Summertime is finally here. While – absent our normal breakneck programming schedule and without new blog content – it might look a little like we’re taking a siesta* at the Village Square we’re really busy planning for our 2013-14 season. We’re taking stock of past programming and imagining new ideas (tickler: some have to do with incoming asteroids…) Since our last-of-the-season Fast Forward Tallahassee program on May 6, our thinking about future possibilities has already taken us to California and Washington, DC. (Please do contact us if you want to weigh-in as we’re doing all this thinking, we like to hear from you.)

Oh and on the “wishin’ and hopin’” front, it’s OK with us if while we’re summering at the Square, Washington DC goes right ahead and fixes itself, starts to function the way our founders imagined they might, addresses one or two of our BIG FAT problems. But just in case that doesn’t pan out, we’re putting our money on neighbors just like you (in hometowns just like this one) to show Washington what America’s made of. In a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people” maybe that’s exactly as it should be?

_________________

Photo credit: Andy Wilson

*Legal Disclaimer: There will probably be a few actual siestas taken before we return next fall. Vibrant civic discourse can be tiring…

From the Tallahassee Democrat, April 3rd 2013, by Liz Joyner:

In “Democracy in America”, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of the uniquely American habit of “forever forming associations.”

There’s good reason for that. In a new country without a king, someone was going to have to make a few decisions.

Our first and strongest associations in America were with the people who shared a common geography and, amid many threats, likely a common fate: our neighbors. The town hall meeting was born early in our republic, and in one form or the other they’ve been happening ever since.

As metaphor, the town hall perfectly captures the very essence of the freedom we won from European monarchs – it’s the triumph of the common man over the sovereign. And, as a practical matter, it’s been how the business of American community has gotten done for hundreds of years now. Read all »

Be sure to check out WFSU’s Dimensions program (cable channel 5, HD 438) to catch an interview with the Village Square’s Liz Joyner. It will run again on Sunday March 10 at 10am. You can also catch it on 4fsu on Friday March 8 at 7:30 pm, Sunday March 10 at 6pm, Monday March 11 10:00 pm and Tuesday March 12 7 pm. OH and if that weren’t enough already, they’re also covering the art and science of home-brewed beers. Run for your calendars now! (HERE is a pdf of the schedule in case we messed anything up…)

Written by Elena Novak, Contributing Writer

Imagine there’s an asteroid hurtling toward Earth. At its present rate, it will make impact in the year 2022. The human race is doomed; however, there is one controversial solution: raise taxes and cut spending. This would fund a project designed to divert the asteroid’s path.

The harrowing scenario began New York University Stern School of Business professor Jonathan Haidt’s speech addressing FSU students and the Tallahassee public on Sept. 11. His speech, entitled “The Righteous Mind: How morality binds us together and tears us apart,” was delivered to a filled-to-capacity Student Life Cinema on Tuesday evening.

Those who came late to the event were directed to an overflow room, where the lecture could be viewed on a projector screen.

There is no known asteroid bent toward destroying mankind; Haidt made it up as an experiment to gauge the audience’s willingness to implement measures that might go against their political views if it meant saving the world. The majority said they would. (Read the whole article online at FSView.)

If you missed it the first time – or you want to listen again – WFSU is airing Dr. Jonathan Haidt’s Dinner at the Square program tonight from 7 to 8 pm. You can also listen to the program online here. So grab a bite, kick up your feet and tune in at 7pm to WFSU 88.9 FM. Check out pictures of the program HERE (photo credits: Bob Howard).

Tuesday’s dinner program is sold out, but you can still add your name to the waiting list HERE, hear Dr. Haidt speak at FSU HERE or listen to the program on WFSU 88.9 FM at 7pm on Friday, September 21 (or when it goes up online HERE).

From the Tallahassee Democrat:

Know anyone who reacts violently to political agendas of the “other side”?

He’ll be speaking Tuesday night on the morality that “binds and blinds” our nation’s biggest political parties. Haidt will follow the ticketed, seated dinner and speech, “Polarization, Demonization and Paralysis in American Politics,” with a free, broader talk, “The Righteous Mind,” at Florida State University’s Student Life Cinema. Read the entire article in the Tallahassee Democrat.

The following is re-printed with the permission of Mark Goodkin of Conversational Shift.

The Fixed Mindset within the Individual

Often times, we attract certain people who can teach us something about ourselves. They may not know that they are teaching us. The lesson is more encoded in the overall experience and interaction itself. Usually, we have something to teach them as well.

These lessons help us to identify and confront our fixed judgments or mindsets, which are empowered and held captive by underlying charged emotions, formed in childhood. These fixed judgements and charged emotions make up part of what is referred to as Shadow Self, which each person possesses. First coined by Carl Jung, the Shadow Self refers to that part of each one of use which remains hidden, and which we would rather not acknowledge or deal with. On the other hand, the lessons allow us the opportunity to see aspects of our Shadow Self and diffuse the emotional charge, thereby releasing us of the judgments. We become liberated from the fixed perspective and free to explore new options.

For example, we may have constantly been given the message throughout childhood that we have to focus hard on schoolwork and grades, but are not allowed to have much fun. So, we may go through life with the fixed judgment that we have to constantly work hard and are not allowed to have much fun or relaxation. We curtail such an activity and feel guilty when we do have fun.

We may attract to us in one way or another, someone with the fixed mindset that having fun is way more important than working hard.

The encoded lesson here may be that we need to lighten up a bit and have some fun. We can still be a hard worker, but need to put it in balance with some fun once in a while.

We can learn to have more fun, while the person who always likes to have a good time can learn to appreciate working harder.

If we do not recognize this experience as an important lesson, we may criticize the other person as being lazy and narcissistic. Chances are they are judging us for being a workaholic and party pooper. The charged emotions behind the fixed mindset, here, will no doubt make it difficult for us recognize this valuable lesson. However, if we follow the lesson and release the fixed judgments and underlying emotions, we will become free of the compulsion of always feeling like we have to work hard, at the expense of fun and relaxation.

In another example, we may have constantly been given the message in childhood that we have to do everything correctly and never make mistakes. So, we may go through life with the fixed belief that we have to be perfect and never fail. Therefore, we don’t take risks or chances.

We may attract to us someone who is a risk taker and not afraid of failure. However, perhaps they’re a bit too hasty at times and don’t think things through enough before taking action.

The lesson here may be that moving forward in life is about taking risks and inevitably failing at times. We can strive toward excellence, while making mistakes along the way. Nobody is perfect. Meanwhile the other person can learn to be more deliberate before taking action.

If we choose to ignore this lesson, we may criticize the other person for being cavalier and reckless, while they judge us for being afraid to take risks.

The Fixed Mindset within Liberals and Conservatives

Such a dynamic works in encounters between groups of people as well.

As each of us grows up, we may be brought up to believe that people with particular political, social, or religious views are wrong or inferior. Our beliefs become fixed judgments backed by charged emotions, which make it difficult for us to explore and seek understanding or empathy with those views we consider wrong or inferior or our own.

We tend to belong to groups of like-minded people and battle it out with those in other groups with different points of view. We may be hard-pressed to identify the lessons encoded in the encounter, which would have us seek such understanding and empathy.

In the political realm, like-minded liberals battle it out with like-minded conservatives, along several dividing lines. Each political side believes itself to be right and the other side wrong, and makes no bones about it. The conflict never seems to get resolved, leaving each side to scratch its proverbial head and wonder why it can’t get through to the other side. Each side fails to see valuable lessons contained in the relationship.

An example of a dividing line between the two political sides is the following: Conservatives have consistently given voice to the virtues of individual responsibility and self-reliance. In contrast, liberals have consistently given voice to the plight of the disadvantaged.

Meanwhile, conservatives may have an underdeveloped sense of empathy or concern toward the plight of the disadvantaged, while liberals may have an underdeveloped sense of appreciation or concern toward the importance of individual responsibility and self-reliance.

People within each group may share the same views but their experiences for arriving at such commonly held beliefs may be different. For example a conservative member may have grown up in a family, in which the father worked three jobs to support them and taught them the value of self reliance and responsibility. Other group members may have arrived at that view through other experiences growing up.

On the other hand, a liberal member may have grown up, witnessing first hand the ravages of poverty and hunger, and how no one came to their aid. Other group members may have arrived at the same view through different experiences. The outcome is that individual members will have similar emotionally charged views, based on unique life experiences.

In fact, their emotionally charged beliefs become fixed judgments, which freezes their mind into a limited perspective. It ,therefore, makes it more difficult for them to empathize, much less see, the other side’s point of view.

With such charged views, is it any wonder that each side has a hard time communicating with the other side. Each side chooses to criticize the other side’s point of view. A polarized relationship ensues, with an us vs. them mentality.

A Shift Away from the Fixed Mindset

As in the case of individual interactions, each political side can make a more enlightened choice, if they choose. They can choose to see the encoded lessons contained in the experience.

Conservatives might come to realize that, sometimes, it is important for the community to address the plight of the poor and suffering. Not all help is bad or enabling. Meanwhile, liberals might realize, that, at times, tough love is necessary to foster self-reliance and independence. Perhaps too much help is enabling and perpetuates the condition.

The goal is not necessarily for both sides to agree on everything or even reach lukewarm compromises, but rather to defuse the strongly charged emotions behind their fixed beliefs or judgments. The charged emotions that fed into the stuck outlooks of each side toward “the opposition” will be replaced by a greater sense of peace, understanding, and good will. In addition, the mind will be free to explore new possibilities and more clearly distinguish the real threats from imagined ones.

The old “win-lose” paradigm will give way to a “win-win” paradigm. The two sides can now work together more harmoniously and cooperatively, without fear and distrust. There’s now less room for misunderstanding and a greater respect for the values and concerns of both sides.

When the values and concerns of both sides are addressed, the political conversation will be raised to a new level. More balanced and innovative solutions will come about, otherwise unforeseen.

So what can we take away from the idea that our interactions with individuals and groups may contain encoded messages? Let’s ask ourselves what lessons, if any, we can learn from the other person or side. Let’s begin to take ownership over such lessons, so we can reap the benefits they present to us.

I finally got the nerve up to read It’s Even Worse than it Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein. It required nerve because it looks so bad that the idea that anything could be even worse than that, well… I’ll do a little reporting on some of the findings, starting with this:

“America also needs a concerted effort to ameliorate the impact of the partisan media. The country no longer has a public square where most Americans shared a common set of facts used to debate policy options with vigor, but with a basic acceptance of the legitimacy of others’ views. Little can be done to change the new business models, driven by technology and global economics, that make Fox News’s apprach a clear winner over the old network news apprach. But a semblance of a new public square, one that might never have the reach or audience of the old one, could be a model for civil discourse and intelligent, lively debate.”

Find our argument for why we think The Village Square fits the bill here (published February 2012 in the Tallahassee Democrat).

Dan Balz writes in yesterday’s Washington Post about a Pew Research Center survey showing that America is more divided now by political identity than by another other measure.

“Republicans and Democrats have long seen the world through different lenses. On some issues, the gaps between them are relatively small (the importance of political engagement, for example). On others they are wider. What Pew found is that in almost every measure, those gaps have increased over the past 25 years, and in some cases now seem to represent almost unbridgeable divisions.”

Read the article online HERE.

(It might not surprise you that we think this is another confirmation of why The Village Square is the correct model to address this challenge. In communities, where we are neighbors, seems like just about the only toehold.)

Up to now, the story of how liberals and conservatives engage in political discourse and problem solving has been marked by polarization, with questionable outcomes. Each side pushes its own agenda, thinking it has the answers to all the problems.

The question is whether this story has served us well? We face mounting problems, including the debt crisis, unemployment, environmental issues, energy dependency, food and water shortages, terrorism, war, and many others, which some have said will eventually lead to a perfect storm, if it hasn’t happened already. It becomes ever more doubtful that we can solve these problems within the context of our polarized, divisive mindset, which has lead to much of the present paralysis in Washington and has perhaps contributed to the problems.

The Energy Debate

Take for example the issue of energy. Both sides agree that we need to become energy independent. However, each side pushes for its own agenda, while disagreeing on an effective, long-range strategy to become energy independent.

In the energy debate, the main dividing line has been between the liberal concern for the environment and conservative concern for the economy.

Liberals want us to be weaned off of our dependency for petroleum, nuclear, coal, and other energy sources that pollute the environment and are limited in supply, to cleaner, more sustainable energy sources that support the environment, like solar, wind, and geothermal. They would like to see such a shift to cleaner energy sources done within a relatively short time frame.

They push for an increase in government funding and programs, which will support this endeavor, and are willing to tolerate higher energy prices and perhaps even some rationing as temporary measures during the transition.

On the other hand, conservatives want to exploit the conventional energy sources that already exist in our country. They feel that we can make a transition to energy independence much quicker if we invest in conventional energy, since it is already proven and economical. They argue that this approach will minimize the risk toward higher energy prices and rationing.

Conservatives believe that, perhaps some investment in alternative energy mightbe a good idea, but it will take years to develop it into a reliable and economical source to meet our growing energy needs. In fact, they argue, alternative energy will most likely never completely replace conventional sources, but supplement it.

Each side pushes forth its own agenda, without giving much thought to the other side’s merits or concerns. And if both sides did decide to work together, we learn from history that the likely outcome would be a middle of the road compromise, which lacked the necessary punch, while pleasing no one, except perhaps the special interests.

In fact, the debate on energy independence has been going on in one form or another, since at least the energy crisis of 1973. The ongoing debate reflects the story, previously mentioned, as to how each side pushes for its own agenda, without giving much, if any, consideration toward that of the other side. And in the end, with few exceptions, our problems never really get solved, but linger or incarnate into “new” problems. It’s apparent that this story has not served us well and is no match for the mounting issues we face.

What if we could change our story, the way in which we solve problems, from one of polarization and divisiveness to one of collaboration and synergy? In fact, is that possible? I believe it is.

Symphonic Solutions

I would like to introduce the idea of the Symphonic Solution. A Symphonic Solution is a meeting of the minds between liberals and conservatives on a particular issue. However, it does not limit its choices to the middle range of the political spectrum, as seen in middle of the road compromises, but is open to ideas across the entire board.

A musical symphony, or almost any melody for that matter, would be pretty blasé if its notes were limited to the middle range of the scale. A good symphony requires notes carefully taken along the entire musical scale.

A Symphonic Solution could be characterized as an effective plan, which takes into account the main values and concerns of both sides.

When both sides work together constructively for solutions and feel that their voices have been heard and accounted for, they will likely come up with more options, including innovative ones. Both sides also will more likely support the plan in the long run.

The old band-aid measures and watered down compromises that passed for solutions will give way to fresh, creative approaches, which result from a synergy of both sides working together.

It doesn’t mean there will be total agreement on every point. There will still be disagreements, which is natural in our diverse society.

So, returning to our example of the energy issue, how might the two sides work toward a Symphonic Solution for energy independence?

Such a solution would need to address the main values and concerns of both sides. It would have to take into account the liberal values and concerns for clean, renewable energy, which would have low impact on the environment, like pollution. The solution would also have to account for the conservative values and concerns for reliable energy sources, which are both cost effective and affordable.

Coming up with a Symphonic Solution for energy independence, or for that matter, any issue, will require innovative ideas, creativity, and a spirit of working together, and good will. We have a choice. We can continue with the current story of political polarization, paralysis, and ineffective solutions. Or we can change our story to collaboration, synergy, and effective solutions, which have a much better chance of meeting the challenges of mounting problems. The choice will take courage and require a shift in our thinking in how we work together to solve problems.

________________

Mark Goodkin is publisher of Conversational Shift, a website devoted to helping people make the shift from polarized political discourse to one of civil discourse and synergistic solutions. He also publishes San Diego Coast Life, an online guide for locals and visitors to San Diego. He has been a website designer and content developer since 1998 and graphic artist since 1994. In the late 1980s, he worked as a publishing assistant for the Committee for a Free Afghanistan, in Washington DC. and assistant to the Senior Advisor to High Frontier, Inc., in Arlington VA. Mark Goodkin holds a bachelor’s degree in Communication Design from the School of Visual Arts in Saint Paul, MN and in Political Science from the University of California, San Diego.

Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik apparently didn’t approve of a Norwegian version of a Pete Seeger song called “My Rainbow Race” because of its affirmation of multi-culturalism. On Thursday, as the trial of Breivik proceeded, Norwegians crammed into public squares across their country – 40,000 estimated in Oslo – to sing the song. The video shows Norwegian singer Lillebjørn Nilsen leading the Oslo crowd in song. When he finished, Nilsen proclaimed “it’s we who win.”

Tomorrow is a big day in the media world. First of all, tomorrow night is the annual glitzy affair in Washington – The White House Correspondents Dinner. There you’ll find witty banter, searing intellect and the latest designer wear. But you don’t need to be in Washington to experience all the glamorous trappings of the affair! Tomorrow morning you can turn your radio dial to 97.9 ESPN beginning at 8am to Tallahassee Talks with Brien Sorne for an interview with (wait for this) Village Square board co-chair Gil Ziffer and Executive Director Liz Joyner. The interview has the witty banter, searing intellect and you’ll just have to trust me that we were dressed quite fashionably. Brien was a great host, fun to talk to and you really should take a look at some of his great archived interviews with people around town. Our interview will be archived too, in case you simply must sleep in.

Here’s to the Town Hall. We are true believers. Town Hall Meeting Day gives us one more excuse to link to Maira Kalman’s NY Times “And the Pursuit of Happiness” blog for “So Moved:” HERE. It is must read.