Jonathan Gruber and progressive arrogance

(Westfield, MA) Progressives must denounce this statement by Jonathan Gruber in no uncertain terms:

This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. So it’s written to do that.

In terms of risk-rated subsidies, in a law that said health people are gonna pay in — if it made explicit that healthy people are gonna pay in, sick people get money, it would not have passed. Okay — just like the … people — transperen— lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get anything to pass.

I see partial defenses from the likes of Jonathan Chait, Kevin Drum, and Sarah Kliff, but they won’t do. Calling the American people “stupid” in this context is unjust and deeply damaging. It reflects a subsidiary stream of progressive politics but a real one. When your political movement harbors discreditable views, you must denounce them or you will be associated with them. Michael Kinsley once defined a gaffe as “when a politician tells the truth – some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.” We can’t let this be a gaffe for the whole progressive movement, whatever Dr. Gruber may privately believe.

The Affordable Health Care Act is fine public policy: see the New York Times’ roundup of its positive effects. It could not pass our deeply flawed political system in the face of determined opposition without the kinds of tortured moves Gruber is describing. It is a good thing that it did pass. And it should be more popular than it is.

On the other hand, it is pretty unpopular, and that is because Americans are deeply distrustful of the government as a solution to their problems. Three reasons for their distrust are reasonable: 1) The legislative process is indeed deeply messed up, as Gruber says—but that raises questions about whether government can work for the people. 2) The sheer competence and capacity of the executive branch is questionable, witness the rollout of the ACA. And 3) progressive reformers sometimes harbor arrogant and dismissive views about most Americans. Many do not, but I have personally heard comments about the stupidity of the American voter. I think those sentiments convey to the people they describe, who are then not so keen about handing over money and power.

More broadly, I have argued that the worthy core of conservatism is humility. Actual conservatives honor that principle inconsistently, at best. But it is a valid principle, and the corresponding evil of progressivism is arrogance. I am still a progressive because I believe we can combat arrogance and do some good. But when we see it plainly, we must denounce it.

The post Jonathan Gruber and progressive arrogance appeared first on Peter Levine.

Overthinking Letter Closings

I have a very distinct memory of being taught in grade school that one ought to properly close a letter with the claim, “sincerely.”

I went with the term for awhile but ultimate dropped it because every time I finished a letter I thought to myself, “Really? Did I really mean everything sincerely?”

For sixth grade that felt like a high bar.

Of course, checking your sincerity is ultimately for the best – if you are not sincere about the contents of your letter, that ought to call in to question your whole purpose in writing it.

But, having something of a penchant for hyperbole, I also found myself overly concerned with little details. If I sincerely wrote “I will always remember…” then decades later suffered from dementia, would that negate the whole sincerity of the letter I had innocently penned as a child?

I found this very concerning.

So perhaps you can understand why I stopped using the term. My intentions were sincere, but, I suppose, I didn’t feel comfortable holding myself to that sincerity indefinitely.

Years later, I noticed I had slipped into a seemingly casual replacement: thanks.

Particularly in the workplace this expression seemed apt. I was often asking people to do things and I was, generally speaking, sincerely thankful for their attention to the matter. And I am, have no doubt, all in favor of thanking people.

But this closing, too, came to wear on me.

I started signing off with “thanks” on most correspondence. Not only when I had something to be thankful for, but when those I was writing to probably ought to be thanking me, or when thanks, frankly, had nothing to do with it.

Not only did this make the “thanks,” seem shallow, the habit began to strike me as one of those things that would today make some click-bait list of things women ought to stop doing in the work place.

That is to say, I said thanks as a way of diminishing myself.

While women, of course, can do whatever they damn well please in the workplace and beyond, I did find myself drifting from thanks as my go-to sign-off. Thanks should be reserved, I decided, for times when I am particularly thankful for something.

For the last many years, I have settled on “best,” as my general sign-off. I like that it is positive, yet appropriately vague.

When I am feeling particularly meaningful, I upgrade this to, “all the best.

I’m not really sure what it means to wish someone all the best, but I imagine sending someone all the best things in existence. Rainbows and puppy dogs, perhaps. Whatever you’re into.

I can’t commit to my sincerity, and I’m skeptical of my thankfulness, but I feel confident that whoever you are I wish you the best – however you define that for yourself.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

fact-checking: vote three times for the same party and you’re hooked for life?

It is widely held that if a person votes three times in a row for a given party, she will always vote for that party. (For instance, a CNN “Election Night” segment in 2012 began with that explicit premise). The implication is causal: voting the same way three times makes the person a lifelong Democrat or Republican.

I have not been able to chase down the evidence for this claim in the form of quantitative social science. I admit that I have not searched intensively and may have missed the source. The seminal study by Campbell, Converse, Miller, and Stokes, The American Voter (1960), found a lot of stability in individuals’ partisan identification but devoted a whole section (pp. 149ff.) to “fluctuations in party identification,” which were pretty common. Nearly 40 years later, a sophisticated and well-annotated study like David O. Sears and Carolyn L. Funk, “Evidence of the Long-Term Persistence of Adults’ Political Predispositions” (Journal of Politics 61/1) neither mentions nor supports the “three-times-and-you’re hooked” thesis. These authors find a high degree of stability in partisan preference but much variation, and no magic number of three elections in a row. Both studies (and several others that I reviewed this morning) find that events can change people’s prior voting habits.

The claim has been made for many decades, at least by pundits and political consultants. Thus, if it has any validity at all, it must derive from an era when parties were very different from our parties today. Hence I am highly skeptical that the causal version of the theory will apply in the 21st century–even if it did in the 20th. It will be decades before we know for sure, but I doubt that partisan voting is now habitual.

Parties have changed in two fundamental and pertinent ways. First, until the 1970s, US political parties were ideologically incoherent coalitions of demographic groups. For instance, white Mississippians and Jewish-Americans from Brooklyn both voted solidly Democratic, even though they disagreed with each other on almost every contested issue. As long as a party’s positions were unpredictable and contested, but demographic groups had strong partisan loyalties, then it made sense that people would vote consistently for the party of their heritage. Casting three consecutive votes for the same party did not make people Democrats or Republicans or solidify their identities. It reflected their foreordained commitments.

Now that parties are ideologically coherent, people will still vote consistently if they are strong liberals or strong conservatives. But if they change their views, or hold mixed views, or fall near the ideological center, they may switch allegiances. We will still see a common pattern of consecutive votes for the same party, but it will not be causal. It will reflect relatively durable ideological positions.

The other important change is in the structure of parties. They used to be genuine associations, with ward leaders, county officers, and frequent face-to-face meetings. Now they are (mostly) designations that we select when we register. It seems plausible that joining an association would have influence. If you not only voted three times in a row for Republicans but also formed human connections to local Republican activists, that might indeed cause you to stick with the party. But if there are no local human connections within the party structure, that influence is gone.

The post fact-checking: vote three times for the same party and you’re hooked for life? appeared first on Peter Levine.

Job Opening with DOJ’s Community Relations Service

As we hope you’ve heard by now, NCDD was honored to host Grande Lum, director of the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service (CRS), as one of our featured speakers at the NCDD 2014 conference. During his address, Grande made the commitment to host meetings across the country between CRS staff and NCDD members to talk about how we might collaborate more closely. We encourage you to learn more about the meetings and give us your input on how we can make the best use of them by sharing your thoughts in the comments section at www.ncdd.org/16724.

As we continue to gear up for the meetings this winter, we are also pleased to announce that CRS has openings for a Conciliation Specialist in their Denver and Dallas regional offices. Grande Lum sent the job announcement to NCDD’s director, Sandy Heierbacher, because he sees NCDD as a great source for the kind of expertise they need in this position.

Be sure to check out the job announcements at www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/385601200 (Denver) or www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/383494100 (Dallas) if you think you’re a good fit for this position. The deadline to apply is December 1st, so don’t delay.

a sign of peace?

It is no secret that I spend a lot of the day looking around the earth on Google Street View while talking on the phone. If you are one who calls me, rest assured that this is the best way for me to concentrate on what you are saying. It occupies just a small portion of my brain and keeps me from seeing emails.

Today, while poking around Manila, I suddenly saw this dove. On Google, you could move around it in three dimensions and zoom in close. It was quite startling, and I took it as a good sign on Veterans Day.

dove

The post a sign of peace? appeared first on Peter Levine.

The Art of Commoning

This past weekend I learned a lot about the art of commoning through a process known as The Art of Hosting.  It’s a methodology for eliciting the collective wisdom and self-organizing capacity of a group – which is obviously important for a successful commons. 

We all know that the commons is about the stewardship of resources, but we may not realize that it is also about hosting people.  Not “managing” them or “organizing” them, but unleashing their capacity to self-organize themselves in creative, constructive, humane ways. 

This requires a sensitive touch, an artistic flair and a deep attentiveness to the humanity of other human beings. This is the art of hosting:  an engagement with people as living, feeling, meaning-making creatures who care about fairness, imagination and fun.

Serious observers of the commons often approach it “from the outside,” as if it were an elaborate machine of cogs and pulleys.  But if you approach the commons from within its inner dimensions – how people relate to each other – you are forced to pay more attention to qualitative dimensions and capacities of human beings, including aesthetics, ethics and feelings. Personality and authenticity matter.

The art of commoning, then, is about the graceful, light-touch structuring of people’s distinctive energies, passions and imaginations as they interact in groups.  By modeling certain attitudes toward each other and the world, and by constructing a shared social norm, people learn to give the best of themselves while taking care of each other and their shared social and physical spaces. 

The three-day Art of Commoning event in Montreal  – most of it in French – was hosted by a team of facilitators called Percolab. (Thank you, Elizabeth Hunt and Samatha Slade for your running translations!)  Fittingly, the gathering was held at Espace pour la vie, Space for Living, which is a group of four natural sciences resource institutes in Montreal.  Some collective notes from the gathering (in French and English) can be found here.  

Let it be said that this was not an event of droning keynotes and dreary powerpoints.  It was a lively, highly participatory set of deftly structured encounters among seventy people who care deeply about the commons. 

At one point, people were split up into small groups and one person told a memorable story of commoning – while others were assigned to identify notable aspects of the story – paradoxes, intuitive moments, “tipping points,” and the importance of economic, political and legal structures.  These interpretations really helped bring out revealing themes and meanings in each story.

read more

Online Discussion on Recent NCDD Hot Topics, Friday 11/14

We want to invite NCDD members to join an online & phone conversation event this Friday that former NCDD Board member Lucas Cioffi has set up so we can explore some of the topics that have been making waves on our discussion listserv recently. You can read his invitation below. NCDD is driven by members, and we love to see them taking initiative, so thanks so much to Lucas for leading on this! 


Hello Everyone,

There have been some deep topics discussed on this discussion list over the past few weeks. I’d like to open up some space for people to continue the conversation by phone and/or video chat.

Register here: www.eventbrite.com/e/online-conversation-cafe-tickets-14285429103
When: Friday, November 14, 2014 from 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM (EST)
Cost: Free

For you, this is a networking opportunity, chance to meet with some other NCDD members interested in the same topics. For me, this is a chance to test out a system I’m building for online conferences.

The format is similar to Conversation Cafe where you’ll join several small group discussions (2-4 people per virtual table). Similar to Open Space, participants will choose the topics, ranging from current events to changing the world.

This is an informal and fun event. Expect to join other participants by phone and/or webcam (if you have it). Final details will be emailed to all who register.

Lucas Cioffi
Charlottesville, VA

13 Citizen Engagement Stories from Around the World

Orçamento Participativo 2015/2016 é aberto na região Leste
The Journal of Field Actions, together with Civicus, has just published a special issue “Stories of Innovative Democracy at the Local Level: Enhancing Participation, Activism and Social Change Across the World.” When put together, the 13 articles provide a lively illustration of the wealth of democratic innovations taking place around the world.


6 Guiding Questions for Online Engagement from CM

On one of their recent capacity building calls, our friends at CommunityMatters – a partnership in which NCDD is a member – had a great discussion about online engagement. They distilled a list of key questions to help people think about and plan for online engagement that are incredibly useful. We encourage you to read more about them below or find the original CM blog post by clicking here.


CM_logo-200pxDigital engagement is the latest buzz when it comes to public participation. We hear about the great work of Code for America. We read articles claiming digital engagement is the “new normal.” Our brains spin trying to keep up with new tools and terms—Gov 2.0, civic technology, hackathons, digital citizenship. The list goes on.

Pete Peterson, executive director, Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership and Alissa Black, investment partner, Omidyar Network work with local governments to improve public engagement efforts. They know that despite the buzz, many cities and towns are hesitant to try more than a website or social media.

Pete and Alissa joined CommunityMatters to share ideas on getting started and going deeper with online public engagement. If your town is thinking about diving into the digital realm, consider these six questions.

Why engage the public? Nail down your goals for public participation before selecting a tool. Want to inform the public about a recent policy decision? A well-designed website will do the trick. Looking to collect ideas for a community plan? Consider an idea aggregation tool like Mindmixer or Neighborland. Public Pathways: A Guide to Online Engagement Tools for Local Governments presents a framework for categorizing and selecting online tools based on four engagement goals: inform, consult, collaborate and empower.

What kind of traffic visits the government website? Your municipal website is the natural place to host an online conversation. But, how many people regularly visit the site? What audience does it attract? Santa Monica, California (pop. 91,812) wanted input on its budget and general plan and took a hard look at web traffic. But the municipal site wasn’t garnering much visitation. The city partnered to host online engagement platforms on the local newspaper’s website to maximize participation and reach new audiences.

What is the outreach plan? It’s a no-brainer that you need to spread the word about face-to-face meetings. Online public engagement is no different. The latest and greatest technology isn’t enough to attract users—you still need to actively recruit participants. Trying to connect with a particular audience? Reach out to hyperlocal blogs or ethnic newspapers. Looking for intergenerational conversations? Steven Clift of e-Democracy.org recommends a mix of email and web-based technology.

How are we engaging people offline? Online public engagement is about complementing—not replacing—offline engagement. With Engage Oakland in Oakland, California (pop. 400,740), organizers encouraged public meeting attendees to share feedback online. Creating space for parallel online and offline conversations reinforced the whole process—online discussions motivated people to attend face-to-face meetings and kept those already involved at the table. The online space also allowed residents to stay in the loop without attending a meeting.

Are these the conversations we’re looking for? Take a look at examples from other cities and towns (our call notes are a great place to start!). Research the types of questions asked and issues addressed. You’re off to a good start if examples reflect what your town is looking to accomplish.

Y’all ready for this? Dust off that Jock Jams cassette and gather your posse. Online engagement is far from a contact sport, but you still need a strong team. What does readiness look like when it comes to digital public engagement? Here are a few essentials: dedicated staff to ensure government is responsive to online conversations; a marketing and outreach strategy to attract participants;committed resources for the project (and ideally, for sustaining online engagement long-term). Most of all, a willingness to dive in and try something new!

Read through the call notes and listen to the recording for more stories and insight on digital engagement from Pete, Alissa and our call participants.

You can find the original version of this post by Caitlyn Horose on the CommunityMatters blog at www.communitymatters.org/blog/key-questions-ask-successful-online-public-engagement.

The Other Four Strands of Dewey’s Thought

In addition to supporting the strong version of democracy that calls for a fully engaged citizenry, Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy also featured four other important core values.

Many Ways to Arrive at Truth. No aspect of pragmatic philosophy has been attacked more consistently than the popularized version of its theory of truth -- the version that equates pragmatic truth with “whatever works.”

Dewey rejected this simplistic definition, but he also rejected as much too narrow most other conceptions of truth prevalent in his day. He was eager to rescue truth from the logicians and scientists who equated it exclusively with formal verification. He disassociated himself from his own early religious upbringing where truth was identified with revelation and religious authority. And he wrote a scathing criticism of those whose definition of truth arose out of their obsession with a quest for a level of certainty that life cannot provide.

Our nation desperately needs a strong dose of this sort of intelligent conduct.

All in all, he was far less concerned with finding some abstract definition of truth than with discovering valid insights into how society can advance human flourishing.

Dewey was not a fluent phrasemaker. His labels were rarely vivid or memorable. Characteristically, he labeled his own broad conception of truth as “warranted assertability.”

Closely examined, this definition covers an immense patch of ground. You can assert truth claims about gravity or DNA because these are warranted by science. You can also assert truth claims about human living when these are warranted by poetry, art or everyday experience. In other words, there are multiple ways to arrive at truth.

Dewey was a strong supporter of science, but he didn’t believe that science has a monopoly on truth. He understood that we discover truth from many sources and forms of life. This is, I believe, an extremely important component of the ethic our society needs to counterbalance what the sociologist Robert Bellah labeled “our insane forms of individualism.”

In later years, Dewey relabeled his own philosophy “experimentalism.” For Dewey, the core source of pragmatic truth comes from experimenting with life, whether in the form of formal scientific experimentation or of everyday practical and esthetic experimentation.

A High Value Placed on Community. For John Dewey, our contemporary conception of self versus community would have made no sense. Dewey thought it impossible to conceive of the self as existing apart from community. He admired and internalized the definition of self that his colleague at the University of Chicago, social psychologist George Herbert Mead, had developed.

The Mead conception is that of a thoroughly social self. For Dewey as for Mead, the self and the community were inseparable.

Dewey conceived of society as organic and the individual as part of the organism. His view was that the only way individuals could give meaning to their lives was through the community. It is our membership in society that gives life whatever meaning it has.

I am not the first person to call upon Dewey’s thought to serve as a corrective for the overdose of individualism and the undervaluing of community that has overtaken American life. Bellah does so in his classic book Habits of the Heart. I find it comforting that other social scientists also discern the relevance of Dewey’s thinking to today’s wicked problems.

Respect for “Intelligent Conduct.” This was one of Dewey’s favorite phrases. It summed up for him the main purpose of adhering to the philosophy of pragmatism and refers to reflecting intelligently on one's actions in order to arrive at practical judgment. When the strong form of democracy prevails in society, when people feel that they truly belong to a community and their motivations are directed to making it flourish, and when they actively pursue truths that advance the public good, then “intelligent conduct” becomes the norm.

I am drafting this blog shortly after the riots in Ferguson, Mo., incited by the police killing of an unarmed black teenager. The entire episode reeks of unintelligent conduct. You could hardly ask for a more vivid display of the dysfunctionality that has overtaken parts of American society:

  • In a community whose demographics are two thirds African/American, the Ferguson police force is almost completely white (50 out of a total of 53 cops).
  • The police chief refused for days to identify the cop whose gun had killed the boy or to show any other signs of transparency in their investigation of the incident.
  • To quell the protests that followed, the police armed themselves with military equipment suitable for fighting the Taliban in the mountains of Afghanistan, totally inappropriate for crowd control in an American city.
  • In a stunning example of unintelligent conduct, the Pentagon had given military equipment it no longer needed for fighting terrorists to any city who wanted it for free. Ferguson’s police force used the Pentagon’s armored vehicles and other military equipment, compounding the Pentagon’s bad judgment.

Incidents such as these present a picture of American life that is the extreme opposite of Dewey’s vision. Dewey’ philosophy of pragmatism respects competence, achievement, practicality, civic discussion and public decision-making – all summed up in his pregnant phrase “intelligent conduct.” President Obama was making essentially the same point with his caveat: “Don’t do stupid stuff.”

Our nation desperately needs a strong dose of this sort of intelligent conduct.

The Relevance of Philosophy to Everyday Life. Dewey took issue with the assumption of many academic philosophers that somehow their methods make them privy to timeless eternal truths. He had little respect for the traditional spectator role of philosophy. His philosophy has always totally engaged in what he called “the problems of men.”

He probably was overly optimistic about how successful philosophy might be in confronting and resolving society’s problems. Unlike the majority of American academic philosophers, he was willing to get his hands dirty and take on any and all problems that confronted our society over his long life. (He died in 1952 at the age of 93).

In his insightful book John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism, political philosopher Alan Ryan speaks of Dewey replacing “…the image of the philosopher as a dealer in saving truths… with the image of the philosopher as cultural critic” exercising a strong social obligation to address practical problems of living. (p106).

This is the aspect of pragmatism that philosopher Richard Rorty and others were eager to rescue in the late years of the last century. Pragmatism seeks to liberate philosophy from its isolation in museum-like departments of academic philosophy. Rather, it positions philosophy as a disciplined way of putting first things first. As such, it is an indispensable tool for developing and strengthening a countervailing ethic to our overdose of individualism.