Blog

• Bruce Springsteen and ticket scalpers: Which America?

  Jan 31, 2012      Posted by Rich Harwood      1 comment      Add your comment      [Link directly to this post]
  
  

  Once again Bruce Springsteen’s fans are being ripped off by scalpers who buy up then re-sell tickets  at exorbitant prices, an act that encapsulates much of what people want changed in America today. The good news: Springsteen understands all this and is taking action. Now, if only others in our politics and elsewhere would take his cue. 

  
  

  My wife and I were lucky enough to secure tickets this past weekend for Springsteen’s upcoming 2012 Wrecking Ball Tour, as we were during his 2009 tour. His concert is like a massive civic ritual (which I wrote about in 2009, and plan to do again after this year’s concert) that reminds us of what it means to be part of something larger than ourselves and how each of us must tap our innate goodness and power for the common good. 

  
  

  But so many people have been boxed out due to greedy and grubby scalpers using sophisticated computer programs to push aside individuals so they can buy-up thousands of tickets and re-sell them to make big bucks. One news report said that $98 tickets were now being resold for $6,600. My wife and I paid the face value of our tickets.  

  
  

  Sometime ago, while other entertainers continually raised their concert and other ticket prices, Springsteen made the public commitment to make $98 his highest priced ticket, and to sell many others for less than that. What was most important to him was giving more people access to his concerts and to make tickets as affordable as possible, even though it has cost him much money.

  
  

  Indeed, when this greedy buying spree occurred back in 2009, Springsteen was swift to publicly come out against these acts. In one salvo, an open letter to his fans, he “condemned” this practice, refuted “cynical” arguments justifying it, talked about the “fair” sale of tickets, and worried about “the abuse of our fans and our trust.” 

  
  

  Notice the words Springsteen chose. To him, this is about VALUES. 

  
  

  Today, the greedy grabbing of tickets highlights key issues and concerns people have in America and not just about ticket prices. For instance: 

  
  

  • What happens when capitalism – for all its benefits – is used simply for greed at the expense of others? Isn’t there a difference between productive capitalism and gouging people? 
  • What happens when there are different sets of rules for different people – and there’s no sense of protection or recourse? We can do better, no? 
  • What does it mean when someone – like a Springsteen – values trust, relationships, transparency and honor amid society’s noise and acrimony? How do they stand firm? And how do we help them? 

  
  

  Perhaps our task has at least two parts. First, when we find people like Springsteen act in honorable ways – whether or not we like their music or support some individual policy – we must stand by them. We must speak out about their efforts via Internet discussions, word of mouth, news media programs, at religious events, and elsewhere. That’s one way we’ll reclaim the values we care so much about; otherwise, a narrative of negativity can rule our future. 

  
  

  Second, as each of us live out our own lives, and work for the common good, we ourselves will be challenged to make good on values important to us. Real change will come, in part, from each of us doing our part. 

  
  

  Oh, and before I forget, one last critical point, lest I get in trouble at home: It is my wife who, like Springsteen, is a proud native of Jersey, and who has been a long-term, dedicated, vocal fan. I’m just a relative newbie who is loving the ride.

• Political grandiosity is leaving people behind

  Jan 24, 2012      Posted by Rich Harwood      4 comments      Add your comment      [Link directly to this post]
  
  

  I watched the GOP presidential primary debate last night and was aghast at the grandiosity put forth as sound ideas for moving the country forward. Now I await President Obama’s State of the Union Address tonight. Such grandiosity only makes a mockery of reality, insults people’s intelligence, and leaves people behind. Something has to give. 

  
  

  Last night I wondered just who are these GOP candidates and exactly what office are they running for? I have followed the Republican race closely, and with one or two exceptions, have seen every televised debate. The pattern is clear: the candidates and the debates are only getting increasingly hollow by the day. At times they descend into mindless bomb-throwing, noisy saber-rattling, and adolescent finger-pointing.

  
  

  Here’s one example. The debate took place in Tampa, FL, and that state is perhaps one of the hardest hit in terms of home foreclosures, houses under-water (where the value of a home is less than what its owners purchased it for), and staggering un- and under-employment. When asked what they would say to people living through this mess, all the candidates could muster were one-liners about reigning in the Federal Reserve Bank in order to have “sound money,” or that we need to “let the market work.” 

  
  

  Then there were the times the candidates talked about the relevance of their past experiences. In listening to one candidate, you’d think he was involved in every major positive policy decision over the last 25 years. Another seemed to claim that as a junior member of the House and then in Senate he was the key driver of every noble piece of legislation that came down the pike. There is another who says that if you are hungry and poor, or if a world crisis faces the U.S., fixing the Federal Reserve is the answer. 

  
  

  And finally one who believes that “creating a 100,000 jobs” in the private sector is the equivalent to turning around a country’s economic crisis. (Right, and did I say that he keeps saying he’s worked in the “real economy” – I ask, can he tell me how I can catch a train to the “fake economy”?) 

  
  

  Each of these points is rooted in a grandiose view of oneself and what the solutions are for real problems in people’s everyday lives. 

  
  

  So, I’d like to say to the candidates: Are you’re telling me that if you were sitting in someone’s living room whom you respect, or whose vote you want, this is the gibberish you’d offer up? I’ll put aside whether I agree or not with a particular proposed policy solution or worldview. What I’m after is some kind of genuine and real response to people’s plight in this country and to challenges in the world. 

  
  

  Oh yeah, here’s another example. The way to fix all the world’s ills is to send troops and bombers and spies into every country that ticks us off. Moreover, even though Presidents Bush and Obama faced resistance to the two current wars we’re in, somehow these candidates could wave a magic wand and people simply would fall in line to follow them. Perhaps they have in mind the old Apple ad based on George Orwell’s 1984, in which mindless people, dressed alike, are all walking in a straight line like robots. 

  
  

  I actually do believe there are many positives coming out of the Republican presidential primary. There is a sharpening of a long-needed debate about the appropriate role of government, federal priorities, and the role of communities and citizens in taking ownership of their futures. I think that’s all for the good. 

  
  

  But this grandiosity is too much. The candidates need to get real with people – and themselves. They need to address real concerns in people’s lives. They need to come at things from the perspective of people, communities, and the wider world. They must stop thinking they can talk and act from within a sanitized vacuum, in which, for convenience sake they negate reality because that’s more convenient to making their arguments. 

  
  

  I’m sick of this stuff, are you? 

  
  

  
  

  P.S. If you get the chance, watch the State of the Union tonight and ask yourself is it based in grandiosity, reality, or what?

• Jon Huntsman: in defeat, a win

  Jan 17, 2012      Posted by Rich Harwood      10 comments      Add your comment      [Link directly to this post]
  
  

  My Democratic friends always cringe when I say I like Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman. Many couldn’t understand what I saw in him. Meanwhile, on Sunday he dropped out of the race, seeing no possible path to the nomination. But in his defeat he has gained a clear win: articulating a vision for politics and public life so many Americans yearn for. My hope is that Huntsman continues to speak out about his vision. 

  
  

  Huntsman is the former two-term governor of Utah, successful businessman, and when President Obama asked him to serve as Ambassador to China he agreed and packed his bags. He received enormous attention and plaudits when he announced his candidacy – known for being a strong conservative and for his inclusive approach. 

  
  

  For instance, when Huntsman’s opponents would chastise President Obama, he would regularly go out of his way to say that no one should question the president’s patriotism. His integrity, love of country, and decency always came through. 

  
  

  Still, he lost, and lost big. He skipped Iowa in order to campaign, and live, full-time in New Hampshire only to finish a disappointing third. He said his showing gave him a “ticket to ride” to South Carolina. 

  
  

  But his real ticket to ride was not to yet another primary state, it was to continue to sound a clear and compelling call for a politics and public life that was more honorable and respectful of the American people. Newspapers and other media outlets liked to describe Huntsman as the “civility” candidate – but too often that was just their way to pat him on his head, dismiss his arguments, and cover the candidates taking a scorched-earth approach. 

  
  

  When Huntsman dropped out of the GOP primary race on Sunday, he said: 

  
  

  This race has degenerated into an onslaught of negative personal attacks not worthy of the American people and not worthy of this critical time in our nation’s history. 

  
  

  At its core the Republican Party is a party of ideas, but the current toxic forum for political discourse does not help our cause, and it’s just one of the many reasons the American people have lost trust in their elected leaders. 

  
  

  Of course, Huntsman is not perfect, no one is. To rise onto this stage surely took playing his own brand of hardball politics. But Huntsman believed the country desperately needs to sort out where it wants to go. And what it values most in the direction it chooses. He welcomed debate, disagreements, even dissonance. 

  
  

  He ran his campaign as if he owned it – he believed he must be able to look himself in the mirror every day, come clean with his wife and children, and stick to his guns. The campaign was about more than just politics. 

  
  

  And so on Sunday, he also said this: 

  
  

  Campaigns are an extension of the candidate and the candidate’s family. People who want to personalize and lead with negatives, I disassociate myself from them. Politics has become a business; these advisers in Washington force candidates into alleyways from which there’s no return. But the American public in today’s world is dramatically in need of serious debate, and I don’t think they feel there’s a lot of bandwidth left for personal attacks. 

  
  

  I’d welcome Jon Huntsman in the work of the Harwood Institute, and I hope he remains on the public stage which is where we need him and where he can continue to serve his country with honor.

• Beyond the Outrage: Turning Protest Into Positive Force for Change

  Jan 10, 2012      Posted by Rich Harwood      Add your comment      [Link directly to this post]
  What happens after all the outrage? 

  
  

  In many ways the rapid spread of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements is a healthy sign that people are not mere spectators in the public square. Instead, they are stepping forward to express what matters most to them. 

  
  

  But outrage alone will never be enough to create the kind of society people want. It will not, by itself, create more jobs, improve health care, or make us safer. Nor does it build trust across fault lines in society. It ultimately leaves people and the country at loggerheads. 

  
  

  In my travels across the nation, what's clear is that Americans are yearning to come back into the public square. They want to re-engage and re-connect with one another, join together to make a difference, and become a part of something larger than themselves. 

  
  

  The question is how to break down the silos, and temper the shouting and name calling that keep people apart and make it impossible to see and hear one another and get things done. 

  
  

  Living in the digital age provides enormous opportunities to help break the gridlock and move forward. The bipartisan Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy found that communities need robust news and information ecologies if people are to be informed and engaged, and if they are to solve public problems and improve their own lives. 

  
  

  Certainly new technologies are helpful, but beware: not all actions will be productive, and some will be downright harmful. For instance, just increasing the number of blogs and RSS feeds, or building more Twitter followers and Facebook friends, may lead people to fragment further into isolated groups, exactly at a time when we need to come together. 

  
  

  Moreover, using digital tools to build bigger megaphones, gather more protestors, and occupy public and private spaces will not produce the kind of public discourse, engagement opportunities or problem solving people are looking for. People want less noise and acrimony, not more. 

  
  

   A different path is needed. 

  
  

  Pierre Omidyar, the eBay founder, recently wrote that Steve Jobs' legacy could be summed up in two words, "Think Different." This catchy phrase was more than good Apple ad copy. It was rooted in an enduring faith in people and their capacity to engage, connect, and have a hand in shaping their own future. 

  
  

  We must apply this same faith, not to consumer products, but to a decidedly public purpose: finding new and practical on-ramps for people to return to the public square and participate in the life of their community and nation. 

  
  

  For starters, this will require that we turn outward toward our communities. Only then can we know what truly matters to people - including their individual and shared aspirations and concerns, and what we all need to better inform ourselves. 

  
  

  We need to focus on specific issues that reflect broad community concerns but are also manageable in scope. Keeping to well-defined problems makes the whole effort disciplined, which in turn creates greater coherence over time. Disciplined, coherent efforts at identifying and addressing public concerns will facilitate making clear choices about what actions to take. 

  
  

  We need to cultivate boundary-spanning groups. By boundary-spanning I mean those people and organizations who bring people together across dividing lines, incubate new ideas and spin them off, and hold up a mirror to the community so people can hear and see one another and their shared realities. In some communities, public radio and television stations, community foundations, public libraries and local United Ways are natural boundary spanners. But too many organizations spend too much time looking inward, obsessed with their own strategic planning, turf battles and positioning when what is needed are more active and engaged boundary-spanners. 

  
  

  Communities must make sure there are enough entry points for people to engage in the public square, offering ways for people to come together and helping them stay connected over time. No one can say for sure exactly which on-ramps will prove most important or the form they'll need to take. In fact, because there is no linear way forward, we will need courage to adopt a mindset of innovation - and with it, a willingness to tolerate fits and starts, even failure, along the way. 

  
  

  Outrage sits at the core of human emotions. It is a cry that something essential in our lives is spinning out of control and no one seems to be listening. When outrage in the public square is left to fester it produces gridlock, even despair. 

  
  

  What people want is to make a better life for themselves and to move the country as a whole forward. To do this, we must see and hear one another, and create ways to get things done together. 

  
  

  This essay appeared in The Huffington Post on December 22, 2011

  
  

  Click here to read Rich's paper for the Aspen Institute on Assessing Community Information Needs