Home > Blogs > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
-
Mayor Bloomberg and the Jews
On Friday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg stood before some 200 people at the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County to set straight a nasty rumor about Senator Barack Obama, intended to strike fear into the hearts of Jews. The rumor holds that Obama is really a Muslim, who will not support Israeli or even American interests. Bloomberg went to South Florida to tell Jews the real story, and his actions lead to this question: Will each of us stand up when our turn comes?
Over the years Bloomberg has not made it a habit to talk publicly about his Jewish faith or ties to the Jewish community. Nor is he an Obama supporter. He even tested the waters for his own presidential run this year, and he is known to be close to Senator John McCain. But according to The New York Times, Bloomberg told the Palm Beach crowd that the rumors about Obama represent "wedge politics at its worse, and we have to reject it - loudly, clearly and unequivocally."
In Make Hope Real, I dedicated Chapter 3 to what I call, "A New Breed of Leaders," and included Bloomberg among individuals who are exhibiting a new, promising kind of leadership.
"The new leaders are people who have highly pragmatic approaches to policy, who seek to find ways to make public life and politics work rather than to disparage it, who vigilantly look for opportunities to engage people in the ongoing process of governing and improving their lives, who try to avoid hyperbolic and heated rhetoric." (pg 26)
But there was another point in that chapter that I have come to believe is just as important. Over and over again, people in communities have asked me, "How communities can get the leaders they need to make public life and communities work?" My response: We must stand by our good leaders when they come under fire, even when we do not agree with their positions or political party when, to vouch for their principles and values.
That's what Bloomberg did last Friday for Obama. Instead of standing on the sidelines watching people take pot shots at Obama, he stepped forward. He did so because he knew that he held special credibility on this issue with fellow Jews; and he knew that many of the people now living in South Florida once lived in his beloved New York City.
The Times quoted Elizabeth Sadwith of Delray Beach as saying, "There was no other evidence, so I believed the [rumor-filled] e-mails." There are many people across America who might make the same statement; indeed, perhaps my 103-year old grandmother from Brooklyn, who now lives in North Miami, has entertained such thoughts.
Whether or not people end up supporting Obama is their personal business. But whisper campaigns to make people fearful must be fought head-on. Bloomberg has done that, and I gratefully and enthusiastically applaud his actions.
Now, the question for each of is: When a good leader comes under fire, will we stand next to them and vouch for their integrity and good will, even if we do not agree with a particular position or their party?
If we want to change public life and politics, then more of us will need to follow Mayor Bloomberg's lead.Download Make Hope Real
and learn more about this new breed of leaders -
The Red Phone
It's jolting and ominous. Indeed, the dueling Clinton-Obama "red phone" ads are a throw-back to previous eras, a time of the cold war, a bear in the woods, daisies and detonation. The red phone is an icon of fear, often used when other arguments fail. But that's just it: the red phone is about the past. I want to look to the future, one rooted in our present-day reality.
This campaign has given us Senator Obama, who has captured many people's imagination; Senator Clinton, who has demonstrated just how tough she is; and Senator McCain, an American hero. But my concern here is not about media buys, "get out the vote" operations, or how to excite people and motivate them to vote. I have no problem with tough-minded ads.
My concern is that I want candidates who call us to look to the future by genuinely reflecting and understanding the present. We're squarely barreling into the 21st Century, whether we like it or not and things have changed dramatically from the 1990s, or even from 2004. For instance:• In just the past few years the auto industry has undergone a total makeover, well beyond changes in the 1980s and 90s. With tens of thousands of workers recently laid off or bought out, the auto industry of the future is not the one of our childhood.
• The Internet has altered how we get information and news and with whom we connect, changing what and who we know, and how communities function.
• While younger Americans are re-entering politics, the huge baby boomer generation is retiring and seeking meaningful things to do; yet no one is clearly proposing how to tap into this energy, other than to say, "Vote for me!"
• National security issues have fundamentally changed in the last eight years, with terrorism, the further emergence of China, an increasingly testy Russia, just to mention top-of-the-head issues.
With fundamental shifts taking place in this country and around the world, old discussions about the same old issues won’t work. Nor will simply updating various policy proposals, arguing endlessly about who voted for NAFTA and what they think today, or talking about speeches vs. solutions.
I remember sitting in a restaurant in New Hampshire in 1995 with a group of citizens I was interviewing for a project with the Pew Center for Civic Journalism. The project was built around listening to Americans talk about their concerns and hopes. People talked movingly and with deep frustration about how their factory jobs had gone overseas. They were clear that something was changing in America, but weren’t exactly sure what, and they were holding on for dear life to the past. Of course, that's not uncommon, we all do that.
But there's little doubt today that the world has gone through a major transformation and that we are not returning to the 1980s, or even the 1990s. What's more, no president alone can shape the future, or craft a new, complete and cogent narrative for the nation. Such changes emerge only over time. And yet, a candidate for the presidency and future president can help us "turn" toward the future, so that we can begin to see it and address it. You see, the fundamental choice before us is not simply a matter of debating one policy or another, but a choice about our orientation concerning the next leg of our common journey.
When I was 23 years old, several presidents ago, I was a young aide to senior staff for the Mondale for President Campaign. That campaign also produced a red phone television ad, one used against Senator Gary Hart (D-CO). Just a few short years later, in 1987, I made the decision to start what has become The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation, in part because I felt that politics had become more about striking fear into people's hearts, than tapping into their aspirations and solving problems.
In many respects, politics is on the upswing this year. The positive changes have been a long-time in the making, a manifestation, I believe, of Americans' long-held aspirations for a better politics and public life. Which leads me back to the red phone: this year's race, I believe, is the first in recent times to be squarely about the new century, about an era already upon us, one which represents a fundamentally different trajectory for our nation. If, as I believe, our trajectory is fundamentally different from eras past, then I want a campaign which talks about that different path and how we can take it.
-
Dear Hillary
I was asked during the Q&A session following a speech last Thursday what tactics I'd suggest you embrace given Senator Barack Obama's ascendancy. I write this before anyone has cast a vote in Wisconsin, though what I have to say would be the same whether you ultimately win or lose. My chief goal here is not to pretend to be your campaign consultant, because I'm not. Rather, I simply want to let you know what I told the person who asked the question.
Attacking hope won't get you where you want to go. The emerging response to Senator Obama by both you and Senator McCain has been to try and undermine notions of "hope" that he has spoken about. But attacking "hope" as a fluffy concept that won't put food on people’s tables or keep jobs in America denies something of critical importance to many Americans. People are in search of something that has been missing in our society for far too long. And, there is, indeed a huge difference between false hope and authentic hope, something I have written and spoken about extensively. But don't make us cynical about "hope" as you seek the presidency. Disagree with your opponents on substantive matters in ways that let people draw their own conclusions about hope; otherwise, you might win but have little hope within the nation on which to build change.
Go into an empty room and name three defining characteristics of your candidacy. My advice to you is the same advice I give to leaders and public innovators across the nation: find an empty room, go into it alone, decompress for an hour or two, and then pull out a small sheet of paper and write down three key defining issues or characteristics of your candidacy. I say "three" because people and often leaders too need clarity about the purpose of our efforts and about what motivates us. You often say that you have 35 years of public service. Tell us about it. Keep it short. Make it about the nation’s future and why you're the one to lead. Currently, you’re offering people a series of fragments which don't add up to a cogent narrative.
Where do you want to go? I know you have numerous policy papers, and that you can speak fluently about your positions. But, Senator Clinton, the main problem you face is the very one you yourself identified in your New Hampshire victory speech: you must find your own voice. Right now your tactics, such as attacking hope or arguing with Senator Obama over details of health care plans, are all people see and hear. Maybe these tactics will work in the short run, but a successful campaign cannot be built on them. You must give rise to a clear narrative about the path you seek to pursue: where did you come from, why are you here, and where do you want to go.
Next, kick your advisors off the plane. I don't know for sure, but my sense is that you have a lot of people yelling in your ear and pulling at you. It's too much. Get rid of some (many) of these folks and go with the three ideas from above; use your own voice; get rid of the noise. Now, I've worked on quite a few campaigns myself, and I know it's not as simple as I'm suggesting. But I've seen many candidates soar when they’ve freed themselves from their advisors and opened up their own voice. Too much advice leads to too many tactics; that's not what you need.
Now, last week, when this person asked me the question about you, they seemed to want to know why you weren’t doing better, and why there was this growing Obama-frenzy across the country. I don't profess to know the answers to all these questions, but what I found myself saying to this individual was that I have followed your career, had met you once in the Governor's mansion in Arkansas, and that I believe that you hold very deep convictions about public life and the welfare of society. Yet these convictions often seem to be missing from your campaign.
Literally, as I write this last sentence, I received an e-mail from a colleague in my office which suggests that the Wisconsin race is now tightening. No matter whether you win or lose I hope you will consider your path ahead. What you do is important - to yourself, the nation, and the condition of public life. -
Where Will You Stand?
Let’s start with Monday’s news. In his endorsement of Barack Obama, Senator Ted Kennedy sought to position the young candidate alongside his brothers, John and Bobby, both of whom sought to usher in a new day in politics, one infused with service and idealism rather than triangulation and fear. Now, once again, there’s something undeniable emerging across the nation: a new breed of leader who sees public life and politics differently. Two basic questions stand before us with concern to this new breed of leader, and only you and I and others like us hold the answers to these questions.
Whether Barack Obama is one of these new leaders remains to be seen. But there is a growing cadre of such leaders dotting the American landscape including, for instance, mayors such as Cory Booker (Newark), Adrian Fenty (DC), Jay Williams, (Youngstown) and, yes, Michael Bloomberg (New York City). In my essay Make Hope Real, I write about this new breed of leaders as:
“…people who have highly pragmatic approaches to policy, who seek to find ways to make public life and politics work rather than to disparage it, who vigilantly look for opportunities to engage people in the ongoing process of governing and improving their lives, who try to avoid hyperbolic and heated rhetoric.”
If we truly want to usher in a new day in public life and politics, each of us will need to answer two fundamental questions:
1. Will we stand by these new leaders when they come under fire? At issue is whether or not we literally stand beside these leaders and vouch for their integrity, even when we do not agree with a particular position. Will we say clearly that, we and others will not stand for scurrilous and mean-spirited attacks against them?
Our willingness to stand beside this new breed of leader is essential if we want the trail-blazers to succeed and additional individuals to step forward. The task before us is to create the conditions for the new breed of leader to emerge, engage, and sustain their efforts. Each of us, hand-in-hand with others, can make this happen.
2. Will we assume our own role as public innovators? No matter how good or inspiring an elected leader might be, no matter how much hope they might engender, the reality is that the majority of the actual work to be done in our communities and the nation must be done by us.
Each of us must continue our own good work, but we must also cultivate new public innovators so that we have more public allies; create new pockets of change that ripple out and produce greater impact; and transform various groups and institutions into catalytic, boundary-spanning organizations that can incubate change and bring people together. If we are to make real the hope of this new breed of leaders, then we must do this.In recent weeks I’ve received a lot of phone calls, emails and notes from people asking me if I’m excited about how the current presidential race is unfolding, with its emphasis on “hope and change,” long-standing hallmarks of our work here at the Institute. Yes, I’m excited about the growing sense of possibility, but I am also old enough now to know that we cannot pin our hopes for change on one individual in the White House. For presidents come and go; the true measure of hope is whether it resides in the houses of people all across
Let us seize this moment in history and support the new breed of leader emerging across America, and take our own place in this unfolding story to make hope real in all our communities.
-
Do You Have a "Deserving" Family?
This was my reaction when listening to an ad on WFLR 96.7 FM—a Christian-contemporary station—while driving from
It went on to tell listeners about WFLR’s holiday-season partnership with Aspen Heating and Cooling, and that each listener was now invited to visit the station’s web site (myflr.org) to nominate “one deserving family” who would become eligible to win a new furnace from the good folks at Aspen. The web site says, “Nominations are being accepted until November 7, with the winning family announced on November 14.”
- Since when do we anonymously “nominate” poor neighbors to receive such care? Is this some new kind of charitable approach, where if a well-to-do person deems you needy enough, you can receive help? If not, what then? Are you to stay at home shivering in despair?
- What about the next time the station runs this competition: will they choose to pick three “needy finalists,” who will then go on-air to make their case so the rest of us can pick the winner? Is this the new kind of citizen-driven philanthropy everyone seems to be talking about?
- Exactly what does the phrase “one deserving family” mean? As a child, if your family doesn’t get the new furnace, is your family somehow un-deserving? What happens this winter when your family can’t afford to heat your home?
- Then there’s the obvious question about once people nominate a family, and the “deserving family” wins the new furnace, do we just move on to the next issue? Does one’s limited participation in the station contest fulfill their need to look beyond themselves and be responsible for one another?
For as long as I can remember, there have always been raffles and other efforts to support people in need by groups such as Rotary Clubs, Knights of Columbus and others. But have our marketing, public relations, and other strategies to capture people’s attention run so completely afoul that we’ve lost sight of what is required to make society work? When do our attempts to “game” public life blur our very ability to keep sight of the essence of what brings each of us to our work?I know that simply raising our voices and imploring people to care will not bring about the progress we seek. There is already too much noise and fatigue and isolation in society; attempts to push and cajole people only cause them to retreat further from public life. But is the solution to merely give in to those who say that people won’t care, or that people can’t connect their self-interests with the interests of others, or that people merely want to be left alone? I believe such arguments miss the undercurrents of what’s happening in our society.
People do care. People want to be part of something larger than themselves. People know that we must believe in something deeper than simply unfettered consumerism. Trust and hope and, yes, even love, do matter (as does being ruthlessly strategic in our change efforts!). We must not cede the public square to those who tell us that the only way to engage people is to mimic what happens in a shopping mall.
We can’t control what everyone else does. But we can direct our own efforts and help to create conditions in our communities that root out such cheap gimmicks like holding raffles for “one deserving family.” I know lots of deserving families.
-
Dear Barack:
(Photo: David McNew/Getty Images)Last week the Washington Post ran a front page story that Americans may be too angry to embrace your message of hope, and instead are aching for a heated partisan campaign of division and resentment. I think they’re wrong. But I also believe that you and other leaders who care about hope must be vigilant in how you engage Americans on hope. It is too easy to misstep here and for politics as usual to triumph. Thus I’ve listed below five key points for winning the public fight on hope. Know that my concern here is not your election, though I wish you luck; instead it is the task of rebuilding hope in our land.
One of the most searing insights I have gained from my 20 years of work across the country is the centrality of hope in people’s lives – and also its fragility. I say this after tirelessly seeking new ways for individuals, organizations, and communities to address social ills and act on their aspirations. And yet, the surfacing and expression of hope is uniquely beautiful, enabling people to stand up and step forward even in the face of adversity and when odds are dead set against them. But false hope is insidious, a contagion that breeds skepticism and leads to cynicism the likes of which causes people to retreat and disengage.
There’s been enough false hope in our society, we all know that. Nonetheless, many leaders continue to engage in an assortment of unseemly and nasty games in public life at the expense of our common interests. They tell those of us who care about hope that we should toughen up or get out of their way. The upshot is that those of us who pursue the path of hope – whether we are a presidential candidate or a local public innovator – must marry our conviction for change with the ability to be ruthlessly strategic in our actions. For if we fail in our current attempts to pursue hope, I fear we will squander the opportunity to re-engage and reconnect Americans.
Here, then, are five key points for us to consider in the pursuit of hope – you as presidential candidate and those of us who live in communities across the country.
Key Points for the Pursuit of Hope
1. We must always keep in mind an important distinction when talking about hope: the difference between false hope and authentic hope. Anyone who wishes to be a champion of hope must be clear about maintaining their focus on authentic hope. This will require immense personal discipline not to blur lines into false hope in the name of convenience or easy wins, and to maintain the clarity of purpose among those who surround you so as not to be pushed off course.
2. When opponents question your motivations, go after you on policy, or attack you personally, you must keep focused on authentic hope. The moment you engage in a tit-for-tat in public discourse, you will erode your own authenticity and your claim to authentic hope. BUT, this does not mean that you should never fight back. Indeed you should and must! But when you do, train your arguments on substantive matters and provide clear contrasts of vision. Do not back down; but nor should you fall prey to playing politics as usual if you want your position to be compelling and forthright.
3. Remember that “hope” is a result of your articulated vision and related positions, not proclamations about hope! When notions of hope become overly familiar – that is, when one makes it their stock and trade – it loses meaning and currency. Hope is not a message unto itself, but over time the byproduct of actions we take and results that emerge. Thus I would urge you and others not to overdo talk about hope; instead, people should see hope as a result of the change you wish to bring about. Otherwise, hope can become an empty slogan.
4. As strange as it may sound, none of us “own” hope. We must remember that hope resides within individuals and communities. Hope is the result of people tapping their own potential to make a difference and joining together to forge a common future. Anyone who talks about hope must know that they are merely a messenger or carrier for something larger than themselves. Therefore, when talking about hope, the focus must be on people, always the people. I know this is difficult because talk of hope can be personally intoxicating; I have experienced this in my own small way. We can mistake people’s response to hope to be about ourselves. When we make that mistake, we can lose our way.
5. We must deliver big on a message of change and authentic hope if people are not to fall sway to heated partisan appeals. This requires that we step forward and articulate a clearly different point of view; hold up a mirror to people so they can see their shared realities; make meaningful entreaties to people to re-engage and reconnect. Some people will aggressively attack you and others who take this path; so be it. But if you and the rest of us straddle the fence in presenting an alternative; if we seem to be accommodating special interests under the cover of new rhetoric; if attempts are made to soft peddle what must be said, then all that will be left is the muddled pursuit of hope. Then people will reach for partisanship and its fleeting comfort of surety rather than our lukewarm hope.
I should say that I admire anyone who steps forward to illuminate possible pathways toward authentic hope. I know that attempts to generate deep change on issues before us will not yield immediate results; but I also know that we can and must place a stake in the ground about what we value and how we seek to move ahead. My own belief is that our task now is to make hope real for people. This too is a long-term endeavor. And no doubt there will be many enemies of the public good who will try to block us along the way. But people are waiting.
-
Listen to the voice from Iowa
This past weekend, as I drove up to my house, there on the radio was Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack being interviewed on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. I put the car into park and didn’t move for the next five minutes. Vilsack is the first Democrat to announce his candidacy for U.S. president. His voice is refreshing – and needed.
Listen to him and you hear someone who is not so polished and practiced that you’re wondering what he just told you or whether he believes it. Nor does he pretend to be the “anti-politician” from outside Washington, D.C. – with all the usual blustery rhetoric, finger-pointing, and tough talk.
Instead, look at his announcement speech and you will find phrases and words such as “let us face the facts” and “let us speak truth” and “that is why I am here today.” He is plainspoken, but not offering up simple solutions.
Nor is he simply interested in tilting at windmills. Acknowledging his standing in what will be a crowded Democratic field, he stated: “I have always been the underdog and long shot. And I have always been inspired by stories of ordinary people who struggled, but ultimately succeeded.”
Look again at his words and sentiments which I just quoted. Nowhere in this speech does Vilsack tell the typical story of the man who overcomes all adversity to become a hero; or, the story of the ordinary person doing extraordinary things, as we so often hear from politicians, pundits, and media-types. Rather, Vilsack understands that it is in everyday life that we must step up and engage and do everyday tasks.
He knows this because of his own story. As he said in his speech, “I began life in an orphanage in the arms of a stranger” and then, as an infant, he was adopted into a home with parents riddled with addictions and strife; but it was there that he found the ability – from his own parents – to struggle and adapt and find redemption.
In Iowa, where so many people may think of a homogenous Midwestern society, Vilsack said in his announcement speech, “You do not have to be raised behind a white picket fence to understand the power of community. Some of America’s strongest communities do not have any white picket fences or even yards for that matter.” Amen.
In his second to last paragraph he stated: “Most of all, I am running for President to replace the anxiety of today with the hope of tomorrow and to guarantee every Americans their birthright: Opportunity.”
Well, Governor Vilsack, only time will tell how your continuing story unfolds. But I sure am glad your voice is in the mix. I hope more and more people can hear it.
To see the video of Governor Vilsack on This Week click: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/ To read his announcement speech click here: -
Election day hubris?
Today, news of the impending “Democratic wave” – a big nationwide electoral sweep – surrounds us. But if this victory comes, what will it mean? My biggest fear, and greatest hope, is that Election Day hubris isn’t the ultimate victor.
Remember the 1994 mid-term elections when Newt Gingrich swept into office with his Contract with America? I wrote at the time (I believe for MSNBC.com) that Gingrich had sorely misread the American electorate. While people didn’t like how President Clinton was governing the country, they didn’t intend for Gingrich to grab control of the steering wheel, change the direction of the country 180 degrees, and floor the accelerator. Soon enough, Gingrich would learn this ugly lesson.
I remember 2004 as well. The day after the election I sat in a small conference room in Madison, WI waiting to go on Wisconsin Public Radio for post-election analysis; there I watched President Bush give his post-Election Day victory speech and claim a broad and deep mandate for his second term. Enough said.
My travels across the nation tell me that people want change; just not the kind our politicians so arrogantly claim. The desire for change Americans’ seek does not fall along partisan lines.
Instead, go into any community and talk to people about the issues that concern them, and usually you cannot tell the difference between who is a Republican and who is a Democrat; in fact, lots of people don’t even identify with either party at all!
Thus I believe that while our politics is polarized, people are not. There is much more that binds us together than that which divides us. Many pollsters are even reporting this week that a broad swath of the American electorate still hasn’t made up its mind about tomorrow’s election.
So, beware Democrats. While you may pick up control of the House of Representatives, and maybe even eek out control of the Senate, don’t misread the meaning of this election.
It’s not simply that many people are upset with one issue or another, or that they support one political party over the other, or that they are unhappy with current conditions. No, the origins of people’s misgivings about politics and public life go much farther back.
People’s concerns have been bubbling up and taking shape for over fifteen years now. These concerns go to the heart of the meaning of politics and public life in people’s daily lives – whether it reflects their reality; whether it provides any sense of possibility; whether it engages people as citizens who belong to something larger than themselves who can focus on the public good, or are they simply isolated consumers merely concerned about their own good.
My most recent travels for the Hope Unraveled book tour have taken me to Topeka, KS and Binghamton, NY – two relatively small to mid-sized regions, one supposedly in a “Red State,” the other a “Blue State.” But when I sit back and replay the voices of people I met in those communities, I don’t hear the polarized politics we’ve been seeing lately. Instead, I hear people who want to improve their local public schools, revitalize neighborhoods and downtown areas, and deal with the growing gap between the haves and have-nots.
So, let’s hope that when the election results are tallied, a touch of humility and authentic hope is the order of the day. There’s been enough hubris already. -
Can religion bring us together?
This past week in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, I was asked the same question three different times, in three different places, in a matter of hours: “Can religion bring us together in public life and politics?” My response: Yes, but many on the right, and now on the left, must change.
The questions came amid the recent turmoil here and overseas over the cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad. Surely, none of us need to be reminded that religion has been a focal point for social upheaval, war and division from generation to generation. This much we know.
So, what about today – as so many people have retreated from public life and politics – can religion help to bring us together in the U.S.?
Not if so many people insist on using religion as a political weapon. Indeed, for decades now, some people and groups on the religious right have sought to frame public debate in highly divisive, acrimonious ways. They have manufactured “wedge” issues to win political battles at any cost.
Feeling the pressure, many people and groups on the political left have decided to publicly “reclaim” God and religiosity. But take a look at their recent rhetoric and you can see that they, too, have fallen prey to a “win at any cost” approach. They routinely demonize Republicans, conservatives, and the president with such broad strokes and repetitiveness that their arguments can seem divorced from reality. The result: They can seem like the mirror image of their so-called enemies on the far right.
Thus, the right and the left have staked out their paths. I am opposed to both of them – and say we need an alternate path.
First, let me point out, that there will always be matters of religious belief and doctrine about which people disagree. I myself am part of a religious minority in this country. I, like so many Americans, want our religious freedoms protected.
Still, last week, I said as clearly as I could that religion should be a force for good in the public square today. Religion can help call us to a higher ground – for instance, it can probe us to consider what it means to love thy neighbor, to be compassionate, to exercise faith (in this case civic faith), to find humility, to open oneself up to grace. Each and all of these notions are in short supply today.
Religious leaders should make entreaties to us to think about these notions; they should challenge us to look at our words and deeds in relationship to them; they should call us to step forward to engage in something larger than ourselves.
The current tone of derisiveness on both the religious right and left fails us. Based on my own travels across America over the past 20 years, I believe Americans are hungry for us to take a different path in public life and politics.
I have faith we can find a different way. How about you? -
The State of Our Union - Listening to Nobody
I watched President Bush and Governor Kaine last night in total shock and awe. Surely, they can’t believe the American people buy what they’re peddling. And members of Congress who keep howling and standing and clapping, surely they must know their posturing is silly. What about the real America?
There were three phrases that framed last night’s speeches: “There is no honor in retreat;” America is a “hopeful society;” and there is “no higher calling than serving others.” Wow! Too bad each of these phrases was maligned, abused, mangled, and appropriated.
The problem is this: I’ve crisscrossed the nation now six times in the last 15 years, and these three phrases, as they were used, simply distort people’s reality. Let’s take each phrase one at a time:- “There is no
honor in retreat” – true enough. This
phrase framed a huge portion of the
president’s message. Unfortunately, much of
America is in retreat. As I’ve outlined in
Hope Unraveled, Americans have told me
that over the last 15 years they have retreated
from public life and politics into close-knit
circles of family and friends. They have done
so because they feel their reality is not
reflected in public life and politics and that
it is often purposefully distorted by, among
others, politicians seeking their own gain.
The phrase, “There is no honor in retreat” should have applied here at home. In fact, it reminded me of when someone turns a phrase on you in an argument – trying to get the upper hand. Last night the president should have engaged Americans in a conversation about how we can reverse our own retreat – here at home. - America is a “hopeful society” – not
in the way this phrase distorted people’s
reality last night. In many respects,
people’s hope has greatly diminished over the
past 15 years or so. Too much “false hope”
is peddled in our society – overblown
expectations, inflated achievements,
unrealistic timelines, and manufactured heroes.
Americans want to be hopeful – but that will
require reflecting their reality, engaging them
on a purposeful path, and acknowledging the
real challenges they face in their daily lives.
People will not be hopeful simply because we proclaim that they are, or because there is a litany of new proposals on the table. Understanding people’s reality, accurately reflecting it, and showing how one’s ideas relate to that reality are all necessary steps to move forward. Few of these could be heard last night. - “There is no higher calling than serving
others” – yes, but too bad that neither the
president nor the governor really talked about
this. They discussed what government needs to
do, what the private sector needs to do, but
never really what each of us as citizens need
to do. Let’s face it; there was no higher
calling last night. Instead, the call went out
that each of us should expect to get all we
want, when we want it, all at a low cost –
and with good, government efficiency!
A hopeful society, a society not in retreat – these require each of us to step up and engage as citizens, to think about our common challenges, to consider how we each must contribute, to see how we are inextricably connected to one another.
I know that Americans want a hopeful society. They believe they must not be in retreat. And they also believe that serving others is a higher calling. So why don’t we start to truly act on those sentiments?
What did you think of the speeches last night? I’d love to hear your thoughts. - “There is no
honor in retreat” – true enough. This
phrase framed a huge portion of the
president’s message. Unfortunately, much of
America is in retreat. As I’ve outlined in
Hope Unraveled, Americans have told me
that over the last 15 years they have retreated
from public life and politics into close-knit
circles of family and friends. They have done
so because they feel their reality is not
reflected in public life and politics and that
it is often purposefully distorted by, among
others, politicians seeking their own gain.
-
Finding Authentic Hope in a Miserable Mess
Today, Scooter Libby, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, was indicted. Those on the political left are calling for heads to roll. Yesterday, those on the political right made their claim to the Supreme Court by undermining the nomination of Harriet Miers, who finally withdrew.
Meanwhile, the national debate over “poverty” in the weeks after Hurricane Katrina is now nowhere to be heard; finger-pointing and blame-placing are the new order of business. And while we can’t seem to rebuild the Gulf Coast, more and more people are wondering how we can continue efforts to rebuild Iraq.
All of this tumult led a reporter on National Public Radio yesterday to say that President Bush is close to being a lame-duck president, if he isn’t already, only some 300 days into his second term. The Democrats, the so-called opposition party, seem only to know what they are against: They are anti-Republican. It is less clear what, if anything, they stand for.
Why am I going through this litany of bad news about our political state of being?
It is not to pile on. Believe me, I have heard clearly and documented at length people’s dismay over the state of politics and public life in our land (see Hope Unraveled: The People’s Retreat and Our Way Back). When people look out into public life and politics, they do not see their reality reflected; worse yet, they feel it has been distorted. That is the bottom line of all of these recent fracases. People have thrown up their hands in disgust and retreated into close-knit circles of family and friends. Who will lead us out of this miserable mess? My answer is plain and simple: We will. By that, I mean there is no one leader who can right our course. Instead, leadership must come from people scattered across our country – from non-profits and community foundations; from United Ways and from faith-based organizations.
It must come from everyday people who make their voice known; who say they want to pursue an alternate path for politics and public life. Believe it or not, the very first step is one of expression – people articulating what they want and believe to one another; people raising their consciousness about the need for a different path; people letting their voices be heard so that their sentiments can bubble up through public opinion polls, talk shows, letters to the editor, and through other venues.
Let me be clear: I believe that the American people would welcome, for instance, a real debate on poverty in the aftermath of Katrina. People sense that something went awry in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast – that so many people were left behind, that so much work must now be done. The question is how can we move ahead? The debate that followed Katrina is a national disgrace – a farce of political discourse and problem solving; a ruse of addressing real issues in America; a hoax of political statesmanship.
Let me be clear: authentic hope is what people seek in politics and public life – not the false hope that so many political leaders, pundits, and pollsters peddle.- Authentic hope comes when we engage with one another, even when we sharply disagree, but despite our differences stay devoted to figuring out a path forward.
- Authentic hope comes when we recognize that change will take time, but that we persevere in our pursuit of the public good.
- Authentic hope comes when we cross the boundaries and dividing lines that people have drawn and insist on maintaining for their own narrow gain, which only keep us separated from each other under false pretense.
- Authentic hope comes when we express clearly our convictions – not as a way to push others away or to denigrate and demonize them, but rather to be clear on our own beliefs and where we stand – all as part of an effort to engage with others, even win for our position.
Authentic hope is what people seek. And its demise is not only to be found in our nation’s capital, but all across America, in towns big and small. People are frustrated over the state of politics and public life.
It is we – people of goodwill, people of the public good, people of civic faith – who must get out of our spectator seats, step forward, raise our voices, and act within our daily spheres of influence to change our course. Real change will take time; but that time will not come unless we make a start. That time is today. Let us begin so we no longer have to reside in this miserable mess. -
Pledges We Must Keep
This Sunday we will mark the fourth anniversary of 9/11. I hold vivid memories of seeing in response to that tragedy Republican and Democratic members of Congress join hands on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and sing God Bless America. What came of our response, and what can we learn in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?
You’ll recall that after 9/11 numerous pledges were made. You could hear people say that our politics would become more productive; news media coverage would become more serious and accurate; and more citizens would become more engaged in community and public affairs.
I’m sure you remember the U.S. flag decals on cars, the blood donations, the singing of patriotic hymns at ballgames and other public events, and the flag pins in newscasters’ lapels. These were indeed potent signs of people’s concern and their desire to act.
But now we know that we did not fulfill all the pledges we made – at least not over time. In fact, next week I will release my new book, Hope Unraveled: The People’s Retreat and Our Way Back, and in the chapter entitled False Start, which is based on conversations held in 2003, Americans talk movingly about their frustration and regret that the nation engaged in a kind of temporary patriotism, only to return to business as usual.
This return to business as usual was witnessed again in the ugliness of the last presidential campaign; it is witnessed today in the fast and furious recriminations over who is to blame for New Orleans.
Yes, New Orleans: here we are, once more, facing a tragedy, one that engulfs the entire nation and its very identity. Already, Americans have gone into high hear to help those in need. Just yesterday, my daughter and her friends put together backpacks filled with supplies and other goodies, along with heartfelt notes, for children miles away now preparing to attend a new school miles from their own homes.
But what will come of our response to New Orleans?- Will this tragedy prompt us to debate the conditions of public schools in New Orleans, or for that matter in any community where they are clearly substandard?
- Will this tragedy cause us to think about why so many people left behind were of one color?
- Will this tragedy cause the news media to reflect on their inclinations to cover this tragedy as if it were an around-the-clock ‘event’ rather than help us to gain perspective on what it means for the people of the Gulf Coast and the rest of us?
- Will this tragedy make us realize that we cannot simply retreat into our close-knit circles of families and friends, but that we need communities?
- Will this tragedy help us to see that we live through an entanglement of relationships, support and obligations?
- Thus, will this tragedy reawaken within us the notion that we must be, and that we are, all part of something larger than ourselves?
Tragedies come and go in our land, and yet oftentimes we stay put in our ways. We make pledges, we call out for change, we point fingers, and we place blame, but how much in the end is changed?
We all must engage in good deeds to help the people of the Gulf Coast. Then let us look at ourselves and make something good out of something so sorrowful. Let us make us pledges to work for the public good; but, this time, let more of us keep these pledges. -
Still Sticking Around?
Have you noticed that a lot of people still have their bumper stickers on their cars from the ’04 election? What’s that about?
An article about the bumper stickers in Sunday’s Washington Post includes an argument from Marshall Blonsky, a professor of semiotics at New York’s Parson School of Design, about why the stickers remain. According to the article:Personal identity is growing increasingly weak, Blonsky argues, and a political label "turbocharges" a weak identity -- as with any team membership (and endless rivalries). With our stickers still up, our war paint is still on -- and, truth be told, the war's not over because the war's not over.
It’s funny, I’ve been wondering about the ’04 bumper stickers for some time now. I see them everywhere – both Bush and Kerry - even some for Nader. After most elections it seems that people rip them off after the requisite period of mourning or celebration; but not after this last one.
Of course, there are some observers who will argue that Americans left their bumper stickers affixed to their cars because the campaign was so bitterly fought and that the battle continues to this day. I can buy at least some of that.
But Blonsky’s argument is just as interesting and thought provoking. What if people were leaving their bumper stickers on because they wanted to assert their individual identity; because they wanted others to know where they stand? It’s a kind of personal declaration and stick-to-it-ness in an era of instant gratification and individual free-lancing.
Still, maybe there’s yet another reason.
Maybe it’s not at all related to weak individual identity or that people are re-fighting – or continuing to fight – the last election. Maybe, instead, it’s a sign of people’s hunger to belong to something larger than themselves; maybe it is an act of public attachment, and not a matter of individual expression or celebration.
What we see in the bumper sticker conundrum is what Web people refer to as “stickiness” – and I’m not simply making a bad play on words here. I would guess that the campaign bumper stickers are sticking around because they demonstrate people’s desire to be connected – to one another and to public life. They are an easy way to join with others, to engage, yes to compete… but, most of all, they are a badge of participation.
All this raises another question; if I’m right, then what might this situation suggest for involving people in public and community life? Could we find ways to tap into people’s desire to belong, and attach, and express themselves, and to wear a badge of honor about their engagement? Think about it.
In the meantime, some people will read the bumper sticker stickiness as a sign of our divided times; I see it, increasingly, as a sign of people wanting to stick together. -
Finding Ourselves In Cultural Geography
I’m heading off for vacation tomorrow wondering just how different we all are from each other.
David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, whom I love to read, did another piece yesterday on cultural geography, or what might be called, the “divided America.” Brooks wrote:Forty-million Americans move every year, and they generally move in with people like themselves, so as the late James Chapin used to say, every place becomes more like itself. Crunchy places like Boulder attract crunchy types and become crunchier. Conservative places like suburban Georgia attract conservatives and become more so.
Not long ago, many people worked on farms or in factories, so they had similar lifestyles. But now the economy rewards specialization, so workplaces and lifestyles diverge. The military and civilian cultures diverge. In the political world, Democrats and Republicans seem to live on different planets.
It’s true that we all tend to move near people who are like us. But does that mean we really live on “different planets”? Does it mean that we’re necessarily that different from one another? Does it follow that our aspirations, say, for our children or our safety, are fundamentally different if we’re a Democrat or Republican, if we attend religious services or don’t, if we are white or African American or Hispanic or Asian?
I’ve said here many times before that we spend so much time in our society creating social narratives about how different we are from one another; these narratives have a way of shaping what leaders, the news media, and we citizens say and do; over time, they become self-fulfilling prophesies in our public arena.
And yet, when you see people from across the country, and talk with them, what you realize is that we share many more things in common than that which separate us. There are plenty of places where people hold common desires and hopes and concerns.
The fundamental problem facing our nation is not that we are from “different planets” but that we all have chosen to retreat from public life and live in close-knit circles of family and friends. Rather than being divided, we are shut off from each other – as if each of us has constructed our own personal wall. Addressing this requires a different approach than bridging division; it requires that we get back to the basics of our reality, and our common humanity.
Because of our narrative of a “divided America,” we end up dismissing the very basic tenets of human nature – that each us is innately good and holds the potential to do good; that people want to find ways to move ahead in public life; that most folks want to make a difference. Indeed, through this divided America narrative, we scare off our hopes that maybe progress is even possible.
Yes, we are in our society that is separating by various demographic and political traits; but that doesn’t mean we live on different planets. What it does mean is that we have to figure out how to inhabit the planet on which we all live, and take the first steps out of close knit circles. To take these steps we must change our focus. I’ll be talking much more about how we need to change our focus in the coming weeks as I prepare to release my book, Hope Unraveled, which lays out an alternate path of possibility and hope for public life. -
The Voices of Red and Blue
When discussing my work over the years, I have often told people, “When I’m talking with a group of citizens, if I close my eyes and listen, I often find it impossible to tell whether the person speaking is a Republican or a Democrat, the region of the country they’re from, or their income or education.” I’m sure you’ve read those very words in this space before. Often this comment is met with polite skepticism. At a time when we are constantly reminded of the divisions facing our society, it’s understandable that people wonder, “How can this be?”
Last month, I conducted two focus groups on similar topics in two very different areas of the country – one suburban and strongly Republican, the other an urban Democratic stronghold. As I listened, I again found it difficult to tell people apart across the divides. But, to steal a phrase from Reading Rainbow, you don’t have to take my word for it.
I’ve put together some sample quotes, one from each group, on different issues discussed in both groups. I invite you to read them, and decide for yourself which ones you think are the Red voices, and which are the Blue.
Once you finish, use the comment function on this post to discuss your results. I’m interested to hear what you think.
Click here to read the voices of Red and Blue. -
Security and Sacrifice
Holy smoke! No sooner than President Bush makes a proposal on Social Security, the daggers come out. Here’s what to look for in the coming debate.
There is little doubt in my mind that this debate will degenerate into the typical acrimony and divisiveness we all so used to on tough political issues. The politicos and organized interest groups will stake out their positions, use the Social Security to rally their troops and raise dollars from their faithful, and make sure little progress is made.
But, this issue, if engaged, could help the nation sort out some important concerns that have been just beneath the political surface for some time, such as:-
What is the social covenant today? Americans
are deeply torn and concerned over what the
social covenant is between and among them. This
issue, clearly, raises such concerns and the
opportunity to debate them.
What is my own obligation? In a society that is so consumer driven, where we expect to get what we want when we want it, there is the question about what our own obligation is to secure our future. This debate provides the opportunity to discuss this important issue.
What is the public good, and what sacrifice will I make for it? Here, there is the question of what kind of society do we want, and what do each of us need to ante up in order to create that society. This debate requires that, at some point, we engage as citizens, not just as individuals.
But if we ask these three questions, we can begin to generate a different kind of debate. That would be good for the nation, and for each individual. More on this in the coming days. -
Will & Grace
Yesterday, Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich, in his State of the State address, chastised state legislators to be more respectful of the office of governor. Too bad there’s too little will and grace in Maryland right now – and in the rest of country – for such respect in politics to prevail.
Ehrlich has been engaged in hand-to-hand combat with members of the state legislature for months. Some people blame his efforts to ram through his agenda of slot machines and malpractice reform; others, including the governor, believe that state legislators are to blame. In his address, Ehrlich accused unnamed leaders of “playing the Capitol Hill game of demagoguing on personal ethics.”
My own reading of the situation is that there’s probably some truth on both sides.
But the real problem is that neither side wants to exercise the will to show more grace in their political dealings. The Harwood Institute has long worked on political conduct concerns in the nation; in fact, in the 1980s, that is where much of our work began. We undertook a five-year nationwide initiative to improve the conduct of political leaders, news media and citizens; I wrote a nifty little book on the subject, A New Political Covenant.
In that work, which was based on engaging Americans across the nation on their aspirations for political conduct, it was clear that people want political debate to be vibrant and robust. They want political issues and various perspectives to be aired out. They do not wish for what I call a Miss Manner’s kind of politics.
But nor do they want a politics devoid of grace. Robust debate does not mean rancorous and raunchy debate. Grace is, after all, a sense of propriety and good will. It requires one to tap into a sensibility of decency – to recognize that anything does not go, and sometimes one must refrain from saying the ridiculous or silly or the half-truth. Simply because it is possible to say something does not mean it should be said.
So, I urge the governor and his colleagues in the statehouse to read A New Political Covenant and to make that covenant real. If not for themselves, then for those they serve.
I’d be happy to send a free copy to any and all who would like one – just email thi@theharwoodinstitute.org with your request.
-
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.