In theater classes we used to do exercises to help us get grounded.
We’d aim to be physically grounded – so we wouldn’t lose balance from an instructor’s gentle push. We’d practice drawing power from that grounding – not only using our diaphragm to project, but drawing strength – our character’s strength – from that grounding.
Find your center and use it, the instructors would explain.
In case no one’s ever told you to find your center (did I mention I grew up in California?), it’s round about your stomach. About two inches north of your belly button.
Years later in Aikido classes, we did similar exercises with a different twist. The “ki” in “Aikido” is a kind of…personal energy that you can control and direct. You may have heard of this as the Chinese “Chi.”
Aikido as an art is particularly focused on harnessing this ki. The name, in fact, means…”the way of harmonizing ki.” Using Aikido, a smaller opponent can defeat a larger opponent, a lighter opponent can defeat a heavier opponent.
There’s a lot of physics involved, of course – you use your opponent’s inertia against them. But power in the physical sense is important here, too. If someone comes at you with blind power, and you are grounded, centered, you can redirect that power to their detriment.
In the strength training I do these days, core is the buzz word of choice. Lifting heavy weights isn’t about having large arm muscles. It’s about tapping into your core strength. Focusing your energy on moving efficiently with a burst of power. It’s about taking one deep breath and using your entire body to meet one goal.
All of these exercises have a physical component – literally generating energy and power from your stance, breath, and movement. But many of them have a…metaphysical component for lack of a better word.
In theater, you use your grounding to power your character. To have stage presence. To own the moment.
In Aikido, you use your center to defect someone else’s un-centered power. To stay calm, powerful, and in control no matter what is thrown at you.
In strength training, you use your core to power the physical movement, but you use your resolve – your mental toughness as one instructor calls it – it focus all your mental energy on a simple physical action.
In those moments, your mind is blank. Or toughened. You are one with your movements and wholly engaged in one task. And through this grounding, you remain calm and focused through the physical strain. Centered.
University of Washington Professor Walter Parker and colleagues are running experiments in which some classes take AP US Government as it’s typically taught (textbooks, lectures, and some discussion), and others experience a curriculum based on mock trials and other projects. All the kids take the same AP standardized test. The project-based curriculum evolves from year to year, because Parker and colleagues didn’t have a perfect model all ready to adopt. But, as they have run the experiment, the kids in the project-based courses have performed at least as well on the AP test as their peers, while also demonstrating higher scores on civic engagement.
All this is well described in a Seattle Times piece by Linda Shaw. The project is important as a rigorous test of the theory that people learn better when they are engaged and interested. Here, the outcome measure (an AP test) is artificial and isolating. Each kid answers the questions privately, to demonstrate her knowledge of relatively abstract material. The kids’ creativity and interaction with each other are not assessed. And yet, learning the material through experience yields equal or better test scores.
The project is also important as a model of collaboration between teachers and university-based scholars. It isn’t a randomized study of a prepackaged intervention (although we do those, and I would defend them), but rather a collaborative process of design and redesign that is then measured very rigorously.
Finally, this project suggests a partial solution to a deep problem. Contrary to popular belief, we have not really cut civic education from our schools. But we have transformed it from a set of discussions and projects into a bunch of academic courses that mimic the social sciences in college–of which AP US Government is a prominent example.
In 1928-9, according to federal statistics, more than half of all American ninth-graders took “civics.” This was the tail end of the Progressive Era, and “civics” meant learning about one’s own community and, often, doing group projects outside of the school.* Enrollment in courses called “civics” had fallen to 13.4 by the early 1970s.
In 1948-9, 41.5 percent of American high school students took “problems of democracy,” which typically involved reading and debating stories from the daily newspaper. By the early 1970s, that percentage was down to 8.9.** But the percentage of high school students who have taken any government course has been basically steady since 1915-1916, and AP US Government is the fastest growing AP course.
Thus we have basically transformed civic education from guided experience of citizenship*** into a dispassionate study of the US government. On philosophical grounds, I object. But as long as that trend continues, Walter Parker’s research is enormously helpful. He shows that by using some of the old techniques of “civics” and “problems of democracy,” we can actually achieve higher scores on a what amounts to a poli. sci. exam–presumably because kids are more engaged and challenged.
**Richard G. Niemi and Julia Smith, “Enrollments in High School Government Classes: Are We Short-Changing Both Citizenship and Political Science Training?” PS: Political Science and Politics, vol. 34, no. 2 (June 2001), p. 282.
The good folks at the Tellus Institute in Boston have recently relaunched the Great Transition Initiative -- “an online forum of ideas and an international network” dedicated to developing “a new praxis for global transformation.” As part of that effort, I was invited to submit an essay on how the commons might contribute to the “Great Transition.”
In my essay, “The Commons as a Template for Transformation,” I argue that “the commons paradigm can help us imagine and implement a serious alternative—a new vision of provisioning and democratic governance that can evolve within the fragile, deteriorating edifice of existing institutions.” My basic argument:
The commons—a paradigm, discourse, ethic, and set of social practices—provides several benefits to those seeking to navigate a Great Transition. It offers a coherent economic and political critique of existing Market/State institutions. Its history includes many venerable legal principles that help us both to imagine new forms of law and to develop proactive political strategies for effecting change. Finally, the commons is supported by an actual transnational movement of commoners who are co-creating innovative provisioning and governance systems that work.
For readers of this blog, most of the themes in my GTI essay will be familiar. My goal was to synthesize many disparate threads into a single, 5,000-word case for the commons. I wanted help a policy-oriented readership see how the commons paradigm could help us re-imagine and transform economics, politics, culture, and particularly ecological stewardship.
After introducing the whole commons concept for the uninitiated, I review a sampling of commons that manage ecological resources and describe the rise of the contemporary commons movement. I also urge that we imagine “a new architecture of commons-based law and policy,” drawing heavily on my recent book with Burns Weston, Green Governance: Ecological Survival, Human Rights and the Law of the Commons (Cambridge University Press). And finally, I assess the prospects and limitations of the commons paradigm, and conclude:
I personally am a big fan of the work being done by our friends at the Participatory Budgeting Project, and they made two pretty exciting announcements recently that we wanted to share with you.
First, as an exercise in walking the talk, the PBP asked its donors to decide how they should spend the money they donated in the coming year, and the results of the vote are in:
The polls have closed and the votes are tallied…we are thrilled to announce the results of PBP’s second annual PB2 process! To practice what we preach, last fall we invited PB organizers far and wide to help us brainstorm and prioritize project ideas for moving PB forward in North America. Then we asked everyone who donated to PBP last year to vote on which projects to fund in 2014…
We committed to use half the money raised in donations to fund the projects with the most votes. Thanks to the generous contributions of 193 supporters, we raised over $28,000 total, so roughly $14,000 for PB2. This means that we can fund the top two projects above: an Organizing for PB Toolkit and a Youth PB Campaign!
Stay tuned for more info on these two projects! We’ll also do our best to move forward on the other priorities, through in-kind support and other revenue resources. And if you missed your chance to give and vote, please consider donating to PBP now, so that we can carry out more of your PB priorities.
Our young people will never be prepared to be effective participants in a democratic society if they never have a chance to practice, so it is quite exciting to see PBP focusing on engaging young people in their participatory process! We look forward to hearing more about how the work goes.
Second, PBP has announced the dates for their 3rd international conference:
PBP is happy to announce that our 3rd International Conference on Participatory Budgeting will take place September 25-28, 2014 in the San Francisco Bay Area, California.
Over the coming weeks and months, we’ll be posting information about flights, hotels, registration and conference venues. In the meantime, please mark your calendars and stay tuned. You can browse past conference sessions here and send questions or comments to conference@participatorybudgeting.org.
We are pleased to highlight the post below, which came from Susan Sherry of the Center for Collaborative Policy, an NCDD organizational member, via our Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!
The Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento is pleased to announce that is is now recruiting for both a Senior-Level and a Lead-Level Mediator/ Facilitator. Both of these positions call for a professional with demonstrated experience in mediating, facilitating and managing projects involving complex public policy and political issues that engage a diverse range of stakeholders and the public.
For detailed information and to view duties, qualifications and the application process, see www.csus.edu/about/employment. All submissions are done electronically through this University link. Application review will begin on March 7, 2014 and continue until the positions are filled.
If you would like a one-page summary of the job announcement, including the differences between the Senior and Lead positions, please make your request to: frontdesk@ccp.csus.edu
We would be very grateful if you could pass this announcement onto your professional colleagues in the field.
The Center for Collaborative Policy, established in 1992, is a self-supporting unit of the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies at California State University, Sacramento. The Center’s mission is to build the capacity of public agencies, stakeholder groups, and the public to use collaborative strategies to improve policy outcomes. With an exceptional track record of success that has been well documented in both academic and public media accounts, the Center works on many of California’s most challenging public policy issues such as governance and fiscal reform, social and health services, natural resources, water, land use, air quality, transportation, and emergency services and homeland security.
The successful candidate will join a team of respected and highly qualified professionals who are committed to advancing the art and science of collaborative public policy making.
For more information, see the Center’s website: www.csus.edu/ccp.
Tisch College, where I work, will host it’s annual Frontiers of Democracy Conference in Boston, MA on July 16-18, 2014.
Much of “Frontiers” consists of invited sessions planned by Matt Leighninger (Deliberative Democracy Consortium), Peter Levine (Tisch College), Karol Soltan (University of Maryland/Summer Institute of Civic Studies), and Nancy Thomas (CIRCLE/The Democracy Imperative). In addition, alumni of the Summer Institute of Civic Studies (that’s me!) are planning sessions and issuing a call for proposals.
We’re intentionally keeping the call open – submit an idea you’ve been wrestling with or a topic you’ve been exploring. We can help match you with others interested in convergent topics as we put together, interactive sessions with plenty of time for conversation, moderated discussions, workshops, readings, planning sessions, or other types of events.
Frontiers of Democracy is not a typical academic conference, and many participants are practitioners. Therefore, interactive working sessions of various kinds are strongly preferred.
Below is a list of potential topics, but we welcome proposals that fit broadly and creatively within the key theme of the conference, Who’s on the bus and where is it going? The State of the Civic Field. Both teams and individual scholars and practitioners may apply. Additionally, we may connect you with other presenters based on interest area.
Topics
Citizens and Citizenship – What sort of citizens do we want? What knowledge, actions, and beliefs are important for strong citizens? What actions have citizens taken to actively engage in democratic practices? What institutional structures promote meaningful and engaged citizens? What knowledge, skills, and attitudes could transfer to global citizenship? Which may not? How does in-group and out-group status both define and limit citizenship?
Scale – How can strong/successful civic practices be scaled up and out? Is this a useful focus for civic work?
Civic Studies – What is the current state of the debate in the field? What controversies have emerged? Where is more research needed?
Political Reform – What changes in laws and policies are needed to strengthen active citizenship? What should we do to achieve those changes?
Democratic Practices – Sessions on particular practices or methods, which may involve – for example – community organizing, media production, deliberation, reflection, or service.
Political Learning – How can we begin to address civic education in an era of education spending reduction, the Common Core, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top? What are the challenges and opportunities for higher education?
Capitalism and Inequality – Is civic renewal compatible with capitalism? Is it hamstrung by inequality?
On behalf of all the founding participants, NCDD is pleased to invite you to join the new Transpartisan Listserv. Our intension for this moderated email discussion list is to provide a simple, safe communication channel where individuals and organizations that are active in this boundary-crossing work can connect and learn from each other.
The list is hosted by NCDD through a partnership of NCDD and Mediators Foundation. The following amazing group of people are co-founding the list:
Mark Gerzon, Tom Hast and John Steiner of Mediators Foundation
Sandy Heierbacher, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Tom Atlee, Co-Intelligence Institute
Steve Bhaerman, humorist and author
Dr. Don Beck, The Spiral Dynamics Group
Joan Blades and Debilyn Molineaux, Living Room Conversations
Laura Chasin, Bob Stains, Dave Joseph and Mary Jacksteit, Public Conversations Project
Lawry Chickering and Jim Turner, co-authors of Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life
Jacob Hess and Phil Neisser, co-authors of You’re Not as Crazy as I Thought (But You’re Still Wrong)
Margo King, Wisdom Beyond Borders-Mediators Foundation; John Steiner’s networking partner
Mark McKinnon, NoLabels.org
Ravi Iyer and Matt Motyl, CivilPolitics.org
Evelyn Messinger, Internews Interactive
John Opdycke, IndependentVoting.org
Michael Ostrolenk, transpartisan organizer and philosopher
Pete Peterson, Pepperdine University’s Davenport Institute
Amanda Kathryn Roman, The Citizens Campaign
Michael Smith, United Americans
Kim Spencer, Link TV and KCETLink
Rich Tafel, The Public Squared
Jeff Weissglass, Political Bridge Building Advocate
The purpose of this listserv is to introduce potential colleagues to one another, to expand our knowledge of transpartisan theory and practice, and to showcase ongoing activity in the transpartisan field.
Please consider being part of the Transpartisan List if any of the following are true:
You are interested in learning more, and sharing what you know, about current efforts to transcend and transform unproductive partisan politics.
You want to meet potential colleagues who share your concern and are working to improve research, dialogue, deliberation, collaboration, and improved decision making across party lines.
You want to share what you (or your organization) do in this field that you consider “transpartisan” – conversations that break out of the narrow, predictable ideological exchanges.
You believe this subject is vital to our country’s future and simply want to learn more about how you might get involved.
You can subscribe to the Transpartisan List by sending a blank email to transpartisan-subscribe-request@lists.thataway.org. Together, we can ask the questions that need to be asked about this challenging field, and seek the answers as a learning community.
This listserv is one of several exciting transpartisan developments that will be rolling out in the next few months thanks to the leadership of Mediators Foundation – including a strategic convening of transpartisan leaders that will take place the day before this year’s National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation (October 16th if you’d like to mark your calendar!).
About a week from now, Mark Gerzon and others at Mediators Foundation will share some new resources that may be of interest, including:
“Transpartisan:”An Evolving Definition
A Map of the Transpartisan Field
The Transpartisan Reading List 1.0
As Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote in her Washington Post editorial on January 27th, “The Promise of Transpartisanhip”:
“At a time of paralyzing political polarization, partisanship has naturally gotten a bad rap. But a reactionary shift toward bipartisanship — toward an anodyne centrism — isn’t the solution. Passion, deftly deployed, is actually an effective political tool with which to advance good ideas. That’s the promise of transpartisanship.”
If you decide to join us on the Transpartisan Listserv, take a moment to read over the listserv guidelines first. The list will be moderated according to this set of ground rules, in order to ensure the list remains safe, productive, civil, and focused.
The Transpartisan Listserv was launched in March 2014 by the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, Mediators Foundation, and over a dozen co-founders who are leaders in political bridge building work.
The purpose of this moderated listserv is to introduce potential colleagues to one another, to expand our knowledge of transpartisan theory and practice, and to showcase ongoing activity in the transpartisan field. Our goal is to provide a simple, safe communication channel where individuals and organizations that are active in this boundary-crossing work can connect and learn from each other.
What is transpartisanship? One perspective was published in the Washington Post on January 27, 2014. In Katrina vanden Heuvel’s editorial, she wrote: “At a time of paralyzing political polarization, partisanship has naturally gotten a bad rap. But a reactionary shift toward bipartisanship — toward an anodyne centrism — isn’t the solution. Passion, deftly deployed, is actually an effective political tool with which to advance good ideas. That’s the promise of transpartisanship.”
The Transpartisan Listserv was launched by the following co-founders:
Mark Gerzon, Tom Hast and John Steiner of Mediators Foundation
Sandy Heierbacher, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Tom Atlee, Co-Intelligence Institute
Steve Bhaerman, humorist and author
Dr. Don Beck, The Spiral Dynamics Group
Joan Blades and Debilyn Molineaux, Living Room Conversations
Laura Chasin, Bob Stains, Dave Joseph and Mary Jacksteit, Public Conversations Project
Lawry Chickering and Jim Turner, co-authors of Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life
Jacob Hess and Phil Neisser, co-authors of You’re Not as Crazy as I Thought (But You’re Still Wrong)
Margo King, Wisdom Beyond Borders-Mediators Foundation; John Steiner’s networking partner
Mark McKinnon, NoLabels.org
Ravi Iyer and Matt Motyl, CivilPolitics.org
Evelyn Messinger, Internews Interactive
John Opdycke, IndependentVoting.org
Michael Ostrolenk, transpartisan organizer and philosopher
Pete Peterson, Pepperdine University’s Davenport Institute
Amanda Kathryn Roman, The Citizens Campaign
Michael Smith, United Americans
Kim Spencer, Link TV and KCETLink
Rich Tafel, The Public Squared
Jeff Weissglass, Political Bridge Building Advocate
You are welcome to subscribe to the Transpartisan List if any of the following are true:
You are interested in learning more, and sharing what you know, about current efforts to transcend and transform unproductive partisan politics.
You want to meet potential colleagues who share your concern and are working to improve research, dialogue, deliberation, collaboration, and improved decision making across party lines.
You want to share what you (or your organization) do in this field that you consider “transpartisan” – conversations that break out of the narrow, predictable ideological exchanges.
You believe this subject is vital to our country’s future and simply want to learn more about how you might get involved.
If some or all of these statements apply to you, join the Transpartisan List by sending a blank email to transpartisan-subscribe-request@lists.thataway.org. Together, we can ask the questions that need to be asked about this challenging field, and seek the answers as a learning community.
As you may know, NCDD-sponsored listservs are moderated and embrace ground rules that have proven effective for our lists. Please follow the following guidelines if you choose to participate.
Transpartisan Listserv Guidelines
The following guidelines will help keep the list focused, manageable, and useful for subscribers. Please read these over before posting or replying to the list. The moderator may choose not to approve messages that break one or more of these ground rules.
Please refrain from over-posting (once per day maximum; 3-4 posts per week max). Aim for quality over quantity.
Identify yourself. Include your usual email signature (i.e. your name, organization, email address, where you’re from…) when you send a message to the list. This will help us get to know each other a little better and make it easier for people to connect with you.
Keep your messages relevant to transpartisan work. If it is not immediately apparent that your message is relevant to transpartisan work, explain in your message why you think it is relevant.
Please do not use this list as a forum for debating public policy issues. If you really want to delve into a specific social or policy issue with other members of the list, feel free to contact members individually via email or social networking sites.
This goes without saying, but please stay civil and treat other subscribers with respect. Model good dialogue behavior and refrain from name-calling, making unwarranted assumptions about people, and making sweeping statements about individuals or groups of people without backing them up with facts and data. If you’re unclear about why someone said something or thinks/feels a certain way, ask them. (Note: the moderator reserves the right to reject or ask you to reframe posts which seem overly confrontational towards another person on the list, since we are fostering a supportive, respectful space for leaders in transpartisan work.)
Direct your message to the subscribers of the list. If you forward an announcement or article, please offer some context. Emails with attachments/links and no explanation of what’s in the attachment/link will not be approved.
If your message is directed at one individual in particular, do not send your message to the entire list. If replying to an individual, click “Reply” instead of “Reply All.”
Please do not fundraise or send regular digital newsletters to the list.
If you ask the list for advice and get a variety of good responses on and off-list, consider taking the time to compile or summarize the responses and share them with the list. We’d greatly appreciate that!
Please note that this listserv has a daily digest option. If the list becomes busy and you’d prefer to receive no more than one message a day from the list, email NCDD office manager Joy Garman at joy@ncdd.org and let her know you’d like to be switched to the daily digest for the Transpartisan List. Joy can also remove you from the list or change your email address.
Here are five key points for anyone who promotes service as a means to improve the success of low-income young people.
1. Teenagers who participate in community service have much better academic and psycho-social outcomes than their peers.
Sources: Alberto Dávila and Marie T. Mora, “An Assessment of Civic Engagement and Educational Attainment” (Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2007); Christopher Spera, Robin Ghertner, Anthony Nerino, and Adrienne DiTommaso, Volunteering as a Pathway to Employment: Does Volunteering Increase Odds of Finding a Job for the Out of Work? (Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Evaluation, 2013); Dawn Anderson-Butcher, W. Sean Newsome, Theresa M. Ferrari, “Participation in Boys & Girls Clubs and Relationships to Youth Outcomes,” Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 31, No. 1 (2003), pp. 39–55; Jennifer A. Fredericks and Jacquelynne S. Eccles, “Is Extracurricular Participation Associated with Beneficial Outcomes? Concurrent and Longitudinal Relations,” Developmental Psychology, vol. 42, no. 4 (2006), pp. 698-713.
Caveat: These correlations do not prove causation. Teenagers who serve may have personality traits or positive influences from peers, families, institutions, and communities that also explain why they succeed academically. Besides, service clubs and programs have other features (apart from service) that may explain their benefits.
2. At risk-youth enrolled in certain programs that involve service see substantial improvements in academic and economic outcomes
Sources: CIRCLE, “Pathways into Leadership: A Study of YouthBuild Graduates” (Medford: MA, CIRCLE, 2012); Megan Millenky, Dan Bloom, Sara Muller-Ravett, and Joseph Broadus, Staying on Course: Three-Year Results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Evaluation (New York: MDRC, 2011); Constance Flanagan & Peter Levine, “Youth Civic Engagement During the Transition to Adulthood,” in Mary Waters, Gordon Berlin, and Frank Furstenberg (eds.), Transition to Adulthood (Princeton/Brookings: The Future of Children), vol. 20, no. 1, Spring 2010, pp. 159-180.
Caveats: These programs always have other aspects besides service (e.g., caring adults; academic coursework, sometimes residential living). Also, the evaluation methods leave some uncertainty about causation.
3. Service programs have characteristics that resemble the 21st Century workplace. Therefore, they should prepare students for success in the job market.
Sources: Reed W. Larson and Rachel M. Angus, “Adolescents’ Development of Skills for Agency in Youth Programs: Learning to Think Strategically,” Child Development, vol. 82, issue 1, pp. 277–294; Peter Levine, “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs: The Economic Impact of Public Work in America’s Colleges and Universities,” in Harry C. Boyte (ed.), Democracy’s Education: A Symposium on Power, Public Work, and the Meaning of Citizenship (Vanderbilt University Press, in press)
Caveats: Service programs vary in the degree to which they impart valuable skills and habits. Other factors besides skills and habits affect success in the job market. Students may actually obtain valuable skills but not be able to demonstrate those skills to potential employers.
4. There is some evidence that hiring managers see volunteering as relevant experience to consider when making employment decisions.
Sources: CareerBuilder Study Reveals Surprising Factors that Play a Part in Determining Who Gets Hired,” August 28, 2013; Deloitte, “2013 Volunteer IMPACT Survey.”
Caveats: These are based on surveys of managers, who may say they want to hire volunteers even though volunteering does not actually matter.
5. Communities with more civic engagement have much better economic, educational, and social outcomes than similar communities with less engagement.
Sources: Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Chaeyoon Lim & Peter Levine, “Civic Health and Unemployment II: The Case Builds,” National Conference on Citizenship: Washington, DC, 2012; Robert D. Putnam, “Community-Based Social Capital and Educational Performance,” in Diane Ravitch and Joseph P. Viteritti (eds.), Making Good Citizens: Education and Civil Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), pp. 58-95; Robert J. Sampson, Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012); Sean Safford, Why the Garden Club Couldn’t Save Youngstown (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009); Peter Levine, We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: The Promise of Civic Renewal in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013)
Caveats: In these studies, volunteering per se does not predict economic success. Other civic engagement variables–e.g., the number of nonprofits per capita; the density of civic networks; or “collective efficacy”–are the predictors. Also, we do not know whether increasing the civic engagement of (some) youth would boost their communities’ civic engagement in a lasting way.
We’re pleased to be able to highlight The Next Generation Initiative, a fantastic project driven by NCDD supporting member and former Ohio state representative Ted Celeste of the National Institute on Civil Discourse. Next Generation is trying to help state legislators find ways to be more civil with each other as they create legislation, and we think it’s fundamentally important work. To get a sense of what the initiative is about, check out this great article from Akron Legal News that recently covered Ted’s work. You can read more below or find the original piece here and on NICD’s blog here.
When former state representative Ted Celeste campaigned for his Lakewood seat in 2006, he said he chose to run with civility.
“All the political pros said that the only way to beat an opponent is to beat them up. Do nasty things, go negative,” he said. “I said the only way I’ll do it is if I can run a positive campaign.”
“We did that and won.”
After taking that lesson to the Statehouse, Celeste embarked along with Ohio Sen. Frank LaRose (R – Copley Twp.) to take the message throughout the state and nation through their work in the General Assembly and Next Generation, an offshoot of the National Institute for Civil Discourse (NICD).
On Jan. 16, both lawmakers addressed their plan to bring politesse back to American politics at the monthly Akron Roundtable at Quaker Station.
After failing in his 2012 U.S. House bid, Celeste founded Next Generation as a state-level project of NICD, which focuses on promoting civility within mass media and the legislative and executive branches of national government. Former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton chair the nonpartisan center that formed in response to the shooting of former U.S. representative Gabrielle Giffords in 2011.
Celeste said he felt the need to launch Next Generation, which offers workshops to state lawmakers across the country, because over half of the United States Congress – hovering at all-time low approval ratings – consists of former state legislators.
“We are the feeder system,” Celeste said.
Next Generation offered an introductory workshop for state legislators that it has presented in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Washington, according to Celeste. Celeste also presented the workshop to the Council of State Governments’ Midwest and West conferences. He said he hopes to hold the workshop in a dozen other states by this year’s end.
“I’m excited for the fact it’s going so well nationally,” he said.
The project faces difficulty in the partisan culture that dominates state politics, and lawmakers received reprimands from their caucases for attending the civility sessions, said Celeste.
“Their leadership didn’t like the fact that they were working with a person across the aisle,” he said.
LaRose involved himself with Celeste’s mission after attending an NICD session soon after his election.
“When I first ran in 2010 I think I knew that policy tends to evoke strong emotions from people, but I didn’t really grasp it until I was out campaigning myself, then through service in Columbus,” he said.
“When it goes too far is when people take that passion they have and they manifest it in personal animosity against people that have a different opinion.”
LaRose, a first-term senator with a military background, has in only three years earned a reputation for reaching across the aisle. He and State Sen. Tom Sawyer (D – Akron) drew headlines for drafting legislation to fix Ohio’s much-maligned gerrymandering that passed the Senate but expired in the House the last legislative session.
LaRose told the assembled Akron-area professionals that he believes the nature of democracy tends to “actively discourage” mutual cooperation and courtesy, easily seen from the vitriol of recent Akron politics to the perpetually locked pitchforks in Congress. One of the underlying causes, according to the young lawmaker, is the lack of opportunities to personally interact with opposing politicians.
“Legislatures seem to have become in recent years a little more transactional than they used to be,” LaRose said.
“There are not the opportunities to build relationships and get to know one another, to learn about each other’s spouses and families, where you come from, what drives you and makes you excited.”
Celeste added that regulations that prohibit spending public funds on social gatherings have recently stifled social interaction between lawmakers.
Though LaRose acknowledged that mainstream media and cultural norms tend to exacerbate the problem, he focused on practical solutions to implement in the Ohio Statehouse.
For many, he said, the mindset remains “come to Columbus, make laws and go home.”
LaRose suggested launching a program in which legislators trade districts for a day to gain additional perspective. He also pushed for more training on civility at the mandatory new member orientation.
Redistricting reform, a topic for which he and Sawyer drew headlines last year, also presents a problem, he said. LaRose hopes their bipartisan plan will pass both houses this term.
“If we don’t get something done in the next few years, the window closes,” he said. “The closer we get to 2020, which is the next census and the next time we draw redistricting lines, the less likely we are going to be able to have bipartisan agreement on this.”
Both Celeste and LaRose also agreed that term limits hinder their mission for civility; by their estimation, more time to get to know colleagues translates to more amicable relationships.
“Civility isn’t caving in,” said LaRose. “It’s not sissy to be civil.”
Celeste and LaRose ended their presentation by answering a question from the audience: What can the average citizen do to promote civility in government?
Celeste and LaRose agreed that voters should support those that promote civility in that statehouse, but LaRose said they could do more.
“Don’t just vote for the person with the most yard signs out,” he said. “Pay attention to who you’re selecting.
“It’s also modeling that sort of behavior with your family and at work. It’s to change how we communicate with each other.”
For readers of this blog, most of the themes in my GTI essay will be familiar. My goal was to synthesize many disparate threads into a single, 5,000-word case for the commons. I wanted help a policy-oriented readership see how the commons paradigm could help us re-imagine and transform economics, politics, culture, and particularly ecological stewardship. 
Mark Gerzon, Tom Hast and John Steiner of Mediators Foundation