I believe our most urgent and important public policy topic these days focuses on the relationship between government and business. While most people recognize that government needs to have some role in business oversight, we're not even discussing what this role should be, in light of the recent failure of oversight that led to the Great Recession. What's more, I don't hear anyone in the media or in politics addressing the relationship between government and business on a dynamic and inter-connected, multi-level basis...maybe some think tanks and academics are approaching the topic, but it hasn't hit Main Street. If we don't talk about what we want to replace what we had, we'll probably either return to those same failed policies or we'll create some new scenarios for failure through totally uncoordinated attempts to 'fix' isolated problems as they arise.

My suspicion is that most citizens agree that government shouldn't be responsible for creating and sustaining jobs. As President Obama stated a few days ago, it's the government's role to create and sustain a healthy business environment, so businesses can create and sustain jobs. But, of course, this is easier said than done...we don't have a clear view of what a healthy business environment is. Healthy for whose benefit primarily? It seems to me that consistent, multi-level public policy is essential to integrate our highly diverse business community into a vital and sustainable force that benefits all people. It's just not going to happen without a comprehensive conversation about the complex relationship between government and business.

First, we need to recognize that, although some national statistical indicators are turning positive, the Great Recession is still ending more and more jobs in many states...and certainly in counties and municipalities. Our current crisis may have been created at the top levels of our economy, but Main Street USA is where the damage is continuing to be done. Here's the rub as I see it...we need small businesses to revive our economy by creating new jobs, but small businesses are located in thousands of communities where governments cannot function to create and sustain a health business environment. This is a huge Catch-22. The federal government cannot in any stretch of the imagination reach into every community to do this task...and no one should think they should even try. We need a comprehensive conversation now to openly address this conundrum.

So, how can we have a nation-wide, decentralized learning conversation? Hey, it's the 21^st century for crying out loud...we can create this conversation if it's important enough! It's time we put our technology to work on things that really matter, rather than focusing it on entertainment, I-phone apps, and tweets. Sure, it'll take a vision and some significant funding, but it's totally doable...and it's absolutely essential. We can't afford to stumble into the future as isolated and scared individuals or government agencies or businesses. But...that's exactly what we're doing right now. This is a perfect topic for the whole community of practitioners in dialogue and deliberation to bring to every town, city, county and state. We won't find a healthy way forward through federal leadership or massive jobs programs. We'll find our way forward...one community conversation at a time.

There's lots of talk about jobs these days...and rightfully so. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner declared the obvious...that unemployment will remain 'unacceptably high' for a long time. Business experts, media pundits and politicians watch carefully as employment statistics emerge each month, looking for the good news of 'recovery'...and for some, looking for their idea of political good news as the employment numbers continue to point toward an extended period of economic stagnation. I'm hearing talk about 'recovery' and job creation, but I'm not hearing much talk about what kinds of jobs we need to encourage with public policy and support with education and infrastructure. Now is the right time to have these conversations...when new jobs with new skills are needed, and where these jobs can also build more resilient communities with a higher quality of life.  

Many of the jobs that have been lost in the Great Recession will not return under any circumstances...some will return, but will need a new business model or public infrastructure before any hiring will be seen. No...'recovery' doesn't mean a return to past patterns or habits, but will look dramatically different. And...it should look different. The unsustainable public and private decision-making that got us into our current fiscal mess cannot be trusted in plotting our economic course in the future.

So far, the only proposals that have gained much traction in the public arena have been ones that are both highly partisan and way too ideologically extreme: either a greater role for the federal government in job creation for at least another decade, or a greater reliance on an unregulated, free market business environment in hopes that this direction will lead to a different and positive outcome next time. Both of these extreme options have one thing in common: they both lead to a greater and greater centralization of power...one through increased government control and the other through business mergers and acquisitions where the resulting mega-corporations are too big to let fail. In my view, both of these directions are likely to reduce the quality of life for everyday citizens. Let's not do that!

A while back, I wrote a bit about E.F Schumacher and his classic economics commentary, Small Is Beautiful. I know...those who support one of the extreme ideologies above call Schumacher's work naïve, but it's still true that most jobs in the United States are created in local communities where government agencies, non-profit organizations and businesses seek to meet the needs of everyday citizens. In small communities, it's clear to everyone that it takes the whole community to sustain the vitality of a community.  That's right, friends...I believe we need to start rediscovering how important our small communities are in the grand scheme of things.

We can't afford to wait for the federal government or big business to create the jobs we need...we all need to get busy in our communities. Leaders and everyday citizens in our communities need to talk together about how local resources can meet the needs of local people through creating and sustaining local jobs. In the good times, it happens naturally...in the bad times, it takes some extra attention and energy. Almost every community has the capacity to discuss what's needed most urgently...to enthusiastically rally support and gather resources...and to feel the fulfillment in doing something important together where small sacrifices spread across the community make a difference.

What kinds of jobs do we need? I believe we need to look at our local infrastructure to discover places where we can 'remodel' our communities, using some of the design tools in 'planned community' methods. Why should these great concepts be restricted to just new community planning? If every community decided today to identify and remodel just one 'planned community' component in their town or city, even a modest outlay of money would employ a few local citizens in those efforts...multiplied across the country, this would be dramatic. These projects would meet local needs far more effectively than any federal agency or multi-national corporation could match...AND these locally-sensitive, infrastructure improvements would dramatically improve the quality of life in those communities...AND those communities would be enthusiastic about their capacity to get things done.

Let's start talking about economic recovery with open minds, including non-traditional methods rather than just following the same old ideologies. Sure...the federal government can have a role in some job creation. Sure...big business can contribute to some economic recovery. But...I feel the really naïve position would be to believe these are our only options...that big is always better. Let's at least include decentralized, community-based job creation as we discuss and envision economic recovery. Who knows, we might find a national revitalization...one community at a time.

I was fortunate enough to be part of a fascinating conversation yesterday that pushed deeply into how things get done in communities. At the heart of this conversation and many similar ones in recent years is what I consider to be a false dichotomy between talking carefully and thoroughly about problems, and taking decisive action to solve those tension-ridden problems. Don't worry...I'm not going to give you the full play-by-play of this rich conversation, but it brought even more focus for me on the challenges we face in public decision-making in the 21^st century. Today I'm more convinced than ever...our problems are so inter-connected and ethically-complex that we need to apply every tool available to find a way forward that is mutually beneficial for all stakeholders and is sustainable.

When will we figure out that we really do need each other to make the best public decisions? I know this perspective flies in the face of our popular culture...and particularly our 24/7 news media orthodoxy...but no one who's observant at all can make the case that we're doing a good job as a society in public conversations and decision-making. Politics isn't a spectator sport with easily identifiable teams or cheerleaders or fans or scorekeepers. In our most complex and divisive public choices, we need to see each other as stakeholders with equal standing...contributing whatever we can to an energized and respect-filled decision process.

We need deliberative conversation and focused advocacy. These two approaches complement and strengthen each other. These efforts should be seen as essential components of applied community critical-thinking. Concerning many of our most tension-ridden problems, however, these two efforts are seen to be opposites...like 'water and oil' as it's been characterized in some presentations. It's my view that advocacy in these issues cannot be effective without a public knowledge as its foundation that can only come through careful and deliberative conversations that include all stakeholders. It's my view too that community conversations on these issues without an intention to solve problems in a sustainable way are nice but pretty much irrelevant. Careful conversation and effective advocacy are the 'yin and yang' of public politics.

But here's the problem...we're still operating from the 'water and oil' model. We need advocacy groups that are inviting and welcoming of deliberative conversation practitioners...and we need some of these deliberative folks to join in the efforts of advocacy groups to contribute the public knowledge that will make their advocacy more effective. We need deliberative groups to actively seek local advocacy practitioners as learning partners....and we need some of these advocacy folks to join in a variety of deliberative efforts that uncover new public knowledge on an on-going basis. The current 'water and oil' model is frustrating both efforts...it's time to change our view of public decision-making to see one public 'toolbox' with many tools.

And then here's my biased perspective...there's not enough careful, deliberative work going on in communities. Advocacy groups are sending requests for money and support in the mail and on the internet in abundance...and they seem to have many adherents. Careful conversations about the issues, however, are not happening enough to help people choose which groups to support...nor are they happening enough to provide the foundational public knowledge that can make advocacy truly effective in a sustainable way.

Here are a few links for those who may want to participate in more deliberative efforts. Check them out and visit them often...there is much to learn, and a lot at stake. If nothing else, you can use some of these perspectives and methods in your everyday conversations on public issues. Mostly though, learn what you need to be active and effective in public problem-solving.

http://www.nifi.org/

http://www.publicagenda.org/

http://www.everyday-democracy.org/

http://www.thataway.org/

http://www.theworldcafe.com/

When the speeches are all finished...when even the pundits are silenced momentarily...when citizens watch and listen with both hope and dread in their hearts, the crucial votes in the House of Representatives will decide the success or failure of the current health care reform legislation. When those decisive votes are cast, some will cheer and some will curse...but very few will say, "So what." Today, none of us can know for sure which we will be inclined to do...come Sunday. Of course, we can't know for sure if Sunday will be the day for this historic vote...there's still plenty of time for more political intrigue and stalling, and the Democratic leadership is not going to call for a vote unless they're pretty certain it will go their way. But still in this vote, courage is required.

Courage is required when there is a lot at stake and risk is great. Let's talk about what's at stake first. We could go on and on about the pros and cons of various parts of the pending legislation without touching what I consider to be the most important part of it...access. Over the past decade, health care has been the focal issues for several National Issues Forums discussion guides. When people have gathered for these forums, access to health care has been one of the pivotal topics of conversation...and it's seen to be one of the most important reasons for supporting any efforts in health care reform.  

Please read the Op-Ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times just yesterday...the link is included below. He stated this point about access much better than I ever could, so please read it...even if you think you'll disagree with it. There is a lot at stake...and most of what is at stake is access to any health care at all for more and more people.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/opinion/18kristof.html?th&emc=th

Yeah, there's a lot at stake...but the political risk in staring down the insurance lobbyists and status-quo advocates is extremely high. This is another blatant example of how money speaks far louder than public hopes and dreams. A vast majority of our fellow citizens feel the status quo is leading us into disaster...and costing a lot of lives. It takes true courage to take a stand for dramatic change...away from corporate interests that currently drain off 20% of our health care expenditures as profit. It takes true courage to confront insurance companies that make most of their profits from excluding people from health care, rather than including them. Yeah...you can see where I'm going with this. Courage is required to give many more people access to some kind of health care...other than the emergency room.

Let me be clear...I don't like a lot of things in this bill, but it's essential to our nation's survival as a moral and economically-viable force in the world. Access is the critical key. Everything else fades into the background. Read this article and share it with friends...it's eloquent and important! Think about how people feel when they have to choose between buying food for their kids and buying the medicine that will keep them alive so they can see their kids grow up. I work hard to be faithful to the tenets of deliberative fairness and balance, but politics is ultimately about decisions. Deliberation without decisive action is irrelevant. The current health care reform legislation is critically important to our future as a nation...support it wholeheartedly and strongly...today!

Last year in testimony before Congress, Alan Greenspan admitted that one of his foundational ideological beliefs about 'the way things work' in the world of global finance was wrong. After years as a prime-mover behind the deregulation of financial markets, he confessed that his fundamental trust in self-regulation was 'flawed.' When I heard it at the time, I was both surprised and grateful at his honesty. At last, the most influential architect of our current financial ruin acknowledged that his ideological inaccuracy had significantly contributed to the global crisis. I thought...naively...that this admission by the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank would certainly mean that reform legislation would be written rigorously and enacted quickly...well, it hasn't. On the contrary when the false hope of Libertarian-like beliefs should be most evident, a ground-swell of support for what Greenspan admitted was a failed ideology is growing. I think we'd be wise to talk about the visible consequences of Libertarian-like policies as they have been applied during the past thirty years or so.

It's been well documented that the financial worldview of Alan Greenspan was decisively shaped by the Libertarian-like views of Ayn Rand. Rand created a philosophy she called 'Objectivism'...emphasizing individual rights and responsibilities, and promoting totally free-market capitalism with zero interference from government. Most important, however, about 'Objectivism' is it's complete dependence on reason as the basis for all decisions...from the most mundane to the most critical. In 'Objectivism' decisions are made on objective and verifiable facts. Those who make decisions better than others rise in power and wealth...and ultimately the most successful of these individuals become the protectors of the capitalist system. It's a great theory...but, sadly, it doesn't work. Alan Greenspan applied this theory throughout his career, and finally last year he had to admit the utter failure of his mentor's foundational beliefs.

We've been the lab rats in a 30-year experiment, and now the results are in. The application of Libertarian-like policies of systematic deregulation...particularly concerning mergers, acquisitions, trusts and financial markets...leads to catastrophic economic failure and great societal suffering. I know many people have fond feelings about President Ronald Reagan, but his rigid belief that 'government is the problem' decisively started stacking the financial dominoes for the recent sequential fall. Of course, corporate interests saw this trend as beneficial, so they increased their political footprint with focused campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. Even the 'Christian Right' was co-opted into supporting the experiment by those who convinced them that God prefers to work through hierarchies rather than participatory government. Republicans and Democrats through the years have followed this Libertarian-like direction, culminating in a 16-year acceleration in deregulation policies during both Clinton administrations and both George W. Bush administrations. The raw data in this experiment is available now, but it's uncertain if any real analysis or action will follow.

According to a 2007 list, the State Department was monitoring the activities of at least 45 foreign terrorist organizations. Mention 'terrorism' and immediately al-Qa'ida comes to mind...and rightfully so from their numerous attacks around the world and here in the USA. But the use of fear and intimidation is much more wide-spread than these 45 groups...as heinous as some may be...would indicate. Drug cartel violence along the USA-Mexican border has made some cities war-zones, and police chiefs in some areas are assassinated as quickly as they're appointed. Many areas around the world are controlled by regional or tribal war-lords who rule by fear and force, most notably in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Internal wars in Africa are notorious for their severe human rights abuses by non-governmental armies that practice systematic fear campaigns with mutilation, murder and rape as their primary tactics. Bands of pirates...yes, pirates for crying out loud in the 21^st century...hold ships and hostages for ransom with threats of violence off the Somalia coast with little interference. The use of fear and violence by relatively small groups of non-governmental organizations is increasing steadily. Al-Qa'ida may be the familiar face of terrorism for us, but it's only one among many in almost every part of the world.

Last Sunday, some members of a gang entered a church during their worship service to search out and shoot members of a rival gang who were in the congregation. Fortunately, there were no fatalities, but the attack should send a chilling message to those of us who believe we're living in a civil society. Chilling too was the initial response of most members of the congregation when questioned by the police...no one wanted to speak up for fear of reprisals from the attacking gang. And just today, a man flies a plane into an office building in an apparent attempt to send a message of fear to a federal agency. Street gangs in all of our cities...organized crime with many ethnic and cultural identities...Americans attacking Americans as vigilantes for perceived personal and governmental grievances. Our civil society where we see ourselves as a 'nation of laws, not men' appears to be slipping toward a 21^st century version of feudalism in America and in the world. Terrorism has an American face too...and we'd better start talking about it.

I don't think we'll find any easy answers to this community and global problem. Our form of government was founded on the premise that laws would protect citizens from intimidation and threat, and that we would truly become increasingly secure as our legal system matured and adjusted to each new challenge. I believe 'terrorism' needs to be framed in wider terms than we have in our current conversations. We need to talk about how the 'rule of law' can balance and mitigate the 'rule of powerful men' (and I am using the term 'men' purposefully here to communicate the extreme dominance of men in violent intimidation). It's sad to recognize... but a delusion to deny...that colonialism is still alive in economic globalization, and that feudalism is still alive in the thousands of groups around the world and in the USA that place themselves violently above the law...for whatever reasons.

We don't seem to spend much time talking about what binds us together as citizens of the United States of America. In 2010, we're facing daunting challenges in national security and economic stability, but every news cycle is filled with sound-bites our own citizens and the rest of the world can only interpret as deep and perhaps terminal division. So, friends...what is it that binds us together? And...is that binding strong enough in the early 21^st century? This is one of those topics that many people dismiss as unnecessary and perhaps even hysterical...but, when our leaders and our citizens seem to be focused more on working against one another that with one another, the inertia of division is powerful...and it will not slow nor cease without a decisive force to counter it. Sadly, this is a phoenix- issue...one that seems to rise from the ashes to be resolved once again in each subsequent American generation...and now it's our turn.

"Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25

"....A house divided upon itself- and upon that foundation do our enemies build their hopes of subduing us." Abigail Adams, 1812

"A nation divided against itself cannot stand." Sam Houston, 1850

"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'  I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free." Abraham Lincoln, 1858

 

We need to decide in this decade what it is that binds us together as Americans. It's not enough to fall back on the decisions of prior generations...their decisions are powerful as a gift of our heritage, but they have little power over the forces of division that challenge us today. These quotes give us a small glimpse of the natural societal tensions that visit every generation. More accurately, the balance between unity and individuality must be decided by each of us multiple times each day...in our homes, in our workplaces, in our neighborhoods, among friends, and with the people we meet only in passing. As Americans, we have the added responsibility to balance unity and personal freedom in order to sustain our form of government. But...this requires the attention and action of a significant percentage of Americans...or divisions will grow and our national unity will dissolve.

The most troubling part of our current political context for me is what I see as the growing resistance of everyday citizens to actually talk with others who might have any opposing views. The 24/7 exposure of politicians and pundits throughout the media has pretty much convinced reasonable people that discussing political issues is dangerous. Sure...we've always had 'political theater,' but in the past we've had more public conversations where policy differences were actually explored. The public learned how to talk about the critical issues of the day by listening to mostly respectful discussions of policy options. Today, I see very few policy presentations among the many partisan attacks, spin interviews and side-issue distractions. It then should be no surprise that citizens are increasingly hesitant to voice their opinions in any situations where they might be treated this way.

I believe we need more conversations about how we can work with each other, rather than against each other. Whatever we've been doing to encourage civic engagement doesn't seem to be working. What other strategies might we identify and try? Who will provide positive role models in public leadership and discourse? How can we make it profitable for the news media to return to investigative reporting, so factual information is available in support of participatory decision-making? To hold together as a nation, we need more of those who are 'working with' than those who are 'working against'...at present, I'm not so sure this is the case.

In the 'State of the Union' speech, President Obama said he would name a bipartisan commission to guide the federal budget onto a sustainable path. The clear inference here is that the current path is unsustainable....and that a commission rather than our elected Congress would be able to have greater success in dealing with our federal debt and budget crisis. But decisions about the national debt and the federal budget aren't just about spreadsheets and sound bites...they're about public values. I first heard about this proposal before the speech on the Public Agenda page of Facebook...to say the least, I was disappointed. My response was: "Hmmm...so because our elected officials are unwilling to do their jobs, we need a 'commission' to take their places in the really difficult decisions. I have some mixed feelings about this...how about holding our elected officials accountable instead?" After hearing the President, my opinion hasn't changed.

Interestingly enough, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said recently in his 'State of the State' speech that he would most likely name a bipartisan commission to guide the state's redistricting process. It was billed as a first, solid step to make California more governable: Take the drawing of legislative districts out of the hands of lawmakers, whose interests lie in keeping seats safe for their own party, and turn it over to a citizens' commission. The result would be more competitive elections, winnable by a Democrat or Republican, which in turn should encourage more moderates rather than ideologues to run. But as the time nears to redraw district lines after the 2010 Census, the state office implementing the plan has a serious problem that could threaten the commission's credibility. The pool of volunteers who have applied so far doesn't come close to reflecting California's diversity, not only in ethnicity but in age, gender and other ways. Oops! Maybe this isn't such a great idea after all.

These are difficult times for all politicians...at all levels. More specifically, the era of easy political decisions is over. Many of our elected officials are running for cover...the others are in serious denial about the current status of their chosen profession. In politics these days, there are less and less places to hide. Tough decisions must be made. Certainly attempts are being made to shield politicians from their mandated responsibilities, but public scrutiny won't relent anytime soon. If anything, I believe it'll get stronger and more focused as politicians try to deflect their duties onto others who are simply appointed. Some will still try to hide behind partisan firewalls...others will try to hide behind ideology...others will hide behind the recommendations of commissions. No matter where our elected officials seek to hide...they need to find justice rather than relief.

I have to admit that I don't particularly have a 'watch-dog' personality, but I'm glad some others do. My suspicion is that many of our politicians today...Democrats and Republicans...want to continue their petty, partisan bickering without any consequences. Many Democrats see it as pay-back or a new opportunity to advance progressive values, while many Republicans see it as their chance to regain power through passive resistance. We probably do need lots of 'watch-dogs' these days to keep tabs on many of our elected officials as they try to navigate an increasingly treacherous political climate without taking responsibility for anything.

I realize this sounds very cynical, but when 'commissions' are proposed in state and federal venues as the solutions to political gridlock I start to wonder where we draw the line with accountability. I might be wrong...but, I see these steps as an admission by the President and our Governor that our system of electoral accountability is broken. We need 'commissions' to do these jobs in order to revive some semblance of accountability in public policy decisions...after all, members of 'commissions' can do the tough political wrangling and then be thrown under the bus.

We need a renewed public conversation about responsibility, trust and accountability. At the heart of this conversation I believe we will find that each layer of public responsibility has unique challenges and opportunities...and has a unique role in reestablishing and protecting the public trust. Let's talk about accountability as everyone's ethical responsibility. Let's talk about being trustworthy, rather than talking about trust as mere consumers. This is a big-picture meta-issue that will continue to sabotage our ability to take action on our most pressing public needs if we don't face it...and soon.

Archived Comments: