« April 2009 | Main | June 2009 »

May 29, 2009

Starting Over

Some on Wall Street and in Washington, D.C have signaled that recovery from the Great Recession is on the way. Unfortunately, Main Street recovery will take several more years to emerge. Tragically, recovery from the economic ‘collateral damage’ to our states, counties and cities may not start for over a decade…if ever. As this wound spreads and deepens, we’ll need to do some soul searching about how we ‘start over’ in reconstructing a more sustainable public infrastructure. Some gut-wrenching trade-offs will need to be weighed as we balance our egalitarian goals of fairness with our long-term hopes for a stable and responsive society. We have time to ponder and discuss how we can offer these trade-offs to our neighbors and to our leaders, because the damage will still take quite a bit of time to whittle away at our existing economic, social and political structures. I have a feeling, however, that we need to start now in talking about how we make equality sustainable.

Let’s take education as an example. I know this may seem over-simplified, but bear with me please. For most of human history, it’s been the responsibility of families to educate their children…first, so they could survive, and second, so they could inherit and run the family farm or business. But children from poorer families were educated only in survival, so some wealthier people saw that this wasn’t fair nor was it good for society. Adequate resources were made available and public schools were created. It’s my observation that public services generally benefit poorer families and individuals more than wealthier ones…the wealthier ones would be able to provide these services for their own children without any public intervention.

When cities saw that some neighborhoods had schools and some didn’t, they pooled their resources and created city school systems. When counties saw that some cities and communities had better schools than those in poorer areas, they pooled their resources to equalize the quality of schools. When states saw this same inequality in various counties and regions, they likewise acted equalize educational standards and access. When the federal government saw that education was being used to sustain racism and to keep people in poverty, education became an important federal priority…because educational opportunities needed to be fair.

At each step of this progression, funding and control was absorbed by the highest level to provide equality in standards and in access to education. Now…we have an educational system that is severely top-heavy. Local school districts are dependent on funding from both state and federal budgets…by and large to provide every child in the country with equality in educational access and quality. Public education, like other public services, is funded as an equality project, because we’ve decided through many years that we don’t want to live in a society where some have access to high-quality education and some don’t.

The Great Recession is taking its toll on public services, like public education…and this trend will continue during the next few years. This year, many state budgets are making cuts in public services and a variety of enrichment programs. Next year…and the following year…state, county and city budgets will continue to be slashed, particularly in non-mandated, public services and enrichment programs. Sadly, they are the easiest programs to cut. And no surprise…when public services are decreased, it’s the poorer families that suffer the greatest loss. No surprise…when public services are decreased, it’s equality that suffers first and most in access to music education, health care, enrichment programs for children and youth, basic information through public libraries, public transportation, etc. None of the severe program cuts being discussed for this year and over the next few years will affect wealthier families very much…perhaps they'll feel some inconvenience, but they won’t experience many major disruptions. These cuts, however, will effectively dismantle some major components of our equality infrastructure.

For more than 60 years, the single most important American priority has been equality…in voting rights, housing, education and jobs. A general evolution of effort has taken place…programs that are successful on the local level are adopted by county and state levels for application across wider areas…and then those programs that prove to be effective in multiple states are adopted at the federal level for universal application. Our equality learning curve hasn’t moved as far or as fast as we would have liked, but it has stabilized a wider and more inclusive list of public services through the years…until now.

Those of us who have worked over many years to develop programs that meet the needs of more people in more effective and equitable ways are seeing much of what we’ve done rapidly disappearing…and the most severe cuts to public services will likely happen during the next two or three budget years. The development of our equality infrastructure took decades, but the dismemberment of it will only take a short time. And then we’ll be faced with…starting over.

But here’s the huge dilemma as I see it: should we rebuild a new equality infrastructure using the same blueprints that created the current, fragile system OR should we seek a more sustainable public learning plan with a completely different decentralized foundation OR should we decide together that any future equality infrastructure will include only some very basic components that we will do very well? One thing is certain…we’ll be starting over, because the needs don’t go away when the programs that meet those needs are closed. When the cuts are made, it’ll once again be the responsibility of local folks to care for their neighbors who have unmet needs or who have limited access to housing, health care, transportation, etc. ‘Starting over’…it’s painful to contemplate. But ‘starting over’ can also be a highly creative and innovative activity…if we have the courage to ask the tough questions as we face the trade-offs involved in sustainable equality.

 

May 19, 2009

September 11 and Our Comfort Bubbles

I have this nagging feeling deep in the back of my mind that our national trauma on September 11, 2001 is still THE dominant factor in many of our decisions. For almost 8 years now, we’ve been self-medicating ourselves in various ways, so we don’t have to deal directly with our sense of insecurity and certainly so we don’t have to talk about what we really need to do to feel safe in the 21st century. Unfortunately, it’s becoming more and more evident today that many of these attempts at comforting ourselves after the trauma are actually self-destructive. I think most of us would agree that the trauma will stay with us the rest of our lives, but I think most would also agree that we might be healthier as individuals and as a nation if we become more aware of our lingering anxieties as we deal with our existing and emerging dilemmas.

You’re probably scratching your head now, trying to figure out why I think we’re still suffering from the September 11 trauma. No, I don’t have statistics for these points…these are just feelings I have about some past events and current trends that may or may not be partially affected by a residual fear from the 2001 attacks.

Many of us turn to food when we need comfort…that’s why most people can readily identify certain foods that they consider to be ‘comfort food.’ Many of these items are high in fat and low in nutrition…and both adult and childhood obesity rates have increased rapidly since 2001.

We’re comforted also by our ‘stuff’…our in-home entertainment options are amazing…our electronics give us the illusion of being connected without the inconvenience of actually getting together…shopping at malls, outlets and online has become a significant American pass-time…we have so much ‘stuff’ that the self-storage industry has grown dramatically. After 9/11, we were encouraged to “go shopping” and that seems to have accelerated our transition from a production economy to a consumption economy.

Many people have decided they needed larger houses and larger SUVs and trucks…I think to a certain extent because they make us feel safer and they give us an illusion of well-being. The way this plays out is regional, I know, but most of these purchases were made on credit. Now that the credit bubble has burst, thousands of families are far less secure than before and our whole economy is crippled by a lack of job mobility. In addition, our national debt is soaring as we rescue companies that are ‘too big to let fail’ and as we try to comfort ourselves in the belief that the stock market can somehow pull us out of a societal credit cravings.

Our ‘comfort’ toll is probably greatest in terms of our two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq…and decreased international goodwill. Too few of our voices questioned the goals or strategies of our global reactions to 9/11. I know many may strongly disagree or even take offense, but I feel we as a nation got the military reaction we wanted. In a sense, we closed our eyes, held our noses and plugged our ears…with devastating consequences in lost lives, compromised values and long-term ethical commitments. Today a cry of outrage is being heard, but I fear there is not much moral high-ground left.

I don’t know with any certainty that any correlation exist between our 2001 trauma and these other observable troubles. I have a feeling though that we’ve just been going-along without asking any self-reflective questions. It seems to me that we’ve inflated some significant ‘comfort bubbles’ during the past several years. Subsequently, I believe we need to ask ourselves some tough questions in the midst of many of our personal and public decisions. How much of a driving force is our desire for a restored sense of safety? What are the long-term consequences of our current comfort-based decisions? How can we participate today in ending the devastation of September 11?

May 18, 2009

Let's Talk About It

“Let’s talk about it.” Unfortunately, these four little words are capable these days to create a significant amount of nervousness, anxiety, suspicion and outright resistance. The ‘it’ in this suggestion doesn’t much matter…the response seems to have become almost Pavlovian. When it comes to public issues, however, our ‘conditioned’ resistance is immediate and strong. It’s very disturbing to me that, when we need more conversations on our increasingly complex and inter-connected public issues, we seem less and less likely to talk with anyone about anything.

For almost a year now, I’ve been working on a project of the California Center for the Book as the primary researcher and writer of an issue guide for conversations on California water priorities and choices. Now that the issue guide is published, we’re working with libraries around the state to convene small groups for this important discussion. Unfortunately, we’re finding that some counties feel the topic is just too controversial to approach at all, even in a totally non-partisan conversation where all voices are respected and valued equally. One county appears to be ready to sponsor a local conversation as long as we can provide a “moderator who can keep the small crowd away from becoming upset.”

Over the past weekend, President Obama spoke at the commencement ceremonies for the University of Notre Dame. There was, of course, a vocal controversy at the event and across the media, concerning the abortion issue. In my opinion, he addressed the most important part of the issue…the need for more conversation on the topic with “open hearts, open minds, and fair-minded words.” For too long, both ‘belief’ extremes in this issue have clung to their assumptions about ‘others’ views and their own dogmatic certainty, making meaningful conversations impossible.

“Let’s talk about it.” If you spend a few minutes with your favorite search-engine, you can find that our inadequacies in conversation skills are well documented…and numerous suggestions are offered in retraining us. “Critical conversations” are discussions between at least two people in which the stakes are high, opinions vary, and emotions run strong. “Crucial conversations” are interpersonal exchanges at work or at home that we dread having but know we cannot avoid. “Difficult conversations” involve especially sticky situations—and we know these encounters will be uncomfortable. “Fierce conversations” require gentle honesty, a willingness to listen, and enough time to make an impact. “Essential conversations” reconnect parents and teachers in healthy ways. Books are being written…consultants are being paid…training sessions are being organized. Holy cats! We don’t know how to talk with each other any longer about what really matters to us!

In the age of Twitter and Facebook and texting, the art of personal and small-group conversation might seem to be passé. Our increasingly complex dilemmas and problems, however, will never adequately be understood or solved without a revival of conversation. I know it’s scary! I know most of us would almost prefer to have a root canal! Be brave! It doesn’t really matter what the ‘it’ might be. Start anywhere…there aren’t any wrong topics as we learn and teach the art of conversation. “Let’s talk about it.”

 

 

May 07, 2009

Newton's Laws of Motion

While finishing a report the other day, I was trying once again to communicate some of the qualities of ‘deliberation’ we see in our everyday, average NIF-style conversations. In these conversations, it’s not clear whether ‘deliberation’ happened or not…or when it happened, and when it didn’t during the conversation…or whether everyone present was actively part of the ‘deliberation’…or how careful and deliberate the process was in weighing various approaches.

 

Fizzle!...when a group is only interested in paraphrasing statements in the issue guide, no real interaction between participants is evident, and the moderator has to poke and prod the group constantly, it’s easy to recognize no ‘deliberation’ is happening. Kaboom!...when stories are told, fears are revealed, connections are made, listening is intense, you can hear a pin drop apart from the one person speaking, insights are shared and appreciated, and a surprising common direction in the conversation emerges, it’s equally easy to recognize that ‘deliberation’ has broken through that issue’s sound-barrier. But most of our forums don’t bring us to the clarity of a Fizzle! or a Kaboom! For some reason, I immediately thought of Newton’s First Law of Motion. Huh?

 

In a previous part of my life, I was totally absorbed in physics and math analysis…now it’s just in my deep history, but the principles never go away. I find myself thinking in terms of forum ‘spaces’…group ‘momentum’…overcoming the issue’s and the group’s ‘inertia’…identifying points of ‘friction’ that slow or stop progress…immersing the group in the complex ‘forces’ at play in each approach…seeing individuals connecting with each other around an urgent and important public issue as an increasing ‘mass’…the relative impact of various feelings and thoughts as ‘independent forces’ in a closed forum system…the enthusiasm behind a shared sense of direction as an ‘aggregate vector’ that can affect the world outside of the forum setting. A forum can be a ‘power’-filled experience, where the ‘energy’ of ideas and the ‘momentum’ of hope make the conversations continue first into the parking lot and then into more conversations and networking. But here’s the sticking point…’power’ is always zero, until there is some ‘motion’ in the desired direction.

 

So…what are people ready to DO at the end of a forum, or series of NIF-style conversations, or community project with a deliberative component embedded? I think we’ve pretty well refined our focused conversational style, fiercely protecting the non-partisan yet purposeful concentration on the tensions involved in every thorny issue with moral and ethical trade-offs. While that attention to detail needs to be retained, I believe our attention to movement needs a significant jump-start. Perhaps we’ve done too much ‘snapshot’ physics in our deliberative practice…also known as ‘statics’…where we basically look at an issue at a specific moment…like holding a single town hall meeting on an important, long-term topic. Perhaps it’s time to get into the really fun stuff…‘dynamics!’...where we only take on one new, national focal issue each year, but then stick with it for at least 5 years as it morphs and divides and reacts and eventually relents under the ‘power’ of a careful and patient application of totally transparent public scrutiny.

 

May 02, 2009

Split an Issue to Create a Fresh Conversation

These thoughts address a very thoughtful reply to a previous entry, An Evolutionary Approach to Moral Judgment. Thanks, David from Stillwater, OK. You’re right that all voices need to be willing to come into the same space for a respectful conversation about the issue. Unfortunately, I’ve also found that church folks are pretty much resistant to a deliberative conversation as a method for deepening understanding and discussing how their values apply in everyday life…and both liberals and conservatives are equally resistant, because they both feel they are Biblically correct.

Now…some thoughts on this thorny issue: same-sex marriage. As a pastor, I had the joyous privilege to officiate at several ‘holy union’ ceremonies, and the heartbreaking privilege to officiate at several funerals involving same-sex couples and their families. During these times, I witnessed some of the best character traits in humans…and some of the worst. As a United Methodist pastor, I also witnessed the denominational politics where good people get so caught up in ‘winning’ that they build and sustain divisive stereotypes of the ‘other’ in order to dismiss their faith-based opinions with prejudice rather than seeking understanding through genuinely humble conversation. Unfortunately, when these ‘wicked’ issues lead good people on both ‘sides’ to simply stick to their talking-points rather than to enter into a respect-filled conversation about common values, no one really wins…everyone loses.

Is all lost? Certainly not! If one conversation doesn’t work, start another with clear parallels. The issue of ‘marriage’ has a complex history in the many cultures of the world, but most people would readily agree that a common thread throughout these diverse histories is the topic of property and the rights granted to both parties. For centuries, these rights were governed solely by the religious community. It’s been a relatively recent occurrence that civil authority entered the marriage picture, basically extending the protection of civil law first to women as equal partners in marriage, then to couples-of-color, and then to mixed-race couples. I feel that in each of these evolutionary legal times, property and financial equality in marriage became critically persuasive issues in extending the protection of the law to include a new population of couples.

I’d propose a new conversation about acknowledging and protecting the rights of all adult couples who choose to link their property, their finances, and their everyday lives. Young heterosexual couples who are ‘living together’…older couples where companionship and security are their common bond, not sex…couples who want a simplified and inexpensive way to spell out property rights and distribution in detail before making a final partnership contract…gay, lesbian, etc. couples who want equal legitimacy and rights in their community and their country…friends who want to establish a mutually-beneficial partnership for a set timeframe that may or may not include sex or children…and yes, couples who also want the sanctification of a religious context for their partnership. I believe a fresh conversation about the continued inequalities associated with ‘marriage’ could bring some surprising revelations and, perhaps, some new directions for public decisions.

Some of our ‘wicked’ issues probably need a fresh look...they’re currently stuck in well-defined ruts that keep people apart rather than bringing them together for healthy conversations. I am persuaded that parallel and associated conversations have the potential to erode at least a few of those existing ruts that keep us isolated in our moral correctness. And…for those of you who think I might be speaking from my own hypocrisy, I’m fully aware that everything I’ve shared here (except my personal experiences, of course) might be wrong! Oh, well! I guess we’ll just have to talk about that.


Hosting by Yahoo!