Deliberative IDEAS

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 | Leave a 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

Lead by Example in Public Engagement

Posted on August 9, 2011 by Craig Paterson

In the decisive moment in the movie, ‘The Untouchables,’ Sean Connery’s character delivers a death-bed challenge to Elliot Ness, played by Kevin Costner, saying, “What are you prepared to do?” During the rest of that movie, we all found out what he was willing to do…and we also found out that it’s not good enough to just go along with business-as-usual when you know things are not right. We know things are not right…we know our current problems won’t be resolved without our reflective and decisive responses. So, friends…what are you prepared to do?

Today we must figure out that it’s not good enough to just watch passively as our politicians kick the can down the road yet again on the kinds of reforms we need to make our government more responsive and agile, and to make our economy more vital and sustainable. Every citizen has the capacity to participate in a careful and deliberative conversation about our values and our vision of the future. My feeling is this…we must lead by example in public problem-solving, rather than waiting for others to act first or resorting to endless finger-pointing and name-calling.

I remember a conversation with my dad in 1971. As a farmer and as the President of our local Farm Bureau at the time, he was agonizing over a new set of regulations that appeared to be on the horizon. He was certain they would be decided in a way that would make life much more complicated in farming operations, and much more costly. As a know-it-all college student in economics at the time, I offered some advice. I remember sharing a simple analogy…when you’re in a car driving down the road, you’re either the driver or you’re a passenger.

My advice was that he and his colleagues in farming needed to be the drivers…that farmers needed to decide together what actions would resolve the pending dilemmas in ways they could live with…and in ways their detractors could also live with. By trying to defend indefensible positions, they would be allowing others who knew nothing about farming to decide how farming operations should be conducted…they would be passengers only, going wherever a driver who wasn’t willing to ask for directions might want to go. My advice was impertinent and naïve…but I still believe it also had a spark of truth in it. In policy decisions, you have to decide to drive or ride.

So…progressives and Democratic Party leaders…you need to deliberate on entitlement decreases. You can’t afford to let people who don’t believe in the value of entitlements to shape their reform. Entitlements as they exist today are not sustainable long-term. Some major reforms will be needed…so do you want to be the driver or just a passenger? What are you prepared to do?

And…conservatives and Republican Party leaders…you need to deliberate on revenue increases. You can’t afford to let people who don’t believe we need a smaller government and more reliance on capitalism to choose which revenue increases to use. Do the math…our deficit cannot be reduced effectively without some revenue increases, because we simply cannot eliminate our social safety net or our national defense network completely. Some revenue increases will be needed…so do you want to be the driver or just a passenger? What are you prepared to do?

Similarly…moderates and Independent leaders…you need to deliberate on how to understand the tensions and trade-offs of both entitlement decreases and revenue increases. You can’t afford to let partisan leaders who are trapped in their ideologies to decide how to balance the entitlement decreases and revenue increases we will need in the very near future to stabilize our economy. These tensions and trade-offs will be the most critical parts of budget and debt decisions…so do you want to be the driver or just a passenger? What are you prepared to do?

It’s time to lead by example in deliberative, public engagement. According to a recent poll, 60% of the American public believed we must have both entitlement decreases AND revenue increases to control the deficit and to reduce our federal debt…and this was the decision of Simpson-Bowles Commission…and this was one of the key findings of the nation-wide AmericaSpeaks gatherings last year. We lead by example when we’re willing to deliberate wholeheartedly on what is most difficult for us. When we lead in this way, we choose to be drivers rather than passengers. Our problems will be resolved by people who are willing to step up to do what is difficult. So, friends…what are you prepared to do?

Posted in Deliberative Practice, Topics for More Conversation | Tagged AmericaSpeaks, budget, citizens, community, conversation, debt, decision, deliberation, economy, NIF deliberation, participation, politics, public engagement, sustainable, taxes, values | 1 Comment

THAT’S Why We Deliberate!

Posted on August 5, 2011 by Craig Paterson

It was a bad week for our democracy. Sure…our country narrowly averted a financial default, but the cost of this protracted distraction and last-minute rescue will be felt for years to come. It seems the public…and most of Congress…has been relegated to ‘observer’ status, concerning the most important decisions of several decades. In addition, the forced outcome runs counter to our economic recovery and our constitutional form of government. This method of governing is dangerous and costly…and it cannot be practiced for long without dire consequences. Now, more than ever…we should be certain that the deliberative and balanced governance that is our heritage and strength must be trusted to lead us into a sustainable future. Every American needs to know…THAT’S why we deliberate!

Even highly trusted conservative voices are appalled by the tone and outcome of the debt ceiling debate! If you know David Frum, you know him to be a person of impeccable, conservative credentials. If you don’t know David Frum, you need to!! His scathing assessment of the recent debt ceiling deal appeared on the CNN website…and it is a must-read! The link is available below…read it and share it. In addition, here’s a tweet from David Frum yesterday to let you know exactly how he feels: “What will US society look like post-recession? Thus far: rich exempted, poor crushed, middle class facing bleaker retirements.” THAT’S why we deliberate!

David Frum CNN blog post

This evening we learned that our country’s credit rating has been reduced from AAA to AA…this will cost taxpayers millions of dollars in increased interest payments on our debt. Why? One primary reason lies with the bull-headed insistence by Republican leaders that no revenue increases would be included in the debt ceiling deal. When Speaker Boehner announced proudly that the deal was ‘cuts only,’ I thought to myself…there goes the credit rating! Didn’t you?? The bi-partisan Simpson- Bowles commission clearly stated in their findings that it is impossible to reduce our long-term debt without increasing revenue AND decreasing spending. Standard & Poor’s had already made their expectations clear. Everyone knew the debt ceiling deal didn’t take our debt problem seriously, because it didn’t include any revenue increases. THAT’S why we deliberate!

During the whole debt ceiling debacle, we saw nothing but back-room deals by a few politicians with over-inflated egos…yes, this includes even our President. We had lots of mystery and drama, but there was very little to give the public any confidence in the practice of democratic principles. What happened to the promise and the hope for greater transparency in government? The secretive and intrigue-filled negotiations of various ad hoc small groups created a wonderful opportunities for our news entertainment media to guess about what was or wasn’t happening, but this isn’t how we run an ‘open government.’ Transparency in critical decision-making was totally missing. THAT’S why we deliberate!

Wall Street finally woke up to the fact that the debt ceiling deal will be devastating to the economy. Duh!! During all of these D.C. negotiations, big-money investors went about their business, thinking everything would be okay…wrong! Now, they realize that perhaps 1.8 million jobs will be lost between now and the end of 2012…and somehow they were surprised. The huge cuts in federal spending will end many, many private sector jobs in infrastructure projects, research and development, and productivity advances. This kind of outcome is clearly counter-productive when our economic recovery is still incredibly fragile. At least, do no harm! THAT’S why we deliberate!

And…what’s with this ‘Super Committee?’ How does anyone think this arrangement is constitutional? Especially those who are constitutional fundamentalists…how can this work in your view of the Founding Fathers? I’m not a constitutional fundamentalist, and this makes me cringe. 535 elected representatives now entrust 12 of their colleagues to create legislations that cannot be amended…just voted up or down…with horrendous consequences if they fail. No accountability…no transparency…they just dish responsibility to a handful of people and dash! Pathetic…and I believe unconstitutional. Republicans forced us into this corner…Democrats were complicit…the President signed off. THAT’S why we deliberate!

It was a bad week for our democracy! Will we remember when we decided to do something about it? When we get downgraded to AA credit rating…when we let a handful of people decide critical public policies in secrecy…when we allow our elected leaders to damage our fragile economy…when we choose to dramatically reduce accountability and transparency for political expediency…we might be ready to shout together, “THAT’s why we deliberate!!”

Posted in Deliberative Practice, Events and News, Topics for More Conversation | Tagged civic engagement, community, constitutional, conversation, decision, deficit, deliberation, democracy, economy, government, Great Recession, NIF deliberation, participation, plutocracy, politics, public, public engagement, values | Leave a comment

A Deliberative ‘Carpe Diem’ Moment

Posted on August 2, 2011 by Craig Paterson

Certain moments in history require dedicated and focused attention to critical decisions. I believe we’re living in one of those moments…when deliberative work can be incredibly important for short-term and long-term well-being of our neighbors and our country. This is the moment for which we’ve been prepared in our experiences, our research and studies, and our professional practices. Carpe diem, my friends! ‘Seize the day’ to revive our democratic resilience through thousands of networked, small-group conversations to inform our leaders with the values, hopes and expectations of all Americans.

Last November and again in May, research workshops at the Kettering Foundation focused on how online digital strategies could encourage and effectively network greater public engagement in our most critical political dilemmas. In both of these workshops, we reaffirmed our confidence that great strides have been made in dialogue and deliberation during the past quarter century. We have a remarkably rich and deep deliberative infrastructure in place for in big cities and small towns across the country. Our biggest challenge it seems is to coordinate highly diverse efforts and then to make sense of a huge and nebulous cloud of deliberative data.

As we consider dialogue and deliberation as a wide-spread national strategy in light of our rancorous political environment, I want to reiterate my belief that the National Issues Forums (NIF) and National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) communities are already well prepared for these conversations…with a diversity of practices giving many entry-points. Each practice is specifically suited to approach issues in a unique way, so participants with different personalities and small-group comfort levels can add their values, hopes and expectations to a composite view of public opinion. It’s like a room with many doors…it doesn’t matter how you get in, it matters that you’re included in the deliberative room.

Some conversations among NCDD practitioners recently seem to be leaning toward a one-methodology approach to a national conversation. While I don’t really want to be a wet-blanket about this approach, I do believe the development, management and coordination requirements of such an effort would make it too costly, too slow and too complicated, when we already have a wealth of deliberative professionals and volunteers who are trained and ready in their preferred disciplines.

I believe we need to encourage all deliberative disciplines to focus their attentions on our economy, jobs, wealth distribution and long-term economic sustainability. Each discipline can frame and conduct these conversations in whatever ways they find to be appropriate. It would probably be healthy to have many different frameworks for these deliberative conversations, so many people from all political, ethnic, geographic, and ideological backgrounds can find a place in a small-group somewhere.

But then…here’s a huge need, but one I’m sure we can meet with imagination and innovation: once these diverse disciplines inspire conversations across the country on these topics, how can we then gather the highlights and agreements in a meaningful and persuasive cloud of values and desires? This is already a huge challenge with deliberative efforts working at just a tiny fraction of its true capacity. If we can somehow increase this capacity to meet the needs of our current political environment, we’ll clearly need some new technological tools to make sense of all the data we’ll need to process.

Any thoughts? How should we encourage and inspire participation in public engagement at this critical time? How can we network all disciplines in some semblance of focus as the public hopes for more opportunities to speak? How can we recognize the patterns of common ground that already exist but elude detection? It’s time to meet these challenges…as we embrace our deliberative ‘carpe diem’ moment.

Posted in Deliberative Practice, Events and News, Topics for More Conversation | Tagged budget, civic engagement, community, conversation, decision, deliberation, democracy, economy, government, jobs, NIF, NIF deliberation, public, public engagement, sustainable, values | 3 Comments