California NIF Network Blog

It's time to move on...this format and site have served their purpose, but I'm feeling the need to do some upgrades and to increase the flexibility of the blog site. I've migrated all of these posts into the new site...and have included comments as archived comments with each post. Below is the link to the new blog site...it's been a bit of a struggle to get it working, but I think it'll be worth the time and trouble in the long-run.

See y'all at the new "Deliberative IDEAS" website...with a link to the "IDEAS Blog"

http://www.delibideas.org/

Posted by deliber8ca at 04:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We don’t seem to spend much time talking about what binds us together as citizens of the United States of America. In 2010, we’re facing daunting challenges in national security and economic stability, but every news cycle is filled with sound-bites our own citizens and the rest of the world can only interpret as deep and perhaps terminal division. So, friends…what is it that binds us together? And…is that binding strong enough in the early 21^st century? This is one of those topics that many people dismiss as unnecessary and perhaps even hysterical…but, when our leaders and our citizens seem to be focused more on working against one another that with one another, the inertia of division is powerful…and it will not slow nor cease without a decisive force to counter it. Sadly, this is a phoenix- issue…one that seems to rise from the ashes to be resolved once again in each subsequent American generation…and now it’s our turn.

"....A house divided upon itself- and upon that foundation do our enemies build their hopes of subduing us.” Abigail Adams, 1812

We need to decide in this decade what it is that binds us together as Americans. It’s not enough to fall back on the decisions of prior generations…their decisions are powerful as a gift of our heritage, but they have little power over the forces of division that challenge us today. These quotes give us a small glimpse of the natural societal tensions that visit every generation. More accurately, the balance between unity and individuality must be decided by each of us multiple times each day…in our homes, in our workplaces, in our neighborhoods, among friends, and with the people we meet only in passing. As Americans, we have the added responsibility to balance unity and personal freedom in order to sustain our form of government. But…this requires the attention and action of a significant percentage of Americans…or divisions will grow and our national unity will dissolve.

The most troubling part of our current political context for me is what I see as the growing resistance of everyday citizens to actually talk with others who might have any opposing views. The 24/7 exposure of politicians and pundits throughout the media has pretty much convinced reasonable people that discussing political issues is dangerous. Sure…we’ve always had ‘political theater,’ but in the past we’ve had more public conversations where policy differences were actually explored. The public learned how to talk about the critical issues of the day by listening to mostly respectful discussions of policy options. Today, I see very few policy presentations among the many partisan attacks, spin interviews and side-issue distractions. It then should be no surprise that citizens are increasingly hesitant to voice their opinions in any situations where they might be treated this way.

I believe we need more conversations about how we can work with each other, rather than against each other. Whatever we’ve been doing to encourage civic engagement doesn’t seem to be working. What other strategies might we identify and try? Who will provide positive role models in public leadership and discourse? How can we make it profitable for the news media to return to investigative reporting, so factual information is available in support of participatory decision-making? To hold together as a nation, we need more of those who are ‘working with’ than those who are ‘working against’…at present, I’m not so sure this is the case.

Posted by deliber8ca at 02:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In the ‘State of the Union’ speech, President Obama said he would name a bipartisan commission to guide the federal budget onto a sustainable path. The clear inference here is that the current path is unsustainable….and that a commission rather than our elected Congress would be able to have greater success in dealing with our federal debt and budget crisis. But decisions about the national debt and the federal budget aren’t just about spreadsheets and sound bites…they’re about public values. I first heard about this proposal before the speech on the Public Agenda page of Facebook…to say the least, I was disappointed. My response was: “Hmmm...so because our elected officials are unwilling to do their jobs, we need a 'commission' to take their places in the really difficult decisions. I have some mixed feelings about this...how about holding our elected officials accountable instead?” After hearing the President, my opinion hasn’t changed.

Interestingly enough, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently in his ‘State of the State’ speech that he would most likely name a bipartisan commission to guide the state’s redistricting process. It was billed as a first, solid step to make California more governable: Take the drawing of legislative districts out of the hands of lawmakers, whose interests lie in keeping seats safe for their own party, and turn it over to a citizens' commission. The result would be more competitive elections, winnable by a Democrat or Republican, which in turn should encourage more moderates rather than ideologues to run. But as the time nears to redraw district lines after the 2010 Census, the state office implementing the plan has a serious problem that could threaten the commission's credibility. The pool of volunteers who have applied so far doesn't come close to reflecting California's diversity, not only in ethnicity but in age, gender and other ways. Oops! Maybe this isn’t such a great idea after all.

These are difficult times for all politicians…at all levels. More specifically, the era of easy political decisions is over. Many of our elected officials are running for cover…the others are in serious denial about the current status of their chosen profession. In politics these days, there are less and less places to hide. Tough decisions must be made. Certainly attempts are being made to shield politicians from their mandated responsibilities, but public scrutiny won’t relent anytime soon. If anything, I believe it’ll get stronger and more focused as politicians try to deflect their duties onto others who are simply appointed. Some will still try to hide behind partisan firewalls…others will try to hide behind ideology…others will hide behind the recommendations of commissions. No matter where our elected officials seek to hide…they need to find justice rather than relief.

I have to admit that I don’t particularly have a ‘watch-dog’ personality, but I’m glad some others do. My suspicion is that many of our politicians today…Democrats and Republicans…want to continue their petty, partisan bickering without any consequences. Many Democrats see it as pay-back or a new opportunity to advance progressive values, while many Republicans see it as their chance to regain power through passive resistance. We probably do need lots of ‘watch-dogs’ these days to keep tabs on many of our elected officials as they try to navigate an increasingly treacherous political climate without taking responsibility for anything.

I realize this sounds very cynical, but when ‘commissions’ are proposed in state and federal venues as the solutions to political gridlock I start to wonder where we draw the line with accountability. I might be wrong…but, I see these steps as an admission by the President and our Governor that our system of electoral accountability is broken. We need ‘commissions’ to do these jobs in order to revive some semblance of accountability in public policy decisions…after all, members of ‘commissions’ can do the tough political wrangling and then be thrown under the bus.

We need a renewed public conversation about responsibility, trust and accountability. At the heart of this conversation I believe we will find that each layer of public responsibility has unique challenges and opportunities…and has a unique role in reestablishing and protecting the public trust. Let’s talk about accountability as everyone’s ethical responsibility. Let’s talk about being trustworthy, rather than talking about trust as mere consumers. This is a big-picture meta-issue that will continue to sabotage our ability to take action on our most pressing public needs if we don’t face it…and soon.

Posted by deliber8ca at 09:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

The Supreme Court decided yesterday to give more power to lobbyists and interest groups in political campaigns. They ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. By doing so, they single-handedly made all public conversations on the topic of campaign finance reform irrelevant. In a post last November…‘The Price Is Right’…I proposed that ‘we’ needed to decide whether our free enterprise system supports our democracy OR our democracy supports our free enterprise system. Yesterday, the Supreme Court chose the latter in a decision that will dramatically reshape our elections for years if not decades in the future. This decision clearly identifies business interests as our top priority…and it appears we have no recourse in opposition to it.

The balance between free enterprise and democracy comes down to the accumulation and distribution of power. Free enterprise focuses on the systematic accumulation of wealth…and with wealth comes power. In recent years with broad deregulation, mergers and acquisitions have accumulated greater and greater power in fewer and fewer corporations. In 2008 it was agreed by both Republicans and Democrats that some of these corporations had already accumulated power to the point where they were too big to let fail. Democracy, on the other hand, focuses on the distribution of power among all citizens. In politics, this distribution of power depends on an election process where citizens make their choices after weighing all the information they have available on the candidates. Information is critical for the survival of any democracy...that’s why this Supreme Court decision is so damaging. Large corporations already control media coverage of elections and now that they can dominate the advertising side of campaigns, clear and accurate information about candidates will be even harder to find as we try to sift through a mountain of incomplete information, false characterizations and downright lies.

Where are the tea-baggers when we need them? Aren’t they supposed to be actively identifying and resisting the accumulation of power in the hands of just a few that could endanger our personal freedoms and our democracy? What the tea-baggers don’t realize…or choose to disregard…is that the original tea party was a protest over taxes imposed on tea that was traded exclusively by a government-sanctioned for-profit corporation. It was as much a protest against the monopoly-hold the East India Company had on tea as it was a protest against the new tax. When tea-baggers extend their critical view to include all interests that have accumulated too much power for the country’s good, I might consider more conversations with them. The continued accumulation of power in the hands of just a few people is worrisome…and it will be accelerated by this Supreme Court decision.

I really hate to say it, but our democracy is threatened. The already tenuous balance between free enterprise and democracy has been tipped. Since 2010 is a mid-term election year, I believe we’ll see a huge increase in corporate-funded advertisements. Even more worrisome, you can expect corporate interests to frame the issues they feel are most important in ways that are intended to manipulate not only the process but also each candidate’s message. Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision was a game-changer…politicians now will need corporate endorsements, like NASCAR teams. Hang on…it’ll be an interesting ride!

Posted by deliber8ca at 03:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I’m not a person who would normally say, ‘Go see this movie’…but, go see this movie! The movie is “Avatar”…preferably in 3-D, if it’s offered at a theater near you. No, I’m not on the payroll. My reasons for referring you to this movie experience aren’t found in any of the film critics’ reviews…at least the 10 or so I’ve read. From these reviews, you might have the impression that the special effects dominate the film and that the story is predicable and a bit thin…and from that you might feel it’s not worth your time or money for a theater experience. I had the same initial reaction when our son requested that we go see “Avatar” as part of his recent birthday celebration. We were all shocked by our own responses to the film as we left the theater. Go see this movie!

Yes, the special effects are breathtaking, but they carry much more meaning than just WOW! For many people, the WOW-factor is enough to make the theater decision obvious…for others it may have the reverse affect. I have lots more to say about that in a minute. “Avatar” has a multi-layered story line, but none of the obvious parts of the story are as powerful as the foundational world view. I’ll have more on that in a minute too. It also has significant social and environmental message. Yes, it does have some biases built in, but they also play an important part in the overall affect of the movie. There are many reasons to see this movie, but I’m focused today on the reasons we might have as people who believe in deliberation as a means to the long-term goal of more effective public decisions. To those who practice public deliberation in any way, shape or form…go see this movie!

The special effects in “Avatar” are high-end versions of what is already available in immersive virtual worlds, like Second Life (SL). Yes, here he goes again…the SL thing. “Avatar” is visually spectacular…you are immersed in the awe and beauty of a totally different world, like many places in SL. And…SL has its own 3-D without the funky glasses. In the movie as in SL, the ‘avatar driver’ is somewhere else while the ‘avatar’ is fully engaged in the other world. Why is this important? We simply cannot meet face-to-face enough to talk through the complex dilemmas of our times. The expense and time investments are prohibitive, and the carbon footprint of all this travel is ethically problematic even if we could afford it. SL is not the only virtual world environment…others are available now, and more sophisticated worlds will certainly be developed with greater capabilities in the near future. Behind every ‘avatar’ is a real person with hopes and dreams, fears and frustrations. We can meet in a virtual world or two to share our hopes and dreams with a new and remarkable clarity, and to visit our fears and frustrations so we can develop new tenacity and new partnerships in resolving public dilemmas.

The story in “Avatar” has several layers…some more complex than the others, but even the love story has some surprising parts to it. A foundational world view, however, is present as an emerging theme: everything is connected to everything else. You’ll recognize this theme from many world religions and philosophies (yes, even in Christianity, Judaism and Islam…if you look deeper than the superficial and popular level of each) as an integrated, basic assumption. In the movie, it emerges slowly but steadily, becoming a critical plot connector on several levels. I don’t think this hint will ruin the movie for anyone…just watch for it as it starts small and then becomes more obvious. Why is this important? We should have learned by now that we cannot truly understand or resolve complex dilemmas in isolation. Each one of us is part of the everything…and each issue we face in our communities or as a human family is part of the everything. When we realize that we truly need each other, we’re then ready to enter into a deliberative conversation, seeking all voices rather than just the ones who agree with us already. Every issue is connected in some way with every other issue. When we fail to connect issues with each other, we fail to link our currently pressing issues with the many, mostly-resolved issues that have already been addressed…where some common ground in thinking has been discovered and integrated into public policy. We who believe in inclusive public deliberation can recognize the power of this foundational world view…and find new applications for it in our Practice.

As a new decade begins, we can resolve to be more immersed in both the beauty and the tragedy of our world. We can recognize new opportunities for dynamic partnerships with many more people and groups across the country and around the world. We can decide to respect the issues we’re confronting enough to see their inter-connected nature. I’m more convinced than ever that a breakthrough is possible in deliberation and dialogue when we choose to frame global, systemic issues as a complementary part of our local, state and national issue work. It’s time to expand on the 70’s quote that has been attributed to many people: “Think globally, act locally.” In “Avatar” as in SL as in real-life, everything is connected to everything else. Go see this movie…then let’s dream and act big!

Posted by deliber8ca at 01:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)