Jump on over to Purple State of Mind to read the entire interview with Village Square board member Neil Skene. Here’s a tickler:
The thing about the political “base” of both parties is that they are much more in love with rhetoric and litmus tests than results. Ronald Reagan didn’t reduce the federal budget, and Jeb Bush didn’t reduce Florida’s budget, but they talked a great game and remain conservative heroes. Conservatives love to pass “sunset laws” and “balanced budget amendments” and everything else, but they rarely declare their opposition to any consequential program and successfully turn that position into policy. Liberals have their own philosophical litmus tests, around race and social programs, for example, but are often unable to manage what we already have.
The only way a democratic system like ours can work is if the majority party acknowledges that winning an election means winning the right to set the agenda and put the first proposal on the table, though not the right to get everything it wants. By the same logic, if members of the minority party want to influence that policy, they have to understand that it will require them to accept some things they don’t like to get some things they do.
All this is rather elementary stuff, but trust me when I say that until recently, you’d have trouble finding anyone who seemed to understand it. For years, the reigning philosophy from both sides has been “It’s our way or the highway.” It has reached the point where people don’t know how to hammer out a compromise even when they might be so inclined, as we saw during the charade put on by the “gang of six” trying to negotiate a health-care compromise in the Senate. That dynamic is unlikely to change until the voters get so disgusted that they are willing to indiscriminately turn out all incumbents, irrespective of party and ideology. Perhaps we have finally reached that tipping point.
(Visit our neighbors over at Purple State of Mind to read this post and pull up a chair and visit while you’re at it.)
It’s a lonely, lonely cross I’ve borne. Advocating for political civility is a sort of Siberian No Man’s Land: It’s quiet here, you never quite know when you’ll get the next meal and if you need surgery you’ll probably have to do it yourself.
Well, not. any. more. Last week I spent a glorious 3 days in a veritable city-wide street festival of civility.
Graciously invited to Venice (Florida, not Italy, although perhaps we should hold our reunion there) to a Because It Matters training session, I joined other trainees for all civility, all the time.
Because what matters, you ask?
Silly you.
Here, for your reading pleasure, are 25 previously little known facts about civility (although now that they’ve made the Purple blog will be common knowledge):
1. There is such a thing as a civility expert, called…uh….Civility Experts. And goodness knows we need them to fan out into a civility fleet, no less powerful than our Navy. And in case you’re suspicious that this might be a plot hatched by the (Republican/Democratic, circle one) side of the political aisle, Civility Experts is actually the brainchild of Canadian Lew Bayer who finally decided she’d had enough. So in America’s vast partisan divide, she’s Switzerland. Or – uh – Canada?
3. There is actually a website You’re So Rude.com. I’m thinking of sending a few folks the link. Do you think that would be rude?
4. Civility is really only civil if everyone gets the same respect from you every time. That’s everyone, regardless of how much you disagree with them, you listening 99% of the Senate and House?
5. There is an actual website Rude Busters.com. I might send another whole group of people this link.
7. Technology has created daunting problems in our effort to be civil to each other. The constant electronic connection may make us wired to the internet, but it distracts us from being “wired” to each other.
8. Attending workshops about not allowing technology to make us interpersonally rude nearly made my head explode because I couldn’t check my email.
9. The Wall Street Journal wrote an article about asking ourselves three questions before passing something on: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it worthy?
10. Maybe more people should read the Wall Street Journal.
11. Maybe the Wall Street Journal editorial page writers should read the Wall Street Journal. (And to be fair, everyone who writes in every other paper on – well – the planet.)
12. There is something called social intelligence and it’s a really important thing for people to have in a civilized society. We have less and less of it.
13. There is something called social capital and it is a really important thing for communities to have because it is what makes us a civilized society.
14. There is such a thing as “hurry sickness” that causes headaches and insomnia.
15. I have to hurry up and make my deadline to get this blog post up and I have a headache because I didn’t sleep last night.
16. There’s a great exercise for children (or adults who act like children) on thinking before you speak (or write a post on a website, are you listening, people): Give everyone a tube of toothpaste and race with each other to squeeze all the toothpaste out. Declare a winner! Then give everyone a knife and have them race to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Point made.
17. I think as a society we may be squeezing all the toothpaste out of the tube.
18. Our civility trainer knew someone (who called her “little lady”) who plucked a hair from his head and used it to floss his teeth in front of her.
19. Ewww.
20. At a buffet, you’re supposed to serve yourself one course at a time.
21. At the buffet at the conference, I forgot to serve myself one course at a time.
22. Asian women cover their mouths when they smile because they consider their gums unattractive.
23. The key to stopping bullying is activating bystanders.
24. I think it’s officially time now to activate a whole country full of bystanders.
25. Civility and diversity training is a growth industry. Go figure.
–Liz Joyner is the Executive Director of The Village Square, a nonprofit devoted to improving the civility and factual accuracy of the political dialogue. Liz now has really gray hair, but really good manners.
“When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t go blow a bunch of money on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize.” —Obama at a town hall meeting
After Obama’s first Vegas jab, about a year ago, Mayor Oscar Goodman (D) demanded an apology, and Reid reassured everyone in a Senate floor speech that he had spoken with Rahm Emanuel about it, and that the comments were more about executives than Vegas…then Reid proceeded to trumpet low Vegas hotel rates in the Senate chamber.
Now, Goodman (who has since left the Democratic Party to become an independent) is all over Obama again, saying that “an apology won’t be acceptable this time…
“I want to assure you when he comes I will do everything I can to give him the boot back to Washington and to visit his failures back there,” Goodman said. Obama will reportedly campaign for Reid in Nevada this month.
Reid, meanwhile, stuck up for his home state, issuing a statement that he had asked the president to “lay off” Vegas.
We were out of pocket last week when this editorial ran in last Thursday’s Tallahassee Democrat, so never got it posted. We simply couldn’t let that travesty stand:
Remember the fracas surrounding the town hall meetings on health care?
The founders of The Village Square do. Their efforts to bring together diametrically opposed ideological groups has earned a $72,000 slice of $24 million offered through the Knight Foundation’s Community Information Challenge.
The money will be used to support programs that help concerned individuals follow Albert Einstein’s charge: “To the village square we must carry the facts … from there must come America’s voice.”
The Village Square is the type of resource citizens of this country, and more distinctly, area residents will need as we consider opposing points of view with a mind toward strengthening our republic.
Through conversations over group dinners, political discussions over a pint of beer, and soon, online tools that will allow community members to post, read and edit information on locally focused topics, Executive Director Liz Joyner and members of the board are striving to “bring communities back together again as neighbors taking care of what neighbors used to handle.”
Round-table and panel discussions sponsored by The Village Square, through the use of the Knight grant, could serve as the antithesis of the well-intentioned — but easily maligned — local “town hall” meetings.
A good example was the one held on health care reforms Aug. 25 at City Hall. Though it was attended by U.S. Rep. Allen Boyd, it quickly fell victim to an ideological shouting match because it was sponsored by some community agencies that stood to benefit from federal stimulus dollars. An opportunity to meet with our congressman was drowned out by rhetoric from both sides, and an opportunity to truly hear and understand opposing views was crushed.
By contrast, Village Square forums would primarily focus on the local issues, including topics such as the great biomass debate, coal plants and constitutional amendments. The group’s outreach efforts encourage individuals to read, think and opine for themselves rather than allowing their talking points to come from nationally focused partisan agendas.
The first test of bringing the community together in such a down-home fashion is to raise matching funds for the Knight grant. The group is halfway to its goal, but it’s important that donations (and participation) come from throughout the community.
“Knight wants to see that the community supports the idea,” Ms. Joyner said.
Input is sought on how The Village Square can best use its grant money to unify the community in the exchange of ideas.
“There is a way for anyone who’s interested to get involved, whatever their abilities are,” she said.
Whether residents of this area support The Village Square with their dollars, their attendance, contribution to an online Wiki of information pertinent to local topics or in some other form, Ms. Joyner and members of the board march forward with a charge by writer Patricia Nelson Limerick: “Let friendship redeem the republic.”
As details of the expose on John Edwards’ train wreck (and oh my this is an epic train wreck) come out from Andrew Young’s book The Politician, it’s worth noting that I haven’t heard one peep from the GOP trying to tie Edwards to President Obama and the Democratic party in general. Apparently they’ve suspended “politics as usual” on this one, for which we should all be eternally grateful.
Too often we notice the transgressions, but I believe it’s worth noting the moments of real decency. We found one.
Go figure.
(Editorial comment: Citizens should be on guard for the corrupting nature of fame and power in their leaders on both sides of the aisle. To pretend that this is the exclusive territory of one or the other party – which one entirely related to which one you’re in – is just silly.)
The Community Foundation of North Florida, partnering with the local Village Square, recently received a $72,000 challenge grant to go toward renewing the dialogue regarding community issues.
“The whole idea is to bring people together that don’t agree politically and bridge the partisan divide,” said Liz Joyner, executive director of the Village Square.
The Knight Community Information Challenge is a highly-competitive national competition that chooses only 24 winners every year. The premise of the competition is to inspire community foundations across the country to think of new and creative ways to discuss issues. The Village Square project is called “We the People,” and implements simple, technologically-based communication ideas while fostering community involvement.
“The context of the project is to engage the neighborhood in conversation about state and local issues, and it bridges the partisan divide,” said Joyner. “Even local issues have been seen as partisan lately, and this just helps to revitalize geographical community ties.”
“We the People” is made up of several face-to-face community events that encourage a constructive dialogue between people who may not agree politically. Some of these events include “Dinner at the Square,” “Take-out Tuesday,” “Politics, Partisans and a Pint” and “Sunday Night Supper Club.” The events are intended to draw very diverse crowds, and the programs have small incentives to encourage productive and constructive political discussion.
“There is a lot of information that suggests we are becoming more divided by ideological communities than geographic communities,” said Joyner. “It’s difficult to make community decisions in that environment. People didn’t used to see things so rigidly through a partisan lens.”
The project also incorporates technology with “We the Wiki,” an online discussion forum for local issues. The online tool is similar to that of Wikipedia ,in that it can be updated and improved by any member.
The project is also seeking blogging pairs, or people who don’t agree politically to constructively discuss their arguments for issues in the online forum.
The Village Square intends to create a national model of community forums and hopes to share “We the Wiki” with other cities to further promote community discussion in a productive way.
The project also seeks support from young people, especially students.
“With ‘We the Wiki,’ people can constructively work together to make an important decision, while engaging in constructive problem-solving,” said Joyner. “It’s a great aspect for students to get involved in.”
Students are encouraged to look in to the Leadership Next program, a similar program focused on community dialogue that is geared toward young people. More information on how to get involved and participate in community events can be found at the Village Square Web site, tothevillagesquare.org.
Putting aside for a moment the debate about whether those charged with terrorism should be tried in a civil or military court, whether they should kept at Guantanamo or in an American prison, Gail Collins makes a strong case in today’s New York Times that the “cult of me” took the steering wheel in the decision making:
Last November, the Justice Department announced that the terror trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would be held in Manhattan. Almost everyone in New York rallied around. This was seen as standing up to terrorism. “It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center, where so many New Yorkers were murdered,” said Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Now everything’s flipped. The politicians are running for the hills, and the issue has been repackaged as standing up to traffic jams. “There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive,” said Bloomberg.
And the Justice Department is backing down. The trial will happen somewhere else. People in Lower Manhattan will breathe a sigh of relief.
But this feels very wrong.
The Bloomberg rebellion fits right into the sour, us-first mood that’s settled over the country. It’s part of the same impulse that caused Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska to decree that a historic overhaul of the country’s messed-up health care system was not going to happen unless his home state got a special exemption from sharing the costs.
Or the Not-in-My-Backyard uprising that followed President Obama’s attempt to move the Guantánamo prisoners into American maximum-security lockups. No matter how remote the prison, local politicians said that the danger was too great to bear. Both of Montana’s Democratic senators immediately decreed that their entire state was a no-go zone. Rudy Giuliani, who watched “in awe of our system” when terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted in a civilian court in Virginia, instantly attacked the plans for the Manhattan trial…
It’s all part of a cult of selfishness that decrees it’s fine to throw your body in front of any initiative, no matter how important, if resistance looks more profitable.
Isn’t the America we value one where we are willing to work hard and sacrifice something for a higher purpose than ourselves?
