Home > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
-
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. -
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.