Deliberative IDEAS

Public Mindfulness

Posted on March 31, 2012 by Craig Paterson

TMI (‘too much information’) seems like a way of life in the 21^st century…and it’ll probably only get worse. We have essentially an endless supply of ideas, facts and opinions from 24/7 cable infotainment, emails, blogs, podcasts, texts, YouTube videos, Facebook, Twitter, etc. It can literally be a full-time job to just keep up with a small fraction of our daily information options. But…the truth is we’ve always had more information than we can effectively process…we’ve always had the personal responsibility and capacity to filter and refine our available real-world, raw data into useable decision-quality knowledge. More importantly…as citizens, we’ve always had the obligation to process data about public issues into decisions everyone can live with.

Recently in reading Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life by Karen Armstrong, I was struck by the central importance of ‘mindfulness’ as a personal discipline in translating a cloud of information into a meaningful and focused statement of purpose. Here I’m not referring to a meditative practice…I’m pointing to an attentive learning lifestyle. Armstrong properly sees ‘mindfulness’ as a critical bridge between the needs of the world and the compassionate actions of individuals that can meet those needs. Actions…according to Armstrong and according to our own common sense, I believe…follow from attentive focus on critical needs. ‘Mindfulness’ can keep a spotlight on those issues and needs where our specific talents, resources and networks might make the greatest impact.

Personal ‘mindfulness’ on an issue, idea or goal is a decision. At first, it’s an unconscious decision that focuses mental attention on something going on in the world around us…or not going on, perhaps. Our personal values provide a daily filter in a crush of data. When this filter consistently brings a specific topic to mind, our consciousness is alerted…THIS is something that needs MY attention. Our minds become filled with information and reflections on this theme. We seek news about it…we research the history and dimensions of it…we then create a daily discipline that includes bringing it to mind.

‘Mindfulness’ can also become a public practice. We’ve actually seen its power in many historical and current movements…people focused their attention on and mobilized for civil rights, environmental regulation and women’s rights…and against abortion, big government and too-big-to-fail corporations. Individual ‘mindfulness’ focuses attention, time and resources into a clearly understood and communicated purpose that then touches others, and becomes a public ‘mindfulness’…and this public ‘mindfulness’ becomes a movement. A movement in its early stages has no organization, no leaders and no specific legislative solutions…but it does have a laser-sharp focus on what needs to change.

Personal ‘mindfulness’ always, of course, precedes public ‘mindfulness’…and the transition from personal to public is always an organic growth process. We just naturally share what’s important to us with our family and friends. In conversations at meals…in the normal routines of our lives…in our various social networks…we have opportunities to reveal what fills our minds about our interests and concerns. In addition, many times our passion for a specific issue or goal brings us to create new acquaintances and alliances…where we can meet with and converse with others whose interests match ours.

But, TMI…we’re destined to be frustrated and powerless in the midst of our current information glut, unless we’re willing to do the really hard work of personal ‘mindfulness’ on those very few issues we feel are most critical in our personal values. What’s more…we’re certain to be mired in our sticky public dilemmas without a path forward, unless at least some of us are willing also to strive toward the creation of a public ‘mindfulness’ that mobilizes people and ideas until decisions everyone can live with can be found. Karen Armstrong encourages us to choose ‘mindfulness’ about compassion in our world…but there are many other ways we can characterize our vision and passion for creating and sustaining healthy and fulfilling communities, locally and globally. Bring it to mind…and see what happens!

Posted in Deliberative Practice, Topics for More Conversation | Tagged choices, civic engagement, community, conversation, decision, deliberation, local, NIF deliberation, participation, politics, public engagement, values | Leave a comment

Impactful Conversations

Posted on February 16, 2012 by Craig Paterson

People will always commit the time, energy and resources needed to make an impact they feel is essential to their personal interest. There are a lot of variables in this opening statement…sufficient variables to immediately create some significant skepticism. So…it’s important to add upfront that all of these variables need to be pushed to their natural, upper limits to get enough people to commit enough time, energy and resources to make enough of an impact to create any change.

Regardless of the odds against meaningful change…this is exactly how small groups have transformed their communities and our world throughout history. We need to always remember the words of Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Impactful conversations at critical times have made change inevitable in the past…and they will continue to do so. Our calling in the dialogue and deliberation community is to refine and adapt current practices to include more people in small group conversations…so they can be thoughtful together, and then can create the greatest impact possible with their time, energy and resources.

The adaptations I’m proposing of some of our current understandings and methods come from three foundational insights: first…the quote of Margaret Mead and the practical reflection on this quote in the opening statement; second…an observation that small groups sessions work best when they have a balance of highly-interactive engagement and methodical deliberation; and, third…a philosophical framework that offers a systemic perspective for a deliberative practice, moving from personal interest to public impact. Some expanded thoughts are available on this third insight in the link below:

Personal Interest to Public Impact blog post

Room Set-up & Materials

These interactive methods will require some unique planning…so the activities flow well, and the cumulative information is displayed in a helpful way.

· Wall space for posting newsprint sheets and working documents; best to have two adjacent walls so the corner makes a V-shape

· Seating for everyone, making sure everyone can see the others…can be at small tables arranged in a U-shape

· Easel with newsprint; marker pens; tape…for moderator and recorder

· Large 4×6 post-its; pens…for participants

· Distinctive signs to post: ‘Strongly Agree’ – ‘Agree’ – ‘Disagree’ – ‘Strongly Disagree’

· One-page summary of issue options with space for annotation…a longer issue guide can be available for reference, but the specific wording of the summary will drive the conversation

· Poker chips…three colors with enough for each participant to have 5 chips of each color

· Small table for ‘Investment Choices’ exercise…best to be a card table that can be moved easily into the center of the room for easy access and then reference during Outcome Conversation and reflections

· An ‘Investment Choices’ matrix on a newsprint sheet…see the diagram below for details.

Introduction and Agreements

Participants need to know basically what to expect in the conversation…and that they’ll be respected and safe. A newsprint agenda of activities or pictogram of the activity flow should be posted…and explained briefly with time for clarification questions. Another newsprint sheet should be posted with the ‘Group Agreements,’ known at times as ‘ground rules’…these agreements set the stage for respect-filled conversation. Participants generally want to know who is sponsoring the conversation, and how their responses and conversation data will be used. A very brief introduction to the conversation topic can familiarize participants with the one-page summary sheet, and provide them with the opportunity to ask clarifying questions about how the conversations will move through the options. And, of course, it’s important to take care of basic hospitality…including restrooms and refreshments. These introductory components need to be concise and brief…it’s important to get into the exercises as soon as possible.

Personal Interest

Here’s an opportunity to take care of personal introductions while setting the stage for whole conversation. If it’s ‘personal interest’ that brings people to the point where they deeply want to make an ‘impact’ on a dilemma, then it’s the group’s sense of their own ‘personal interest’ that should drive the conversation about managing or solving the problem. This isn’t just nice-to-know information…it is an essential benchmark to keep in sight during the deliberation, so the ‘impacts’ at the end of the conversation are relevant and effective directions to resolve the dilemma at hand.

Exercise: Our favorite question these days is this: “What is your personal interest in solving this public problem?” Distribute large post-its and marker pens…ask participants to print or draw a summary of their response with 1-5 words or with a simple symbol or image on the post-it. Give them a minute or so to think, and to prepare…then ask them one-by-one to post their response on the wall around the agenda and agreements, sharing just their first name and a brief answer to the ‘personal interest’ question, and to connect their answer with the post-it response. This short exercise breaks the ice…and does it in a way that provides some initial understanding of the diverse opinions and frustrations of the group. When all have shared…revisit the wall for the group to make some brief observations about common themes or ideas. Before moving on…encourage participants to add ‘personal interest’ post-its during the conversation as well, if they have another really important reason for making an ‘impact.’

Option Starter

Time is precious in deliberative conversations. If we’re trying to avidly learn about how our differing opinions interact and blend and combine and conflict, we’ll spend more time talking about the options in the issue guide where we differ rather than agree. But…many deliberative conversations end up spending a lot of time discussing areas of near consensus. The exercise proposed here opens the conversation on the options AND helps to identify which options might produce a steeper learning-curve than others.

This activity requires a bit more preparation than our issue guides normally provide in direct language. In our deliberative conversations, we weigh the ideas and values of a topic against one another, discovering which we hold most dear for ourselves, our communities and our nation. But…at the heart of each deliberative option, a unique and positive strategy can be identified with a direction and force. In this exercise, we use a concise summary statement of each option’s function in achieving the deliberative impact of the conversation to get an initial sense of the group’s feelings about the topic.

In order to provide some example statements, the issue approaches in the ‘Racial and Ethnic Tensions’ guide will be used. Several years ago, we in the California NIF Network experimented with some of the existing National Issues Forums (NIF) issue guides, identifying the tensions and strategies of the approaches in a standardized matrix. While this method had some strengths and weaknesses, these matrices provided a glimpse of how each option functioned in the deliberation as a whole. These matrices will be available soon on our website.

Exercise: “At This Moment” is an activity that provides a low-key and sometimes fun entry-point for a deliberative conversation. In preparation, put up the signs…‘Strongly Agree’ – ‘Agree’ – ‘Disagree’ – ‘Strongly Disagree’…on a wall or in a corner of the room in the order shown here, so there is at least 6-8 feet between them. Then ask participants to respond to each of the option statements by moving to the position along this spectrum that most represents their feelings. Stress with participants that their response is meant to be a snapshot of the group’s feelings on a difficult topic…“at this moment.”

· Option One: “At this moment…it’s most important to focus on what unites us, not on what divides us…we should increase equality through a positive focus on common ground.”

· Option Two: “At this moment…it’s most important to acknowledge and accept racial and ethnic differences…we should increase equality through education and awareness.”

· Option Three: “At this moment…it’s most important to finish the job of integration…we should increase equality through total commitment to civil rights integration.”

After participants find their most comfortable place on the spectrum, have them check out the diversity of responses…some groups will be tightly grouped on some options while being widely spread on others. Take just a short time to ask participants why they chose to locate themselves where they did. Before they move to the next option’s response, ask them to look at the distribution of feelings expressed…then move on. After all of the options have been assessed, ask participants to prioritize the options by the distribution of feelings…widest diversity to narrowest diversity.

“Deliberative Investment” Conversation

‘Impactful conversations’ basically focus on what needs to be done to change an existing structure that is flawed, or to sustain an existing structure that is endangered, or rarely to create a new structure that responds to a new, emerging challenge…and that means they ALWAYS need focus on what would make actions happen. This is why our focus here is on ‘investment’…because an investment actively applies resources in some kind of venture to gain an expected return. In order to achieve a public impact, enough resources must be applied in a coordinated and effective way by enough people. In moderating ‘deliberative investment’ conversations, this should be a guiding principle.

The goal of our deliberation is a set of ‘Investment Choices’ for the issue at hand. With this goal in mind, a deliberative conversation can illuminate these choices for each participant…and the conversation can stay focused, because each participant will have the opportunity and responsibility to make some tough choices as a part of the exercise. Because a set of choices will be a group outcome, it’s important to discuss each ‘investment option’ with a willingness to share and to listen.

Exercise Preparation: Set up the ‘Investment Choices’ table in a visible and accessible location in the room, showing participants the newsprint sheet with the choice matrix. Explain briefly how the exercise will proceed after they have had an opportunity to deliberate on each of the options. Distribute a packet of ‘investment chips’ to each participant, and show them how they will be able to invest (or not) in what they believe will be the best course of action. (Note…each ziplock packet will contain 5 white poker chips, 5 red poker chips and 5 blue poker chips…representing an investment of time, personal resources and public resources, respectively.) Here is a diagram of the choice matrix:

Exercise: The conversation starts with 30 minutes of deliberation on the option that exhibited the widest diversity of opinions in the “At This Moment” exercise…then 20 minutes for the next option…and 10 minutes on the option that showed the narrowest diversity of opinion. This time structure allows for greater learning among participants on the sub-topics where the group has already recognized the greatest differences in their initial preferences.

The moderation of this unique manner of deliberation needs to be more task-focused than in typical NIF-style conversations…after all, the purpose of our deliberation here is to prepare participants to make actual choices within the time constraints of the exercise. Deliberation here is informed significantly by the AmericaSpeaks model…blending decisions with shared learning while pressing forward to consider as many impacts, consequences and trade-offs as possible.

In this exercise, each option can be analyzed through the investment lenses of the participants…seeing the benefits, impacts and trade-offs of actions along a short-term through long-term spectrum. How effective would these actions be in solving this critical, public problem? How could the investment of time be used effectively in this option? What kinds of personal resources could make a difference? How would public resources be applied in the most effective ways? What can be done immediately and locally? How can long-term investments be sustained long enough to make a difference? These kinds of questions not only address the task of the exercise…but they also concentrate on the kinds of actions that would be needed to really make an impact on the issue.

‘Investment Choices’ and Outcome Conversation

At the conclusion of this focused conversation, it’s time to make some choices, and to draw some conclusions. Small groups work best with a clear roadmap that leads somewhere…and that gives each participant the sense of being part of something meaningful and ultimately impactful. This concluding exercise doesn’t take much time…and most groups can actually have some fun in this kind of decision format. Plus…it gives some instant gratification as more people make their ‘investments’ on the matrix.

Exercise: Give participants these simple instructions:

· White chips represent ‘time’ like community organizing, volunteering, civic organizations, etc.; red chips represent ‘personal resources’ like money, property, financial investments, social networking, etc.; blue chips represent ‘public resources’ like tax dollars, physical infrastructure, public lands, the environment, etc.

· Chips can be concentrated by each participant on just one part of the matrix…or distributed widely across the options and timeframes.

· It is also a valid choice to NOT invest some of chips.

When all participants have made their ‘investments,’ stack the chips by color so they can be easily counted, and visually understood with and among the cells of the matrix. A digital photo can be effective in recording this data pool…in addition to an actual, recorded count with a marker pen in each block.

Briefly ask participants to reflect on what their investment portfolio means in real terms. What kinds of actions in the short-term and long-term are preferred? How diversified are these investments? How should community time be best allocated? What private resources are needed…and available? How can public resources be used most wisely…and how does this need translate into politics?

Personal Interest to Public Impact

‘Impactful conversations’ in this interactive model yield some insightful and scalable data…making it relatively easy to pool with other groups and communities, AND making it possible to interpret the outcomes to the public. During each session, several types of data can be recorded for local interpretation, and for incorporation through online networking to create an aggregate view of the issue with a wider pool of participants.

· Reporting the outcome of the ‘At This Moment’ exercise…showing the diversity of opinions on various options prior to the deliberative conversations for groups to see how they participate in an aggregate view of the topic…how they are unique, and how they share common concerns.

· Reporting the outcome of the ‘Investment Choices’ exercise…showing the action preferences of the group after their deliberative conversations. This part of the reporting has the greatest promise in aggregating deliberative data for local, state and national use. When issue guides are written specifically for this style of deliberation, the potential for timely and meaningful deliberation and impact will increase.

As the session winds to a close, the most important thing to do is to revisit the ‘personal interest’ statement people posted on the wall…asking what effects the impacts in the ‘Investment Choices’ might have on those expressions of urgent, personal concern. If these personal interests are addressed, participants will leave the session with a direction, some energy and a sense of connection with others who are concerned about the issue…and this can lead to the transformations in Margaret Mead’s quote.

Posted in Deliberative Practice | Tagged civic engagement, community, conversation, decision, deliberation, democracy, government, NIF, NIF deliberation, participation, politics, public, public engagement, values | 1 Comment

The Making of a Public

Posted on January 28, 2012 by Craig Paterson

We all have a place and a role in the ‘public.’ This appreciation of an all-inclusive participation in a shared, human environment goes back at least to the Greeks as they pondered their common good and civic purpose. The Greeks had already recognized that an awareness of a ‘public’ as an entity in its own right…larger and more significant than just the accumulation of disparate individuals. Those of us who seek to hear the voice of the ‘public’ today are challenged with all the classical barriers to public conversation AND some modern barriers that are presenting themselves for the first time in human history.

The ‘public’ exists and functions without our awareness…it doesn’t need anyone’s permission to be powerful. But…our awareness and appreciation of the ‘public’ CAN have some significant benefits…as we solve problems together, as we organize together to maximize our effective use of resources, and as we build great communities together. We have learned through the years, however, that this ‘public’ awareness doesn’t happen by itself…it requires its own careful attention.

Several years ago, we identified ‘public-making’ as one of the most critical roles in any deliberative project…large or small. And lately…the need for intentional and effective methods in gathering people into deliberative settings has been the theme of many blog posts and articles throughout the dialogue and deliberation community. Just for your information, here is the link to the matrix our California NIF Network is using…as an expansion from the original work on deliberative roles of a Kettering Foundation workshop:

Deliberative Roles for Community Teams matrix

Building on this basic understanding of ‘public-making’ then, we can begin to identify some key variables in this practice. Some communities have ‘public-makers’ who seem to be completely natural in the role without any prompting or teaching…it’s in their genes! Other communities have people who can become effective ‘public-makers’ with some encouragement and practice. A wide range of variables can be considered, tried and evaluated through time, creating a continuous, upward-spiral in learning and doing. Here are some thoughts from last May on several of these variables:

Deliberative Barriers and Opportunities blog post…May 28, 2011

We need more practitioners in ‘public-making’…and this can be accomplished when we have more methods that are easily understood and small-group oriented. Let me introduce you to a new option that I believe has great promise.

The ‘Living Room Conversations’ project was initiated about a year ago with pilot sites in 5 states…California, Colorado, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Washington. The co-creators of this project…Joan Blades and Amanda Roman…started with the belief that “civil discourse in the United States can be respectful, constructive, collaborative, solution focused and conducive to empowering healthy communities.” From that point, they created a basic conversation format to be used in comfortable settings…where several individuals specifically invited neighbors and friends who more-than-likely had some differing viewpoints on a public dilemma. They are now in their second round of conversations…and they are ready to learn with and from others who are interested in holding ‘Living Room Conversations.’ This appears to be a promising opportunity to learn about and to actually do ‘public-making’…with the potential of these efforts feeding into more focused deliberation with neighbors and friends who are newly comfortable in fulfilling, civil discourse. Here is the link to their website…with my highest recommendation:

Living Room Conversations project website

So…we know we need more effective ways of learning from the ‘public’…but we’re still pondering about what already works well, and what we could do to make our learning even better. Our modern dilemmas are vexing…a new set of challenges testing our understanding, our governance and our resources. We all know that it’s ineffective to rely on announcements, advertisements and broadcast media as our only means of doing ‘public-making.’ We CAN build great communities together…one conversation at a time.

Posted in Deliberative Practice | Tagged citizens, civic engagement, community, conversation, deliberation, democracy, inclusive, local, NIF, NIF deliberation, participation, public, public engagement, values | Leave a comment

Barriers to Foreclosure Reform

Posted on January 23, 2012 by Craig Paterson

Foreclosures continue unabated…making it obvious that the home-ownership part of the American Dream has been written off for many middle-class families as ‘collateral damage’ in the bank-induced and government-condoned Great Recession. In addition to the human consequences of those who must leave their homes, these foreclosures are destroying thousands of neighborhoods with increasing rates of house abandonment and decay. Sadly, the barriers to foreclosure reform appear to be nearly insurmountable politically…at least until the public demands action.

Many of us are scratching our heads, wondering who benefits from what appears to be on the surface a continuing policy of passive neglect. Most of us probably dismiss the problem as being so complex that no one could possibly be able to find a solution. But…it’s obvious that some people have no interest in finding a solution as one Presidential candidate said not long ago, “It’s best to just let it run its course.”

During December 2011 according to RealtyTrac data, 1 in every 634 housing units in America received a foreclosure notice. In California, the rate is a staggering 1 in every 177 housing units…and these are just statistics for one month. As foreclosures in neighborhoods continue to force the value of other homes lower, more and more homeowners go ‘underwater’ with their mortgages. By allowing a steady ‘flow’ of value out of American communities, the foreclosure rate is sustained as a long-term economic force, benefitting corporate finance and the politicians who serve them.

The bank crisis and Great Recession aren’t really over…even though profits and bonuses have returned to normal, and the recession has ended statistically. The health of the big banks is being directly supported by a steady ‘foreclosure flow.’ On corporate balance sheets, assets must exceed liabilities to show equity and profit. On the books, foreclosures return the full ‘paper value’ of the house to the bank. The banks then use these increased assets to counter-balance the huge derivative debt they are still trying to unwind in a controlled way. Because they need more time and much more money to do this, they also need to keep the ‘flow’ moving. Sadly, the banks actually benefit by leaving foreclosed homes vacant and abandoned, so their neglect can continue to decrease the value of other homes nearby…reducing community-wide housing values to the point where more mortgages go ‘underwater,’ and into foreclosure. For the banks, these mortgages are just numbers-on-paper…for families, they represent their only hope to keep their home.

Tragically…really effective foreclosure reform is not in the self-interest of our national politicians. Republicans seem to believe free markets can do no wrong, so they have no incentive to intervene…especially when many of their supporters are benefitting significantly from the controlled exploitation of our fragile mortgage environment. In addition, the continued erosion of housing value and ‘flow’ of houses into foreclosure provides evidence that the Obama Administration has failed the American public.

Democrats…including the Obama Administration…have an incentive to NOT solve the foreclosure crisis also. If they exert much force to slow the ‘foreclosure flow’ for banks, they are likely to slow the statistical economic recovery they’re depending on to have a favorable outcome in the 2012 election. If they forced the banks to mark down ‘underwater’ mortgages, the banks’ balance sheets would quickly show that the recovery was only an illusion. Foreclosure reform has been off-the-table for the whole recovery…because it could destabilize our systemic financial house-of-cards.

Why aren’t we discussing foreclosure reform…when we can easily see that our neighborhoods will continue to decrease in value, and we can read the trend that will keep the ‘flow’ of foreclosures moving through the next several years? Are we so personally fearful that reform would further damage our own financial stability that we don’t want to face it? Are we secretly so partisan that we’re willing to continue the ‘collateral damage’ of the ‘foreclosure flow’ in order to protect our political positions for the 2012 election? Or…are we so overwhelmed by the issue that we simply don’t know where to start? We probably have a myriad of reasons for NOT bringing the foreclosure crisis into focus for deliberative scrutiny. The consequences of our long-term silence on foreclosure reform, however, will be far more damaging to our communities and to our society than any short-term political discomfort.

Posted in Events and News, Topics for More Conversation | Tagged banks, civic engagement, community, conversation, debt, deliberation, democracy, economy, foreclosure, Great Recession, local, NIF, NIF deliberation, politics, public engagement, small business, values | Leave a comment

Yes…It’ll Get Worse

Posted on December 30, 2011 by Craig Paterson

As we approach the beginning of 2012, it’s important to be both pragmatic and optimistic. 2012 has the potential to be a watershed year in the history of the United States…and of the world perhaps. Sadly…this potential for long-term, political evolution won’t emerge until our public urgency grows significantly. Fortunately…we have many reasons to be optimistic about the future! Yes…our political and economic afflictions are likely to become worse in 2012…far worse. But…this will NEED to happen before we can turn the corner toward a more representative form of governance in America.

Without a doubt…2012 will be a year of high-stakes, political theater. Millions of dollars will be spent on campaigns that focus mostly on distracting, fringe issues. Our 24/7 news entertainment industry will keep our attention on the latest developments in our on-going political soap opera…bombarding us with one panel of pundits after another. Every economic indicator…every statement of every candidate…and every international event…will be scrutinized for political advantage. Meanwhile, the fabric of our society will continue to unravel as more municipalities go bankrupt, more homes are foreclosed, more of the unemployed give up looking for non-existent jobs, more college students go deeper into debt, and more public services to our most vulnerable neighbors are ended.

Let’s be totally pragmatic…we the people won’t work together to heal our dysfunctional governing culture until we feel we have to. It seems to be human nature to respond to a problem only when the need is great and undeniable. This is probably for the best actually…so we don’t over-react to every hint of a problem. In physics, this phenomenon is best explained by the laws of inertia and momentum…things that aren’t moving won’t start moving without a sufficient, applied force, and things that are moving will continue in the same direction and speed unless they encounter an adjusting force. The bad news is…we won’t do anything to correct our political and economic dysfunctions until we’re absolutely required to. The good news is…we WILL do whatever it takes to correct our dysfunctions as soon as we’re convinced we need to.

An idea will grow…mostly likely from some tragic experience that captures the public’s attention, where it become obvious to the American people that there’s a huge vacuum where our leadership and governance should be. This is the way things go…our best ideas emerge from our most difficult moments. The greater the need…the greater the number of minds at work to meet the need. We have some brilliant minds in America…but too few of these minds are focused on solving our public problems. But…that will change…and ideas will spring into the public arena for conversation, analysis, and action.

Change happens when a small group of committed people focus wholeheartedly on an idea, or an image, or a story. When 5% of the population believes an idea, it gains acceptance. When 20% of the population believes in a concept, it becomes unstoppable. The ideas that will lead us forward will be discussed in millions of conversations in neighborhoods all across the country. These ideas will be found to be relevant, hope-filled and persuasive by many people in all of our varied, demographic groups. Whatever these ideas may be…they will become part of our 21^st century political culture, resonating with the hopes and dreams of those who will be inspired to assume the leadership of the next couple generations in our political, academic, environmental and economic communities.

Perhaps 2012 will be a pivotal year because an idea will come into view that will lead the way into a more participatory, inclusive and equitable form of public problem-solving. Perhaps during this coming year, the dialogue and deliberation community will become convinced that our public problems are severe enough to engage in wide-spread, locally-based and nationally-networked projects, focused on tangible impacts. Or…perhaps 2012 will simply lead us to another, deeper level of frustration as we continue our downward slide toward total political gridlock and economic-sector domination.

This New Year’s celebration should be joy-filled as we recognize the potential in 2012…but should also be sober and serious in reflection on the great tasks we need to accomplish for the sustainability of our American society. As our political and economic dysfunction deepens, we need to encourage innovative thinking, creative networking, and impactful problem-solving. What a great time in history to be fully engaged in community conversations on our critical public issues!! As we enter 2012, the good news truly is…yes, it’ll get worse!

Posted in Topics for More Conversation | Tagged civic engagement, community, conversation, creativity, debt, decision, deliberation, democracy, economy, equality, government, inclusive, innovation, jobs, leadership, local, networking, NIF deliberation, participation, plutocracy, politics, public engagement, sustainable, values | 3 Comments

The Purpose of Wealth

Posted on December 17, 2011 by Craig Paterson

Wealth is terribly misunderstood and under-appreciated! And…it is suffering this fate at the hands of both conservatives and liberals. Some people seem to feel wealth is the solution to every problem…while others apparently see wealth as the cause of every problem. Wealth is neither good nor bad by itself…it takes people to make wealth good or bad.

Wealth is all about abundance….which is the opposite of scarcity. Somewhere between scarcity and abundance is a condition we need to research and understand a bit more…it’s called ‘enough.’ Anywhere below this threshold of ‘enough,’ life is not sustainable…the farther you go below ‘enough’ the greater the threat to life. Anywhere above ‘enough,’ life is not only sustainable, but it’s safe…the farther you go above ‘enough’ the greater the safety and security in life. Wealth is all about having much more than ‘enough’…and eventually a trend toward greater and greater wealth by fewer and fewer people means that a small minority of our global population can gain a monopoly on ‘enough.’

Many people don’t understand ‘enough,’ because they’ve always been on the up-side of it. Those of us, who have been on the down-side of ‘enough’ sometime in our lives, however, have a very personal and emotional perspective on the topic. When you can’t put food on the table for your kids…or you can’t afford the medicine you need…or you can’t continue college for financial reasons…or you lose your house to foreclosure after first losing your job…you understand the significance of ‘enough.’ It is one of those experiential concepts that defies any attempt at a purely quantitative definition. For a rapidly-growing number of people on the down-side of ‘enough,’ wealth is a topic that is past-due for deliberative consideration.

The purpose of wealth is learning, innovation and progress. Wealth should apply a society’s abundance of resources toward the creative and adaptive support of the well-being and sustainability of that society. Learning, innovation and progress are accomplished with a lot of trial-and-error…so there’s risk involved. And…where there’s risk, there needs to be an adequate and appropriate return on an investment. But…when wealth becomes a tool of control rather than innovation, it no longer serves its legitimate purpose.

The distribution of wealth ends up being an important factor in understanding wealth itself. When wealth is widely distributed in many hands and in many places, it can be used creatively and locally in problem-solving, invention, research, development, and networking…small businesses find the venture capital they need, and innovative practices spring up and thrive. If, on the other hand, wealth is accumulated by just a few hands and only in urban centers, learning and innovation is directed toward only a limited range of ventures…those that will serve the business needs of people who already hold the wealth.

In our American society…and in the global society as well…wealth has been accumulated in the hands of a very few individuals, families and corporations that it’s no longer used just in economic competition, but is now being used massively in political competition. This accumulation of wealth over the past 30 years is very well documented…and now the application of wealth in political campaigns and in lobbying is becoming equally well documented. This is not a normal trend in the history of our country…and it’s important to discuss its consequences, because it hasn’t shown any signs of slowing.

A little over a century ago, a massive anti-trust effort was needed in response to the wealth domination of a few industrialists who had created effective monopolies. Today in the face of corporations that are too big to fail, we have very little effort anywhere to break these modern-era, crippling monopolies. In economic theory, wealth provides a vital service to society…but, in our modern-era, wealth appears to be demanding to be served by society. The power of great wealth to manipulate society and consumers needs to be examined in a careful and deliberative manner.

We need to talk about the purposes and abuses of wealth in a deliberative way. Our conversations should not propose that wealth is evil…nor should they assume wealth is exempt from public accountability. This will be the defining issue of the next couple elections in America, so it’s time to get the public engaged in this conversation…to understand and to decide together what we believe the purpose of wealth should be.

Posted in Deliberative Practice, Topics for More Conversation | Tagged accountability, civic engagement, community, conversation, corporations, decision, deliberation, democracy, economy, government, Great Recession, jobs, local, NIF, NIF deliberation, participation, plutocracy, public engagement, sustainable, taxes, values, wealth | 2 Comments

Personal Interest to Public Impact

Posted on December 11, 2011 by Craig Paterson

The way we talk about what we do significantly shapes how we do it and who might like to partner with us. So…if we hope to invite and welcome others into our deliberative practice in public engagement, we may need to open the door with some newly-defined terms and norms. These new usages don’t devalue the current understandings, but can add value to our practice as we diversify the tools we have available. I see some benefits in talking about our deliberative work as moving from ‘personal interest to public impact.’ I’ll share some brief thoughts on this view of our work, and plan to convene some deliberative conversations around these understandings very soon.

It’s best in many things to start with the end in mind. The goal in our deliberative practice has seemed at times to be a bit of a moving target…specific in some ways and unspecific in others. Participants in our conversations, however, tend to think in more practical and tangible terms. So…let’s start with impact, because this term means something actually changes as a result of careful and comprehensive deliberation. Most people logically expect deliberative work to lead to make a difference in some noticeable way…in personal and public terms.

We deliberate on public dilemmas…so, our most important deliberative outcome is public impact. Although it can be understood in many ways, it focuses on big-picture and long-term, positive adaptations everyone can live with. Political, economic and environmental changes in our country and around the world require creative and timely responses. Ultimately…the most concrete impact we can envision is that our democratic republic would continue to survive with its foundational tenets intact in order to serve the needs of all Americans and to be a responsible global partner.

Most people also hope for a positive personal impact when they deliberate on public problems. We depend on our public connections to produce a healthy context for ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ These hopes and expectations are seldom explicitly expressed, but always present in our conversations. I believe our deliberative outcomes can inspire more follow-through if we focus on the dynamic connection between personal impact and public impact as we conclude our conversations.

But…how is an impact created in practical terms? In the real-world, things move because a force has been effectively applied. In our deliberative work, adaptation to changing public needs happens when a variety of resources are effectively applied…they are invested in a future outcome that everyone values. Investment focuses on the application of resources in personal and public terms with the hope and expectation that the return will yield a higher, long-term value. Resources are ‘spent’ on short-term needs, and this will always be important too in our conversations. But…changes in public patterns and trends can only happen with the wise and deliberative investment of resources.

Participation is the key to effective public investment…participation that is wide, deep and consistent. Just like in personal wealth management, our public portfolio should be widely diversified at all levels. While some people can contribute more resources than others, everyone can contribute something…not just once or once in a while, but regularly and often. Here is where our deliberative practice can add uniquely and immeasurably: examining the benefits, costs, consequences, tensions and trade-offs of various investment strategies to ‘build great communities…together.’

The range of resources available for personal investment is vast, and it’s seldom examined in the midst of our deliberative practice. Of course, a large part of our personal resources are applied directly toward our own personal impact…but almost all citizens recognize the need to invest in the public connections. In our deliberative practice, we can and should address the reality of what personal resources are available…and what are not. When money and credit seem plentiful, it’s easier to look for solutions to our public dilemmas in terms of dollars. This, however, is no longer the case (if it ever really was), so part of our deliberative conversations should examine what our realistic resources are…and whether the political will exists to tap available resources.

Wherever we live, we have an interest in how well our personal, political, economic, social, organizational, environmental and cultural connections function. It’s become natural in the past few years to talk about ‘stakeholders,’ people and organizations with an issue they hold valuable that is undecided or unresolved. And…this uncertainty is enough that it’s in their informed, self-interest to pay close attention to whatever the issue might be. These interest motivations can be intensely personal or widely public. Because we live in the families we have and we live where we do, we each have a unique set of interests that change through time.

Our public interest is not really an optional part of life…it is an intricate web of inter-connected people and organizations. These multi-leveled connections define the context of our lives…and many parts of our lives are affected by the decisions of others. Here also we can see one of the powerful reasons to strengthen and refine our deliberative practice: examining who affects what at various levels of community life in order to understand complex, cause-and-effect relationships. When it comes to public problem-solving, one size definitely doesn’t fit all…choosing the right solution for a specific problem may require just one action at just one level of community, or it might require many coordinated actions at all levels.

Then…last but certainly not least…personal interest is the prime-mover, bringing people into conversations about public issues with a sense of urgency and commitment. Basically, everyone has an ‘opinion’ on public issues…but only those who feel they have some personal motivations for solving public problems will participate in our deliberative projects. We need this understanding in order to more effectively invite and welcome participants into our community conversations. We need to remove the barriers to participation for those who have a deeply personal interest in an issue. And…we need to integrate this understanding into our deliberative methods to better see a public dilemma through the lens’ of our neighbor’s experiences, frustrations, hopes and dreams. More and more, I’m feeling the best way to open one of our deliberative conversations on any topic is with this question: ‘Very briefly, what is your personal interest in solving this public problem?’

The way we talk about what we do is important. Personal…public…interest…investment…impact. A few new opportunities in our deliberative practice appear to be available, if we use these words and ideas…shown in more detail in the matrix attached above. They may be able to help us refine some of our deliberative methods in issue framing, with a more interactive moderation style, and in creating an easily scalable and clear deliberative outcome. Our role in our deliberative work then can be seen this way: helping our neighbors move from personal interest to public impact in the issues they find to be most perplexing and uncomfortable.

Posted in Deliberative Practice | Tagged civic engagement, conversation, decision, deliberation, democracy, equality, government, NIF, NIF deliberation, participation, policy, politics, public engagement, sustainable, taxes, values | 1 Comment

Massive Public Frustration

Posted on October 28, 2011 by Craig Paterson

My suspicion is that there is a deeply-felt, foundational public frustration that has perked to the surface in the election of President Obama…then in the Tea Party…and now in the Occupy movement. These examples are just a short list in the recent American experience…a deep, global frustration was very evident as well in many conversations when we visited Europe last month. We know this time in history is important, because we experience so many frustrations…and see so few easy answers.

Lots of different styles of conversations on lots of topics can bring many voices into the same space…but only careful listening will be able to discern a general course of action that everyone can live with. Right now, I’m most interested in framing and conducting some public conversations that might tap into non-ideological, visceral frustration about what I see as a growing trend toward greater wealth disparity and less wealth accountability. Some recent statistics verifies what many people already felt…our experiment in financial deregulation and loosening of campaign finance limits has dramatically accelerated the political advantages of the ultra-wealthy over the general public. Let’s approach this topic from many different perspectives…and then see what falls out as common themes.

I believe it’s a natural tendency to want to identify one part of a huge problem as the ‘silver bullet’…or to jump to solutions when faced with a sticky problem. It always reminds me of the famous line from the movie, ‘Casablanca’: “Round up the usual suspects!” While some of these conversations can be inspiring and helpful, I believe we need more creativity and open-minded research for these globally-entrenched issues. Our 24/7 infotainment news media is relentlessly looking for wedge issues…because they thrive on topics where they can put opposing, talking-heads in 90-second confrontations. Real solutions to complex issues take time…as the complexity is unraveled, and new approaches emerge that everyone can live with.

Yes…I’m hoping the dialogue and deliberation community will think-outside-the-box on this one. What’s more…we need a concerted effort by everyone in the wide community of independent researchers to step up into a wide variety of spontaneous inquiry-based research. My feeling about this mood of public frustration is that many voices are ready to speak…but these widely diverse voices are not to the point of deliberative work yet…they are still awakening.

So…I’m initiating some conversations with open-ended, question-centered starters, rather than position points. In our NIF-style deliberative conversations, we always spend some time at the outset with participants sharing brief stories from their personal lives…describing what their ‘stake’ is in solving whatever problem we’re discussing. Anyone can have an opinion about an issue…but only those who have a personal ‘interest’ or ‘stake’ in a solution will actually spend the time and energy needed in long-term problem-solving. Concerning our current public frustration…perhaps the best we can do is to ask our neighbors to share a brief, personal story about their ‘interest’ or ‘stake’ in reversing the trends toward a widening disparity of wealth and too-big-to-fail bailouts. After we’ve listened carefully, we may begin to see some common themes for future deliberative work.

Posted in Deliberative Practice, Topics for More Conversation | Tagged civic engagement, community, conversation, decision, deliberation, democracy, economy, NIF, NIF deliberation, Occupy, participation, plutocracy, public engagement, sustainable, values | Leave a comment

The ‘Occupy’ Movement

Posted on October 15, 2011 by Craig Paterson

‘Occupy Wall Street’ started with a hand-full of people who gathered out of a common sense of need and frustration…not from some ideological purpose. This is a critical distinction that’s obviously been lost on most of our politicians, pundits and 24-7 news media…until very recently at least. Social and political movements emerge and evolve…they don’t just get born as fully-mature political agendas. How can our media be so naïve about how movements start and then mature? ‘Occupy Wall Street’ and other ‘Occupy’ events in other cities and now around the world are very diverse gatherings of people who agree on one thing only…government should be directed as a democracy, and not as a plutocracy!

Rosa Parks didn’t defy segregation laws with a set of laws she wanted passed…she defied them out of a sense of frustration and a need for justice. Think about it…the Montgomery bus boycott started as an act of frustration and exhaustion under the harsh and unfair treatment of African-Americans in the segregated South, not as an orchestrated, pre-determined political program. She just wanted to be able to set anywhere on a public bus.

She didn’t have political demands to be met…she didn’t have a team of lobbyists ready to push legislation…she didn’t have a media team and lots of cash to broadcast her actions across the country. She wasn’t sent by anyone, and her actions weren’t part of anyone’s master plan. She just wanted to sit anywhere on a public bus.

The expansive criticism that the ‘Occupy’ movement isn’t organized…and doesn’t have a clear message…and hasn’t set forth any legislation…appears to be an attempt to discredit an emerging and legitimate voice of a previously-silent segment of our national and now global society, just like many tried to silence the emerging civil rights movement. Every genuinely grass-roots movement starts with a gathering of like-minded citizens…most times because they are frustrated by a fundamental unfairness of some kind. After a group gathers from a common sense of need and frustration, it can start to develop a purpose…and then a political agenda.

Democracy works best when people gather in shared frustration, rather than pre-conceived and pre-packaged ideological beliefs. When people gather in frustration, they can share their stories with each other…they can appreciate the variety of ways others experience their shared problem…and then they can talk together about their similar and unique needs. When, on the other hand, people gather around a prescribed ideological belief, they can only share how their story proves a specific belief to be true…with no opportunities to amend the ideology with the uniqueness of their experience. Democracy must start with a gathering of diverse people who share a deeply-felt, common sense of frustration.

The ‘Occupy’ movement seems to be this kind of movement…with a belief that the 1% of wealthiest people in America and in the world have far more power and political benefits than the other 99% of middle-class and poorer families. And…more importantly, they believe our political systems and global financial system strongly favors the 1%. According to a poll a couple days ago, 54% of Americans apparently agree with this proposition, because they are supportive of the ‘Occupy’ movement.

A ‘plutocracy’ is a political system where its primary purpose is to protect the interests of the very rich as public policy is created. On our recent visit to Europe, we heard the histories, and saw the palaces and castles of past plutocracies…where the wealthy 0.01% ruled the 99.99% with absolute power…for centuries. The ‘Occupy’ movements give us an opportunity in this century to put a spotlight on the continuing trend of wealth accumulation by the already-rich…questioning how far is too far. Perhaps we’ll all come to recognize that we’ve already gone too far.

Posted in Events and News, Topics for More Conversation | Tagged civic engagement, community, conversation, decision, deliberation, democracy, economy, equality, government, news media, NIF deliberation, plutocracy, plutonomy, politics, public, public engagement, sustainable, values | 2 Comments

It’s Not Free!

Posted on August 27, 2011 by Craig Paterson

Whatever you want government to do, it’s not free! Local, state, or federal…no, it’s not free. I’ll bet almost all Americans want their government…at all levels…to solve the public’s problems. Individuals can’t solve big problems alone. Corporations don’t care about public problems when there isn’t a profit involved. That’s why governments are essential in any kind of just, sustainable and participatory society. We want our government to solve problems…but that cannot be done for free!

We want security…but diplomacy, foreign relations, and a 21st century military all require organized, professional-level leadership, staffing and material support. No…corporations cannot provide national security. The security of the United States of America requires an effective and appropriately-funded government.

We want protection…but police, firefighting, public health, air and water quality, and environmental hazard efforts require personnel and material support. No…corporations cannot provide local-level protection. Protection systems in local communities require an effective and appropriately-funded government.

We want equality…but efforts to extend best practices, learning, and opportunity to everyone in every region of every state require personnel, research and organizational support. No…corporations cannot create or sustain an equality infrastructure. Equality at all levels of society requires an effective and appropriately-funded government.

We want education…but a globally-competitive education system requires researchers, teachers, administrators, and lots of material and building support. No…corporations cannot create or sustain an educational infrastructure. Education in the highly-competitive 21st century requires an effective and appropriately-funded government.

We want a transportation infrastructure…but interstate highways, port authorities, airports, and aviation coordination all require personnel, material support and interactive networking. No…corporations cannot provide the transportation infrastructure we need for a thriving economy. Our transportation needs require an effective and appropriately-funded government.

We want a stable financial system…but our Federal Reserve Bank, Treasury Department, financial oversight agencies and deposit insurance fund require personnel, research and organizational support. No…our too-big-to-fail banks and insurance firms cannot provide the stability we need for a healthy and growing economy…they’ve proven that! The stabilization of our financial system requires an effective and appropriately-funded government.

We want a safety net for our most vulnerable neighbors…but programs for older people, low-income families, the unemployed, the disabled, children, disaster survivors, etc. require personnel, assistance funding, and a system to reduce dependency. No…corporations cannot provide safety net systems or assistance. Our basic safety net in America requires an effective and appropriately-funded government.

It’s time to deal with what we want as a society…and what we’re willing to pay for that capacity. By the very fact that we’ve been borrowing over the decades to pay for what we want, it should be obvious that we haven’t truly decided what’s ultimately important. None of these things we want are free! And…it appears we cannot have everything we want, so trade-offs will need to be considered. This we can know: public needs are complex and multi-leveled; corporations cannot solve public problems; and governments provide essential services. Let’s talk about how we can solve public problems, including how we can pay for the solutions. A healthy society…it’s not free!

Posted in Deliberative Practice, Topics for More Conversation | Tagged civic engagement, community, conversation, corporations, debt, decision, deliberation, democracy, economy, education, government, NIF deliberation, public engagement, small business, sustainable, values | Leave a comment