Blog
-
If I could meet Glenn Beck
There’s no denying it, Glenn
Beck has stirred up our politics and public
life. I think that’s a good thing. Many
people may want to condemn him. I want to meet
him. I want to ask him some basic questions
and use this moment to engage more Americans
in a conversation about the kind of country
they want. Here’s why.
I listened to a good portion of Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally on the Washington Mall where tens of thousands of people gathered to hear a collection of political and religious leaders, among others, speak about America’s need to “return to God.“ The rally took place on the 47th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech and repeatedly invoked King’s memory.
There are some people who assert that Beck has besmirched King’s legacy. That he dishonored King, leveraged King’s notoriety for his own personal gain and distorted King’s meaning. While I understand these views, I fear that they are too defensive – they neither seek to illuminate nor engage, only to stymie and block a necessary discussion. King’s legacy has endured because its content was so right in 1963 and remains so as times have changed.
Beck’s rally was one of the few times in my memory the entire nation has focused on MLK other than on MLK Day each year. At last there is an opportunity to talk about MLK – not the enshrinement of his memory, or the activities we gin up in his honor, but the living meaning of his words. King’s words summon us to step forward and act on behalf of all people – not just some. So, with Beck’s rally, isn’t now the time to take stock of where we have made progress, and where there is still work still to be done? Isn’t now the time to be clear on the steps we must take to have the kind of nation King envisioned?
My growing fear is that the country finds itself in a place where when someone puts forth ideas we disagree with, the immediate response is to say how aggrieved and offended we are; to become defensive; to cast others as evil-doers. But where does this really get us?
Too many of our public discussions have become more about validating ourselves rather than examining ourselves. About buttressing our own arguments and points of view rather than engaging with others – especially those who seem different from us. Too often our tactic is to shut out or shout down our “opponents.”
I do not for a moment believe that everyone is a saint and acts with good intentions; but nor do I believe that we must fear engagement on the tough and emotional issues of the day. We must not hide from the need to engage with one another if we truly seek progress.
Beck’s rally suggests that there are Americans who feel the country is spinning out of control, who believe we have lost our moral bearings, who want to hold onto to certain basic values. But I suspect the same can be said about the numerous folks who gathered with the Rev. Al Sharpton at a counter-rally that took place on Saturday in Washington, D.C. Many Americans feel that things have spun out of control.
My question to Beck is not simply about his views, but about where he thinks there might be common ground with other Americans on how we can move ahead. I don’t care very much about his religious views (or his critique of President Obama’s religious views, about which he has spoken extensively), but about what his religious views teach him about reaching out to the poor, the disenfranchised, the hungry. I don’t want to hear Beck talk more about his own personal trials, but about what we need to do about the children and families who remain vulnerable in our communities.
I could spend all my time condemning Glenn Beck and some people would cheer me on. Instead, I’d like to engage Glenn Beck. The content of our character is how we respond to those with whom we disagree, or who may have hurt us, or who frighten us, or who hold power over us, or who we simply do not understand. I’m sure there are some things Beck said that I disagree with; others that I support. Either way, I want to meet him. -
Who Do You Trust? Send Us Your Nominees
One of the central challenges
people are wrestling with today is: “Who can
they trust?” Look at current headlines and
news reports, listen to your own
conversations, and it is clear there’s a
problem. So, today, tell me which leaders you
trust. When you do, I’ll send both you and
the leader you told us about a free copy of
Make Hope Real. Let’s generate a robust list
together to demonstrate that good leaders still
do exist.There are more than enough people who seem to have lost our trust. In sports, Roger Clemens and Tiger Woods head up the list (maybe Lance Armstrong is next). Iconic politicians like U.S. Representative Charlie Rangel now face corruption charges, while many people are uncertain about candidates in today’s primaries across the country. Captains of industry – from BP, Goldman Sachs, and Hewlett Packard, among others – have all fallen from grace. Then, there’s the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, which only reminds people of their lack of faith in government leaders.
But I also know that there are good leaders out there who people do trust. And so I invite you to recognize those leaders, from all walks of life – politics, sports, faith community, government, your neighborhood, and wherever else you find them. They do not need to hold an official position.
Write below in the comment section your entry. Tell me: (1) who is the leader you trust; (2) why? (3) Email your mailing address to thi@theharwoodinstitute.org
I want to generate a list of leaders we trust –think of it as an antidote to the lack of trust that pervades so much of society today. Join in and I’ll send you and the leader you tell us about a free copy of Make Hope Real. -
Mosque and Running Scared
Our political
landscape nowadays is like a landfill, filled
with lots of junk. This is most apparent on
the heightened debate over the building of a
mosque near Ground Zero and the posturing
around the upcoming mid-term elections.
Republicans are fast chasing after President
Obama, and Democrats are fast running away from
him. But what does that mean about where we
stand, especially on the mosque?The debate over the mosque (really a religious center that houses a mosque) is no open and shut case. Like many tough issues, there are conflicting values at work here. There are clear concerns over freedom of religion and tolerance; and yet there are issues about respect too – even if one can place the center near Ground Zero, it is wise to do so? I’ve heard reasonable arguments on both sides. But what I haven’t heard is a real conversation that explicitly joins these values and sorts through them.
Indeed, as the political season has heated up, I’ve found myself cringing – no, actually being downright disgusted – with much of the political rhetoric surrounding the religious center. Republicans act like President Obama and other “defenders” of tolerance have committed treason. They are now using the mosque as a “wedge issue,” reminiscent of the culture wars of the 1980s and 90s. They seem to believe that such worn-out tactics will be a key to the 2010 mid-term elections.
Meanwhile, many Democrats, even before the most recent debate over the religious center, have been slowly but surely slinking away from the president – hoping that voters will see them as bold and independent. Of course, this is a time-honored tradition during mid-terms. But before we readily accept this year’s version, I do wonder what these political maneuverings mean when it comes to the debate over the mosque and Ground Zero. For while one can hear many Democrats mumbling something about freedom of religion when it comes to building the center, they quickly take cover by saying this is all a local zoning issue.
For sure, it is a local zoning issue. But let’s be real – it’s much more than that, too. This issue strikes at the very heart of what kind of country we seek to be, and who we will ultimately become. Some people might say that my take on this is too abstract, too general, too out of touch with the daily reality of politics.
But my response to such a critique is that it is our politics that is out of touch with the daily reality of our country, that it has become too jaded, too narrow, and too self-referential. That politics has come to distort those things that we actually care about, and which we actually need to speak together about. Of course, there are times when some issues are better left unaddressed, left for another day, a better time.
But this issue is not one of them. Instead, this issue summons us to engage. And in doing so, we face a fundamental choice. How will we engage? In this particular debate, and in others, we find ourselves struggling as a nation about whether we will be defensive in who we are, in a sense cowering in the corner, attempting to beat back those challenges and “enemies” who approach us; or we will choose to actively create who we will become, always mindful of the values and history we wish to guide our engagement and actions.
When people spend all their time either chasing after or running away from someone else, it’s usually not long before they realize they do not even know where they stand. Maybe that’s the point. But, for me, I want us to engage on this issue. For it is only by engaging that we can figure out where we stand, and get to create who we will become. -
Confidence
These days, people in communities often lack confidence in the ability of various groups, organizations and leaders to do what’s right and create positive change. And yet “confidence” sits at the core of our ability to bring people together to work across boundaries, put aside turf battles, and find better ways to move ahead.Last week at the Public Innovators Summit we asked the participants two questions: What will it take to engender people’s confidence in our ability to do things together? What does this mean for the work you do?
How would you answer these questions?
-
A lost voice in the immigration debate
In spending much of
last week in New Mexico, I heard a great deal
about Arizona’s immigration debate. Each day
a new story appeared in the newspaper. Each
night the television news would run another
piece. When I finally got home late last night,
I hopped in a cab, pining for my family. But no
sooner did the cab pull away from the curb,
than the conversation with my Pakistani cab
driver began. His voice is nowhere to be heard
in the raucous immigration debate. It should
be. I remember working with the Orange County Register back in 1994 when they were covering Prop 187, also known as “Save our State,” which called for the screening of all individuals and families before receiving health care, education and other social services, in order to keep out illegal immigrants. Ultimately, that law was struck down by the courts. But, at the time, one of the things the Register editors told me was that they had regretted their coverage of Prop 187 – which they said merely mirrored the cartoonish debate between opposing sides, and failed to illuminate the underlying issues.
I always admired the Register folks for their forthrightness and dogged honesty; and their coverage of other tough issues over the ensuing years proved to reach their aspirations. But, now, during the Arizona debate, we could all take a lesson from the Register. Where are the voices of people who do not fall squarely at either pole of this debate, who are wrestling with the competing values and issues involved, and who are in search of a solution that reflects the best of America?
I found one of these voices as my cab pulled away from the curb. At first, my cab driver and I “talked” about the best route to get to my house. We disagreed some, but finally reached some accommodation. It’s possible.
Then, our conversation turned to his children. I don’t remember exactly why or how that happened; no matter, the story that unfolded was moving and engaging and reflected something rich and enduring about the American experience. My cab driver has five kids. One is now a lawyer who attended Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) and has clerked for two judges; he let me know that he has counseled her to pursue a legal profession in which she can “do right.” He has another daughter, also a VCU grad, who just received her MBA. His son, a twin, is going off to VCU in September. And yet another daughter is a graduate of VCU as well. Four out of his five kids will be VCU grads. As we talked, I leaned over the front seat, and said to him, “You know, your children are living out the American Dream.” He smiled, and with the inflection of a proud father, said, “That’s right.”
I then asked him what he thought about the recent immigration debate. He said that people should keep coming to America, but that they must also follow whatever rules are set up. We talked for a good amount of time about this. He recounted that he came to this country 19 years ago, following the path of relatives already here. This country had offered him everything, he said (including a double shift that day). At one point, I asked him if he planned to return to Pakistan. He told me how he wanted to go back to care for his ailing mother. But, then he said, “But this is my country.” Slowly, he looked at me and asked, “Is it alright that I say ‘my country?’For that’s how I feel.” Our eyes met, and I said, “That’s great you feel that way. That’s how it should be.” And he said softly, “Yes, that is how it should be.”
The immigration debate is a complicated one. There aren’t any easy answers. And my intention in recounting this story is not to suggest there are. Nor is it to promote one policy position over another. Instead, what concerns me today is that the debate ought to reflect the best of us – not the worst. It ought to be about what kind of country we want to be, and, yes, the rules such a vision requires. In that process, we must not fall prey to demonizing others or pushing one another into a corner. Indeed, let us demonstrate respect for the people among us, like my Pakistani cab driver, who came to us as immigrants, who are contributing greatly to our country, and who now bless our nation.