Episode Overview

Podcast: New Books Network – New Books in Public Policy
Host: Ursula Hackett
Guest: Professor Stephen Skowronek (Yale University)
Book: The Adaptability Paradox: Political Inclusion and Constitutional Resilience (University of Chicago Press, 2025)
Recorded: January 12, 2026

This episode features a deep dive into Stephen Skowronek’s latest book, which interrogates the trade-offs inherent in American constitutional development—specifically, how increasing political inclusion may undermine the adaptive capacities and stability of constitutional order. Skowronek challenges the assumption that the U.S. Constitution is endlessly self-correcting and explores the historical mechanisms—often extraconstitutional—used to manage shifting boundaries of inclusion. The conversation weaves together historical analysis, constitutional theory, and the implications of contemporary democratic conflicts.

Main Themes and Purpose

• Exploring the ‘Adaptability Paradox’: The paradox that as American democracy achieves broader inclusion, the Constitution’s ability to stably accommodate change is weakened.
• Historical Patterns of Inclusion and Exclusion: How American constitutional development has repeatedly relied on auxiliary institutions (like political parties and administration) to channel conflict arising from expanding rights.
• Current Political Crisis: Analysis of why the standard fixes—policy innovation and reform proposals—may be inadequate today, and the challenge of sustaining consensus in an era of near-universal inclusion.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Origins of the Project

[03:09–04:25]

• The book is a thematic companion to Skowronek’s prior work, The Policy State (co-authored with Karen Orren).
• Central concern: Are there limits to America’s continual adaptation? At what point does adaptation undermine constitutional integrity?
  • Quote: “Is this just an ongoing process that just goes on forever, or are there any limits to this constant reconfiguration of American institutions?” — Skowronek [03:51]

2. Defining Constitutional Adaptability

[04:25–06:25]

• Adaptation differs from revolution: changes are incremental, cumulative, not total.
• Adaptation means stabilizing the system by crafting new rules all parties accept, not just change for its own sake.
  • Quote: “The Constitution is adaptive to the extent that all participants are willing to buy into a new arrangement.” — Skowronek [05:54]

3. The Adaptability Paradox Explained

[06:25–08:16]

• Major constitutional adaptations have been responses to democratization and extending inclusion.
• The paradox: The closer the U.S. gets to full inclusion, the harder it is for the Constitution to re-stabilize—there is no longer an “outside” group whose exclusion can secure new settlements.
  • Quote: “…once ‘we the people’ became a fully inclusive reality, the Constitution seems to have lost its capacity to reestablish firm footings and to stabilize the polity. That’s what I see as the paradox.” — Skowronek [07:26]

4. Boundaries, Exclusions, and Theories of Democracy

[08:16–11:20]

• Historic exclusions—while unjust—functioned to balance instability and enable governance.
• Raises the difficult question: “Does constitutional government require exclusions?” Skowronek hopes not, but suspects American constitutional order has in practice needed them for stability.
  • Quote: “If the answer is yes, that it has required exclusions, then the implication … is not to exclude people, but to find a different set of arrangements.” — Skowronek [10:43]

5. Extra-Constitutional “Auxiliaries”

[11:20–13:41]

• Excluded groups and rising conflicts historically managed via auxiliaries—institutions outside (or in addition to) the Constitution.
  • 19th century: Political parties (the “party state”) to organize conflict.
  • 20th century: The administrative state (bureaucracy/expert agencies) to regulate new demands.
  • These were practical responses to the relaxation of earlier formal constraints.

6. Historical Illustrations of the Paradox

[13:41–16:30]

• Expansion of white male suffrage managed by suppressing the issue of slavery.
• Expansion of labor rights managed by excluding African Americans from state benefits.
  • Quote: “…inclusions were all premised on exclusions.” — Skowronek [16:18]
• The paradox is submerged because democratization’s greatest achievements are intertwined with these exclusions.

7. The Policy State, Cludges, and “Thickening” of Institutions

[18:28–22:10]

• Connection to Steve Teles’ concept of the “clodjocracy”—systems patched by clumsy fixes.
• Skowronek notes that while institutional complexity (“thickening”) initially provided stability, dismantling old systems of authority has overloaded the Constitution with unresolved social conflicts.
  • Quote: “…what we’ve done is we’ve upended all of these other institutional systems … that has thrown everything into the constitutional system … and in some ways overloaded it.” — Skowronek [20:54]

8. The Hollowing of Limits—Federalism and Rights

[22:10–28:48]

• As non-government systems of authority (patriarchy, localism, private hierarchy) are democratized or upended, social ballast for the Constitution is lost.
• Federalism, once rooted in social realities, is now a “free for all”—no longer helps limit conflict.
  • Quote: “Federalism now is a free for all.” — Skowronek [25:34]
• Expansion of rights leads to less security for all: “When everybody has rights, rights become very politicized…” — Skowronek [27:14]

9. Perceptions of Inclusion and the Limits of Consensus

[28:48–34:13]

• Full inclusion is never truly “full”; new categories continuously emerge, but the capacity for stable consensus is undermined.
• Recent attempts at exclusion (trans rights, abortion, voting) don’t reset the system—they intensify conflict and are rejected as illegitimate.
  • Quote: “…exclusion after democratization … does not restore consensus, they do not support new rules, they do not promote forbearance. They are rejected as illegitimate…” — Skowronek [33:18]

10. No Easy Fixes—The Challenge for Elites

[34:13–37:20]

• Skowronek resists offering a “to-do list”—the very habit reflects the adaptability faith he is questioning.
• The core failure is an elite failure: Before, elites constructed new vehicles (parties, administrations) to recapture consensus, but since the rights revolution, this has broken down.
  • Quote: “The problem is not ideas. The problem is that we don’t have a vehicle that recaptures a sense of whatever it is that unites us.” — Skowronek [36:30]

Memorable Quotes and Moments

• On the paradox of inclusion:
  “As democratization advances and more people are included, ultimately you approximate full inclusion. … But with full inclusion, we seem to push. We include everyone, but institutional settlement seems to be moving farther out of reach.” — Skowronek [07:06]
• On the function of exclusion:
  “Has the Constitution, our Constitution’s capacity, this particular Constitution’s capacity required exclusions to provide security to all participants and to manage conflict effectively?” — Skowronek [10:19]
• On the inadequacy of past solutions now:
  “Excluding people after democratization … does not restore consensus … they are rejected as illegitimate expressions of what constitutional government is.” — Skowronek [33:18]
• On the collapse of consensus vehicles:
  “There is no vehicle that articulates what it is that unites us. And that’s what elites were able to do before … party and administration that captured what we agreed on … Elites, in our time, we have not been able to create such a vehicle.” — Skowronek [36:29]

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Topic/Quote | |------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:09–04:25| Origins of the book and the question of adaptability | | 06:25–08:16| The adaptability paradox defined | | 11:20–13:41| Definition and historical role of “auxiliaries” | | 14:28–16:30| Inclusion and exclusion in 19th and 20th century adaptations | | 20:54 | Overloading the constitutional system after upending alternate systems of authority | | 25:34 | Federalism as a “free for all” | | 27:14 | Rights expansion and the paradox of less security | | 33:18 | Why new exclusions are not a solution; legitimacy crisis | | 36:29 | The elite failure and loss of consensus-building vehicles |

Final Reflections and Next Steps

[37:36–38:43]

• Skowronek is considering a future project on strands of American nationalism:
  • Liberal universalism vs. pluralism (“America as a beacon of liberalism” vs. “America as a space for plural coexistence”).
  • Interested in the origins and trajectories of these competing ideas.

Summary Takeaways

• The adaptability paradox centers on the predicament that maximal inclusion may sap the American Constitution’s capacity to regenerate stable political order.
• Key moments in American history managed inclusion’s challenges with new, often extraconstitutional institutions, but these fixes depended on simultaneous exclusions.
• Today’s predicament is not a lack of ideas or proposed reforms, but an absence of institutions or “vehicles” to capture shared consensus and channel conflict productively—a challenge the elite class has not solved since the rights revolution.
• Attempts to exclude marginalized groups after the fact worsen, rather than resolve, conflict and legitimacy.
• The book reframes common narratives of progress, cautioning that inclusion and constitutional resilience are at tension—a warning designed not to halt further democratization, but to inspire creative political invention.