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

http://www.delibideas.org/

"....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.

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.

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!

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!

I’m not trying to equate religion and politics…but they do have some shared goals, and they do at times practice wishful thinking. Today conditions are worsening for hundreds of thousands more people, and these people are talking more and more about what must change in our political landscape for democracy to work in an adequate or sustainable way. I find myself wondering and praying and hoping and believing today for a new style of leadership to emerge…leadership that puts national service as higher priority than personal gain. I’m focused on those in politics today who can lead us into an era of public trust.

I know many hoped President Obama might be a key person in this shift in politics, and he was actually labeled ‘The One’ during the 2008 campaign. Today, however, I have my doubts that he is even one among many persons who are potentially prepared to bring any deep change to our political climate. While his term is not yet 25% done, his capacity to affect significant change in the way politics is waged has already been significantly compromised. Certainly, the President could turn the corner in his political methods anytime, but his course seems to be pretty well set…practical, low-risk politics.

Prior to Mr. Obama’s identification as ‘The One’, Senator John McCain gave many people some hope. His strident legislative activism for dramatic campaign finance reform was both bold and risky. His willingness to work in a bi-partisan way was creative and practical. His criticism of his own party when he thought it was warranted was refreshing. His unwillingness to pad legislation with ‘earmarks’ that would be there purely to benefit him in his reelection was a mark of courage. But alas, Mr. McCain has retreated to the political safe haven of purely partisan alliances and predictable, low-risk policy positions. Anymore, it appears he too has found the cost of political reform to be too high.

Unfortunately, our news media and its attached clutch of pundits have read our collective minds and have created a popular expectation for ‘The One’ that is seriously off target. The American public continues to look for someone who would single-handedly solve all of our tough problems in just a matter of months…a ruined economy, two unsustainable wars, a health care system dominated by powerful monopolies, etc. It appears that we want change only if it can be done easily and quickly. But even this misguided expectation has its good points. The fact that an increasing number of people seem to be ready for leaders who will finally take a stand for political reform is a positive sign for our nation. It means that many of us are hungry for a more participatory system of government rather than the corporate-dominated structure we have in place today. By this fact, I am encouraged.

This week too it was reported that Paul Samuelson, the first American Nobel laureate in economics, had died at age 94. In 1948, Dr. Samuelson published his economics textbook that would become the collegiate standard for market education. I still have my copy from my initial economics course in 1970…it’s amazing how relevant it is in these difficult and complex times. I was pondering yesterday that the best educational minds and the textbooks they write are powerless when we choose to disregard the basics in personal and corporate practices. When ideology or wishful-thinking replace the principles that result from rigorous research, the consequences are predictable and grim. This reflection provides me with an even greater sense of urgency in renewed conversations on markets we can trust.

If we want to have some conversations about market we can trust, I can suggest three inter-connected concepts…each is already being practiced, but could be understood and applied to a greater extent. Who knows…this might provide a basis for a deliberative framing in the future.

‘Competitive’ markets are basic to our understanding of how commerce works, but too often these days it’s been popular to characterize them as ‘free’ markets. It’s unfortunate that some very influential ‘free’ markets are far from competitive, including financial and health care markets. These markets can only work well though when economic, social and media transparency are expected by the public and supported by appropriate legislation. This form of market shaping can be applied to goods and services as producers and suppliers meet the everyday needs of consumers.

‘Social’ or ‘fair’ markets have gained in popular support, but they basically rely on altruistic consumers who are willing to pay more for products they believe have additional benefits attached in terms of social justice, economic stability, religious convictions and environmental sustainability. These markets provide an application of buying power to influence on more than product availability. This form of market shaping can be applied to many different products with different attached social concerns by liberals and conservatives.

‘Local’ markets have been pretty much replaced in many areas by big-box and franchise domination, but in recent years they’re reemerging as an alternative to corporate-controlled markets. These markets have the unique capacity to adapt quickly and accurately to shifts in consumer demand. They can ‘turn-on-a-dime’ and can respond with local sensitivity. This form of market shaping can be applied in all places to include the values and needs of people without imposing those values and needs on others inappropriately.

Sadly, our current markets are not trusted…and for good reason. They aren’t competitive, or integrated into our values, or locally sensitive, or sustainable. This is another of those big-picture topics that influence many of our public policy dilemmas. Let’s talk about markets we can trust.

Here’s just one example of consumer choice that can counteract some lethargic public policies: purchase products that use greener technology. Notice I didn’t say ‘green’ technology, because we’re still in the starting stages in research and development for truly ‘green’ products. We’ve purchased two hybrid cars…not because the technology has been perfected already, but because we want more R&D in alternative energy systems in the future. This is how we send a message to manufacturers…we spend our limited resources on products and trends we want them to continue…and we resist spending on the products and trends we want them to end. It’s really just that simple. The problem is…we’re not communicating about what we need to resist and what we need to support in any meaningful way. We’re basically still just trying to get the best bargain on the most stuff…and it’s keeping us powerless and dependent.    

I’m totally skeptical that the power of ‘big money’ can be reversed or even slowed by the people who are currently our political leaders. This is one of those sticky conundrums that keep us frustrated…we think our only remedy is that somehow our leaders will spontaneously act in a way that flies in the face of their current political wisdom.  Miraculously, they will set aside their desire for reelection donations from the super-wealthy, from big business, and from big unions…and they’ll embrace the public’s desire for a new direction. Hey…it’s not going to happen any time soon.

About 20 years ago, I had this hen-headed idea that consumers could make some significant impact on economic and social issues with their daily purchases. I started thinking…if only consumers could know the true cost of an item they’re preparing to purchase, they might make wiser choices, and they might reshape the market. At that time, I thought about researching a book that would list major consumer items like Consumer Reports does, but this book would identify some of the hidden costs of the item, like child labor abuses or environmental degradation or high energy consumption. Today, this kind of research can be spread as an application through most of the cell phones in the world…letting people know as they input a bar code what the consequences are in completing their purchase.

I apologize for being pessimistic in impacting the ‘big money’ part of our global economy equation. I am, on the other hand, completely jazzed on the opportunities we have in the information age in impacting the ‘small money’ part of the equation…every day with every intentional purchase. This is a tech breakthrough that’s ripe for development and application. Let’s talk about how citizens can gather for careful conversations about what’s important and why. And then…let’s translate that public knowledge into tools that are easily accessible and understandable, so everyone can participate in the choices that can reshape our nation and our world. Money means choices…let’s make our money more effective.

Black Friday in 2009 gave us a pretty clear picture of our national culture…we’re in deep economic denial. Hoping for a miracle, we looked to this unique indicator for signs that the Great Recession had hit rock-bottom. Many of the reports I saw tried to put on a happy face…don’t worry, it’s not as bad as we thought it would be. Interviews showed some happy consumers and some optimistic merchants, but the consumers mostly said they weren’t going to spend near as much this year and the merchants mostly said they couldn’t cut prices any deeper. We want to see the glass as ‘half-full’…that’s the way we are. But Black Friday numbers just verified what unemployment numbers…and unresolved public and private debt numbers…and foreclosure numbers…and currency valuation numbers all tell us: the economic methods we’ve trusted in the past were not sustainable…they’ve collapsed, and they cannot be revived.

We need to start talking with each other about what will replace our unsustainable, debt-dependent consumer culture. What are the foundational values we need to embrace for a stable future for the next generations? I really don’t think we’ll have much difficulty in identifying these values…as soon as we come to grips with reality. My suspicion is that we’ll keep trying to put off the inevitable and dreadfully painful acceptance that a completely new economic framework is needed. Maybe next quarter’s numbers will be slightly better. Maybe the next Black Friday will show that our current economic assumptions can still work for a while longer…until they’re someone else’s problem. It’s already too late to be ahead of this curve. Now we need to run like crazy to catch up with our economic, political and cultural reality.

In our hearts I think we know what issues we need to face honestly and candidly. More old-school jobs will disappear, but totally new kinds of jobs will emerge. More institutions will fail, but new forms of networking and collaboration will be created. Eventually entities that are ‘too big to fail’ today will have to be allowed to fail, but new economic support structures will be designed with integrated transparency and multi-jurisdictional accountability. These issues will continue to grow in urgency and complexity with continued neglect. We can wait for the next benchmark…or the next…or the next, but sooner or later we’ll be talking about foundational values we need to embrace so we might evolve into a more just, participatory and sustainable society.

Recently, some people have started to take another look at campaign finance reform. And health care legislation isn’t the only reason. Millions of dollars in lobbyist spending is focused also on severely limiting any dramatic changes in financial market regulation or economic bailout accountability. It seems the more you look the more you see…that lobbyists have a large influence in many important legislative efforts. So, where does the money come from…and what does it mean for the stability of our democracy?

I remember having forums on campaign finance reform. Some bold legislation was proposed, but then it was watered-down to the point of being irrelevant. The biggest thing I remember about our forums was that everyone who attended seemed to see themselves as being a political outsider…being shutout somehow from an effective role in shaping legislation. These folks basically expected their voice to matter whether they had money to contribute or not. They quoted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, focusing their faith and hope in democratic principles. At the end of the day, most believed that if campaign finance reform wasn’t achieved, their voices would remain distant and faint in the legislative process. And they were right.

I’ve come to believe that it boils down to this…either our free enterprise system is meant to support the stability of our democracy OR our democracy is meant to support the stability of our free enterprise system. I wish I could identify another option here, but at present I can’t. While there are many nuances in how this simple priority balance works, the basic question remains: which is primary…and which is supportive? The answer to this question seems to decide where you stand on campaign finance reform.

But why would anyone believe it’s best to let corporate donors and industry lobbyists control the effectiveness of Congress…and the White House? Corporate America was too big to let fail in the second greatest economic collapse in our nation’s history, and stabilizing financial markets is more important than reversing the policies that continue to destroy the American dream for hundreds of thousands of our neighbors every month…our priorities actually seem pretty clear. Corporate leaders in our free enterprise system who value business and investor welfare higher over social welfare continue to exert almost absolute control over Congress and the federal agencies tasked with accountability oversight. My feeling is that campaign finance reform hasn’t been approached, because it’s been decided by our elected officials that our democracy is meant to support the stability of the free enterprise system.

It’s time to return to the issue of campaign finance reform, but not in the same way we did in the last forums. We need to confront the basic priority of our politics and of our culture…to give our neighbors a clear opportunity to decide what’s most important…our free enterprise system or our democracy. I believe this is the most important conversation we’ll ever have about the future of our country.

I like this list…a bit humorous, but thought-provoking. When I found it, I chuckled to myself at certain places, and paused with moral questioning at other places. When I pondered the list as a whole, I began flipping these propositions to ask what responsibilities might provide some moral, ethical or practical tensions. This step, however, introduces a whole lot of complex issues...more with some ‘rights’ than with others. I believe at least in theory that all ‘rights’ must have some intrinsic responsibilities, and perhaps even some duties. Of course, I might be wrong about this…but, if I’m right, any conversation that includes a discussion of ‘rights’ should also address whatever responsibilities would fall to leaders and to individual citizens.

From the standpoint of our deliberative practice, this natural association between rights and responsibilities could prove to be important. If we really want to dig in to a topic to discover some of the foundational values behind our opinions, we need to identify and then discuss the tensions and trade-offs in a variety of approaches. Interestingly enough, it doesn’t really seem to matter where we start…we naturally connect with the balancing concept. My feeling is that we can make our conversations more meaningful, if we consistently pay attention to this relationship and if we consistently include the full range of responsibilities that accrue from any proposed right, entitlement or privilege in public policy.

This could be an important conversation…what is the role of government in the 21st century? The philosophical poles are pretty clear…absolutely no government intervention at all versus absolutely complete government control. I don’t know anyone who would believe in either of these extremes, so that means all of us fall somewhere in between. It appears we agree that government should do some things…but we’re not exactly sure where to draw the line. It appears that we have a variety of options as we try to figure out some rationale in deciding what government should do and what it shouldn’t do: ‘minimize government intervention wherever possible,’ or ‘equalize public value for all,’ or ‘maximize the triage value of government safety nets.’ What do we want our government to do for and with us…and how would our foundational values reshape the way we talk about the role of government?

On this topic, I found the Op-Ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times on September 2, 2009 to be particularly helpful…here is a poignant excerpt:

“Until the mid-19th century, firefighting was left mostly to a mishmash of volunteer crews and private fire insurance companies. In New York City, according to accounts in the New York Times in the 1850s and 1860s, firefighting often descended into chaos, with drunkenness and looting. So almost every country moved to what today’s health insurance lobbyists might label ‘socialized firefighting.’ In effect, we have a single-payer system of public fire departments. We have the same for policing. If the security guard business were as powerful as the health insurance industry, then it would be denouncing ‘government takeovers’ and ‘socialized police work.’ Throughout the industrialized world, there are a handful of these areas where governments fill needs better than free markets: fire protection, police work, education, postal service, libraries, health care. The United States goes along with this international trend in every area but one: health care.”

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.

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.