California NIF Network Blog

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)

‘Are you the One?’ has been the question of millions of Jewish parents through the centuries, asking if their newborn child might be the Messiah…the one who would lead humanity into peace. As parents and grandparents and neighbors looked into the eyes of each innocent newborn, they wondered and prayed and hoped…and believed. One day…according to Christian belief…a child was born to fulfill this expectation…and we celebrated his birth this month. This isn’t just the hope for a military or religious leader…it was the hope for a genuine leader who would listen to the yearnings of the people for justice, inclusion and long-term stability. Many centuries later, we who seek peace are still asking the question of our newborn babies:  ‘Are you the One?’… or more importantly, ‘Are you one of the Ones?’

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.

Ben Bernanke was named this week as Time Magazine’s ‘Person of the Year’ for 2009. Hmmm…I guess it is possible for a person to be considered a hero, even after his actions significantly contributed to the crisis he then helped to avert. But over a year has passed since the wheels came off of our national and global economic marketplace, and we still haven’t asked any of the really tough questions about what went wrong and what we can do to correct our economic vision and methods. While Bernanke and the Obama Administration did take action to avert a global depression, no one has opened a public conversation about the crisis of trust in local, national or global markets. I believe we need to talk about inspiring trust in our markets, so everyone can participate and contribute.

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.

Posted by deliber8ca at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

On a very basic and pragmatic level, money translates into choices. This might not seem to be much of a news-flash, but it is an important proposition when we’re wondering why many of our public policy decisions are skewed to favor those who have radically more money than the average citizen. As the gap between the very rich and the rest of us grows, it’s more and more obvious that this trend cannot continue without causing some potentially severe consequences. But here’s an almost insurmountable obstacle…how do we talk about reducing the power of ‘big money’ in political decisions without being branded as Communists? So I’m proposing that we need to talk about how we might focus a wide spectrum of consumer choices to increase the clout of ‘small money.’

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.

Posted by deliber8ca at 08:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

‘Black Friday’ has become an important economic benchmark. We know in recent years that merchants and the media have used the day after Thanksgiving to refer to the beginning of the period in which retailers go from being in the red (i.e., posting a loss on the books) to being in the black (i.e., turning a profit). On a normal Black Friday, the focus is on both the strategy of merchants in offering items for sale and the willingness of consumers to spend their money on those items. The day is a little like Groundhog Day…the outcome of one day is used by prognosticators to see into the near future, projecting either a sunny or stormy economic outlook for the final month of a calendar year. But in 2009, Black Friday wasn’t normal…and we really need to talk together about what was different.

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.

Posted by deliber8ca at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Millions of dollars are being spent to defeat health care reform. Sadly, this is an accepted point of fact…not a political spin that is even disputed by those who are spending the money. Actually, those who oppose health care reform are proud that they’ve been able to organize such an effective effort. After last Saturday night’s House vote, it appears to many liberal thinkers…and conservatives for that matter…that the massive lobbyist blitz against health care reform has effectively neutralized the most critical parts of health care restructuring, making the House bill basically an exercise in political theater. Time will tell, but at present it appears the lobbyists against health care reform have won…they wield enough control of the purse-strings on Congressional campaign contributions that they can say so far: ‘The price is right.’

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.

Posted by deliber8ca at 12:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

So…when all is said and done, what do we as the American public want the role of government to be? We obviously don’t want the federal government to be too big, but we’re shocked and appalled when the federal government fails in dramatic ways…like in the response to Hurricane Katrina. We want lower taxes, but also expect our Congressional representatives to sustain the ‘critical projects’ for our own districts, states and special interest groups with a continuous flow of federal funding. We want to compete effectively in our global economy, but we don’t want our government to fully fund an educational system that will make this possible. Hey, let’s face it…in our highly polarized political climate these days, we’re exhibiting some pretty schizophrenic symptoms on how we see the role of government…most therapists would put us on some serious medications. What do we want our government to do for us…and, more importantly, with us?

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.”

Posted by deliber8ca at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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)

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)

Once again, proponents of ‘free market’ economics are trying to convince the public that there is no need for regulatory intervention in business matters. Currently, this argument is being used for two topics: health care reform and consumer protection in financial markets. In both instances, millions of dollars are being spent by scores of lobbyists to reshape legislation in their favor…or to stall unfavorable bills until they die. Lobbyists are asking legislators and the public to trust the ‘free market’…unfortunately it appears that they are gaining traction as legislation in both issues is meeting increased resistance. Once again, big money apparently has big influence…but the promises of a self-regulating ‘free market’ are based on ideological wishful-thinking rather than real-world evidence. It’s time to talk about what markets…any markets…can and cannot do.

You can trust businesses to do what businesses do…they maximize profits while they minimize losses. Businesses provide goods and services to make money. Sure…if they do a good job in responsibly and ethically providing what consumers need and want, they are also increasing the quality of life while stabilizing the vitality of the economy. But…their purpose is to make money, not to be altruistic or philanthropic.

We’ve heard some people talk about our ‘business engine’…this is the ability of businesses and markets to move the economy along the road toward more jobs and more prosperity. As long as we’re clear on what business is intended to do, we can then recognize the need for some mechanism to provide direction for that ‘business engine’ horsepower and sometimes to apply the brakes when high-risk behavior threatens public welfare. What we’ve found recently and through history is that a totally ‘free market’ is a high-powered machine that will go basically wherever the profits are highest without much regard for long-term risk or public welfare. Of course, there are exceptions, but the question we need to ask is how well we can trust the profit motive to supply public well-being.

Then let’s also consider a similar challenge by lobbyists, concerning the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Here’s what Simon Johnson wrote in the Washington Post last week: “…the primary counterarguments against the agency are based on either misunderstanding or misinformation. The consumer protection agency would not prevent the creation of products by the private sector, but it would make it much more likely that the products are not toxic for the people who use them—in the same way that we worry about the safety of cribs and medicine.” And “There’s no question that some financial firms would like to return to abusive practices, figuring they can once again make money and then move on. Yet serious financial sector firms would prefer to clean up their acts and work with properly informed customers.”

What’s at stake ultimately is public confidence. We’re addressing health care reform, because the public lacks confidence that current providers, insurers and policies can supply adequate and comprehensive coverage at a reasonable price. We’re addressing consumer protection in financial matters, because the public lacks confidence that banks, investment firms and insurers are willing to pursue their business without returning to the high-risk behavior that caused the current Great Recession.

What the opponents of these two reform efforts don’t understand is that they will benefit most when the public has confidence in the products they want to sell. Here’s the deal…I believe they will make more money by inspiring confidence with transparency and public oversight than by simply saying, “Trust us.” The ‘free market’ has proven its inability to safely and equitably support our long-term public needs. Its promise has fallen short enough times in the past 100 years or so that we shouldn’t be fooled again. The reforms being discussed in Washington, D.C. are necessary to revive the public’s trust in these two critical institutions…the health care community and the financial services sector of our economy. Of course, the specifics still need to be determined, but inaction on these legislative efforts will only keep the public's risk and uncertainty at a high level.

Posted by deliber8ca at 04:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

As Americans, I think we need to decide how we’re going to pay for the things we want. I know…I know…what a terribly quaint and dated idea! Somehow we’ve gotten ourselves into a culture of debt where it’s simply accepted that one of our monthly expenses is the payment of interest…on a mortgage, on a car loan, on credit cards, on second-mortgages, on loans for recreational vehicles, etc. This attitude has made many in the financial community very rich, growing this part of our economy dramatically during the last decade. In addition, we seem to accept that a large part of our taxes also go to the payment of interest on our national debt. I’m not going to spend time on the financial crisis in this post…I’ve shared my thoughts before and will again I’m sure. Today I want to raise the issue of debt as a lifestyle choice. What troubles me most about this topic is not that we would make this choice for ourselves, but that our children and grandchildren will have debt as a lifestyle inheritance…they will have no choice.

Now that we’re so far in debt, it might seem strange to propose a new public conversation about our addiction to debt. We’ve been in denial for a long time…why not continue? Of course, the first step in dealing with an addiction is accepting it…and people generally have to be in the gutter with nowhere else to fall before they see the reality of their situation. The first part of our public conversation then would have to be a national intervention. An intervention is an event where people who care deeply for the addict confront him or her with the stark and ugly truth about the terrible consequences of their addictive behavior. We care about our debt-ridden friends, family members and neighbors…don’t we? We care about our country…don’t we? In a national intervention, we’d have to look into each others’ eyes and say from the heart, “I’m a debt-addict.”

Unfortunately, we also have some very powerful enablers. An enabler makes sure an addiction continues, protecting the addict from the many of the consequences of their actions and sometimes even feeding the habit. Of course, we also know that enablers are always serving their own needs in keeping addiction going. Our primary enabler is the banking and financial industry…their marketing practices can be compared with those of the tobacco industry, specializing in getting young adults addicted with easy credit and very low minimum payments, and then increasing the credit limit to encourage more debt and long-term interest payments. Politicians are also very accomplished enablers in terms of public debt…spending more money than they know will come in through taxes, even in times of economic prosperity, for some things, and borrowing against future tax revenues for other things. Consumers are great enablers of one another…we’ve even created vast shopping malls where we can gather to give each other support and encouragement in one of our primary forms of entertainment…purchasing things we don’t need, we don’t have space for in our homes and we can’t afford. We have created a pervasive and addictive culture of debt, and it is many people’s job to keep and grow that debt.

So…what are we going to do, other than to face our cultural and individual addiction to debt? I (perhaps naïvely) believe we can still turn our debt future around. Yes…that would require huge and selfless sacrifices on our parts. But, on the other hand, do we want to wait until our kids and grandkids sit us down for a deservedly, angry intervention…or, worse still, do we want them to simply curse us in our graves for our unwillingness to deal with our self-destructive, debt behavior? We’re not powerless in this matter…we can still choose the honorable course of action. We can still choose to sacrifice ourselves for what we want rather than to make future generations shoulder the burden of our decisions. I don’t like this anymore than you do, but somehow we need to take responsibility for our actions, no matter how we got lured into our debt habit. We’ve got to decide…are we willing to pay for what we want, or are we so weak that we have to steal from our children’s piggy-banks?

Posted by deliber8ca at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Political soul-searching is impossible for practicing politicians. Once we as individual citizens realize this simple point, we can start asking the tough questions they can’t afford to ask. It’s my feeling that a dramatic political reorganization is looming on the horizon. In California, adjustments in how cities and counties interact with state government are being seriously discussed. Elected leaders in these more local jurisdictions can’t hesitate for long…their ability to deliver critical services will be compromised within the next few months. Unfortunately, this appears to be only the beginning with California breaking-trail for the rest of our country. It’s too late to make the decisions that would solve our political problems with small adjustments…fine-tuning won’t create enough change quickly enough. I believe we need a soul-searching public conversation about how we want to balance our democracy to meet 21^st century needs.

In some previous posts, I’ve addressed some corollary topics…on our unsuccessful experiment in self-regulation, the dismantling of our equality infrastructure, our desire to create a new and improved, comfort bubble and why the ‘tea parties’ might be right. My focus today brings what I feel is some added clarity in current trends and our responsibility to talk…and then to act. While some folks might want to think that we look back into our political history in order to restore something that existed and was then lost, I believe our current situation is uniquely challenging. Our urbanization, our technology, our diversity, our global economy, our environmental challenges, our energy future…together these factors make the context of our public conversations unique and highly complex. Because every village, town, city, county and state has a different profile among these factors, all levels of participatory governance must be valued as equal and respected partners in democracy. A balanced democracy can provide increased effectiveness, accountability and adaptive capacity.

In evaluating governance at any level, effectiveness is probably the first criteria many people would identify. If government cannot deliver the right resources or services to the right person on a timely basis, it’s failed. Effectiveness is completely outcome-oriented. Our current political crisis is directly threatening many parts of what has been the delivery system for our national priorities. Many federal programs require state, county and city delivery agencies, but those agencies are losing staff and support funding at alarming rates. Some local school districts and local governments are faced with ending vital programs where federal funds are still available, because they can no longer fund their local program infrastructure. A balanced democracy is effective in delivering resources and services, because all levels of the delivery infrastructure are included in coordination, funding and evaluation.

Accountability holds people responsible as partners in democracy. It’s been my observation that accountability works differently at all levels of governance. At the local level, citizens can pick up the phone or send an email to contact elected officials and department directors about problems they’re having in getting resources or services. In addition, elected officials are simply more attentive to citizens’ complaints, because just a few disgruntled people can derail reelection hopes or plans to seek other offices. When we consider state and federal accountability, however, the sheer number of people who participate as advocates or voters dilutes the efforts of even the most motivated citizens. In recent history, accountability at these higher levels has only been effective through the intense scrutiny of the news media, but the record seems to show that job performance isn’t as important in gaining the media’s time and attention as personal scandals. A balanced democracy is accountable to the public, because it’s focused on the evaluation of job performance at all levels.

The capacity to adapt accurately and quickly to emerging needs and changing resources is also different across the range of levels in governance. Local leaders and agencies have a closer association with the diverse needs of their citizens, so they can recognize changes before they get to be crises. In many instances, programs can be efficiently adapted through policy changes rather than having to wait for legislation. At the state and federal levels, however, changes in policy and in legislation must be considered more deliberately…needs must be seen to be systemic to warrant changes in resources or services that will affect the whole country. As with accountability, the sheer number of people affected at the federal level makes change a more time-consuming, learning and action process. A balanced democracy is a user-friendly, fully-integrated learning organization, because it actively and carefully listens to the diverse voices of the public, mostly provided through non-profit and non-partisan organizations that practice dialogue and deliberation.

Sadly, we seem to have a ‘system of governance’ that’s not sustainable. Just as the continued accumulation of money and power by the ultra-wealthy threatens the long-term health of our economy, the unbalanced growth of power in state and federal, unfunded mandates on local school districts, counties, cities and small businesses threatens the health of our loosely-bound and increasingly fragile ‘system of governance.’ I believe we need a soul-searching public conversation about the roles, responsibilities and linkages of government. In addition, I believe that the concept of a balanced democracy can contribute some important tensions and trade-offs with the views of both liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning scholars, advocates and private citizens.

Posted by deliber8ca at 03:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s deep in our DNA to hunt for and then to gather what we need and want. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that we sometimes hunt with a little too much force and that we sometimes gather far more than we really need. I know it’s more complicated than this, but some of our human quirks can be understood at least in part by looking at how we are hard-wired. In good times, this kind of understanding is just ‘nice-to-know’…there’s no need for any kind of action on this knowledge. In difficult times, however, this kind of understanding can become ‘critical.’ I believe this is one of those times.

So…if we’re hard-wired for hunting and gathering, what does that have to do with us today? In my estimation, humanity…and particularly American humanity…has had quite a long time to learn the finer points of the hunter-gatherer role, so today there’s a significant sophistication in these tasks. We’ve hunted for bargains on the internet and we’ve gathered our stuff into over-sized houses, spacious walk-in closets and self-storage units. We’ve craved low-priced things so much that we’ve let corporations become disastrously bigger, promising ‘economies of scale’ savings to make what we think we want cheaper. We’ve wanted these things so deeply that we’re so much in debt now that it’ll take our children’s life incomes to pay for all our stuff. And…we’ve wanted it all so much that we’ve been willing to pay anything to keep the financial titans in business so our spending habit can continue. Like Oliver Twist in the famous book and movie, we approach those who keep us dependent, asking for “More, please.”

As Americans, we seem to be okay with the accumulation of things, wealth and power, even to obscene extremes. Some American corporate leaders continue to receive millions of dollars in salaries, benefits and bonuses while American workers who do heroic service in our states, counties and cities are laid off. Some American stockholders will start to see ‘recovery’ in their portfolios while more and more of their neighbors lose their houses in foreclosure through no fault of their own. Many politicians will receive generous donations from the corporations they protect from close scrutiny and careful regulation, guaranteeing continued support for reelection and the accumulation of more power.

Now, you’re probably wondering where this is going. We know this trend toward the accumulation of things and wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people is not sustainable, so when will we decide enough is enough? We hope in our hearts that we’re capable of stepping back from the brink of excess…from the brink of economic suicide…to choose a better life for our children and grandchildren. Friends, the numbers on Wall Street are completely irrelevant, if we aren’t willing to make some fundamental changes in our own hunting and gathering tendencies…and to create some dramatic regulations that may control corporate hunters and gatherers.

We’re not ‘bad’ for wanting to hunt and gather. This natural survival trait is good when it’s not seeking more than we can ever conceivably need AND causing damage to others. Let’s face it…some of our natural tendencies need to be controlled by public oversight. We don’t have the self-control we need to do it on our own. It’s in our DNA…and you can’t fight your DNA! I really wish I could come to a different conclusion…I don’t like this either. What troubles me the most is that we thought we’d already learned this hard lesson. So many safeguards were put in place after the Great Depression. Then…we got this arrogant and misguided notion that we were wise enough to side-step those safeguards for a quick profit. Wrong!

Alan Greenspan was shocked that American financial leaders were capable of making seriously, self-destructive decisions. He thought they’d come back from the brink in time to avert a catastrophe. He thought they’d self-regulate. Greenspan obviously didn’t know about DNA. Our task in leading a public conversation is to do the job of philosophers…to look at the diverse extremes in human behavior, and then to ask how we can guide an inquiring public as they find and choose a healthy balance between these complex extremes for the well-being of all citizens.

Posted by deliber8ca at 10:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I’ve been thinking a lot about the mess our communities, our states, our country and our world is in. I wonder if the adults of the early 1930s recognized the hardships their shortsightedness and negligence would cause their children…I wonder if they felt any responsibility or remorse. But then, they didn’t have the benefit of history on their side. Damn! We had their experiences, their learning and their systemic safeguards, but we still found a way to let greed and arrogance send us down a road of financial ruin. It happened on our watch, friends! And it should weigh heavily on our hearts. 

But then what can we do? Those of us who have worked together in the deliberation and dialogue community have a special opportunity…and responsibility. I feel we need to work overtime to make sense of our current crises, and to act responsibly in light of the deeply damaging consequences of our inaction for decades.

Here are some of the quotes I found as I tried to figure out what we might do as responsible adults in a difficult situation. They focus on our connections and our actions. I’m working on some NIF variations that might make our conversations more meaningful and powerful. I can’t just let the current crises run their course without taking some action.

A friend is one who knows us, but loves us anyway. --Fr. Jerome Cummings

The only way to have a friend is to be one. --Ralph Waldo Emerson

A political ‘third rail’ is an issue that’s so highly ‘charged’ that it’s pretty much political suicide to touch it. Literally speaking, the third rail that’s used to power trains carries hundreds of volts of electricity, resulting in electrocution and likely death for anyone who touches it. Some of the best known ‘third rail’ issues are, of course, Social Security reform, tax increases and gun control, but now I think we can add to the list: ending the tax exemption on employer-provided health benefits.

Posted by deliber8ca at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As budget cuts hit home for more and more citizens, the dismantling of what I’m calling our ‘equality infrastructure’ is becoming more obvious, and small groups in our communities are starting to show us how our culture will shift in the months and years to come. Each state has a different revenue profile, so some states will have greater cuts than others. Each county has unique demographics, employment and housing stability, so some counties will have greater cuts than others within each state. Some school districts, towns and cities have a greater vulnerability to the current financial crisis, so some of them will have greater cuts than others. Now we need to add the reality of income distribution to this picture…some citizens have the capacity to weather this economic storm with very little disruption, while others have zero flexibility. Our ‘equality infrastructure’…imperfect as it is…will be eroded, and the gaps in our society will grow.

Posted by deliber8ca at 03:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Yeah, I’m worried! Social and political inertia is incredibly strong in our culture of sound bites and quick solutions…the urge to return to a normal life after a near-fatal illness can lead us to take additional risks where a relapse is highly probable and very dangerous. While numerous voices are signaling their warning, I don’t see or hear any coordinated message about this from the Obama Administration, or the Federal Reserve Bank, or the Congress, or the business media. It appears to me that the public is still just experiencing the Great Recession on an intellectual basis, rather than feeling any real pain…yet. I’d love to be wrong about this, but it appears that we’re dead-set on inflating a new bubble so things can be ‘normal’ again.

Here’s Paul Krugman’s NY Times blog yesterday: “Just a quick note: is it just me, or has the economic news started to darken again? Up through about March, every report was worse than you expected, often worse than you could have imagined. Since then, most reports — although continuing to be bad in an absolute sense — have “surprised on the upside.” But my sense is that in the last few days we’ve been getting reports — Korean trade, Japanese orders, German exports — that are once again surprising on the downside. This thing ain’t over yet.”

We’re nowhere close to the end of this economic train-wreck, but the banks and the Obama Administration seem to be on the same message: they want to put Wall Street right back where it was before the crash…with the exception of some carefully negotiated ‘reforms’ where the bank lobbyists have significant influence in the writing process. Sadly, it appears that we have the wrong people in charge of negotiating for the public…they don’t really believe yet that our economic system needs a serious overhaul…and they have too many friends and former colleagues in the financial sector. It makes me nervous when many of the people who helped to create the crisis are celebrating ‘reform’ decisions.

Unless the public demands a full investigation into the economic meltdown before reforms are decided, forces are in play now to simply inflate a new bubble. Here’s another perspective that’s highlighted in many books and articles that seek to understand our 25-year march into the Great Recession. Many believe that we never really recovered from the 1992 recession. Not really recovered. All we’ve done is float a series of bubbles and make things look like they're prosperous, while most people have been lucky to keep their heads above water. As several recent voices have pointed out…if it weren’t for Wal-Mart’s price suppression, the public would have a much clearer understanding of some much deeper economic dangers that are looming just under the surface of the statistical haze. The Federal Reserve doesn’t control inflation…Wal-Mart controls inflation. Our biggest problem is that there’s lots of inflation in our domestic and global markets that Wal-Mart can’t control.

Job losses are only really just starting…school districts, cities and counties are desperately slashing jobs to stay afloat. When all of these cuts are made and the economic consequences of steeply rising unemployment and increased under-employment with more part-time positions and furloughs become reality, that’s when everyone will ‘feel’ the Great Recession. We are in the eye of the hurricane and the next phase is about to hit…and it’ll hit next with the strongest and most devastating force!

Yeah, I’m worried! I’m worried most that we appear to be willing to let social and political inertia make our most critical decisions. As the local damage grows in the next months, I’m hoping that our deliberative communities across the country will decide to step into the public square with opportunities for conversations about reforms that are grounded on carefully researched analysis and on true transparency in public problem-solving. As you might be able to discern, I believe some of the dilemmas uncovered in the economic crisis are actually at the hub of multiple issues…how we face reality, how we investigate carefully, how we talk with each other, how we discover together our foundational values, and how we defy inertia to create long-term solutions that satisfy our basic needs.

Posted by deliber8ca at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I didn’t think we’d need to deliberate about the public need for the truth, but I guess I was wrong. Hey, everybody…where is our Pecora investigation? As the Great Depression deepened, a full and relentless investigation, led by Ferdinand Pecora, probed into the corporate and political decisions that caused the crisis. Pecora was the chief counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking and Currency in 1933-34, uncovering a wide range of abusive practices on the part of banks and bank affiliates. The Senate hearings were broadcast on the radio, featuring Pecora’s questioning of corporate leaders. They galvanized wide public support for new banking and securities laws…some of which successfully stabilized our economy for decades. So where’s our fire-in-the-belly for the truth about our current Great Recession?

It seemed very straight forward and natural that a thorough investigation would start almost immediately after the economic meltdown in late 2008. But then the election had our attention, so we couldn’t start then. In the lame-duck days of the Bush Administration, no one wanted to start something that would probably change after the Inauguration, so we waited some more. Now…why are we still waiting? Sadly, it appears that what some of us thought was a foregone conclusion has developed a complexity that may need some significant public conversation. On the surface at least, it didn’t appear that we have deeply-held, emotionally-charged differences in values, concerning our need for an investigation. Underneath, however, the Obama Administration and the Congress obviously have at least a different timeline in mind and at most a completely different concept of public knowledge than many who want answers about the crisis before memories fade and records are ‘misplaced’ or ‘deleted.’

But wait! The Pecora investigation wasn’t the only successful benchmark for public learning…we learned a lot in the Watergate hearings (1973-74), the Church Committee hearings (1975), the Iran-Contra hearings (1987) and the Keating Five hearings (1991). We even learned in the McCarthy hearings (1953-54) that we didn’t want a vendetta or a witch hunt. Each time, the public got to hear the questioning and the responses…and each time we learned more about the crisis under inspection and about what we as citizens in a democracy wanted in our government.

At present, it doesn’t appear that the Obama Administration sees any importance or urgency in investigating the fraud and cover-ups in the current economic meltdown, or the abuses of power of the Bush Administration Justice Department, or the erosion of constitutional rights after 9/11 or the allegations of a systemic policy of torture. If we were investigating even one or two of these critical issues in our recent past, it would be understandable to not have the time or resources for the others, but we’re not currently committed to any of these public learning curves. So…we’d probably better start talking about the public need for the truth, even when it’s a distraction from current legislative agendas. We can’t create a sustainable future on a foundation of uncertainty.

Posted by deliber8ca at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

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.

Posted by deliber8ca at 09:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

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 21^st 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?

Posted by deliber8ca at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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.

Posted by deliber8ca at 02:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Okay, I have to admit how appalled I was in watching the news coverage of the recent “tea parties”…the much hyped ‘grass-roots’ demonstrations that were pretty much organized and orchestrated by the neo-conservative community with help from some major media players. When people are invited to gather as an expression of anger and frustration, I guess we can’t be too surprised when some go overboard in the passion of the moment, so the talk of revolution and secession was a natural outcome. Many of us were scratching our heads in amazement when we saw slogans from our colonial period appearing…“No taxation without representation”…as if elections hadn’t recently been held and as if public sentiment in those elections wasn’t clear and overwhelming. But still…I’m always reminded that our emotions are never wrong. Our thinking might be wrong, but our emotions are always pointing to the ‘true-north’ of our human needs as best described in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

If we take these feelings seriously, what is the real issue behind the issue? In one possible definition, we could simply replace the word ‘representation’ with ‘accountability.’ When it boils down, isn’t accountability one of the primary goals of a representative form of government? Should it be surprising that people have strong feelings about ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability?’ President Obama presented these concepts as the foundation of his campaign. After his inauguration, he immediately signed a memorandum “directing specific actions to achieve transparency, openness, and engagement.” His Presidency will basically rise or fall as the public evaluates his willingness to follow these principles, even when the going gets tougher. If these principles weren’t in crisis, would a President spend this much time talking about them? If these principles are in crisis, isn’t it time we talked about them as our responsibility, discussing with our neighbors what we expect in ‘transparency’ and what we’re willing to do to make ‘accountability’ the cornerstone of ‘representation.’

‘Accountability’ is a huge and complicated subject. I think we’re increasingly unsettled and concerned that our institutions are failing because of a systemic lack of basic ‘accountability’ in the news industry…in the court room…in our classrooms…in the corporate board room…in the global financial crisis…in the city council chambers…in state legislatures…in the halls of Congress…in the White House…and in the actions of the United Nations. I’m persuaded that President Obama AND the tea-baggers have identified the one issue that could eventually threaten the unity of these United States, and could make it impossible to create and sustain truly effective global efforts to solve problems like climate change, pandemic control or AIDS.

Posted by deliber8ca at 05:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Public solutions to thorny problems require accurate, unbiased, accessible and timely information. Unfortunately, our current media markets aren’t finding that the production and distribution of this kind of information is profitable. Because the companies that have provided us with first-class news and commentary are seeing too much red ink in their balance sheets, the business pressure that drives program decisions toward ‘news-based entertainment’ is growing. I’ll just share a couple reflections and my own comment on this topic today, but I hope this can be a conversation that generates some interest among people who believe that good information is essential, especially when we’re at a turning point in public decisions…like now.

A couple nights ago, we attended a town hall meeting with Rep. George Miller (D-CA) with about 150 other people. About half of the questions (at least…maybe more) were posed with fear-based information from talk radio, TV ‘commentary panels’ or conspiracy-theory weblogs. It was disconcerting to hear the genuine concern and anger in the voices of people who were repeating the wild rumors they’d heard, and how they wanted action on these issues as Congress’ top-priority. I came away from that meeting with a feeling that one prevalent mission of the news media is the creation of fear and suspicion…and they seem to be succeeding.

Okay, I’m back to Jon Stewart. As I thought about the town hall meeting experience, I pondered again what I saw was the most important point of Stewart’s comments that brought Crossfire down and that were the foundation for the Jim Cramer conversation. There is a difference between ‘news reporting’ and ‘news-based entertainment’…and this difference is increasingly blurred these days. Stewart wasn’t critical of Cramer’s right to say what he says…he was critical of what he saw as ‘news-based entertainment’ calling itself ‘news reporting.’ He readily said that his show on Comedy Central is “a comedy show” with the clear intention to be a ‘news-based entertainment’ program. Stewart obviously believes his role in the news marketplace is legitimate, but he also appears to believe that role needs to be clearly identified for consumers. Another prevalent mission of the news media seems to be the co-opting of the news as an on-going and cheap source of material so corporations can make more money than if they paid investigative reporters or script writers and actors.

A few years ago, an NIF issue guide opened a conversation about the news media, News Media and Society. I think it’s time to revisit that framework for conversation, or perhaps to create a new issue guide to talk about how we distinguish between ‘news coverage’ and ‘news-based entertainment’ in our daily routine. It troubles me that so many people get their news for the day from either Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart. It troubles me that CNN spends so much effort in advertising their ‘reporters’ and ‘interviewers’ as celebrities. It troubles me also that Fox and MSNBC fill so much of their prime airtime with completely biased ‘entertainers’ who from my vantage point appear to distort the news in some segments while doing good reporting in others…and by doing so, they make it hard to trust anything they say.

Selling these days appears to be less about the product and more about the packaging of the product. Unfortunately, this trend in commerce seems to have taken over in our media markets, most troubling in the news media market. We’re fortunate that we still have truly committed and talented journalists working around the country, but it appears that their financial stability is increasingly in jeopardy. How do we keep our news professionals employed? How do we help consumers distinguish between ‘news coverage’ and ‘news-based entertainment?’ How do we fulfill our need for accurate, unbiased, accessible and timely information? How do we engage journalists in this conversation? This appears to me to be one of those pivotal issues where the outcomes affect our ability to solve the problems in some very thorny, long-term and life-and-death issues.

Posted by deliber8ca at 08:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

How many times have you heard someone say, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket"? When it comes to personal investing, I think most of us already know that this is very good advice in risk management, but we haven’t used this advise when it comes to managing risk in our economy. Some companies have been judged to be ‘too big to let fail’, so they’ve been rescued with public money. Many people these days recognize that there’s something really wrong when this is our least damaging option. I’m feeling more and more that we need to discuss how the concept of diversification can be applied to our public investment in a healthy and sustainable economy.

Successful investors know that diversifying their investments can help reduce the impact that a single, poorly performing investment can make on their overall portfolio, or mix of investments. Diversification means having different kinds of investments, such as stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. It also means having a mix of investments in different sectors or industries. A well-diversified portfolio might include bonds, money market funds, and stocks of small, medium, and large companies in a variety of industries and countries. In good times and in mildly bad times, this strategy works well. Of course, in drastically bad times like these, all investments decline. That’s exactly the reason that more attention must be given to how the economy as a whole manages risk and opportunity.

David Brooks in his NY Times Op-Ed today made some good points about how we got into our current mess and what must be done to make sure it doesn’t happen again. He writes, “Both (scenarios) believe that banks are too big. Both narratives suggest we should return to the day when banks were focused institutions — when savings banks, insurance companies, brokerages and investment banks lived separate lives.” The key here appears to be the diversity of thinkers when any business makes decisions. If the same thinker is responsible for wide-spread, inter-connected decisions, a mistake in analysis or judgment goes unchecked. If, on the other hand, many thinkers are responsible for those same decisions, the likelihood that some will catch the mistake before it causes great systemic damage is greater. This, of course, assumes that critical thinking is being practiced rather than a group of people joining the herd that runs toward a cliff. 

In the April 1 Op-Ed by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times, a long-overdue proposition was put forward—the price we pay for things is not necessarily the ‘right’ price for the economy or for the planet. The examples given are timely and poignant. First, the insurance giant, AIG, didn’t price their risk insurance of now toxic assets high enough to have the capital they needed to pay on claims when their value tanked. Second, the price of ‘carbon’ isn’t high enough to include the long-term risks involved in climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions, so investors and consumers are not yet persuaded to seek alternatives. I agree with Friedman when he says “…we’re experiencing a simultaneous meltdown in the financial system and the climate system…because we have been mispricing risk in both arenas.”

I think we need to start discussing a ‘living price’ and how this pricing would be determined. The concept of a ‘living wage’ has gained attention in the past few years, particularly in urban areas where many employees of businesses cannot afford to live near their workplaces. Basically, a ‘living wage’ is calculated using averages in cost-of-living categories. This estimated ‘living wage’ then is used in contract negotiations with businesses and municipalities. While our normal ‘market-driven’ wage mechanisms are short-term and limited to numbers on paper, this pricing process for wage-earners includes long-term goals and quality-of-life issues.

The price of an item is usually one of the most important factors in our purchasing decisions….maybe not for the extremely wealthy, but certainly for the rest of us. On a daily basis, we make many consumer decisions that supply our needs and wants AND that shape the economic landscape, local and global. If we factored in the greenhouse gas emissions involved in all of our imported food, clothing and gadgets, we might make different consumer decisions. If we included the quality-of-life and pollution costs involved when huge numbers of wage-earners have to commute to and from work, we might be willing to consider a living wage for our firefighters, police officers, nurses and teachers.

Let’s face it. Our current ‘market-driven’ pricing system isn’t working for us. Subsidies, tax-breaks and a lack of long-term safeguards make many of our prices artificially low. We’ve been told that the ‘invisible hand’ of the free-wheeling market system will lead to the best public outcomes, but what we see is a system that totally inadequate in pricing anything for long-term sustainability or basic fairness. Isn’t it time we discussed what alternative systems might be available…and what kinds of criteria might be useful?

Posted by deliber8ca at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Jon Stewart has become the leading advocate for the ‘public’s right to think’ with his interview on The Daily Show last night of Jim Cramer, host of CNBC’s Mad Money. Like he did on CNN’s Crossfire in 2004, Stewart effectively articulated the disappointment and anger of many people as he made the case for more journalistic accountability and less entertainment-based excuses. Why is it that our most effective voice on 21st century journalism is a comedian? I think it’s time to talk more in a deliberative way about the role of the media in public discourse, and it would probably be best if the journalists just listen to the public this time. Or is that even possible? They’d probably feel obliged to have an expert panel tell us what we said after we conclude our forums.

The showdown between Stewart and Cramer was hyped for sure…helping both shows gain in viewership. On another level, however, the conversation wasn’t as much about the sins of omission or commission by CNBC as it was about the responsibility of ‘news’ shows on all media outlets to provide the unbiased, accurate and timely information the public needs to make decisions in the real world. No one is saying this is easy…not Stewart, and not me. That’s why it’s a critical profession. Cramer says he’s trying, but agreed that he and others at CNBC should have done better, concerning the financial bubble and meltdown. I think we need to have some serious conversations about the information we need, who provides it, and how we restore trust in profession that delivers the raw materials for critical thinking to millions of people on a daily basis.

Do we have a public right to think? If we do, we’d better consider our raw materials supply. Anyone knows that inferior raw materials can’t produce high-quality products. Applied critical thinking is needed now, more than ever, as our decisions become more intricately woven together to create a global fabric. Most of us want to make the best possible decisions we can for some selfish reasons…we want the benefits of those good decisions. In addition, however, many of us want to make good decisions as our contribution to the well-being of our family, our friends, our neighbors, our nation, our environment, and all of humanity. I think we need to talk about our ‘right to think’ as citizens, and I think this means we should talk about the media’s role in producing reliable and timely raw materials for our daily, critical thinking needs.

Posted by deliber8ca at 09:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On March 4, 1789…yes, 220 years ago yesterday…New Hampshire ratified the U.S. Constitution to replace the Article of Confederation, making the new framework of our government operational. The ratification, however, may not have been completed without additional promises and negotiations about the rights of individuals under a new federal system. Ten amendments were added to the Constitution as the ‘Bill of Rights’ in 1791, fulfilling these critical promises and stabilizing a fragile new form of government. From the very start, the tension between ‘we the people’ and ‘I the citizen’ has been the focus of attention and conflict, even leading to the Civil War. And…it seems every generation of Americans must decide again and again how to balance the rights of the many with the rights of the one. My interest today is in this tension within the specific context of each generation…and each moment…in the dynamic life of our country.

I think we worry most about the extremes. If we push individual freedom to its limits, we probably end up with total anarchy with no meaningful relationships at all. Then, on the other hand, if we push the authority of the government to its limits, we end up with a totally homogenized population of followers who move like a herd of not-so-bright wildebeests who run because everyone else is running. Neither of these extremes is very attractive, so we’re basically forced to live in the range between them…where we have to constantly decide how to adjust our individual desires in light of the many ‘we’ relationships that make life fulfilling and sustainable, even the special ‘we’ relationship with our government.

My interest here is not just in this tension…I add to the mix the tension that comes from each new and unique context as ‘we’ decide things together as responsible, yet independent, citizens. It is our natural and changing environment that shapes us and our decisions much more than we’d like to admit. Physics, chemistry, genetics, and even the weather affect each us profoundly as cope with an ever-changing and dynamic context of ‘we’ decisions. Sheesh…it’s so complex, I can scarcely understand how we can get through just one day! My suspicion is that this triad of tensions plays a critical role in our personal, social, economic and political lives. Here we may find a profoundly philosophical foundation for effective issue framing. How does this issue affect ‘me’…‘we’…‘here and now’? Think about it. Talk about it.

Posted by deliber8ca at 08:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We need to understand how the Great Depression was ended as we decide together how to stay out of a 21st century depression. According to recent research and current stock market declines, the probability of a full-on depression is now higher than 30%...and this estimate is climbing. People are talking about the decline of our economy and the pending financial meltdown of national economies around the world. How can we contribute to the deliberative conversation of our neighbors and leaders?

As I’m writing this, I’m also listening to an interview on MSNBC where the ‘expert’ on the show is complaining about the reemergence of ‘big government’ in the administration’s recovery plans. Just a couple days ago, the conversation on the ‘Morning Joe’ program focused on downplaying the severity of the economic crisis, and ridiculing those who want to intervene strongly to reverse our economic downward spiral. At this crucial time in our history and probably the most important time in our lives, it appears that we’re being led mostly by pundits, spin-artists and entertainers. What then should we do?

I’m thinking back on the lectures in my Economic History class at UC Santa Barbara in the early 70s. I took the class because it fulfilled a requirement, but found it to be one of the most eye-opening classes in my undergrad studies in Economics. Our professor had studied the Great Depression extensively, and had come to the conclusion with hard data and statistical analysis that New Deal methods were indeed effective. But here’s the problem…when unemployment was reduced from 25% to 10%, it was assumed that the Great Depression was over, so government spending was greatly reduced. Unfortunately, this caused the economy’s recovery momentum to stall…until the globalization of World War II. Then government spending and national sacrifice increased dramatically for a full-employment, totally-focused war effort. At the end of WWII, our economy emerged with new strength and confidence to bring an era of unprecedented innovation and prosperity.

So, here’s the reason this is important today…the evidence is clear that recovery from the Great Depression was achieved through massive government spending, uncompromising focus, and universal sacrifice. While the policies of the New Deal were unable to move us through recovery, these New Deal methods were mandated as a part of the war effort…and they did work. We’re wasting our time in debating whether the New Deal worked…recovery from the Great Depression came through spending, focus and sacrifice. What if we decided to start our conversations with this assumption, and then asked our neighbors to deliberate on how we spend precious government dollars wisely, how we create a laser-like focus on effective recovery, and how we inspire all Americans to choose sacrifice rather than privilege? I’m hoping we can decide our way out of this crisis rather than fight our way out through another awful war.

Posted by deliber8ca at 04:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Our current economic crisis is being called ‘a perfect storm’ by some columnists and experts. That’s probably accurate. A crisis this deep and this pervasive cannot be created by just one or two errors in judgment, but requires a series of short-sighted decisions that each brought their own unintended consequences.

Recently the ‘invisible hand’ Adam Smith wrote about as the guiding principle of free-market economics has been slapping us around rather than meeting our needs. In his Inaugural Address, President Obama reminded us that the market place is unmatched in its “power to generate wealth and expand freedom.” The critical trade-off he then adds brings the mandate to discuss a new role of government, saying, “this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control.”

What kind of ‘watchful eye’ will serve our immediate or long-term needs? We clearly don’t know. Plenty of ‘experts’ have their opinions, but none of them were capable of seeing the edge of the cliff fast approaching before the economy took a dive last fall. In my view, we don’t know because we haven’t asked the question before now.

I’m proposing that our people need to define a new, 21^st century role for government. Again from the President’s speech, “the question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works….” My assumption is that our new President meant the ‘we’ in this statement as an inclusive public rather than an elite cadre of experts. If my assumption is correct, we need to get busy as a deliberative community to support this critical conversation.

I believe the topic can be framed for deliberation within the next 5 months for NIF practitioners around the country to use on the July 4^th weekend: ‘The Role of Government in the National Economy.’ We’ll have no problem in populating our forums…our people already have some deeply-held and diverse opinions on the topic. What they need is the opportunity to carefully and respectfully confront the trade-offs in several economically-sound approaches. It could be a very illuminating experience for the public, for elected officials and for the deliberative community.

Posted by deliber8ca at 09:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was watching CNBC sometime last week, and was struck by the amazing gall of the panel of financial experts as they riled at the idea that Congress might actually place some stipulations on the billions of tax-payer dollars they’re dishing off to the banking industry as an essential bailout. All seemed to agree that the bailout money was needed…and fast. At least the most vocal panel members, however, also spoke vehemently about how Congress knows nothing about the banking industry, so they shouldn’t try to ‘run this business.’

I found myself shouting at the TV, saying, ‘Hey, Mr. Expert…neither you nor the banking industry knows how to ‘run this business’ or we wouldn’t be in this mess today!’ In my book, it’s pretty arrogant to tell the biggest single stockholder in a whole sector of the economy to butt out in the discussion of pending decisions. If these experts really wanted Congress to let them alone, all they needed to do was to take care of business in a responsible way in the first place.

Here’s what I consider to be a recurring event: when the people whose responsibility it is to make critical decisions fail to do so, they are amazed and angry when others step in who don’t really know how to ‘run this business.’ They are right that the ‘others’ aren’t well versed in how the business runs, but in the face of total dysfunction someone needed to do something…and they were unwilling to make the tough decisions when a crisis could have been averted.

My dad was a farmer in central California. I remember a conversation we had in the 70s about the increasing threats of pesticide regulations, and what these regulations would mean to the farming business. I recommended a pro-active approach by farmers across the state where they would self-regulate in dramatic ways, crafting policies that would best fit the industry and the public’s demand for care. I remember saying that, if they (the farmers) didn’t create workable regulations, people who didn’t know the unintended and serious consequences of their actions would step into the vacuum to make their best guess at farm and environmental policy. And that’s what happened.

We need a new generation of leaders in the business community who are willing to include the public’s need for responsible decisions on their ‘balance sheet.’ This can also be a part of a conversation I believe is needed to define the role of government in the national economy. If business leaders are unwilling to make the tough decisions, ‘others’ who are less prepared to decide will have to step into the vacuum.

Posted by deliber8ca at 09:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was re-reading a Paul Krugman Op-Ed from Dec 29 08 today. In this article, he was marginally critical of the Governors of all 50 states…more than marginally for some, including ours in CA. In Krugman’s view, the states should be equal partners with the federal government in fueling the financial recovery efforts. Hmmm…nice thought, but it looks to me like the states are no longer capable of this kind of financial partnership.

For at least four decades, our states have been destabilized as the federal government assumed program and tax responsibilities for more and more public services. The positive consequences of this shift of responsibility are significant…and I like many of them. Equality has been advanced. Standardized expectations have been set and have been increased through time. National, ‘big picture’ problems have been tackled with some remarkable successes. But…the states have been destabilized in the process. It’s just another one of those pesky trade-offs that complicate our lives.