my astonishment they loved their homes and the decayed neighborhood around them, despite their admittedly substandard homes provided.

Over the long term, we discovered that many of them were right. As difficult the situation was in which they lived, they saw themselves as part of a community. They felt an attachment to their homes even though they did not match up to the standards that we thought were appropriate, and even though they could not compare to the new properties that were to be provided. For their old neighborhoods were living communities. They were places of family and sanctuary. The new government high-rise communities turned out to be sterile and impersonal and soulless. And indeed in the years since, these communities have become unworthy of human habitation -- symbols of the destructive potential of goodness without wisdom.

My experience visiting those homes profoundly shaped my views of government and politics. That first-hand look at the well-intended provisions of a centralized government gave me an early insight to the inefficiency and failure of those provisions to adequately address the problems in our society.

Participation in the rebuilding of a civil society became one of my principle goals in my years in the United States Congress. At the very least, that meant exploring the range of different ways we could better provide for some demonstrated human needs.

Early in the 1990's I wrote a proposal entitled "The Project for American Renewal." I would like to quote briefly from that proposal because it gives you an idea of the reassessment of the Great Society program that took place -- and government-sponsored programs as a whole. Here with us today are two people who were pioneers in that reassessment, William Galston and Michael Foley. You will hear from them both a little later in the program.

My proposal focused on what it meant for a nation to be truly compassionate. That is a serious question, but unfortunately one that is not given enough serious attention. None of the architects of the programs of the 1960s would have predicted -- or accepted -- the 500% increase in illegitimacy or the 600% increase in violent crime that has taken place over the past 30 years. Yet Congress continued to authorize welfare programs based on a momentum of good intentions -- good intentions in the absence of alternatives. Hard statistics made clear that the War on Poverty had been a failure. But that was an empty victory because, in the back of our minds, we knew that when federal programs -- even failed federal programs -- are cut, our nation would still be left with unacceptable suffering. Too many children would still enter schools through metal detectors. Too many would grow up in the absence of family stability and of a father's love. Too many communities would be imprisoned by violence and fear.

The fact that government programs had not worked as effectively as we had hoped and had cost far more than we had budgeted for was no excuse for those in government. The challenge facing Congress was to match our skepticism about government programs with a bold new definition of public compassion, to dismantle a destructive welfare culture, and to fulfill our responsibilities to the disadvantaged.

As Republican leader of House of Representatives Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, and later as chairman of the Senate Committee on Children and Families, I investigated the effectiveness of government programs designed to provide support to families and children. A number of people were involved in these efforts. We looked at the effectiveness of government programs with those provided by private organizations, such as associations, churches, faith-based institutions, and volunteer associations. The differences, in terms of the cost of the input and the effectiveness and the efficiency of the results, were often dramatic.

Four principles emerged -- forming the basis for what we considered to be a new approach to social policy. I quote from "The Project for American Renewal."

The first principle: "Many of our worst social problems (crime, illegitimacy, despair, anger) will never be solved until the hearts of parents are turned toward their children; until respect is restored for human life and property; until a commitment is renewed to care about our neighbor. Government, in and of itself, cannot reach this deep into human character."

Second: "There are people and institutions -- families, churches and synagogues, private charities, grassroots community organizations -- able to communicate these ideals and restore individual hope. Armed with tough love, individual responsibility and spiritual values, they often perform miracles of renewal.

Third: "This reduces (although it does not eliminate) the direct role of government programs, but it also points to an active public mission: to transfer government roles and resources to the value-building institutions of our society, without burdening them with intrusive government regulations."

And fourth: "Such a transfer will demand a radically revised definition of compassion. It is not the florescent lights, plastic chairs, and take-a-number-and-wait approach of a welfare office. It is the warm hand of someone who actually cares. The measure of our compassion as a nation is the extent to which we promote this transforming human contact."

With those four principles in mind, many of us worked to try to devise some alternatives. But more importantly, we worked to identify alternatives already existing within our society and to provide a basis so that those alternatives could play a more important and pivotal role.

The result has been an interesting transition period of new initiatives. Some have worked better than others, but certainly new thinking has emerged -- about ways in which supportive help can be effectively provided to people in need.

The revival of civil society is an ongoing process in the United States. That process takes many different forms. It is a restoration of the importance of community and faith-based and volunteer associations, a return to what Tocqueville observed during his travels through the United States. But of course our country has grown and the problems have multiplied significantly. There are many areas in which non-government programs are inadequate to meet the total needs. But the issue is not to usurp the effectiveness of government programs, but to find ways in which to encourage, strengthen, nourish and grow those programs. Much of what you will hear today is based upon that discussion.

But let me talk about three particular areas in which some significant developments are taking place. Several months ago we hosted a conference in Berlin at which we tried to highlight some of these non-government efforts. We brought over a number of people from private associations in the United States. A follow-up conference will take place in April in Indianapolis, Indiana. The participants from the Berlin conference as well as representatives from a number of German programs will come to Indianapolis for a very practical demonstration of some of the American initiatives at work. At the Berlin conference, we learned a great deal from our German friends. We want to share with them our experiences in the United States. I think we have a lot to learn from each other.

In the dozen years or so since this reassessment process started, we have revised many of our initial ideas. My home city of Indianapolis, Indiana, has been an experimental model for many of these initiatives. Under the leadership of our former mayor who now heads the President's Corporation for Public Service and a number of related projects, Indianapolis became a laboratory for associations, churches, synagogues, parishes, mosque-based social programs, neighbor initiatives and a range of other programs - programs that have been very successful in reaching out to people. I think our friends from Germany will witness for themselves how effective these non-government institutions can be. Some of these organizations are faith-based, that is they have some spiritual or religious component. And some are secular volunteer associations, supported by people who continue to respond to President Kennedy's so eloquent injunction -- to do something for their country.

These voluntary associations have taken on new forms and new meanings. Before his assignment as Secretary of State, Colin Powell, for example, led an organization called America's Promise. This organization highlights and funds personal and volunteer and association efforts. Initiatives have sprung up across America that have made remarkable impact in dealing with some of the problems that confront our society. One such initiative is Habitat For Humanity. Habitat For Humanity builds homes for disadvantaged and low-income people. Residents and volunteers, often drawn from local churches, work side-by-side building new housing. In turn, residents enter a program of personal responsibility in terms of maintaining their homes. Today Habitat For Humanity is the fourth largest home-builder in the United States. Immeasurable housing stock has been built for low-income people, at a cost far lower than any government subsidized effort.

I could go on talking about a number of such initiatives that have worked in parallel with federal and state institutions. These private initiatives have provided significant support to government programs. But they have also provided significant support to individuals and to communities, without going through the centralized government process.

One concern that has prompted these kinds of initiatives is the inefficiency of government programs. American taxpayers have become justifiably skeptical about the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of government programs. The cost benefit of these programs has not been acceptable in terms of the kinds of results that have emanated from the Great Society experience.

President Bush's Faith-Based and Community Services Initiative is designed to provide an impetus for change within the government system in terms of how government can work in partnership with associations, volunteer groups, and organizations.

The resulting transition is something that I think warrants further examination. Not all of it is perfect, but these new initiatives are making very significant contributions to the ways in which we address some of our fundamental social problems. They cannot solve all problems, but by most evaluations, they are far more efficient and effective in finding real solutions with proven results to the problems we face.

So I appreciate the opportunity to share some of these initiatives with you and I look forward to today's discussion -- a discussion that is basically about how effective partnerships can meet some of our most basic societal needs. Learning from each other is very important in this respect. I hope that some of you decide to come to Indianapolis in April -- so that we can demonstrate to you the practical results of what has been going on in America for the past decade or more.

Thank you.