Home > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
-
A Common Task
Listen to the voices of people who wrote this past week in this space, and those who responded with their comments and an unmistakable message about society can be heard: we must step forward and focus on our values.
People are telling us something important: we have lost sight of the values that bind us together. Sure, there are differences among us; but those differences, as one writer said, mustn’t lead to disintegration. Nor must they lead us to believe that we do not hold in common certain fundamental values from which we can build a common future.
I am now completing my upcoming book on Americans’ views on politics and public life, and it is clear from my travels across this nation that it is our common values that people want to talk about. They want to rediscover such values; what they mean; and how we can act together on them
People want greater truth and forthrightness in our society, loyalty and trust; they want more emphasis placed on values of social fairness and personal responsibility; they want values of community and individual control to be in greater play.
The desire for these values can be heard universally from people throughout the nation. And as you listen to people, you cannot tell whether someone is a Republican or Democrat, or if they attend church or not; nor can you determine the region of the nation from which they hail. And yet these are the neatly packaged divisions that are used daily to separate us from one another.
Each of us must step forward to engage in public life and to repair the breach that stands before us – and we must use our common values in this pursuit. We must make this a personal endeavor and a common task.
One of our writers, Pam Loving, is such a person. The Harwood Institute is working with Pam in Flint, Michigan to help strengthen that community. She has built an awe-inspiring community-based organization to help individuals and families help themselves. The Career Alliance is a major force for change in Flint, and Pam has gathered around her an amazing network of staff, supporters, neighbors, funders, and others to tap into and express their common values.
Pam’s work is not for the feint of heart. Flint is a beat up town, down on its luck. It’s hard to make progress, much less see any. Many of us may never have the opportunity to build such an organization. But all of us can follow in Pam’s footsteps in our own way.
In this book that I am finishing, I write about the importance of ordinary heroes in our lives. Pam is a hero of mine. Here, I am not referring to those individuals who undertake superhuman tasks, but rather those among us, like Pam, who step forward and find ways to exercise the values we hold in common.
Let me know where you see people stepping forward and exercising such values. -
The Next Chapter
This entry is the introduction to the inauguration week discussion, and will remain the first post throughout the week, please scroll down for the newest posts
Richard C. Harwood, President, The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation
The inauguration is an opportunity for the President to declare a path for the nation for the next four years. At its best, the rhetoric of the inauguration calls us to action – from President Kennedy imploring citizens to “ask what you can do for your country” to President Bush asking us in 2000 to be “citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character.” The theme of this year’s inauguration is, “Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service”. As we honor the service and sacrifices of the men and women of the armed forces, it is important to remember the words of Lincoln at Gettysburg – that we all must be “dedicated to the great task remaining before us” for which soldiers died on the field of battle and gave their “last full measure of devotion.” Inauguration week this year begins with a day celebrating the life of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King built on the words and ideas of Lincoln, turning them into actions and helping to write a new American story. While many in public life seek to manipulate their sound bites to cut through the clutter on the evening news, Dr. King’s genuine words still resonate with people as our nation seeks to fulfill its ideals. At the close of the last election season, both President Bush and Senator Kerry called for Americans to put aside their differences and unite. These were noble words, but they rang hollow after a campaign season riddled by a narrative of division and divisive tactics. Make no mistake, there are real differences of opinion about how best to face the challenges of the nation; but the way in which both sides exploited these divisions at every turn of the campaign, drove people further from public life and from each other. Over the course of my work in public life, I have observed Americans’ response to politics turn from anger and frustration to retreat – withdrawing from a public square that can thrive only with their participation. Too many of us have turned away from political leaders, the news media, and even from each other.
On January 20, President Bush will lay out his vision for his next term. It is time to set an agenda for reversing the people’s retreat and overcoming the pervasive narrative of division if we as a people are to address the unfinished work of the nation. This inauguration week, in the enduring spirit of King and Lincoln, let us start a new chapter of America’s story, one in which people can see, hear, and feel themselves once more.
At present the challenge facing us is where to begin. And so, I ask, what is the first line of this next chapter of America’s story? -
The Crossroads
Guest: Veronica De La Garza, Executive Director, Youth Vote Coalition
In the introduction to the inauguration week discussion, Richard presents one of the challenges facing us is where to begin. The bigger challenge is how do we continue? The first line in the next chapter of America's story lies in our hands, what did the public leadership of this country do with the unprecedented number of American's that voted in November 2004?
No one could have predicted four years ago the events that have transpired in our country. With one single event, 9-11, America united and received the World's condolences and love. Our response to the attacks of 9-11 not only created ill will and hate towards the U.S.A. but it also divided the short unity that existed among its' citizens. Election 2004 brought out many emotions but the most amazing result was the high turnout of voters. Old and young, new voters and frequent voters, Democrats, Independents and Republicans stood in line and showed the country and the public leaders that they cared. As public leaders we begged, we implored this Country to vote and they did. But now it is our job to make sure that we build on the "enduring spirit of King and Lincoln." Not only do we need to start a "chapter of America's story, one in which people can see, hear and feel themselves once more" but we need to make sure they can see, hear and feel others once more.
We are in a crossroads, we can retreat or we can fight to make this a Government and a Country of, by and for the People. If we succeed it will be because the public leaders continued the spirit and work, if we fail it will be because we allowed each other to fail. -
Put Every Child Ahead
Guest: Karen Pittman, Executive Director, Forum for Youth Investment
As President Bush begins his second term today, he has an opportunity to set this country on a course of self-healing by starting this next chapter of America’s story, as Pamela Loving suggests, with a question: “What about the Children?” Native American elders check their decisions by reflecting on the impact they will have nine generations out. The rest of us, unfortunately, have difficulty focusing on the children currently in our midst.
What about the children? Is it enough to ask that no child is left behind? As powerful as this mantra has become, especially with the addition of high school tests, it is, on close inspection, a rather passively phrased challenge made even more passive in its transformation from the directive – Leave No Child Behind® – put forth by the Children’s Defense Fund almost a decade ago. But, syntax aside, I would ask whether this challenge is enough to unify the country. As parents of three, I do not recall my husband and I ever being elated that we had simply managed to arrive at our destination with all three children in tow. We might have expected congratulations if, with great personal risk, we had managed to leave no child behind in the fire, the flood, the gang crossfire. We certainly would have extended deep personal thanks if, with great professional effort, a firefighter or rescue worker helped us leave no child behind.
It is time to bring a next generation lens to our decision-making to reinforce the rhetorical commitments we have to children. Is there a compelling reason to put children ahead of tax cuts, especially if those tax cuts disproportionately benefit those whose children will not be left behind and force cuts in community programs, student loans and family supports? Is there a reason not to measure our success by asking whether the lives of those most in need and most at risk have been helped more than the lives of those doing well so that we can not only raise the mean but close the gaps? Is there a reason not to ask policymakers to acknowledge the lesson that middle-class parents know well – that supports cannot stop at 18, that high school success is not the end goal but only the first step towards what is becoming almost a ten-year journey towards the American dream – full employment, own home, own family?
As we heed the President’s challenge to be “citizens, not spectators … building communities of service and a nation of character,” I urge us to understand that that means more than volunteering and values. It means dialogue. We cannot be of service to families and neighborhoods we fear or loathe or simply misunderstand. We cannot put all children ahead if we believe, deep in our hearts, that some – because of their backgrounds or behaviors – are simply not worth the trouble. We cannot be of service to youth if we do not believe they can be of service to us and to themselves. Indeed, have we done so well by our children that we should not consider putting them in charge?
How would we – public officials, business leaders, private taxpayers – make the case for cutting basic services like health insurance, reducing basic supports like community programs, and limiting vital opportunities like college attendance if the judges were not budget makers but young people? Would we be as bold in our projections and justifications if the casualties not only had faces but voices and facts and questions?“The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them..” [Isaiah 11:6, 8-9].
This country has no choice now but to work its way back out of debt, doubt and divisiveness. Our children can help us if we let them. We, as a country do not have the strength to be trusted to make decisions that affect them without their wisdom, oversight and leadership. They have the resolve to take risks and seek results. They have the character to do what is right.
Let the dialogue begin – in red counties and blue. Don’t just focus on leaving no child behind. Put the children ahead. Let the children lead.
Karen Pittman is the executive director of the Forum for Youth Investment, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to helping communities and the nation make sure all young people are "Ready by 21 — ready for work, college and life.™"
-
Healing the Effects
Guest: Audrey Alvarado, Executive Director, National Council of Nonprofit Associations
It is apropos during this presidential inauguration week we are at the same time reflecting on the life of Dr. Martin Luther King. His vision and his impact on the psyche of American society cannot be overstated. Our remembrance of his life’s work forces us to assess how far we have come (or not come) to realize the dream he laid out for us and our country.
In many of Dr. King’s messages he spoke of the inherent contradictions that permeate our society. America’s history has been filled with greed and hollow promises and at the same time filled with unbelievable generosity and commitment. The outpouring of generosity and concern, some may even call love, during times of crises reveal the connections we have regardless of those differences that keep us apart during our daily routines. In Dr. King’s book, Stride Toward Freedom, he stated “There must be a rhythmic alternation between attacking the causes and healing the effects.”
The next chapter for the America story is one that must seek to advance the messages of Dr. King and others like him. If so doing we are tapping the core of what makes us human and humane. Many of us in the nonprofit sector remain committed to this message and we can start by holding firm to his ideals. In so doing we make it possible to write a chapter that even Dr. King would be proud of.
Dr. Alvardo is Executive Director of the National Council of Nonprofit Associations, which advances the vital role and capacity of the nonprofit sector in civil society and supports and give voice to state and regional associations of nonprofit organizations.
-
Finding Greatness
Richard C. Harwood, President, The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation
I was moved when reading the comments of my colleagues. And they reminded me of an important theme for our country now: the need to reclaim a sense of greatness. I do not mean, here, a kind of testosterone-driven, myopic, inward-looking agenda. We have enough of that already. Indeed, I intend quite the opposite
One of the biggest challenges facing the nation today is whether we, as a people, can move beyond ourselves, to engage in public work and relationships that ask us to look beyond our close-knit circles of family and friends. For instance, when J.D. Hoye and Pam Loving talk about focusing on children, they are asking, I believe, whether we can give of ourselves to others we do not know. They are wondering whether we will invest in something from which we may not directly benefit. They are seeing whether we, as a society, can muster the wherewithal to care about one another.
Yes, I agree with Bill Bishop that we hear too much of our individual selves in politics and public life; what is missing, for me, is that we do not hear our collective selves. We focus on our individual wants and needs. And yet, all of my work suggests that people hold an innate desire to belong to something larger than themselves; that most of us want to do what is right; that we want to be held in high esteem by others. But so many of our words and deeds in society mitigate these desires; we are told, in essence, not to worry about them or even act on them. Our renewed sense of greatness would tap into these innate desires and call us forward. We would be reminded of what already exists within each of us, and we would activate those sentiments and exercise them.
But let me be clear: any “vision” about the future must be rooted in today’s reality. This is essential. For a vision must grow out of what people are experiencing in their lives and the nation, and then in seeking to move us forward it must respond to those experiences. That was, in part, the beauty of Lincoln and King; they understood the reality in which they lived and the challenges before them. A vision that is detached from reality – one that seeks to remake reality in some other image or to dismiss reality in one way or another – will lack currency and meaning. Then people will remain in their homogenous clans, waiting only for the next idea to make their own lives better, possibly ignoring those ideas in the name of the public good.
My colleagues and others to whom I have been listening are telling us something. It is not first and foremost about policies or politics; it is about ourselves. -
Waltz of the Flowers
Guest: Bill Bishop, Reporter, Austin American-Statesman
I read on humanflowerproject.com that the flower decorations at the inauguration’s “Democracy Ball” will be only shades of red. Perfect. That’s the meaning of democracy these days: we keep all the red flowers over here, all the blue flowers over there and all the gold flowers in another spot.
For the past seven presidential elections, Americans have been sorting themselves into monochromatic communities. By the end of the 2004 election, Americans were more politically segregated than at any time since the end of World War II. Half of U.S. voters (well, really 48.3%) live in counties where either George Bush or John Kerry won by 20 percentage points or more. In 1976, only a quarter of the population lived in one of these landslide counties.
This is no statistical anomaly. Whether you look at the members of Congress or the members of your church, most of society is curling up in the comfort of like-minded company. Peter Levine says this division may be “somewhat artificial and overstated,” and is brought on largely by a polarizing president. Our sense here is that Lubbock, Texas, really is different from Boston. It ain’t our imagination. These differences are real, they are deep and they aren’t caused by elites.
Richard Harwood asks if the next chapter in American history will be “one in which people can see, hear, and feel themselves once more.” In one sense, however, we’re hearing too much of ourselves. We hear so much of ourselves and those who think as we do that we can’t believe there are others who might have different opinions. This phenomenon is caused, in part, by an increasing tendency for people to live in like-minded communities.
Political segregation has been a part of the country’s struggles from the beginning. And from the beginning, the country established a government that forced people from different places with different opinions to meet and to compromise. Heterogeneity — flowers of different colors — was seen as a creative force rather than a weakness. I don’t expect “leaders” to help us retrieve our tradition of heterogeneity. The 2004 campaign, after all, was run in a way that fed off the polarization that existed in the country.
Like most good things, this is a do it yourself job. We either do it ourselves, or it won’t get done. -
Setting Out Together
Guest: Diana Aviv, President/CEO, Independent Sector
This week marks the 55th Presidential Inauguration. For some, it is a time of celebration, for others, apprehension. For all of us, it is an opportunity to refine priorities, voice concerns, and begin the important work of shaping our collective future. If you want to be part of history, you cannot watch from the sidelines. You have to make history happen. And how do we do that? By learning about the issues that affect our lives and impact our democracy, by getting involved, by helping set our national course, and by writing the next chapter in America’s history through our words and deeds.
There are some very big challenges on America's communal table: a massive federal deficit in the face of undiminished domestic needs; deep concerns about the casualties caused by our continued engagement in Iraq; and an ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots.
At the core of resolving these issues is our collective understanding of the social compact between the governors and the governed. The answer we seek cannot be determined by a few. An active and engaged citizenry is critical as we move forward, and we are certain to travel furthest if we set out together. -
A New Greatest Generation
Guest: Michael Weiksner, Chairman, e-thepeople
A version of the "call to service" section of the President's inaugural speech:
"We live in an era of unprecedented change. We face great challenges. After September 11, we all awakened to the new threats to our very security here at home. Yet, we have awesome opportunities too. In our lifetime, we have the potential to end global poverty and cure AIDS.
How can we rise up to these great challenges and realize the awesome opportunities before us?
We need a new greatest generation. Like the great generations before it, we must draw on the courage and leadership that has characterized the American people since the Revolution. We must continue to be the most innovative nation in history, to create the new technologies required to meet the needs of our complex world. And like the great World War II generation, we may be called to defend freedom against tyranny on the battlefield.
But courage, leadership, innovation and even victory on the battlefield is not enough: this new greatest generation must redefine Americans as the new global citizen. The inevitable changes we face are hard to accept here at home and around the globe. I call on all Americans--politicians, CEOs, professors, yes, but also farmers, mechanics, single mothers--to listen and to lead. If we truly engage with each other and the world, then all may participate in the advance of freedom and democracy and we can rightfully earn our place in history as the greatest generation." -
Finding What Matters
Guest: J.D. Hoye, President, Keep The Change, Inc.
Reflecting on the 2000 inauguration when President Bush asked us to be “citizens, not spectators; citizens, not subjects; responsible citizens building communities of service and a nation of character,” one might see the irony in our current situation in Iraq and our desire to be seen as citizens of the world.
Over the last four years I have seen an ever-increasing desire from community-based leaders to improve their communities. This is most often expressed by describing how they wish that the lives of their children could improve, and that their futures have greater promise.
Perhaps the disappointment, and thus the apathy, is simply tied to hearing what our leaders say versus seeing their actions. This lack of alignment causes us to lose inspiration to make positive community changes ourselves.
Our citizens must have faith that what is asked of them matters; that there is a place to participate in helping improve our community’s future in a lasting way, and that we are emulating that noble purpose as demonstrated by our country’s leaders.
The first line in this “next chapter” of American life is to educate and train every child as though he or she was our own, and to prepare him or her to participate fully in our global economy. We need to honor all cultures of the world by envisioning a better world through cooperation, understanding, and actions that demonstrate the realization that we are all in this together.
I sincerely hope that this inauguration speech of 2005 is followed by high-profile deeds and actions that encourage and acknowledge a greater community-based leadership approach to secure a future of hope and opportunity for all our children.
J.D. Hoye has devoted her life to education and workforce development, serving as a counselor and as Associate Superintendent of Oregon's Department of Education. In 1994, she was appointed by President Clinton to head the National Office of School-to-Work. She attended the 2004 National Harwood Public Leadership School . She is also working with The Harwood Institute in its on-the-ground work in Las Vegas, NV -
The Next Generation
Guest: Pamela Loving, President/CEO, Michigan Works, Career Alliance, Inc.
The first line must be: What about the Children?
Pamela Loving is an alumna of The Harwood Public Leadership School. She lives and works in Flint, MI, where the Career Alliance seeks to foster systematic reform in workforce development that ensures continuous economic growth for all employers and residents. -
Healing the Breach
Guest: Peter Levine, Deputy Director, CIRCLE, University of MarylandAs President Bush begins his second term, there is a poisonous atmosphere of distrust and division in America. I am not sure that we are divided into two countries, one “red” and one “blue,” whose values fundamentally and enduringly conflict. In One Nation, After All, Alan Wolfe reveals a strong moral center and a great deal of agreement about goals and values. At the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama also emphasized public consensus, but he suggested that reporters and political operatives sometimes promote the appearance of angry disagreement for reasons of their own:
Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America — there's the United States of America.
There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America. The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States.
However, even if our moral and cultural divisions are somewhat artificial and overstated, the fact remains that President Bush is a polarizing figure. According to the 2004 exit polls, 34% of voters “strongly disapprove[d]” of him (while 33% “strongly approve[d]”); 23% were “angry” at the incumbent administration (while 22% were “enthusiastic”); and 60% believed that the president attacked his opponent “unfairly.”
These feelings should disturb the President, even though they did not block him from winning reelection. As long as many people distrust and dislike him, he will have difficulty advancing his controversial domestic agenda. Implementing legislation will be as hard as passing it. For example, regardless of the merits of No Child Left Behind, this radical educational reform simply cannot work as long as most teachers and school administrators view it as an attack on them.
Besides, pervasive distrust and polarization can diminish Americans’ civic capacity. According to the Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow, when a large segment of the electorate loses “confidence in public leaders” (as happened during the Johnson and Nixon era), they also lose faith in their fellow citizens. We then become less able to address our social and civic problems together. Therefore, a great president would seek to “heal the breach” in the interest of democracy.
Incidentally, turnout was exceptionally high in the 2004 election, but that does not mean that our civic capacity is high. Distrust can powerfully motivate people to vote but then block them from working together.
Wuthnow advises that “deliberate repair work needs to be done to restore trust that has been damaged by broken promises, disrupted relationships, and fragmented self-images. If it is valid to say that being in love means never having to say you’re sorry, then it is appropriate to say that trust does mean saying you’re sorry. This point is worth underscoring because promises can be broken for so many reasons that it may be easy to take responsibility for fulfilling them.”
If the President wished to undertake “deliberate repair work,” then I think he should begin by taking clear and personal responsibility for things that went wrong during his first four years. He would have to acknowledge that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, even though he told the American people and the United Nations that there were such weapons and that they justified war. He would also have to acknowledge that the occupation of Iraq has proven much more difficult and unpopular than he said it would be. He could soften the blow by stating that he had truly believed the rationale he laid out for war; it just did not turn out to be true. He could conclude by calling on all Americans to help make the occupation a success. Ideally, he would explain what we can do to help.
Such a speech would be an interesting test of his opponents’ fairness. To some degree, I believe, liberal Americans are prejudiced against George W. Bush because of his accent, his demeanor, and his overt religiosity. Some despised him before he made any controversial decisions. In the exit polls four years ago, one quarter of voters said they would be “scared” if Bush won. However, even if some Americans began with a bias against him, they can now cite his attitude toward critics and criticisms as evidence that he is belligerent, unreflective, and closed-minded—a dangerous combination in a president. The following exchange (from the April 13, 2004 press conference) reinforces that view:
Q. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet. I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan.
Just this week, in an interview with the Washington Post, Bush interpreted his reelection as a ratification of his Iraq policy, even though the exit polls had showed only 51% of voters in favor of the initial invasion, and 55% said that things were going somewhat or very badly.
Lincoln was also a divisive president; his decisions contributed to a terrible, if necessary, civil war. However, on the occasion of his second inauguration, Lincoln chose to accept some responsibility for the conflict and acknowledged, “Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.”
Presumably, 99.5 percent of professional political advisors would warn President Bush against a Lincolnesque statement of regret. Perhaps they would be right. In Washington, it is important to show that you are confident and disciplined and not interested in negotiation. Nuance can be taken as evidence of a weak bargaining position or a willingness to split the difference. In the Middle East, nuance can be read as a signal that you are about to withdraw your troops. Pundits, opponents, and outright enemies stand ready to pounce.
Lincoln had prepared for his Second Inaugural Address with a lifetime of nuance and painful reflection, so his audience was ready to listen. (Besides, he had just won the war.) It may be too late for George W. Bush to engender trust among his domestic opponents, or even to gain a hearing. If this is true, then his political self-interest would be better served by rousing the conservative “base” with an unyielding, unapologetic speech. Nevertheless, I believe the president could restore trust by accepting responsibility. Both the country and his historical reputation would benefit.