Renovating the Refounding

Governing Orientations

The Refounding aimed at creating “a new way of thinking about public administration” (Wamsley et al., 1992, p. 59). To do this, they had to provide a secure basis for governing. Yet, there were two barriers that they had to overcome to achieve this reconceived administration. First, the founding era established a system of government that did not extensively rely on a visible hand to govern. What the Refounders often referred to as automatic governance was the norm; overt governing was not deemed a priority. Second, The Refounders argued that the Progressives successfully challenged the Founding vision of automatic governance and instituted direct rule on the principles of managerial science. In response to these two problems, they leveraged founding and democratic principles to find justifications for the ability of administrators to help steer the regime on political grounds, not scientific ones. While they provided a solid foundation for The Public Administration to rest upon, the Refounders did not pay enough attention to the role of individual governance in public affairs.

The failure to fully capture the importance of self-rule requires digging deeper into the two barriers that hindered a legitimate form of governing from emerging through The Public Administration. The Refounders realized that overcoming the American anxiety toward constant government involvement in everyday life would be tough, especially because the very fabric of the U.S. constitutional scheme was planned to avoid a need for a steering mechanism to control affairs. In his defense of the proposed Constitution, Publius clearly framed the need for a strong national government to deal with public problems. However, he did not conflate strength with steering in ordinary affairs like the Refounders did. Instead, he dictated a new science of politics that required an indirect government (Adair, 1957; Conniff, 1980).

Rather than being told what to do and what to become, this new science relied upon indirect government that focused on individual interest. People could direct themselves; they had the power to govern their own life. Rooting this in human nature, Publius argued that people’s passions and ambitions could be leveraged to not only drive themselves, but also direct the government. As long as individual interests were connected to institutional priorities, passions would be pitted against each other. This conflict would ensure the formation of a stable state that could indirectly run itself. Government strength was no longer about directing the people. It was about allowing individuals to govern themselves. They could pursue happiness, and therefore relinquish a substantial need for the government to supply enlightened statesmen who would have to lead them to that purpose (Tulis, 1987). The unleashing of the people’s strength, even though it was indirect from the government’s perspective, was one reliable mechanism employed to ensure good government. The framers thought they had discovered “constant and universal principles” that would ensure a sustainable government that prioritized rule over oneself (Adair, 1957, p. 347). The implication was that the necessity to explicitly govern was made increasingly needless through a constitutional design, which embodied a political science that could unleash and tame human nature. This meant that people used their self-interest to acquire what they wanted, and their attempts to pursue these desires would be checked by others who were also pursuing what they wanted. The clash of different interests enabled freedom to flourish and be checked at the same time.

The running of an indirect government, which allowed for the emergence of self-government and a concurrent reluctance to accept a direct governing function, began to falter. After a century of running on such an institutional system, progressive reformers questioned whether the political order produced automatic benefits as predicted by this new political science. Herbert Croly (1914) argued the outcomes promised by principles of the passions were “automatically stifled” by those very same impulses (p. 17). Woodrow Wilson reinforced the contention, noting that Publius’ science was bound to a form of science rooted in Newton (Pestritto, 2005). The laws of nature were not mechanical, but disclosed to be organic by Darwin. The government must be made to respond to change, not remain static.

One progressive answer to this new vision was to look to a science of administration, not a science of politics (Wilson, 1887). The Public Administration had to be removed from partisan politics, given independent status, and allowed to find scientific means to achieve political ends. The necessity to openly manage was recognized, and progressives instituted a new constitutional design that embodied a rhetorical presidency that could lead the people and an administrative science that could manage them (Storing, 1988; Tulis, 1987). The ramifications of this movement meant that direct government had finally become recognizable, and in so doing brought out a new kind of managerial rule driven by expertise.

The Refounders both embraced and challenged key aspects regarding the progressive reformers’ pivot to allow for more direct rule. At one level, they embraced their critique, rejecting a science of politics. There was no “natural harmony” that energized an “unfettered hand [that] would lead to prosperity and freedom for all” (Wamsley & Wolf, 1996a, p. 14). This ineffectual design was only compounded by the fact that such a science of politics did “not encourage the study of how politics is related to governance—after all, there is no need for governance in the automatic society” (Wamsley et al., 1992, p. 60). Serious consideration must be given to what it means to rule, and how to justify that rule. At another level, they did not accept the Progressive answer either, rejecting a science of administration. For them, governing must not be reinterpreted and reduced to merely mean managerial science. In fact, the managerial function masked “explicitly and to a greater extent implicitly . . . a more demanding and significant role to The Public Administration” (Wamsley et al., 1990, p. 45).

The Refounders envisioned a more robust form of steering than what management provided. Governance must be understood as political, not scientific. Although the justification for the Constitution did rest on a science of politics that did not place tremendous value on direct government, it was still constituted in a manner that not only allowed for governance, but also ensured it could be done with vitality (Mashaw, 2012). Moreover, the governance that did exist was not simply confined to the three branches of government; administrators also participated. In spotlighting this reality, the Refounders showed how the agential activities of The Public Administration could be deemed constitutional, vindicated through historical practices, and be made to consider the public interest.

Yet, the Refounders were also keenly aware that direct government rule via administration did not approximate indirect rule very well. The Refounders attempted to address this lack of electoral connection by recognizing that administrative governance must also lean on democratic impulses for support. John Rohr (1990) incorporated representative bureaucracy to reinforce this notion. Charles Goodsell (1990) and O. C. McSwite (1996) articulated that the public interest could still be achieved through a process-based mentality. In addition, Camilla Stivers (1990, 1996) reinforced this ideal by valorizing the concept of citizenship. In essence, public power could be represented, channeled in a public interest manner, and shared through participation.

Each of these threads allowed the Refounders to justify the exercise of direct rule to accomplish public tasks. Now, attempts to justify this form of administration were critical and should not be dismissed. However, they did not adequately look at how indirect government could be used to accomplish public tasks. Their mistake was to capture the strength of The Public Administration through its steering function, while not giving enough attention to figuring out how to meet public needs without government strength and direction. Furthermore, they did not adequately admit enough to the dangers of direct governance. Administration is prone, but not determined, to separate itself from the people (Hummel, 2008). This creates a sense of hubris, or an aggrandized reliance of its own expertise to handle public issues (Adams & Balfour, 2009). The arrogance of knowing better than everyone else creates an abstract ideal of what it could achieve on its own merits, without seeking for help.

Yet, it would be unfair to say that the Refounders were not cognizant of these problems. Stivers (1990, 1996), in particular, captured the idea that the structure of administration, along with a founding ethos, contributed to a degradation of the power of citizens to actively engage. Furthermore, Stivers (1996) argued that an active form of citizenship, built around community, could challenge settled issues to remake them in an ongoing and open manner. Even with these valuable contributions, her solution to strengthen administration through active citizenship did not look at individual initiative in a strong enough fashion. Rather, it was preferable that individuals are able to set “aside self-interest in order to share in a decision making in aid of the public good” (Stivers, 1996, p. 263). Although there is great normative strength in this argument, the founding placed self-interest front and center; it did not seek to relegate it to the corner or dismiss it. Rather, interest was a key engine in a constitutional system rooted in realism (Elkin, 2004). Although it is common and does not reach the heights of a virtuous citizen found in Aristotelian thinking, it is reliable and rests on a firm foundation, allowing individuals to direct their own life as they see fit (Schambra, 1992).

A type of thinking that recognizes The Public Administration’s own limitations and the necessity of self-governance influenced by self-interest enables space for solving public problem to occur outside of its jurisdiction (C. B. Newswander, Matson, & Newswander, 2017). Influenced by Alexis de Tocqueville, thinkers, such as David Lilienthal (1941, 1944) and Vincent Ostrom (2008), have been keenly aware of the dangers of centralized administration and the need for individualism and associations to solve public problems. Even though the growth of centralized administration and its proclivity to directly rule has eroded both, they have not been completely devoured. In fact, reviving a civic model of organizing and administering is seen in movements from the left and right (Fukuyama, 1995; Sandel, 1996). Although they might take different forms, there is an overarching ethos that still connects them together: mixing together community and individualism. While living a life guided by self-interest, a citizen can be directed by responsibility to the general welfare.

Despite the viability of this approach, the Refounders did not go down this path in a strong enough fashion. Instead, the locus of what is being defended mostly resides within the halls of administration that is informed by a special competence, a processed-based view of the public interest, and a role for citizens to engage with administrators; but, the locus definitely did not rely enough on individual initiative to govern one’s self and one’s community outside of state control. This perspective prevented them from fully realizing the consequences of direct rule on the body politic. It also prevented them from understanding the need for other alternatives to accomplish social goods. Even with these limitations, the Refounding project does not need to abandon its focus on direct rule. Yet, it does need to put it in proper perspective. Governing through administration needs to be offset, when possible, by a tendency for indirect rule. Dispersing action and accountability downward enables individuals to gain a sense of ownership over their own lives and gives them a chance to build stronger communities. However, the Refounders were unable to allow for a stronger semblance of the people to govern themselves, partly because they were caught in the upheavals of political time.

Changes in Political Time

The first call to refound The Public Administration in the 1980s argued that administration was not the corrupt and clueless enterprise that it was made out to be by the detractors of bureaucracy. President Reagan misunderstood the expectations and roles of administration in a constitutional republic. Instead of viewing it as an ally, his administration “had come to Washington as a victorious army conquering an alien city, intent on dealing bureaucracy and ‘red tape’ . . . a mortal blow” (Wamsley, 1990b, p. 9). The second call to refound The Public Administration in the 1990s asserted that administration was not the unoriginal and inefficient enterprise that it was made out to be by the right and the left. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton also failed to understand the role of administration in a constitutional republic. Heavily influenced by Reagan’s rhetoric, they embraced the overall frame that government was the problem.

As a whole, the Refounders diagnosed the motivation of these political attacks as a way to disenfranchise The Public Administration from its agential history and constitutional heritage. Rather than seeing government as an enterprise that could help with the holistic development of the republic, it had been reduced to the myopic concerns of “task accomplishment, efficiency, and product output” (Wamsley & Wolf, 1996a, p. 32). This was a progressive ideology that was being recycled to justify reforming bureaucracy on business grounds. What concerned the Refounders was how these continued attacks undermined The Public Administration as an institution of government. The Refounders were concerned more about the functions of government than about form. Furthermore, the reform movement since the 1980s transformed administration as a function of government into a function of business.

Although the Refounders did make explicit that they were more concerned about purpose than about the shape of The Public Administration, they were not able to completely separate the two. They envisioned that the form of Public Administration takes place in a public setting that fulfills inherently governmental functions (Dudley, 1996). This makes sense as The Public Administration is a constitutive part of government. Instead of preserving this role, they saw the Grace Commission, National Performance Review, and New Public Management creating justifications to excise The Public Administration from government through privatizing and outsourcing public duties. Dispersing public functions outside of state control undercut the capacity of The Public Administration to directly govern. Their reliance on understanding The Public Administration as being primarily confined to the state and elevating the importance of direct rule by administrators prevented them from seeing how these new forms, or even the functions behind them, could be incorporated into their system of thought. Their inability to grasp how these changes could be tied back to a political ethos was partly because they were too influenced by a political and secular era that with them was becoming out of date.

According to Stephen Skowronek (1997), there had been five presidents who have been able to reconstruct politics, or create a new version of political time (Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, F. Roosevelt, and Reagan). Each of these epochs carried its own preferences, values, and understanding of the original vision of the Founding. The Refounders also embraced versions of political eras, but classified them slightly differently, with the last one being the advent of the New Deal (Wamsley et al., 1990). For them, Roosevelt’s ideals still needed to be carried out and even be strengthened. In particular, the power to steer the ship of state was used to accomplish his authorized aim: achieving public ends, especially equity, through public means (Rohr, 1986). In administrative circles, this principle was eventually articulated and spread through the emergence of New Public Administration (Marini, 1971). However, this Minnowbrook-inspired movement focused too heavily on the individual administrator. The Refounders argued that the value of equity had to be institutionalized. With the focus of sheltering equity through administrative means, The Public Administration could play a role in augmenting an underlying aim of Roosevelt’s regime.

While the Refounders attempted to bolster the Roosevelt revolution, it would be a mistake to merely understand their project as being an artifact or pawn of a political era. They had a deep historical view of the republic, allowing them to transcend their own time to see that The Public Administration needed to be grounded in something more permanent. Yet, it would also be a mistake to believe that they were not influenced by an era of politics, especially in regard to the sway of how Roosevelt changed the republic. This is clearly seen in their attempt to enshrine equity through the institutional authority of The Public Administration.

Their relative commitment to this vision is also seen in their reaction to the Reagan revolution, which sought to dismantle much of what Roosevelt had created and build a new political order by lessening the role of the state to maximize self-rule. Relying on plebiscitary power, Reagan bashed The Public Administration not to question its validity as a whole, but to contest the function and form it had taken under Roosevelt’s direction. His new politics would be authorized as a way to operate on the principles of governance, not government. Operating within this changed political space, Gingrich articulated and advanced this conservative vision of the function and form of government while Clinton accepted the purpose and frame, but sought to modify it at the margins.

The function of government, according to Reagan (1981), was to restore limited government and self-rule. This meant that The Public Administration had to be reinterpreted in light of a constitutional republic that was suspect of not only the size of government, but also the capacity of that government to directly interfere in people’s lives. The overall form chosen to achieve these functions was through dispersing power and responsibility to entities outside of the direct control of government (Kettl, 2002). Fixing public problems could no longer be confined to public organizations. Rather than government being mostly responsible for community, national, regional, or global problems, accountability diffused to all sectors of society.

The Refounders rejected this vision on the grounds that it narrowly reduced everything to the economic and unfairly undermined the role of civil service (Green & Hubbel, 1996). Moreover, there is a great deal of validity to these concerns. However, their interpretations of this rising revolution were also myopic. Instead of seeing how their insights could inform the principles of governance, they merely remained critics. Their concern of the state being hallowed out hindered their ability to see a stronger role for individual initiative; a government that could be indirect, or relying more on the power of citizens did not mean reducing the civil service or disparaging it. And instead of grasping the value-added benefit that a focus on performance could bring about, it was understood as privileging the economic over the political. Because they mainly saw the problems with Reagan’s revolution, the field began to pass them by.

But other scholars adjusted and articulated different iterations of what this style of governing could mean. This vision has often been traditionally interpreted as a way to reduce government (D. Hood, 1991) and create a more entrepreneurial public service that is driven by market forces (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). It has also been interpreted as a way to focus on enhancing administration through managerial tactics informed by science. Big data and the data revolution are spurred on by an economic governance mentality that privileges performance (Kitchin, 2014). The capacity to collate data, plan what to do with it, monitor it, and demand results has become a critical feature of administration (Barber, 2015; Sunstein, 2013). Evidence-based decision making seeks to ensure both efficiency and effectiveness (Haskins & Margolis, 2015). While the Refounders were critical of the underlying philosophy of these trends and rightly noted that they cannot serve as the foundation of field, they are important functions of administration that need to be advanced and even promoted in a vigorous manner. Without deeming the science of administration as an elevated priority, there can be a tendency to view the Refounding as too reactionary.

Other approaches also emerged that have taken advantage of this environment that encourages widening the number of actors who seek to solve public problems. In particular, these innovative styles of governance tend to be more political and social, not merely economic or scientific (Agranoff & McGuire, 2004; Bozeman, 2007; S. P. Osborne, 2010). Under such views of governance, collaboration is seen in the political context of regimes (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015). It is also understood as a way to move people toward issues of common concern through direct and active involvement (Morgan & Cook, 2014). Additional approaches steer away from government and look toward civil society as a key way to address public problems (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 2008). Moreover, even ways of understanding public administration through a constitutional background have also incorporated themes of governance (Bertelli & Lynn, 2006; Frederickson, 1997; Kettl, 2002; Morgan & Cook, 2014). As a whole, each of these perspectives accepts a degree of governance, through the forms of networks, collaborative governance, social entrepreneurship, corporate responsibility, nongovernmental organizations, faith-based organizations, and philanthropic organizations, to handle public problems at all levels of society ranging from the global to the grassroots.

Since this shift away from government to governance, the content of politics has still been changing. President Barack Obama promised a new way to approach politics that was based on unity and inclusion. But, he did not issue a direct assault against governance. While he did insource or take back some public responsibilities and he undoubtedly strengthened direct rule (Bumgarner & Newswander, 2012), his administration still followed the path of using governance to address public problems. President Donald Trump also promised a new way to approach politics that is based more on division and exclusion. His vision of “America First” does challenge governance to a degree, especially through his attacks on globalization. Even with this recognition, it is still too early to make a prognosis of whether he will issue a substantive assault against governance.

Most likely, the different modes of organizing developed from a governance mentality are too dense to significantly alter. This is because public problems are not confined to local, state, or federal jurisdictions and often cannot be solved by specialized organizations controlled by the government. This means that the form of administration can no longer overwhelmingly favor public bureaucracies to solve public problems. Silo-based thinking and power has been diminished. The contemporary reality is one that favors interdisciplinarity and relies more on private parties to help out with public problems (L. K. Newswander & Newswander, 2012; Raadschelders, 2011). A reconceived governance that relies on multiple actors to deal with public problems still matters, and the Refounding needs to incorporate its insights to remain a viable enterprise while also still leveling attacks that are relevant to maintaining the legitimacy of The Public Administration.

Legitimacy Aspirations

Even though the Refounding did not keep pace with changes to political time, it did reveal what had been lost to contemporary eyes—The Public Administration had a legitimate place in the constitutional order. In addition, its legitimacy could be developed even further by “deepening the democratic character of administration” (Wamsley & Wolf, 1996, p. 21). The flourishing of legitimacy required “reforg[ing] the links between the political process and the citizenry at every level” (Barth, 1996, p. 173), having an impulse to incorporate the views of the people (Rohr, 1990) and transforming divisive disagreement into cordial conciliation (Wamsley, 1990a, 1996).

At its core, the Refounders argued that legitimacy did “not mean legality” (Wamsley & Wolf, 1996a, p. 5) and nor could it be reduced to a “grudging acceptance of the inevitable” (Rohr, 1990, p. 55). Rather than establishing a baseline, they pointed to royal judges and courts who earned their “claim to expertise,” which granted a level of “legitimacy that gave them a role distinct from the king’s” (Wamsley et al., 1992, p. 81). This legitimacy made them “valued actors and institutions in the governance process” (Wamsley et al., 1992, p. 81). The notion of being valued did not just mean acceptance; it also conveyed respect, deference, and even independence. Rohr would take this notion of being valued and amplified it; he argued that legitimacy meant “at least confidence and respect and, at times, even warmth and affection” (Rohr, 1990, p. 55). Now, it is not clear whether all of the Refounders would embrace this elevated, affective standard; however, it is clear that legitimacy would at least confer upon The Public Administration a respected status that approved of their discretionary function in a constitutional republic.

However, the Refounders argued that esteem or warm feelings that could be directed toward administration were blunted by a “pernicious mythology” that blamed the ills of society on administration (Wamsley et al., 1990, p. 33). Andrew Jackson crafted this myth on the grounds that “new groups wanted both access to [government] and control of it” (Wamsley et al., 1990, p. 33). This was because Jackson at a fundamental level seethed disgust toward what he saw as an improper and almost inseparable union between elites and government power (White, 1954). Without a vanguard of common people in places of power to protect their independence, the natural proclivities of elites were to take it from them through public mechanisms. The harboring of distrust toward institutions of power created a narrative that assumed government could be oppressive and therefore was an objective of power that needed to be held in suspicion.

The distaste directed at the government as a result of the Jacksonian reconstruction did not completely abate even though progressives succeeded in articulating counternarratives that displaced misgivings about the need for public intervention in private affairs (Skowronek, 1982). For more than 70 years, the ongoing narrative was that administration had been authorized and accepted. Yet, Jackson’s account still concurrently existed with this progovernment narrative. The problem was that Jackson’s legacy was no longer just a nuisance, or what the Refounders called a “residual negativism” (Wamsley et al., 1990, p. 33). During the last two decades of the 20th century, the Refounders argued that lingering doubts about the role of administration intensified and fed into a myth that questioned the value of direct government rule.

The way around this myth was to show how The Public Administration was compatible and even flowed from frameworks that were already adored. The Refounders claimed that the governing function of The Public Administration could be deemed appropriate by rooting it in the ethos of a constitutional democracy. This meant that The Public Administration had to look backward and forward simultaneously. The Public Administration could accommodate “forces of coherence and stability on the one hand and, on the other, the forces of emergence and change” (Wamsley & Wolf, 1996a, p. 33).

The attempt to refute a reified narrative that alienated most from seeing the fruits of administration through a democratic refounding was important. Without a direct assault on this narrative, The Public Administration could not be perceived as an object of value or fondness. Moreover, the intensity of that value or affection must not be just acceptance. The Public Administration deserved better. However, it is on this front that the Refounding project went beyond the mark. Their ideal of a people having a respect or even falling for administration in an affective way cannot be achieved in a republic founded on mistrust toward government. While Jackson helped generate a persistent conflict between the people and their government, he certainly did not create it. As the report on New Performance Review articulated, “America was born angry at government” (Gore, 1995, p. 11).

While an exaggerated sense of incredulity directed at government can be disruptive as the Refounders pointed out, a general misgiving should not be dismissed. This is because distrust of government power is a founding regime value. According to Rohr (1989), such values are expressions of ideals that represent a particular way of life. In the American context, these values, such as liberty and equality, provide philosophical and normative guidance (Overeem, 2015). Moreover, they have traditionally been leveraged to achieve a precise end: the protection of individual rights. Working in the same spirit as these other regime values, suspicion toward power is a normative aim designed to limit the extension of government power to preserve individual independence against majority rule and constitutional players. This means that government is required to constantly authorize the expressions of their power (Skowronek, 1997). This suspicion is burdensome, and it sometimes ossifies government movement. Yet, it pushes government to take extensive steps to ensure that power expressed is done in a legitimate fashion.

A starting point that begins with skepticism toward public action is at odds with a refounding vision of administration that desperately wants full acceptance. However, The Public Administration is the visible arm of government power and therefore cannot be given the value or warmth that is desired by the Refounders as a baseline feeling. Any attempt to refound administration on constitutional principles must also accept this regime value. Without such an ethos, the force behind limited government becomes weakened. Because of these background conditions that animate the body politic, the legitimacy aims of The Public Administration to govern must be lowered to not only fit current sentiments, but also accept regime expectations. Establishing a threshold of acceptance, or even a consideration of necessity, is more proper for The Public Administration. This standard helps to keep suspicion from degrading to cynicism, a sentiment that the system is rigged and not worthy of engagement. It also provides a starting point that allows individual agencies and administrators to build a reputation that is worthy of awe and inspiration. Although this expectation is not ideal, it fits with the history of the republic that both wants public services and is hesitant of them.

Renovating

In the midst of being tossed around by political foes who proclaimed The Public Administration was abusive and authoritative while also being lethargic and lazy, the Refounders took a stand. They would not be idle as civil servants were being pushed around or be made to feel small for trying to enhance the functions of government. To rebuff such efforts, they planned to lay a new foundation. The chief cornerstone of their project was to legitimize the governing function of The Public Administration. This was cemented by persuasively arguing that administrators were agential actors who performed their duties along a constitutional ethos, with a vocational spirit that took into consideration the public interest, while considering citizen engagement as necessary. Each of these parts came together in a unified foundation that could support The Public Administration against unfair and unjust attacks.

The Refounders used this foundation to argue that the ruling function of administration is best understood through a direct lens. Civil servants explicitly and overtly govern, just like their constitutional superiors. They influence what can and cannot be done. This should not come as a surprise, or as a novelty feature. As an institution of government, administrators assist in raising the republic. And one of the key values of how that republic should be raised is rooted in newer regime values such as equity along with other older regime concerns like liberty. What is important is that these administrative actions become esteemed.

In looking back at the merits of the Refounding, there are many. The Refounders asked the right questions. Furthermore, they provided many rights answers, especially in regard to constructing an agential and constitutional foundation of administration that was not tainted by a progressive era ideology. However, what they created was suspect to changes in both politics and administration. The functions and form of the Roosevelt regime shaped their normative views of administration, influencing their perspectives of how administration could and should be rebuilt. It also prevented them from seeing the critiques leveled against The Public Administration as having more merit than they were willing to concede.

Due to these limitations, the refounding needs a renovation. It must be repaired and modernized. This update must prioritize self-rule and indirect forms of government, requiring increased attention of state, municipal, citizen, and community involvement in the governance process. This means that citizens organize themselves in a corporate body to help directly address public problems, whether that be a nonprofit, religious, political, civic, or business association. This does not mean that the role of the civil servant goes away. Administrators can fulfill the charge given them by the authors of the Blacksburg Manifesto. They will still assist in directing public affairs (C. B. Newswander, 2018). Furthermore, they will still be educators (Green, 1998). However, the education they offer would not be merely about what services government can provide to its citizens or how citizens’ interests can be represented by administrators; it would also encompass how citizens can and ought to engage in the process of self-governance (Nigro & Richardson, 1987).

The capacity to achieve such self-governance requires moving beyond the normative ethos of the Roosevelt era where government is synonymous with governance. Loosening the Refounding project from centralized direct government action frees it from traditional bureaucratic organizational form and allows for the flexibility offered by multisector networked governance. Direct rule via bureaucracy is not in danger of extinction. However, a consequence of indirect governance has been an increased reliance on nongovernmental actors. Such structures require administrators to both function and thrive in organizational structures more compatible with collaborative governance.

Finally, this update accepts the inherent tension between government and the governed, acknowledging founding insights that government is not only necessary but also needs to be watched. Rather than challenge this tradition, as the Refounders did, this renovation must embrace it. Government and, by extension, The Public Administration need not be revered or even deemed to be worthy of affection. By suggesting The Public Administration should be seen in a different light than government is in some ways to deny the nature of both. Although not ideal, the expectation toward The Public Administration should be one of acceptance, with an awareness that awe and aspiration may develop.

More than 30 years ago, the Refounders started a new conversation about the role of The Public Administration in a constitutional republic. Their plan was for this conversation to be ongoing because the legitimacy question is one that requires constant reevaluation. The Refounders were able to provide a legitimate case for a large and centralized administration that was politically acceptable. As time has passed, their answers no longer carry the same weight, necessitating a revival of this conversation. Because of political, social, and global changes, the Refounding must be renovated for contemporary relevance; this can be done by incorporating a stronger sense of self-government, being more responsive to political time, and having more reasonable legitimacy expectations.