Home > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
-
Mechanisms in public life
I want to start today in a place you might think I would not begin: our need to create good mechanisms in public life and politics. The urgency for public innovation in this particular area is great; we need more mechanisms within society to help us produce real change and foster hope within people. My fear is that too often we fail to meet both these tests.
Every day people are creating what I am referring to as mechanisms. Civic organizations and news media create public forums, processes, and other initiatives through which people can speak out; new online platforms offer ways for people to talk together, volunteer, offer their views, and meet up with like-minded folks; foundations create new benchmarks to drive progress and shape the daily work of organizations and individuals.
Time and again people and organizations are developing mechanisms to give people voice, harness capacities, and direct energies. The problem is that there is an important distinction to be made between creating meaningful mechanisms and becoming mechanistic.
Creating meaningful mechanism in public life requires us to be ruthlessly strategic, which means drawing distinctions between competing forces. Take, for instance, the following juxtapositions. It seems to me that we can fall into the trap of equating speed with effectiveness; linear processes with clarity of essence; participating with engaging; scaling up with achieving mission.
When it comes to building new mechanisms in public life and politics, we must keep in mind that our task is for the mechanisms to help us produce change. I say this echoing a key point I raised yesterday, namely that the current system of public life and politics is tired, rigid, and calcified; and the new system that is being laid overtop the old one often serves to fragment people and their voices and turn us away from one another.
People in public life and politics are in search of new pathways to engage and make a difference. There is a need within public life and politics for more given-and-take, greater focus on people’s real concerns, and harnessing of our civic energies. We need approaches that are less episodic and more sustained; that enable people to come in and out of their engagement over time, because people live life overtime, not simply in fragments of time.
The second “test” I mentioned up top has to do with creating mechanisms that give people hope. Here, we must think clearly about the mechanisms we are developing in terms of whether they provide people the opportunity to cultivate a sense of authentic hope within themselves and among others.
We must always keep in mind that when it comes to public life and politics, people are in search of change and hope. They are longing for a sense of possibility – that conditions can change, that their lives can improve, that they can engage with others and make a difference, that something positive is in the offing.
The potential trap we encounter on our journeys through public life and politics is that we will forget the test of change and hope; or, that we will remember it, but then somehow lose it as we reach for our goal. Or, worse yet, we will state that we are engendering such conditions, only to provide false advertisement.
There is a critical difference between creating meaningful mechanisms and being mechanistic. We need public innovation to develop a new generation of mechanisms to foster real systemic change in our society. -
Why we need public innovation
Folks, we need a new kind of public innovation in our communities if we are to make the progress in public life and politics we all seek.
Just last week, a person from California who is working to create change in that state made the following observation: people will decide to join with him almost as a matter of faith, or they will retreat because their rational mind tells them that everything in public life is too overwhelming to effect.
What’s our response to be?
Experience tells me that many, many Americans know they want change in public life and politics. But I also find people believe that their current path of engagement is not the right one; and yet, they cannot always see an alternative that makes sense to them. Indeed, people often find themselves stymied, frustrated, sometimes even stuck in place. The result: people either retreat or keep doing what they already know.
This is a dilemma for many community foundation staff, United Way leaders, school superintendents, news people, civic organization heads, and everyday individuals trying to make their communities better. I have had countless conversations with such folks about wanting to find a different path for making progress.
Here’s one part of the problem. Our current system of public life and politics has calcified and become increasingly rigid. I’ve seen this first hand in my work over the last 20 years in communities, and average Americans I’ve spoken with echo these sentiments (see Hope Unraveled: The People’s Retreat and Our Way Back). Our public debates have become acrimonious, divisive, and lacking in substance; problems seem to get superficial treatment; people believe there is no place for their voice. What’s worse, our leaders continue to say they are listening, but when people speak to them, what they hear back in speeches and see in actions not only fails to reflect reality but often distorts their concerns.
Now, in recent years, we have had almost an entirely new system overlaid on top of the calcified one – for instance, think about the Internet and cable TV (among others). With the advent of the Internet, hundreds of thousands of people can now simultaneously be mobilized to write their elected officials simply by pressing a button; people can aggregate their own news and bypass stories they do not like; organizations can connect with more people more efficiently and routinely. The problem is that this system allows us to bypass the old one and narrow our own focus (even turning our backs on others).
While we desperately need good mechanisms in public life to help us turn ideas into action, “mechanistic” responses will not meet a pressing fundamental need gripping society: the desire among people for a sense of possibility and hope in public life and politics. Nor will mechanistic responses, whether online or offline, necessarily address the underlying, base-level systemic concerns people hold: that our institutions and organizations and leaders are disconnected from them; and that many people are simply disconnected from one another.
Today, I believe our fundamental task is to help people create new pathways in public life and politics. But not just any pathway will do. We must not fall into the trap of believing that various programmatic or one-off or other novel-sounding initiatives will meet the challenges before us.
Instead, we need a kind of rewiring of public life and politics so that there can be more given-and-take, more focus on people’s real concerns, a harnessing of our civic energies to create change. We need approaches that are sustained over time because people live life overtime, not simply in fragments of time.
Surely, none of us can create such change alone; only the dynamic created by our collective efforts will help us to fulfill this fundamental task. So, over the next few days I will talk more about the kind of public innovation I believe we need in public life and politics. I won’t have all the answers; but I do hope to deepen our conversation. I hope you’ll join me. -
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? -
Newspapers: Innovate or die
At an Alabama event last week for journalists, I was promoted as the “conscience of community.” But my own conscience told me I had missed the mark in my talk. If I could do it all over again, here’s what I’d say about the future of newspapers in America, plain and simple.
I want to be clear; I offer these 10 steps because I care deeply about newspapers. I’ve been working with major metro and small town newsrooms, the national Journalism Values Institute, and other efforts since the mid-1980s.
Even with the advent of the Internet, cable TV, and other news sources – no, especially because of their rise – I believe society needs newspapers to help people and communities make their way in the world. So, here are my 10 steps newspapers must take to survive and flourish.- First, newspapers have lost
their readers and are losing their soul. They
must regain their relevance in people’s lives
and reinvigorate their bottom line. Both steps
are imperative. But this will require
newspapers coming to grips with the need to
re-imagine their position in a fast-changing
marketplace. Tinkering won’t do.
- Second, journalists must see that
Americans have retreated from public life. Next
step: Combat this retreat if they want active
readers and a vibrant community. Translation:
Learn how to truly engage people – or die.
- Third, newspapers must answer the
following question: “What space do they wish
to occupy in their community?” Right now,
chasing readers, trying online gimmicks,
dumbing down news, and mindlessly cutting costs
obfuscates this underlying question. Stop!
Answer the question. Focus.
- Fourth, newspapers should position
themselves as boundary-spanning organizations
in communities. Few organizations, if any, cut
across dividing lines today and help people
connect the dots in their lives, gain depth on
important matters, and engage people with
consistency over time. Seize this comparative
advantage.
- Fifth, newspapers must build their actions
on a deep understanding of their communities.
Promoting the one-time story, the special
project, the new “public life team” simply
won’t cut it. Newspapers must know their
communities like the back of their hands.
- Sixth, people are in search of coherence,
a sense of possibility, and meaning in their
lives. And yet, as one senior member of a news
organization bluntly told me after my Alabama
speech, “If I was a single mother, I
wouldn’t read my paper. She can’t see
herself in our pages.” Help people and
communities figure out what’s happening
around them.
- Seventh, newspapers must be ready to go
out on a limb. They must hold up a mirror to
people so they can see themselves at their
best, their worst, and when they are
indifferent. Communities need a candid friend.
Prerequisite: guts.
- Eighth, newspapers must avoid becoming
mechanistic in their drive to re-position
themselves, even open themselves up. Simply
listing reporters’ e-mail addresses at the
end of stories, providing online chat rooms, or
holding forums aren’t enough. Mechanisms can
help, but only when they have a soul.
- Ninth, current newsroom staffs weren’t
hired with today’s challenges in mind. To
succeed now, journalists will need a new set of
sensibilities and practices in how they see and
do their jobs, especially in relationship to
their communities. Get ready for some tough
sledding.
- Tenth, when all is said and done, the people who work in newspapers must hold affection for their communities. Traditional skepticism too often comes out as cynicism; seeing the glass half full, often produces a lack of hope. Journalists must know that their world view casts a shadow.
Newspapers, it’s time: Innovate or die. - First, newspapers have lost
their readers and are losing their soul. They
must regain their relevance in people’s lives
and reinvigorate their bottom line. Both steps
are imperative. But this will require
newspapers coming to grips with the need to
re-imagine their position in a fast-changing
marketplace. Tinkering won’t do.
-
The big Super Bowl winner: Detroit!
Take a poll this morning, and most of us will know the Pittsburgh Steelers won the Super Bowl last night. But they’re not the only big winner today; no, the host city of Detroit is perhaps the biggest winner of all. I can’t recall a city that has gained so much from hosting a big event.
Detroit – the U.S.’s poorest big city – was in the news almost every day leading up to the Super Bowl. Millions of dollars were spent to get the city ready, and there was much talk about the city’s recent progress. Many people who heard these positive messages may have said to themselves, “Is this the Detroit I know?”
I was in Detroit a number of weeks ago, and I could see both the decay that has set in over many years and the pockets of renewal that have taken shape. At each TV commercial break last night, ABC showed Detroit aglow – not with riots or acrimonious political debates that have been big storylines for the city, but with the lights of its skyline all lit up. The collective lights of the community demonstrated a new spirit now evolving in Detroit.
Oftentimes, when a city takes on a big event, people see it as a panacea for all their ills. But not in Detroit; not this time. I was struck how many times I heard officials and residents of Detroit say that its progress had begun in earnest before the Super Bow and that much work remains once the tourists go home.
Renewal – whether in individuals, neighborhoods, or communities – does not come all at once. Never has and never will. Check out communities that have renewed themselves and you will see a process that unfolded with fits and starts over an extended period of time. You see small pockets of change which started the process forward, then rippled out, and eventually those ripples started to touch and create new norms, shared values, and new collaborations. Ultimately, the collective narrative of the community shifts to something more positive.
Unfortunately, I find that officials sell one-time events as the quick fix for longer term issues, peddling false hope that the event alone will transform the town. You can see this when communities undertake behemoth economic development initiatives, tout the building of new arts centers, or hang banners from street signs proclaiming renewal.
This is why The Harwood Institute places so much emphasis on community rhythms (what we call the five stages of community life). The framework helps communities see where they are in their development process; be ruthlessly strategic about the right set of interventions to foster progress; and to set realistic expectations as well as clear benchmarks.
What was striking to me about Detroit’s use of the Super Bowl is that the community used it as an opportunity to “consolidate” its hard-earned victories of the recent past and as a “catalyst” to springboard the community forward to the next phase of its work. That’s good news.
So, on this Monday morning, I see Detroit as the big winner. -
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.