Robert Putnam, a political scientist and sociologist, first came to widespread public attention with his turn-of-the-century tome, “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.” There has been frequent debate regarding whether Putnam, who taught for several decades at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, is a conservative or liberal. Occasionally mistaken for unquestioned right-winger Charles Murray of “Bell-Curve” notoriety, each has been a data driven analyst of American culture and politics. Putnam was not the first to notice a decline of participation in civic organizations from PTAs to Lions, Elks, Rotary and Kiwanis clubs. A lone bowler, sipping a beer absent a team or competitive league, captured the growing isolation of American life.

After arriving in Denver in 1972 to work at Mountain Bell, I was encouraged to become involved with a community organization. The North Denver Kiwanis was active in my neighborhood, raising scholarship money for North High School graduates. Most of our members either owned small businesses like florist shops or Dairy Queens. It was also where I met Eddie and Dick Robinson, owners of the commercial dairy giant. Each summer we sponsored a Memorial Day pancake breakfast at Lakeside Amusement Park. Gold Star Sausage, in what is now the RINO neighborhood, donated breakfast patties while King Soopers provided the pancake mix and syrup. We usually served several thousand meals before noon. I’ve even turned my pancake-flipping talents to municipal election campaigns. Our Kiwanis club, as best as I can tell, has shuttered its programs — a shame, as we had a lot of fun. I have a photo, splattered from head to toe with pancake batter when the mixing paddle snapped.

Although Putnam, following his retirement from teaching, penned a sequel, “The Upswing”, in 2020 which suggests there’s hope for a return of civic engagement, evidence seems to be mounting that the lure of social media and the digital attractions of the Internet are pulling us back into solitary pursuits. A shocking statistic from recent polling found the share of high school seniors who reported having had a date during the previous two weeks had fallen from 80% to 30% since the year 2000.

Each spring, Colorado’s high school sophomores examine the Vietnam period in their American history classes. I am among a half-dozen veterans who are invited to meet these students. Last month, I was surprised at the lack of curiosity or questions in our classes. Coincidentally, one of the teachers this year was a daughter of a foreman I worked with at Mountain Bell nearly 50 years ago. When I asked her why the students were so reticent, she replied, “They have no self-confidence in their ability to conduct a conversation without embarrassing themselves. They’d rather find the answers they want on their tablets.”

A similar isolation applies as well to most of the nonprofit and special-interest advocacy organizations that haunt the halls of the state Capitol. What were once member-led lobbying organizations have transformed into solely membership enterprises. This may sound like a distinction without a difference, but there is a substantial contrast. In their former incarnations, policy directors attempted to reflect a democratically achieved consensus. Today, most hustle for funding through direct email appeals urging annual dues. There are few in-person meetings to poll recruited members. Rather, a small coterie of professional staff set priorities and agendas for these organizations. They operate on a presumption of good faith. Both the staff and membership are presumed to share the same goals for better health care, a cleaner environment, public safety or social welfare. In the case of private-interest lobbying, associations rarely pulse their corporate members for direction. Another coterie of presumed allies steer policy in a vacuum of member opinion.

Not too surprisingly, the priorities of a distant staff and members frequently drift apart. Policies the once-a-year contributor believes he or she is supporting can vary drastically from what is actually advanced in their names. This even occurs with industrial alliances where memberships can run to a million dollars annually. When I was working on resolving the high-level nuclear waste disposal issue 30 years ago, the two major organizations pushing for legislative action in Congress were the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Both organizations were populated with former congressional staffers who frequently advanced policies that horrified power utilities. They weren’t merely unresponsive but were frequently deaf to complaints from their members.

Several years ago, I became aware of the proposal to build a rail spur to transport oil from the Ute reservation in northeast Utah to the Union pacific mainline which connects to Texas and Louisiana refineries through Colorado. A coalition of western Colorado counties were opposed to this project because of its potential threat to the Colorado River watershed. I was asked to contact environmental organizations on the Front Range that might be willing to join their lawsuit. Many of these nonprofits are led by individuals I know personally. Not one, including Conservation Colorado, lifted a finger to help. It’s always easier to strangle the baby in the cradle, and with a pro-environmental bias in the Biden White House, they may have tipped the scales. Now, the Trump administration is challenging Colorado objections, and it seems certain the rail line will be approved.

During this year’s legislative session many environmental and good government groups, including COPIRG, Common Cause, Conservation Colorado and others took positions on two pieces of legislation that can’t possibly enjoy majority support among their members. The first shrinks the elected RTD Board from 15 to five elected members, together with four appointees selected by the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the governor. I expect this “reform” will prove broadly unpopular with voters as they learn about it and will lead to the kind of dysfunction that caused voters to overwhelmingly insist on an elected board in 1980. This move is a rejection of democracy in favor of expertise. It was evident from the testimony offered in committee these public policy advocates would feel the same way about booting the elected legislators who supported their bill in favor of expert replacements. No evidence was offered on why or how this change would improve service for riders.

Similarly, these organizations linked arms in opposition to a bill sponsored by Denver-area state. Reps. Alex Valdez and Sean Camacho creating a licensing protocol for nuclear energy projects. In a recent debate, both Democratic candidates for governor, U.S. Sen Michael Bennet and Attorney General Phil Weiser, expressed their belief nuclear power generation will play a role in “greening” Colorado’s energy mix. This legislation has been dispatched to the House Appropriations Committee where it seems likely to die in a tight budget year. Hopefully, the sponsors will return again in 2027.

There are several recent books warning of an American loneliness epidemic. The hyper-online citizen is a threat to democracy. Surrendering policy direction to elite opinion is a formula for failure. However seductive social media may be, its isolation remains a choice. Democracy shouldn’t be left to those with an axe to grind. Participation is crucial. The Lincoln-Douglas debates took five to six hours, including a lunch break. Who would show up for that today? Yet, political violence seems as much a threat now as it was in the run-up to the Civil War.

Miller Hudson is a public affairs consultant and a former Colorado legislator.