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