Home > Blogs > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
-
Will You Risk The Money?
What if the more attention we paid to issues of equity and race, the more supporters and funders of "community causes" dried up? That's the question I posed at two events last week. For me, the issue is whether we are prepared to lose precious support by seeking to see and hear all people in our communities, or will we take the path of least resistance and follow the money?
First, some important context: The ease with which we can actively turn away from those we don't wish to see or hear makes it increasingly difficult to address issues of equity and race. For instance, we can pick and choose our own news on the Internet, screening out unwanted or undesirable stories. Meanwhile, many of us have retreated into close-knit circles of families and friends, essentially turning away from public life and those who are not like us. According to The Big Sort, a new book by Bill Bishop and Robert G. Cushing, more of us are moving into increasingly homogeneous areas. And many people report feeling "fatigued" by pictures and news from one tragic disaster and horrific war after another.
Against this backdrop I found myself face-to-face with these concerns last week. First, in a small conference room over delivered pizza, I met with a handful of incredible school and community change-agents in Baltimore. We talked about their efforts to re-engage parents, neighborhood leaders, businesspeople, and others in support of community-based schools. These change agents believe their current efforts give them a real chance to move beyond lip service in seeking to achieve their goals; but they know that if they are successful, they might just upend the ill-fated status quo in the city and the web of relationships that support it.
Traveling just a handful of blocks to the imposing Baltimore Convention Center, which for me was like entering a parallel universe, I moderated a discussion in a gigantic ballroom filled with nearly 2,000 attendees at the United Way of America Community Leadership Conference. The topic: "Advancing the Common Good."
At the conference, Brian Gallagher, the visionary head of United Way of America, unveiled their new campaign and tagline: LIVE UNITED. It's a terrific approach (a topic I'll leave for another day). But my point is this: to "live united" means seeing and hearing one another; it means that the poor, minorities, people living in particular neighborhoods, would not be pushed aside and be made invisible; that the voices of such people would be heard and heeded; that people's concerns would be on the public agenda and actively addressed. If we were to live in a community united, people would not be seen as victims or wards of the state, somehow incapable of managing their own lives - but as individuals with crucial knowledge and passion and agency.
In both sessions I asked, if funders and donors supporting groups like local United Ways, community foundations, public broadcasting, local education and community groups would continue their support as we aggressively sought to live united - that is, as we worked to see and hear everyone in communities. More to the point will funders and supporters see their discomfort increase as they confront issues and situations that are not easily solved, that are not amendable to simply to giving hand-outs, that require genuine change - even change in relationships and power? Will they balk and backtrack when they realize that to have true impact may mean shifting funding from their "favorite" groups to others whom they do not know and may have dismissed in the past?
If we are serious about seeing and hearing all people - if we wish to act on issues of equity and race - then we must be prepared for some funders and supporters to say, "No, thank you." We must be ready to see some of our money and support pulled. We must know that our very operations must become more ruthlessly focused, and that we may lose support in some quarters before we can marshal new support in others.
Of course, none of this is easy, it is riddled with uncertainty and ambiguity. There are no guarantees that new money and support will follow, even as we pursue a path we know will make our communities stronger and healthier. And we know that in tackling issues of equity and race, progress can be slow, and supporters can become impatient.
But there is a silver lining here. My good friend Paul Light, a thought-leader on high-performing non-profits, says his research shows that Americans will support groups that do good work and produce real impact. To produce impact means that we must turn toward to our communities to understand and work with them; and we must develop new pathways for making progress. When we do, I believe, we will find new supporters and donors - individuals who know we can do better in our society and who themselves yearn to have an impact. But that may require us to let go of the money now in our own grasp to reap the potential benefits of a clear-headed decision.
To explore other key questions facing those working in public life, read Rich's latest essay: Make Hope Real. You can download a free copy from our website. -
A deeply personal note
Frank, one of my best friends, worked for Canter, Fitzgerald and was lost in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11. On this fifth anniversary of that dreadful day, I wonder where we are in our fight against terrorism and in our aspirations to be a better people. But most of all on this day, I keep wondering about him.
I met Frank during the first week of my freshman year at Skidmore College. We were eventual roommates, drinking buddies, tennis partners, and political opponents during heated arguments in Case Center over Leonard Silk’s columns in The New York Times business section. He introduced me to the music of the inimitable Billie Holiday and others, too.
Just under five years ago I was to speak at my 20th college reunion as my classmates and I were set to dedicate a room in Palamountain Hall to Frank. The day came and I just couldn’t bring myself to go. I stayed home.
Like all of us, I remember vividly where I was when I learned of 9/11. I was at home that day too, this time writing a chapter on “civic faith” for a new book. My own faith in our collective ability to respond to events like 9/11 has not waned, even though my amazement at our collective ability to deflect and defer and detach ourselves from real issues has also risen to new heights.
I eventually stopped work on that book so I could write Hope Unraveled, which has a chapter on Americans’ views on the nation’s response to 9/11. The chapter is entitled False Start – in some ways a sorrowful reflection of people’s belief that the nation did not live up to its claims and potential to come together to change public life and politics in the aftermath of 9/11.
But today my desire is not to write about the condition of public life and politics. Today, amid all the non-stop stories and speeches and spectacles about 9/11, I find myself alone in the feeling that I simply miss a friend.
I know it is trite to ask, “Did my good friend Frank die in vein?” Of course he died too soon, at too young an age, robbed of his time with his wife and kids. He was a bystander, caught one-hundred some-odd stories up in a New York City skyscraper, unable to get out, frantically calling loved ones on the phone, knowing that the end was closing in.
Just the other day my wife suggested that I call some college buddies to plan a weekend get-together. My mind immediately went to Frank. I sat there in silence for a time only to eventually shrug my shoulders and respond, “Yeah, maybe.”
But this much I do know. In May of next year will be my 25th college reunion. This time I will go. I will visit the room in Palamountain Hall named in Frank’s honor. And I will sit there alone and think about Frank. There won’t be any fanfare. But my heart will be filled with memories on that day, as it is today, and has been everyday since 9/11. -
Tavis Talks, We Should Listen
Tavis Smiley hit the nail on the head in his recent take on the current public broadcasting brouhaha. The debate is about bias, but not the kind that is often talked about.
In his Sunday Washington Post piece, entitled Left? Right? Wrong! The Misguided CPB Debate, Smiley wrote:While Washington talks about ideological balance, Americans hunger to see programming that reflects their experience and inspires their lives.
Finally, we’re getting some place! For years my own studies of various news media, and my work with journalists in scores of newsrooms, has led me to believe that much of the debate over journalists’ bias has been misguided. For sure, in recent years, some news outlets, such as FOX, have a particular political bent.
But there is a more insidious bias in the new media, one that comes through clearly, for instance, in my upcoming book, Hope Unraveled, to be released this September.
What I have consistently heard Americans upset about when they talk about news bias is a discernable slant toward unnecessary conflict, hype and sensationalism. It is a bias that the positive things that happen in communities are not news, only the bad things. The bias concerns the horse race aspects of politics —who’s up, who’s down, who’s on the way out, and who’s coming in — and not on the essence of the issues that matter to people’s lives.
When working in newsrooms, I was always struck by how many journalists view citizens to be ignorant, and how often journalists seem to think that they must tell people what to think. And yet, what most people want is simply the information they need in order to make their own judgments and conclusions.
My experience also tells me that many of us – we readers, listeners, and viewers of the news – have too often become too lazy. We don’t avail ourselves enough of the good news sources that do exist. We rely on the crutch of saying that all news is biased or worthless or tainted, so what’s the use? This is a topic worth discussing some more.
But for now, let me simply say three cheers for Tavis Smiley stepping forward and setting the record straight. The current debate over public broadcasting merely reflects the same old approach to public discourse and political coverage that many Americans have come to hate. Let’s have a real debate. Let’s talk about whether public broadcasting is fulfilling its actual mission. And in the process, let the news media help us understand this issue and come to our own judgment.
-
Red/Blue Reality?
What happens when you cross “Fear Factor” and American politics? You get the new reality TV show “Red/Blue.” Are you ready?
I really wonder what you think about this one. Some political consultants, supported by the TV production firm whose parent company has brought us “Fear Factor” and “Big Brother,” hope to put a dozen or so budding political consultants in a Georgetown townhouse. Much like MTV’s “Real World,” the place will be wired with cameras to catch the contestants’ every move.
And I’m sure there will be lots of “moves,” with the various consultants each trying to out maneuver the others; each one attempting to demonstrate their skills; each one seeking to out muscle the other. What they’ll do is to emulate the real thing – that is, the real world of political consultants.
Will “Red/Blue” offer us any hope? Will it generate any sense of possibility?
No, it is likely to make a mockery of people’s deep concerns about politics and public life today. People tell me that their reality is not reflected, and sometimes it is even distorted. Well, here’s another chance for that to occur. Why should this program be any different from Fear Factor, where people routinely eat bugs, let snakes swarm all over them, and go underwater for what seems like eternity. Sound like anyone’s reality you know?
“Red/Blue” will only deepen the ingrained narrative in our society that Republicans and Democrats must always be split; that they must engage in a kind of endless “Animal House” food fight; and that each of us is merely a caricature of ourselves.
Is this what we want?
Here’s what I want. I want us to think about being engaged in politics and public life as a noble endeavor. Sure, there are compromises that must be made, tough decisions to undertake, and not everyone will like each other. So what? But the junk they’re sure to include in this show only further debases what is an already sorry state of affairs. It is a cheap shot by a handful of folks out to make a quick buck.
If they want to create a new show about political consultants, let them make one where the contestants have to find ways to constructively, and imaginatively, re-engage people in politics and public life. That would be a worthwhile.
I'm curious, what message would you like to send to the producers of Red/Blue? Click here and share your thoughts. -
Certainty and Certitude
Richard C. Harwood, President, The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation
Last night the Republicans got off to a fast start. They defined key issues they will run on, and how they will run against Senator John Kerry and his Democrats. Both parties have now clearly staked out leadership and character as one of the master narratives in this race. Iraq, the war on terror and the middle class squeeze will provide the substance. When it comes to leadership and character, "courage" has become the central thrust of these campaigns. Senator Kerry has positioned himself in relationship to his "service"; the president, in terms of 9/11 and the war on terror. On Monday night, the Republicans consistently sounded the notion that the president exhibits certainty and certitude, while Senator Kerry flip-flops in his unending uncertainty. In a nation that reflects on its unity in response to 9/11, and which now faces a number of challenges at home and abroad, what does certainty and certitude mean? In this presidential campaign, when does it turn into hubris and arrogance? And what role does humility play in all this -- and how might humility be exhibited in these uncertain times?
For me, courage is the ability to put a stake in the ground -- to have the willingness to articulate one's convictions clearly and concisely. This is the opposite of heated or angry rhetoric; of false bravado; of beating one's breasts in a show of strength. It is in opposition to obfuscating one's positions through double-talk and half truths, of trying to skirt responsibility for decisions and actions of the past. A person must show their face. Pretending is not part of the package. But there is another part of this. Importantly, it seems to me, courage without humility is almost impossible. And yet, so often when people seek to exercise humility it is in the form of lip service – a kind of feigned attempt at humility, one filled with practiced posturing and empty rhetoric. But humility requires a certain kind of openness: to see that one individual or party (or nation?) does not have all of the answers; that one cannot go it alone; that one must work with others. It calls upon people to demonstrate that they have learned insights in the course of their experience, and that they are willing to apply those insights in their lives, even if that means changing course or position in public. So, what does certainty and certitude mean these days? How should we think about them in terms of how our nation struggles with issues and looks upon these candidates and their campaigns? When does it serve to divide us, and how can it be used to unite us? -
Facts Aren't The Whole Story
I went to see Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend. It was a powerful movie. For those people who already believe the War in Iraq was a bad move, it only gives more ammunition to confirm their position. And yet, as I watched the film I found myself deeply disturbed. The film distorted certain facts by providing little context; used editing techniques to suggest seamless connections that actually were "jumps in logic"; pulled at people's heart strings (my own included) and yet did not give any air time to the complex issues surrounding Iraq and terrorism. In fact, it was not so much an argument or a helpful illumination of a tough situation as it was a long campaign message – only this time I had to pay to get in. It succeeded in squeezing out any ambiguity of a situation riddled by inherent tensions and competing options.
Recently, the Washington Post ran an article that showed how George Bush and John Kerry routinely use different facts to talk about the economy. Kerry emphasizes that 1.8 million jobs have been lost and that newly-created jobs pay less. George Bush argues that the economy is on the move, producing new jobs in recent months and showing signs of recovery. The story showed how both sets of facts are true. And yet both candidates argue as if the other set of facts simply do not exist.
There’s been a lot of talk about fact-checking during this campaign. The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania has an entire website devoted to checking the facts on every political ad that appears on the air or in print. Accuracy is an important piece of running a campaign, but we must focus on what creates genuine accuracy. Focusing on single facts alone never reveals the whole story. In a country where we are told we are divided, the question is whether people can see beyond their existing arguments; whether they can consider the full picture and its competing factors; whether they are willing to learn anything new about a situation; whether they can break through to reach some new common ground.
So long as public discourse revolves around distorted facts, and so long as it plays with people’s context, we undermine people's sense of reality. This causes people either to opt out of public life entirely (see the 50% of people who don’t vote) or to simply choose up sides before engaging. It allows all of us to lock into positions before hearing another side. Both Michael Moore's film and the Bush/Kerry ads would benefit greatly if they told people the whole story and then made their argument from there. If they said, "Look, here's what is really going on with the economy -- the good, the bad and the ugly -- and why I think my opponent's proposals won't succeed in taking us forward, and why mine will." Then people won’t feel as if they are being so manipulated. They won't feel that the only choice they have is to latch on to one limited position or another, simply because there is no viable alternative. Then they won't feel that their reality has been distorted simply because someone wants to pursue their own point -- at any cost. We are indeed divided on many issues. But we are needlessly divided at times -- concocting arguments, stories, and out-of-context facts that push us into corners, inflame our irrational emotions, and strike fear into us. We need to start with the whole story and argue from there. So, let's have a real debate about issues such as the War in Iraq and the economy (and others). Let the real arguments fly. Then let's see where the chips may fall. -
Engaging Imagination
There's more brouhaha over the "great divide" in America. Since writing last, I have continued to see a string of stories in the news on this topic.
With each story another observer comes forward with their own analysis, suggesting yet another division that plagues our woeful society. It's amazing the nation is still standing.
Here are a couple of examples to mull over as you try to keep the pieces of the divided nation together:
David Brooks in The New York Times explains his belief that the divide between "Managers" (Red People) and the "Knowledge Class" (Blue People) influences views on leadership.Knowledge-class types are more likely to value leaders who possess what may be called university skills: the ability to read and digest large amounts of information and discuss their way through to a nuanced solution. Democratic administrations tend to value self-expression over self-discipline. Democratic candidates - from Clinton to Kerry - often run late.
Managers are more likely to value leaders whom they see as simple, straight-talking men and women of faith. They prize leaders who are good at managing people, not just ideas. They are more likely to distrust those who seem overly intellectual or narcissistically self-reflective.
In other words, along with the policy and cultural differences that divide the groups, there are disagreements on these crucial questions: Which talents should we admire most? Which path to wisdom is right? Which sort of person deserves the highest status?
Kevin Drum had this to say about Amy Sullivan's account of making small talk about the Left Behind books at a cocktail party with Washington Evangelicals:I know the conventional wisdom these days says that the single most reliable determinant of voting is church attendance (the more you attend church, the more likely you are to vote Republican), but it's anecdotes like this that continue to convince me that the real divide in America is rural/urban, not secular/religious. Sure, you need to be pretty religious for the Left Behind books to appeal to you in the first place, but even at that its admirers are mostly in small town America. Urban folks, even the most strongly religious of them, are mostly too elite to be anything but embarrassed by this kind of stuff.
In fact, I often get the feeling that urban conservative intellectuals - i.e., most of the ones who actually write about this stuff - are faking it when they write about socially conservative causes. They may be able to peck out an austere intellectual argument that gays are bad and faith healing is authentic Americana, but they aren't true believers. They act like someone who extols the virtues of tofu burgers in public because they own stock in a tofu company, but then sneaks out to McDonald's when no one is looking.
I'm sort of rambling here. Sorry. It's just that this subject never really seems to get quite the attention it deserves. Among all the talk of liberal/conservative, religious/secular, east/west, and white/nonwhite, I still think the real core social divide in America is between big cities and small towns. Get a few beers into them, and even the urban conservatives would probably admit that they think their core supporters in Middle America are a bunch of hicks. And don't even get me started on what those rural hicks probably think of David Brooks....
Some of the stories on the divided nation have been quite good, serious and illuminating. Bill Bishop's articles in the Austin American-Statesman are great examples, and well worth taking the time to register on the site.
But, overall, it's time for most of us to get over this unproductive preoccupation. People will always be divided in one way or another. We live in different places; eat different foods; speak with different accents; pray at different houses of worship; do different things for a living; enjoy different hobbies. Of course, people are different! Is that a surprise to anyone?
The real problem is that given the incredible marketing techniques for divvying up people, we can slice and dice ourselves into oblivion. It's as if there are those people who now look for divisions because they can. What's more, lots of people make lots of money by playing off of these divisions.
But just because we can find differences among us doesn't mean we must be divided politically. But, for now, we're stuck in a master narrative of division, the refrain of which is, "We Are Divided!"
How to get beyond the current stalemate? The political dynamic needs a serious shake up. The core challenge is one of imagination. We must be willing to engage it. So, to help people imagine and act for the public good, there are three fundamental questions I want the news media, civic groups and political candidates to engage people on:
1. Can I see beyond where we are? 2. Is politics and public life more than just about me? 3. Do we believe in ourselves? Do we hold a civic faith?
Of course, none of this is happening in the presidential race. Instead, the campaigns, news media and others all constantly work to divvy people up and play on their differences. That's politics. But I'm hoping that one of the candidates, even more of the news media, and many civic organizations figure out that shaking up the current environment and exploring what binds us together is a better course than dividing us into fragmented armies of self-interested combatants. -
The Stain of Red and Blue
A column of mine on the growing stain of red and blue appeared in the Christan Science Monitor yesterday. You can read it here. As always, I appreciate any comments you have on the piece. -
Separate and Divided - A Challenge
Here in my adopted home state of Maryland, the horse known as Smarty Jones recently won the Preakness Stakes, the second leg of the Triple Crown. The race, which I watched, reminded me once again of Ray Rivers, my childhood coach. Mr. Rivers used to drive the tractor around Saratoga Racetrack after each race to smooth out the course. He did this every August during the short, four-week meet for as long as I can remember.
When I listen to the current political debate on the war in Iraq, health care, education and the assortment of other issues, I have this recurring thought. What if I went to Mr. Rivers’ house and filmed him talking about his concerns and hopes. What if I went to a lot of people’s homes?
Then, imagine that I played these clips next to the commercials from the two presidential candidates? I bet you the two sets of tapes would seem as if they are from different planets.
How can that be?
It seems that the presidential candidates’ strategy is to reinforce people’s differences and biases rather than to engage them in envisioning how the nation can move forward. They are locking people into a divided state. There are few real ideas that they ask people to consider. They utterly fail to inspire people to think beyond themselves. They are unwilling to ask people to give of themselves. They merely tell us that we can have whatever we want, without any trade-offs or costs.
If I were to gather in the same room all the people that I filmed, I bet, with a good discussion moderator, that over time they could figure out various ways to deal with issues like health care and education. I know this because I have done it. It wouldn’t be easy; people would get angry; no one would get exactly what they want. There might even be some new taxes involved.
I know campaigns are tough. I’ve worked on over 20 of them myself. But I also know that if the candidates (and those of us as individuals) merely play to our own superficial ideas and fears, this nation will stay divided.
The candidates need to trust the American people a bit more – to be able to engage beyond the superficial. They need to challenge us, too. We need to challenge ourselves. Otherwise we all end up separate and divided. -
Welcome
Welcome! Today is the first installment on my new blog. I’m excited about this venture – talking with you about some ideas I have and hearing about your own.
I’ll be writing about public life, why am I so concerned about it, and how we can place it on an alternate path. To me, public life is about the relationships between and among people and how we individually and collectively act on common problems and hopes.
So much of public life has become about division, fragmentation and negativity; we spend more time pulling things down than we do figuring out how to move ahead. Just look at the current race for the White House. It’s all about “red states versus blue states”; how different everyone is from each other; and how the presidential candidates should spend their time on the 5 or 10 percent of undecided voters.
Sure genuine differences exist between people in the country; but you’d think different Americans are from different planets when you tune into some of the current analysis. Sometimes I think that the people who write and say these things haven’t spent much time in real communities.
One of the key lessons I take away from more than 15 years of working in communities with leaders, organizations and citizens is that people want to engage in public life, shape their future, and make a difference. There will always be differences among us; at issue is how we choose to deal with them. Right now, too many politicians, civic groups, pundits and others exploit these differences for their own gain, rather than engage with them in hopes of producing something productive for society.
What do you think? How divided are we? Are we able to transcend the differences that do exist? What will it take to create a sense of common direction?
I look forward to hearing from you. For my part, I’ll start commenting on these and other questions. There's lots to talk about -- and do.