California NIF Network Blog

The concept of the town hall meeting may soon be a thing of the past. As more and more of these gatherings are disrupted to the point of being both ineffective and downright dangerous, elected officials are losing a powerful tool for two-way communication with their constituents. In addition, libraries, churches and other community groups are increasingly hesitant in sponsoring any public information discussion or forum on a topic that may have even a small chance of being controversial for fear of their event being hijacked by a few disruptive people. But this presents a huge problem as we try to live in a democracy…if we can’t rely on town hall meetings and public forums for an open and free exchange of ideas where everyone can participate equally and without intimidation, what methods will replace them? Either we need to find a solution to the problem of disrespect and disruption in public meetings…or we need to find alternative forms of direct communication to support the flow of information that is basic to a democracy.

Our form of governing has certain theoretical assumptions…one of these assumptions is that elected representatives and government agencies have direct access to the public, so they can know the true will of the people…and the public needs to hear directly from these individuals and publicly-accountable organizations, so they can trust their representatives and public institutions. Without this practical linkage, a democratic republic cannot survive. Failure is not an option…we must have a reliable and respectful connection between the public and the government that serves the public. It’s not enough to have the public exercise their will through periodic elections. We can’t expect public officials to know the will of the people without on-going and frequent communication…and we can’t expect them to endure abusive behavior in public meetings. We also can’t trust the media to accurately portray the will of the people when they are profit-focused organizations. If the breakdown in public conversation continues, we’ll be nearing a crisis point in the flow of public knowledge very soon.

So…what are our other options? How do we convene a cross-section of public voices into a composite view of public sentiment? I would propose that one general method is very low-tech and the other is very high-tech. Let’s start with the low-tech method of community organizing. While this method is really low-tech, it is also very time- and labor-intensive. Community organizing listens specifically to those voices that are not already represented in public decision-making, generally focusing on minority and low-income populations. The theory here appears to be that most people already make their voices heard in the political arena, but these folks don’t have the money or the time or the influence to make an impression in democratic life like their well-employed and well-connected neighbors. More energy and time devoted to community organizing could help in the flow of seldom-heard public hopes and opinions.

The other option is more high-tech, and it listens specifically to the voices of a different, disconnected population…mostly young people. Facebook, Twitter and virtual worlds like Second Life are starting to bridge the gap between individual-focused, social networking and issue-focused, public networking. These are the voices we will only hear if we dare to spend time in their fast-paced and multi-tasking world. The Obama campaign plugged into this powerful but unpredictable engine, and it’s obvious that experiments are being run now on how to connect with young people through the use of technology in future elections. I believe this avenue of development has an amazing potential in public decision-making…not yet, but soon.

Where can our time and energy and resources be applied to bring a clearer view of the public’s values and priorities to our elected officials and governmental agencies on a regular basis? My preference is to focus more energy on the voices that need some help to be heard. I don’t really feel the need to help those who are already powerful to have an even stronger voice in public decision-making. I’m inclined to feel that more community organizing and more tech-savvy networking will actually provide our country with a ‘democracy upgrade’ as more voices from our diverse population can be heard than would ever have the opportunity to speak at any public meeting. Our democratic republic requires a constant flow of public information just like our bodies require a stable flow of oxygen- and nutrient-rich blood…freedom and life thrive when every little part of the whole is actively participating in the pursuit of fulfillment and well-being for all. We’ll probably still have some public meetings and forums, but I don’t think we should depend on them alone as the only sources of critical information in a thriving democracy.

Posted by deliber8ca at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

You don’t have to have agreed with anything Senator Edward Kennedy ever said to admire him as a United States Senator. Certainly his legislative accomplishments are significant, but he is being remembered as a friend and colleague of Senators from all political persuasions. In fact, his most noteworthy legislative successes were those where he co-sponsored boldly bipartisan bills in the Senate with conservative colleagues…for the good of the country. At his passing, we can surely be grateful that he chose to devote his life to public service, but we can also be grateful that he trusted democracy enough to learn from those who disagreed with him as much as he did from those who supported him. In that respect, I believe Senator Ted Kennedy will be remembered in the annals of history as one of our greatest United States Senators…and perhaps one of the last great legislative listeners.

Truly effective legislation is not about compromise…that’s a huge misunderstanding of the power of democracy at its best. Compromise requires equal sacrifice of what is held valuable in order to find a legislative solution that really satisfied no one. Effective legislation, on the other hand, is built on common-ground values that are discovered through a deep interest in the whole breadth of thought on a specific issue or topic. Only true-believers in democracy dare to trust this course of action, because it’s so politically volatile…the risks are many, and the success rate is relatively small, but the fulfillment on a personal and national basis is incredible. Sen. Ted Kennedy was one of our premier high-stakes legislators across more than four decades, crafting public policy by listening carefully to those who disagreed with him without ever losing sight of his own values in the process. Now THAT’S an effective legislative legacy.

Listening is an art…and in politics, it’s a miracle! It’s not just what we do in order to know when another person gives us enough time to jump in with our own opinions…it’s a truly responsive conversational practice. An active listener is actually interested in what another person might say…hard to believe, but true. An active listener understands that others…particularly those who have dramatically different views on complex dilemmas…hold the key to long-term public policy solutions. It’s not the people who agree with us who provide the most critical legislative information...it’s the ‘other’ with a totally unique perspective from all supporters who can connect-the-dots for a piece of legislation that exceeds the hopes of all partisan factions. This is the legacy of Sen. Ted Kennedy.

What can we learn from the imperfect life of Ted Kennedy? First, I believe we can recognize the incredible power of our form of democracy…he continued to believe in our democracy against all odds and in the face of terrible personal tragedy. Next, I believe we can dare to actively listen…he succeeded in many legislative efforts by listening to opponents first and crafting legislative parameters second. Then, I believe we can be true to our own values and principles as we listen carefully to others…he could work effectively with many different legislators, but he never lost his own moral compass in the process. In these respects, I believe Sen. Kennedy can be a non-partisan role model…for everyone and anyone.

Yes, I’m deeply concerned about the direction and mood of our country…it seems that few people are interested in understanding the feelings and opinions of others. To me, this means also that few people truly trust democracy. Whether you liked Ted Kennedy’s views or not, I believe all reasonable people would agree…we lost an American treasure. In light of this point, we can each decide that his trust in democracy can be our inspiration for future, careful listening.

Posted by deliber8ca at 11:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Anyone who thinks politics is a game is a danger to the survival of our nation…Democrat or Republican…liberal or conservative…libertarian or federalist…red state, blue state or yellow with purple polka-dots state. Those people who want to extend the life of these United States choose to look past their differences with others to create a useful dialogue where all voices are respected and appreciated. In these times, I believe it’s more important than ever to seek some balance in the perspectives we access through newspapers, magazines, websites and TV talking heads. I’m frustrated most times by the blind partisanship and ideological allegiance. I am refreshed and energized, however, when I read or hear someone who at least appears to get it: Hey, friends…we’re all in it together!

This is not a new question, but in our country in 2009 it is a question with both urgency and importance. It would seem that in the 233 years since the bold statements of the Declaration of Independence were signed we’d be closer to finding some answer…but the undercurrent of suspicion and mistrust in any expansion of federal government authority is profound. Individual instances may seem easy to dismiss, but the cumulative effect is not. The American public needs to take seriously the growing discomfort by some of our neighbors in a perceived nationalizing of more and more control in more and more parts of our lives. We need to start talking about this foundational issue very soon…before it deepens and escalates.

Most recently, angry and disruptive citizens have made it clear that they don’t want more government involvement in health care. Some governors chose (at least briefly) to reject federal stimulus funding for their states, and the Texas governor even broached the subject of secession around the issue of federal spending…and they had enough supporters in their states to make it politically effective. In 2009, a huge jump in the sales of guns and ammunition is said to be the response by gun owners to what they consider to be inevitable increases in gun control by the President and the Congress. ‘Tea Parties’ protested what participants saw as an increasing disconnection between taxation and representation. While it’s probably true that some of these efforts have been encouraged by conservative talk-radio entertainers, opportunistic politicians and high-paid lobbyists, a smoldering anger has ignited a large number of citizens into words and actions they’ve never contemplated before now. This is a dangerous time for our country.

How much unity is too much? I’m pretty sure the response of many people to that question would be: Huh? You can’t have too much unity…there’s never enough. But another legitimate response would be: It’s too much when it threatens our personal freedom…when it takes away our individuality…when it destabilizes states, counties and cities by consolidating more and more tax dollars, programs and authority at the federal level…when it adds additional layers of bureaucracy that local decisions require so much time, so many reports and so much cost to be effective. I addressed some of these issues in a couple previous posts concerning the dismantling of the ‘equality infrastructure.’ The accumulation of power at the federal level has some admirable goals, and it’s accomplished quite a lot for the well-being of all citizens in our country…BUT the trade-offs and unintended consequences are deeply troubling to many who now feel powerless as they try to make everyday decisions that are compatible with their unique values and local needs.

The push-back on the recent town hall meeting disruptions focuses on the right-wind media, and characterizes the noisy protestors as misinformed dupes of big business and radical ideologues. Hey, they might be serving the needs of these groups too, but my impression is that they are expressing their feelings about what they see as a slippery-slope that leads to more and more federal control and less and less personal autonomy. The signs are there…hence the inflammatory language about ‘socialism’ and ‘Nazism’ and ‘Big Brother’ and ‘death panels.’ I believe the worst thing we can do as a public is to dismiss these voices as ‘crazies.’ The August disruptions are not really about health care reform…they are about the balance of power between the federal government and its citizens who depend on their local communities for a fulfilling quality of life.

United…or states…or both? I think many would agree that the United States of America is not so much a completed outcome as it is a vision we’re constantly striving to achieve. What we don’t agree about is how much unity and how much personal freedom strikes a comfortable and sustainable balance in that vision. To use a health care perspective, we can continue to just talk about and to treat the symptoms of a long-term, debilitating illness OR we can include in our discussions on these painful symptoms some attention to what might be frustrating our attempts at healing. In my view, we’ve been in denial about this foundational difference of opinion since the early 1960s. It’s time to bring this emotional and potentially explosive topic into the light of day…not to think we can resolve it once-and-for-all, but to include it permanently in all of our public conversations.

Posted by deliber8ca at 07:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s very sad to see so many angry, disrespectful and intimidating outbursts in recent public meetings on the critical issue of health care reform. Of course, we all have our opinions about how people are conducting themselves…some agree with the anger they hear and see, while others are appalled by the content and the methods of those who are disrupting the meetings. My suspicion is that there’s much more going on here than some confrontations over health care reform. It’s not really about health care or reform or the pending legislation…that’s just the topic du jour. In this post and the next, I’m going to share some thoughts on how we talk as a public about critical issues…and then about what I see as an on-going dilemma for citizens like us who continue to live out the American experiment in participatory government. First and foremost, how we talk with each other when times are tough and disagreements are deep indicates our willingness to invest in a healthy future.

Some of us are asking, ‘How can it be that we’ve degenerated to this point?’ The answer to this question may be both simple and complex...simple in the diagnosis, but complex in the treatment. The current list of symptoms points to a long-term atrophy in our capacity to hold a civil conversation. Sadly, I’m not sure we’ve ever had much of a capacity to converse in a healthy way on difficult topics, but in the past several decades it appears that we’ve neglected the development of personal and small group conversation skills to a dangerous point.

Perhaps we’ve been too comfortable…or busy…or lazy. Or perhaps it’s just too easy now to stay connected to the people we already know through our technological wizardry, so we rarely have the need or opportunity to speak with people who disagree with us on public issues. In past generations, more public issues were discussed in public meetings, and certain standards of civil conduct were the norm. Of course, these meetings most times were focused on local problems, and these are much easier to navigate than national one, but even very emotion-filled topics were discussed in a more-or-less respectful and polite manner. Obviously that has changed.

My point is not that some people don’t follow the rules any longer…my point is that we no longer have a cultural expectation or capacity for respectful yet content-rich conversation. Respectful conversation is its own language…and if you don’t speak a language on a regular basis you will soon find that you’ve lost the ability. In order to be able to converse with one another on critical issues during difficult times, the public must gather to discuss less critical issues during good times. This is why I’m inclined to think our neglect may just be a result of too much comfort for too long…we as the public haven’t had to exercise our skills in public conversation much, so our capacity to do so is seriously compromised.

Now, the tough part…how do we work together to build our capacity in public conversation? First, we have to want this for ourselves, for our neighbors, and even for those who disagree with us. Next, we have be willing to spend the time, energy and resources it takes in long-term practice to create a culture of conversation on all the important topics that continue to be unresolved due to our neglect. Also, we have to be willing to listen to angry and frustrated and disruptive people, because like it or not even they have things to say that we need to hear for outcomes in public policy everyone can live with. The outbursts at meetings about health care reform appear to me to be just the symptoms of a systemic dysfunction…we can expect this kind of behavior to become the norm if we see it as topic-based…or part of a conspiracy…or somebody else’s problem.

Posted by deliber8ca at 02:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Being the public is at least a little like being a parent with small children. The public is responsible for setting appropriate limits, so individuals, businesses and institutions have the freedom they need for innovative learning, healthy growth and independent living while staying within the boundaries that keep them and the public at large safe. When parents don’t provide appropriate limits, their children are either overly restrained for healthy development or turned loose to experiment with risky behavior. When the public fails to create appropriate limits, we get massive numbers of bankruptcies and foreclosures, mega-companies that are too big to let fail, insurance companies that ration health care to maximize profits and executive pay, lobbyists with more influence in shaping legislation than public opinion, and continued dependency on oil and coal in spite of climate change warnings and global supply uncertainty. In my estimation, the public is overdue for a good, stern counseling session.

Over the past 35 years as a parent myself and having numerous counseling relationships with parents, I’ve observed that children and parents have very distinct job descriptions. It’s the job of kids to learn about themselves and their world within a safe and secure environment, but it’s natural that they are constantly pushing on the boundaries of their surroundings to make sure it’s still safe enough for learning to continue. It’s the job of parents to provide appropriate boundaries of behavior for kids so they can learn without worrying about their safety, but that means they must be consistent in applying those fair boundaries in the face of the children’s unrelenting and tiresome testing. You guessed it…this creates an ongoing tension between parents and kids that easily escalates into tantrums, anger and resentment. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve had to break the news to frustrated parents: “Your children are doing their job better than you’re doing yours.”

Today I feel I need to deliver some bad news to an angry and frustrated public: “Some of your individuals, corporations and institutions are doing their job better than you’re doing yours.” It seems to me that it’s the job of ambitious individuals, entrepreneurs, managers and CEOs to push against the boundaries of what already exists to learn, to grow and to prosper. Plus, it’s the job of an informed and responsible public to provide the boundaries of acceptable behavior so risks are mitigated while innovation is appreciated and rewarded. Judging from the miserable state of affairs in the economy, the public hasn’t done a very good job in setting healthy limits. Sure, it’s easy to blame those who have taken advantage of open-ended credit accounts and deregulated markets for great personal and corporate benefit…but they’ve simply used a system put in place by an over-indulgent and permissive public. As the crisis deepens, the consequences of a massive public negligence are bringing denial and finger-pointing. Sadly, we are the generation that has allowed practices of extreme risk to detrimentally shape the future of at least two or three more generations.

We need some serious talk about boundaries. This is a public responsibility…not something to be left to the ‘honor system’ for determination or application. A public conversation is needed about acceptable risk and appropriate behavior. Our most recent experimentation in ‘free market’ economics has been a complete failure. It’s time to recognize this simple fact and to take action in defining a set of boundaries for a new start…not a return to the same, free-wheeling practices that got us into this mess. While it’s obvious that this ‘public as parent’ premise is an over-simplification, I believe enough parallels exist here to make it clear that we need to grow up and to take responsible actions to turn things around…very soon. Now, do you want to schedule another counseling session for next week?

Posted by deliber8ca at 02:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)