Monthly Archives: May 2015

Review of the Consider.it Tech Tuesday Presentation

Posted on by
Reply

NCDD hosted another great Tech Tuesday event this week on May 5th where over 50 of our members participated in a webinar presentation and discussion with Kevin Miniter, the co-founder of the deliberative online tool, Consider.it. Kevin gave an in-depth look at the many versatile functions and uses that Consider.it has, as well as a how-to on moderating your group’s Tech_Tuesday_Badgedecision-making process. We wrapped it all up with a great Q&A session – we all got a great perspective on this useful new tool!

If you missed the Consider.it discussion, you can find the recording of the presentation by clicking here. Consider.it also created a link on their website to give feedback on the presentation for those of you who were present or watch it afterwards to let them know what you thought. You can find that feedback page here.

We encourage you to learn more and try it out for yourself by visiting www.consider.it.

You can look back at all of our past Tech Tuesday calls by checking out the archive ww.ncdd.org/tag/confab-archives.

Partisanship

Posted on by
Reply

In the past year, I’ve had the opportunity to attend talks by many current and former U.S. Congressmen and Senators.

One topic that comes up time and time again is partisanship. Now that congress has apparently devolved into a shouting match, a snowball fight, or straight up yelling “you lie” during a State of the Union – how do we fix that? How do we go back to a better time when congressman disagreed about issues but still treated each other with respect?

Well first, let’s not sugar coat the past and pretend that our country has never seen a duel between a sitting Vice President and a former Secretary of the Treasury.

But, regardless of the past, I think it’s fair to say that we do have a problem in the present. Congress is more dysfunctional than most family gatherings and it certainly gets less done.

So what do we do about it?

Well, that’s where everyone seems to agree. If we could snap our fingers and reset the rules, here’s what congressmen from both parties have offered as keys to bringing civility back to congress: campaign finance reform and independently drawn districts.

Supreme Court decisions, most popularly Citizens United, helped open the flood gates to essentially unlimited, untracked spending in campaigns. There’s a great moment in West Wing when a character describes the effect of the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo Supreme court decision:

You don’t put “vote Bartlet” in the ad, you can pay for it with unmarked bills from a bank
heist if you want to.

So we should probably do something about that.

The second tactic is about ensuring there are competitive districts. As Nate Silver describes, “In 1992, there were 103 members of the House of Representatives elected from what might be called swing districts: those in which the margin in the presidential race was within five percentage points of the national result.”

But in 2012, there were only 35 such districts remaining.

In other words, “Most members of the House now come from hyperpartisan districts where they face essentially no threat of losing their seat to the other party.”

Representatives from these one-party districts then become polarized as they move away from the center to fight off primary challengers.

Especially since the hardliners of given party are more likely to vote during a primary, one-party districts continually elect representatives who appeal to the extreme of the given party.

The solution, I’m told, is to have independently drawn districts. Reducing gerrymandering and increasing the competitiveness of those districts.

This all sounds very good and rational, but as some point while hearing a congressman describe this need it occurred to me –

I am a party hardliner.

Don’t get me wrong, I wish Congress could get more done. I wish there was less bickering and more action. But let’s be honest: I want to win.

I want the other guys to stop being stupid, and I want my guys to win. I like that my representatives are radical. I like when they use fiery rhetoric and put the other guys in their place. That’s what I love about my representatives.

Of course, I’m fortunate enough to be represented by the likes of Mike Capuano and Elizabeth Warren. But clearly, I’m not the only person who feels this way.

A 2013 study found that only 16% of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing, but 46% approved of their own congress person.

Perhaps that’s just the 46% of party radicals who vote in the primary, but still I question whether a move towards the middle is really the solution we should all hope for.

After all, even that old lion of the liberals, Edward Kennedy, was known for being to work across the isle.

Perhaps we need more moderates, but I certainly don’t want all moderates. Perhaps not even a majority of moderates.

The problem of partisanship, I think, is deeper than that. We see it play out in congress, but the challenge is really to ourselves –

Can we, as opinionated party faithful work across difference to understand perspectives and have civil conversations? Can we accept rational facts as well as emotional rationalizations?

Can we move past that urge to win and find it within ourselves to accept that we all want to make this country better, we all want to make this world better? Can we recognize that we’re going to have to work together to make that happen? That we’re going to have to work together to get anything done?

I don’t know, I’d like to do that.

But let’s be honest – I still want to win.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

How to Rein in Monopoly-like Network Platforms?

Posted on by
Reply

The latest issue of Boston Review has a lively forum on the growing power of network-based businesses such as Amazon, Uber and Airbnb.  These companies may not be monopolies in the strict conventional sense of the law, but they nonetheless use their market dominance and network platforms to extract all sorts of advantages from competitors, suppliers and consumers. 

K. Sabeel Rahman, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, presented his assessment of the situation, and then nine people of various persuasions (including me) responded.  Rahman stated the problem succinctly:

The kinds of power that Amazon, Comcast and companies such as Airbnb and Uber possess can’t be seen or tackled via conventional antitrust regulations.  These companies are not, strictly speaking, monopolies; Urban and Airbnb, in particular, do not engage in the kind of price-fixing or market dominance that is the usual target of antitrust regulation today.  These companies are better understood as platforms or utilities:  they provide a core, infrastructural service upon which other firms, individuals and social groups depend.

The problem is that conventional antitrust regulation isn’t really equipped to deal with information economy platforms, which tend to connect buyer and sellers in more efficient ways while offering very low prices. What’s the problem with that? Well, the problem is open networks paradoxically result in "power law" outcomes in which a minority of players tend to dominate the universe of users. Some companies have used this network-based advantage to limit competitors' access to the market, impose unfair conditions on consumers or producers, and evade consumer and labor-rights laws. 

Rahman calls for a re-purposing of Progressive era policies from a century ago that tamed large monopolies like railroads by subjecting them to public utility regulation. Is this the way to go? Juliet Schor of Boston College agrees that there is a problem, but considers the regulatory approach nostalgic and unimaginative. She argued: 

“Peer-to-peer structure and peer ownership of capital undermine the argument for private ownership of platforms and, by extension, for the public utility model.  This is not to say there isn’t a strong public interest in this sector – there is.  But the compelling feature of these entities is that most of the value in the market is produced by the peers, not the platforms.  This suggests that platforms can and should be owned and governed by users.  If they are, we can worry less about rent extraction, concentrations of political power, and the other concerns Rahman raises.”

read more

should all institutions be democratic?

Posted on by
Reply

Many of my friends and colleagues believe that the more democratic any institution is, the better. I take a more pluralist position: democratic values are worthy but they are inconsistent with other values, and what we want is a mix of institutional types.

You can’t enter this debate without having a definition of “democracy” in mind. I would reserve the word for any system that defines a group of people (the demos) and empowers them all to rule (the “-cracy” part, from kratein) with roughly equal influence or authority over the outcomes.

Voting is neither necessary nor sufficient for democracy. It isn’t necessary because other devices, such as lotteries, common property regimes, and consensus decisions, can also afford everyone equal influence. And it isn’t sufficient because a vote can’t achieve its purported purpose without various supports. These supports include at least freedom of speech and assembly and also (I would assert) universal education, an actual press that performs its role well, an independent judiciary, habits of deliberation, and enough social equality that no caste, class, race, or gender is able to dominate the discussion because of its perceived superiority. Social equality may, in turn, require at least a limited degree of economic equality. These conditions are highly debatable, but it’s pretty clear that at least some of them are necessary.

Democracy embodies at least two valid principles: 1) equal respect for the dignity of all people, and 2) a general presumption that decisions made by the demos will be wiser, or more just, or at least less corrupt and self-serving than decisions made in other ways. These two democratic principles are always worth considering, whether you are involved with a firm, a neighborhood, a church, a university, a family, or a scientific community.

But they are not the only valid principles. You should also consider: liberty, solidarity, excellence of various kinds, truth, diversity, peace, rule of law (which implies stability and predictability), psychological and material wellbeing, intimacy and privacy, efficiency, the interests of future generations and animals, and–if you are so oriented–God.

Alas, these various principles do not fit neatly together but often trade off. For instance, empowered groups can easily suppress individual liberty or ignore the rule of law. So how should we decide how to make the tradeoffs? A superficially appealing answer is: “Let’s decide democratically.” But democratic processes are biased in favor of the democratic principles over the other ones. Likewise, market processes are biased in favor of efficiency and liberty; scientific processes privilege truth and certain kinds of excellence; legal processes favor rule of law.

The cautious, pragmatic solution is pluralism. Let there be powerful democratic institutions and also intentionally undemocratic ones, where the latter category includes physics departments, for-profit startups, hierarchical churches, anarchistic commons, and many more. Assign decisions about certain broad questions of distributive justice to democratic institutions. But limit the scope of democratic decisions with a strongly liberal constitution that defends pluralism.

This is very far from an original or idiosyncratic position, but it may be useful as a dissent from the “strong democracy” thesis that is pervasive in some circles I move in. It also suggests a more capacious definition of “the civic” or “civic engagement.” I use these phrases to mean not democratic participation but rather creative love for the world. It is a secondary question whether the best way to improve the world (in a given situation) is democratic. Sometimes it is, but definitely not always.

If this statement seems lukewarm about democratic reform, it shouldn’t. The institutions that make decisions about broad questions of distributive justice are badly undemocratic, and changing that situation is a fundamental task of our time. I just wouldn’t interpret it to mean that all organizations must become democratic, because if they did, I would want to leave them.

The post should all institutions be democratic? appeared first on Peter Levine.

what defines an organization? the case of the global sangha

Posted on by
Reply

(National Airport) What defines an “organization”? Normally, I would cite some kind of boundary around the people who belong to the group, plus some kind of system for making decisions that affect the whole. The boundaries can be temporary or permeable, and the decisions can be partial or occasional, but these seem to be definitive features.

It’s interesting to think about the global community of Buddhist monks, the sangha. According to the received story, The Buddha himself ordained the first monks and nuns and gave them the authority to ordain others. According to this account, today’s Buddhist monastics are descendants of a continuous series of ordinations that go back to the founding; this makes them the sangha. There are strict criteria for membership, and new monks and nuns take detailed vows. Even if the lineage of ordinations doesn’t really extend from each of today’s monastics all the way back to The Buddha, the lines extend a long way through history, and the story makes a plausible hypothetical.

The sangha is clearly a network, because the ties of ordination link everyone. Is it also an organization? It has a boundary (with monks/nuns on the inside and laypeople without). The ordination criteria and vows are tools for constraining the monastics’ behavior and influencing results. A monk can be expelled by his own abbot. Because there is no leader, steering committee, or electorate, it is hard to change the direction of the sangha as a whole (as opposed to the policies of any given monastery). But the practices of the whole sangha can evolve as a result of the members’ aggregate choices. Practices could shift quickly if a change that was compatible with the traditional vows spread fast. Is that enough to make the sangha an organization?

Incidentally, priests in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox churches all claim a lineage of ordinations all the way back to Jesus and St. Peter—the Apostolic Succession. So do some Lutherans, Methodists, and Moravians. If the global Buddhist sangha is an organization, then all of these churches also form one organization that just happens to be internally divided today. I think that is more or less the Anglican view of the situation, but not the Roman Catholic one; and the other denominations are mixed on the issue. This raises the question of whether someone can be a member of a given organization and yet deny it.

The post what defines an organization? the case of the global sangha appeared first on Peter Levine.

Spring/Summer

Posted on by
Reply

When winter turns to summer – let’s not kid ourselves that there’s a spring in there – it is such a miraculous time.

Flowers seemingly bloom over night.

Along with the plants I can feel myself stretching up towards the sun, as if I too can photosynthesize. As if I too need that light and warmth for nourishment.

Like the tulips, I too start peeking my head above the ground, wondering what the world may bring.

The days are longer.

“After work” becomes more than a time for curling up on the couch, wondering if you should invest in a snuggie or a an electric blanket.

There are sights and sounds and color. So much to do.

And I can pass someone on the sidewalk. They’re so much wider now, without 10 feet of snow.

All that snow seems a distant memory, thought it may have left me as scared and wounded as my rose bushes.

Better prune it back a bit to let it grow. Let it stretch into the sunlight. Let it soak up the rain and relish the temperate air.

Let bloom again.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

How Stories Can Change Minds Across Difference

Posted on by
Reply

We recently read an insightful piece from the Public Conversations Project, an NCDD member organization, reflecting on a recent radio show on how hard it is to change our minds, and we wanted to share it with our members. We encourage you to read the PCP post below or find the original one here.

Conversations that Open Doors: Reflecting on This American Life

PCP new logoThrough dialogue, Public Conversations Project fosters greater understanding between opposing sides of divisive issues, shifting attitudes and building relationships. This Sunday’s “This American Life” focused on a question that resonates deeply across the schisms of our polarized society: what’s the real likelihood that, on the issues you care most deeply about – be it abortion or same-sex marriage – you’re open to shifting your attitude, or even changing your mind?

The Incredible Rarity of Changing Your Mind

While we typically consider ourselves open to reason, the program reiterated a key lesson of Public Conversations’ training: we consume information mainly that reaffirms our own beliefs. Those beliefs may be inherited from our parents, our education, or our community leaders, but they emanate from our gut, an emotional core to which arguments or debates rarely appeal.

“Even when we receive information that conflicts with our worldview,” said host Ira Glass, “we tend to dig in.”

The Power of Telling Your Story

One thing with the power to counter “digging in” and maybe even change our minds? Personal narrative. The program detailed the experiences of canvassers who went to voters’ homes to discuss the contentious issues of same-sex marriage and abortion, specifically. Rather than rattle off facts or make ideological arguments, these canvassers tried something a little different: they listened, they asked questions, and they told their own story.

The conversations were honest, curious, and surprisingly intimate; one opponent of same-sex marriage asked his openly gay canvasser about when he discovered his sexual orientation. In another community, a Catholic voter spoke about her beliefs on abortion, her faith and her unconditional love for her daughters. After the canvasser revealed that she had had an abortion in the past, and spoke about the hardship of disclosing it to her family, the voter’s position on the issue shifted significantly. Her reported likelihood to vote for unrestricted abortion access started at a zero. By the end of the conversation, her level of support rose to a ten.

The transformative nature of these conversations is rooted in many of the same practices we use in dialogue: compassionate listening, asking questions to learn rather than judge, and telling your own story with sincerity. Of course, whereas the canvassers were unequivocally trying to change minds, the dialogue Public Conversations works to achieve is one that creates space for conflict to be candidly explored, without aiming for compromise or seeking to convince.

“This American Life” also opted not to inquire as to whether any canvassers’ perspectives had altered. Regardless, the story on the whole affirmed our operating principle: conversations have the power to allow for nuance, foster understanding, and shift views.

Difference: The Defining Factor

What makes meaningful shifts possible isn’t just how we talk. To be sure, specific techniques can create new pathways out of the schism of rhetoric and argument.

But it’s also who we talk to; namely, the people who are different from us. The conversation between the voter and the gay canvasser was respectful, nuanced, and open. But just as important, it happened across people with opposing views, deeply felt and clearly acknowledged differences. Among similar voters, conversations with heterosexual canvassers about same-sex marriage or about abortion with canvassers who hadn’t experienced the procedure yielded significantly less substantial changes in attitude, illuminating the revelatory combination of difference and dialogue.

Often, public calls for dialogue do create a space for very respectful, open conversation. But those conversations will inevitably be less enriching and potentially transformative if we don’t actively seek out, invite, and honor the real differences in the room.

Not only can relationships bear the sometimes thorny nature of our differences, our minds can be changed and our humanity deepened, by deeply engaging them – even if avoidance might be our natural tendency. And it’s our tendency for a reason. It involves reaching into the primal kind of scary that is vulnerability: that canvasser had to walk up to the door of someone who might slam the door in his face, and that voter opened the door to a stranger. Even without a vote at stake, even when fundamental disagreements remain after the conversation ends, as they often do, let’s not forget the transformations that can happen when two people see difference – and choose to dive in.

You can find the original version of the Public Conversations Project piece at www.publicconversations.org/blog/conversations-open-doors-reflecting-american-life#sthash.UrzqIC4q.dpuf.

A Friend with Something in their Teeth

Posted on by
Reply

A good friend tells you when you have something in your teeth.

Or something on your face. Or when you are otherwise suffering from some minor oversight of what would generally be considered a proper way to conduct oneself.

I mean, I’m not judging, but I don’t think you intended to walk around with something in your teeth.

If that’s what you’re into, that’s fine. You get down with your bad self.

But generally people don’t want to walk around with something in their teeth.

So I thought you’d want to know.

I wish more feedback could be like something in your teeth.

It’s a little embarrassing in the moment, but in the end, everyone’s glad someone mentioned it. I mean, you can’t let someone go around all day like that.

And it’s not anything about them – anyone who eats has gotten something stuck in their teeth at one point or another.

And it’s not irreparable. You got something in your teeth – you grab some floss and get it out. No problem.

I wish more feedback could be like that.

In the words of Avenue Q, Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist, but being called out on racism feels a whole lot different from being called out on having something in your teeth.

One is certainly more offensive to others, but in a lot of ways it’s not that different.

Nobody frames everything perfectly all the time.

Nobody is free of bias.

We all say things we don’t mean to say. We all say things that are interpreted differently than we intended them to be.

And perhaps more insidiously, we all think things we wish we didn’t think.

But you have to admit that you thought it and admit that you said it. You have to learn from the experience and move through it.

After all, when someone says you’ve got something in your teeth, you shouldn’t tell them they are wrong – you should grab some floss and take care of it.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Balancing Act: An Online Deliberative Budgeting Simulator

Posted on by
Reply

We want to encourage our members to check out a neat tool developed by NCDD organizational member Engaged Public. Their Balancing Act tool is an online budget simulator that lets citizens experience the challenges and trade-offs of public budgets, and it can be a useful tool to apply in many D&D settings. We encourage you to learn more from Engaged Public’s description below.

We at Engaged Public have been working on public budget simulation since our 2007 launch of Backseat Budgeter, which originally started as a learning aid at Colorado State University and eventually became the tool of choice for thousands of Coloradans who wanted to engage more deeply in their state’s fiscal decisions by trying their own hand at balancing the budget.

Well, we’re excited to announce that we have recently launched Balancing Act, our new and improved online budget simulator for school districts, special districts, towns, cities, counties, and states. Balancing Act is a web-based public engagement tool focused on the budget process. It not only increases fiscal transparency by publishing an entity’s budget in an easy-to-understand fashion with graphics, intuitive descriptions, and contextual details of revenue and spending items, but it also goes a step further with its interactive, built-in budget simulation, where residents can attempt to balance the budget as they see fit, subject to the same constraints decision makers have. These budget priorities are then sent back to the public body to be incorporated into its budget process.

Our partners include the City of Hartford, Connecticut – which integrated Balancing Act into its series of People’s Budget meetings and later expanded its use to the wider public – and the State of Colorado (via the Office of State Planning and Budgeting), which helped release a simulation of its 2015-16 General Fund budget. In time for Tax Day, we also unveiled a tool where Coloradans can view an estimate of their 2014 state income, sales, and gas tax, as well as see what those tax dollars paid for – the Colorado Taxpayer Receipt.

While Balancing Act is not a magic bullet for budget-related public engagement, it has proved effective at increasing the number and diversity of citizens who take part in the budget process, not to mention their appreciation of the often-difficult tradeoffs required in balancing public budgets, particularly in these difficult fiscal times. It has also given public officials valuable qualitative and quantitative data on residents’ own budget priorities in an easy-to-use, downloadable format.

We encourage you to learn more about Engaged Public’s Balancing Act tool by visiting http://abalancingact.com.