the launch of Brigade

Yesterday, Sean Parker of Facebook fame launched Brigade, a new app that lets you express opinions about political issues (including new issues that you introduce), discuss and persuade other users, identify people with similar concerns and views, and recruit them to your own “projects.”

If a random person invented such an app, I would be highly skeptical that it could attract enough users to be valuable. A network’s value is proportional to the square of its users (Metcalfe’s Law), which is why Facebook itself is a valuable place to engage and participate, and most startups go nowhere. But with Parker’s fame and his almost $10 million of initial funding, Brigade could “go to scale.”

I think it will do good if the design causes people to engage in relatively substantive (yet fun) ways, without degenerating into trollery or being taken over by organized interest groups. I think it will do even more good if users routinely introduce and share valuable content from other news and opinion sites in their efforts to persuade.

I can envision dangers if Brigade’s scale becomes huge and it gains some control over our public sphere, but that seems a distant hypothetical problem. As I told the Huffington Post’s Alexander Howard, I am rooting for Brigade to gain a substantial user base because I think it can be educational and energizing.

Brigade emphasizes issues rather than candidates and campaigns. In talking to the Washington Post’s Ana Swanson, I exaggerated the following point:

Parties, candidates and analysts alike have also found that Millennials are more willing to organize around particular issues rather than political parties. “For all human beings, it makes more sense to talk about issues than parties – who cares about parties[?] Most people are more interested in solving issues,” says Levine. “But I think it’s especially true for young people, who have a particularly weak attachment to political parties.”

In fact, a lot of people are driven by partisan attachments, which can even determine where they stand on specific issues. For some, loyalty to party comes first, and the issues follow. I nevertheless believe that there is a substantial proportion of Americans–especially young ones–who do not have strong partisan loyalties, and for whom Brigade’s focus on issues will be appealing.

The post the launch of Brigade appeared first on Peter Levine.

Davenport Offers CA Cities $50,000 for Public Engagement

We encourage our NCDD members in California to check out an exciting grant opportunity being offered by NCDD organizational member the Davenport Institute. Davenport is offering $50,000 worth of training and support for public engagement work, and the deadline to apply is Sept. 14th, but don’t wait to apply. You can learn more in the announcement they recently made below or by clicking here.


2015 Davenport Institute Public Engagement Grant Program Application Period Now Open!

DavenportInst-logoIf you have a public engagement project that could use some financial support, now is the time to apply for the eighth annual Davenport Institute Public Engagement Grant Program! This year we will be awarding up to $50,000 in funded consulting services to California cities, counties, special districts, and civic organizations looking to conduct legitimate public processes on issues ranging from budgets to land use to public safety to water policy.

The Grants are made possible through funding from the James Irvine Foundation’s California Democracy Program. We anticipate awarding 2 – 4 grants with a minimum individual grant amount of $5,000 and a maximum individual grant amount of $20,000. Prior to beginning their public engagement campaign, grantees will receive training and consultation from the Davenport Institute to build understanding and support for the civic engagement effort amongst administrative and elected officials.

The deadline for the 2015 Public Engagement Grant is Monday, September 14.

Here are some FAQs:

Q1: Does the proposed public process need to occur immediately?

A: No. Most of our granted projects have taken place within one year of the application date.

Q2: Can we recommend a facilitator or web platform to receive support from the Grant Program?

A: Yes. Again, the purpose of our grants is to fund participatory (as opposed to “PR”) projects. Of course, we’d like to interview your recommended facilitator, but we’ve worked with designated consultants before. This actually helps us build our own “rolodex” of consultants!

Q3: Is the Davenport training an added expense?

A: No. Training for the grant recipient is now an integral part of the Grant Program, and is offered as part of the grant. All expenses – including travel – are assumed by Davenport.

Q4: How many grantees do you anticipate this year?

A: We tend to support between 2-4  grantees each year with the Grant Program.

Q5: Do you support “capacity building” efforts like “block captain”, “neighborhood watch”, “citizen academy”?

A: No. As a practice, the grants are intended to support actual public projects around “live” issues – from budgets to land use. We find with the training added, these grants build “civic capacity” through actual engagement.

The criteria are straightforward and the online application form is easy.

After reviewed by members of our Advisory Council, our 2015 grantees will be announced by early October. Please feel free to contact Ashley Trim at ashley[dot]trim[at]pepperdine[dot]edu or 310-506-6878 with any questions.

Happy Bunker Hill Day

Today, June 17, is Bunker Hill Day, a little known holiday celebrated, I believe, only in parts of Massachusetts’ Suffolk and Middlesex Counties.

While the Boston Globe reports that it used to be a day “on which city government offices would close,” the day is still celebrated within my city of Somerville, MA. Perhaps that’s just some of the civic-mindedness that got us recognized as an All America City.

And just what is Bunker Hill Day?

Why, it commemorates, of course, the June 17, 1775 Battle of Bunker Hill, which took place largely on Breed’s Hill in Charleston.

It’s not all madness, though. In fact, Bunker Hill was intended site of the battle.

But let’s back up: The battle took place during the siege of Boston – April 19, 1775 to March 17, 1776 – when American militiamen effectively contained British troops within Boston.

After taking Boston, the British sought to fortify their position by seizing the nearby Charlestown peninsula.

Before the British could act on this plan, though, Colonels Putnam and Prescott set out with orders to establish American defenses on Charlestown’s Bunker Hill. However, “for reasons that are unclear, they constructed a redoubt on nearby Breed’s Hill.”

The British, “astonished to see the rebel fortifications upon the hill” led two costly and unsuccessful charges against the Americans.

After receiving reinforcements, the British led a third and ultimately successful attack against the fortification, taking 1054 casualties – nearly 40 percent of the British ranks – in the process.

At the time, Somerville was part of Charlestown – “Charlestown beyond the neck.” Though Somerville was established as its own town in 1842, we still proudly remember the game-changing battle.

“While for the Army of New England the battle was technically a tactical defeat, it was also a symbolic victory of strategic proportions. A small colonial force of men from all races, classes, and occupations made a defiant stand against some of the best trained and equipped soldiers in the world.”

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

notes on Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution

For use in today’s Summer Institute of Civic Studies. The morning’s readings are

  • Hannah Arendt, On Revolution, pp. 18-25, 37-48, 240-7
  • Hannah Arendt” from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I first asked participants to name various kinds of freedom, and categorized the answers as positive and negative, inner (such as freedom from anxiety) and outer (such as freedom from coercion), and individual and group.

Arendt’s reading of the American Revolution: the founders were after freedom, which they didn’t initially define all that sharply but which probably meant mostly negative individual freedom: “the more or less free range of non-political activities which a given body politic will permit and guarantee to those who constitute it” (p 20). But in creating new institutions that would protect that kind of freedom, they discovered public freedom—the freedom to create together. And this was a source of happiness for them. P. 24: “they were enjoying what they were doing far beyond the call of duty.”

In the French Revolution, however, the leaders felt themselves compelled by great forces beyond their control and they also lost interest in creating new institutions or even following the rules they had constructed as they declared the “social problem” the only thing that mattered. As a result, they lost all forms of freedom (pp. 40-1).

Relation between freedom and equality

Many might see freedom and equality in tension. But for Arendt, public freedom requires equality. People are not naturally equal but they are made equal in “artificial” political spaces, “where men [meet] one another as citizens and not as private persons” (p. 21.) The tyrant, the master and the slave are not free because they are not engaged in equal politics.

Politics as performance and self-discovery

Arendt is not a deliberative democrat, envisioning public life as a discussion about what should be done, in which people try to discipline their own interests and personalities in the interests of the common good. She appreciates competition and the pursuit of excellence in public life. And people discover their full humanity by displaying their personalities in public. “Freedom was understood as being manifest in certain, by no means all, human activities, and that these activities could appear and be real only when others saw them, judged them, remembered them. The life of a free man required the presence of others. Freedom itself therefore needed a place where people could come together—the agora, the market-place, or the polis, the political space proper” (p. 21)

Civic republicanism/liberalism

Arendt sees political participation as a source of happiness (at least for some) and self-discovery. It is thus an intrinsic good, not just a means to justice, or security, or happiness, or other goods. And you need government not so much to guarantee good outcomes for communities as to be a space for politics.

That reflects what is now being called the “civic republican” tradition, in contrast to what is sometimes called “liberalism,” which holds that politics and governments are costs we must pay to get benefits. The liberal tradition encompasses a great variety of answers to the question: how much government and politics do we need? (Some liberals say: a lot.) But all see government and politics as a cost, whereas Arendt sees politics as a benefit and government as the space that allows politics.

Must/should everyone participate?

The civic republic tradition poses the question: who should participate? Granting that politics has intrinsic value, does it have value for all (or only some) and is it the highest value or only one valuable pursuit?

On p. 271, Arendt suggests that there are just some “who have a taste for public freedom and cannot be ‘happy’ without it.” And it’s OK not to participate, because “one of the most important negative liberties we have enjoyed since the end of the ancient world [is] freedom from politics.” (p. 272)

But on p. 247: “no one could be called happy without his share in public happiness, that no one could be called free without his experience in public freedom, and that no one could be called either happy or free without participating, and having a share, in public business.”

How to keep public freedom alive?

Most of us are not in the position of the American founders, able to discover happiness and freedom by creating institutions and feeling that “man is master of his destiny, at least with respect to political government” (p. 41).

So what are some options?

  • Frequent revolutions?
  • Co-creation in other domains? (What about a startup enterprise?)
  • Radical decentralization—Jefferson’s proposal for “ward” government?

Private and public

In the civic republican vein, Arendt is a great defender of public life. But she is also an explicit and strong defender of the private life and, indeed, of privacy. Sometimes she takes the latter to a fault, as in her “Reflections on Little Rock,” where she argues that sending paratroopers to Arkansas was a violation of the private sphere. But it makes sense that we need a strong private domain to create an impressive public space. The “four walls, within which people’s private life is lived, constitute a shield against the public aspect of the world. They enclose a secure place, without which no living thing can thrive” (Between Past and Future, p. 186). After all, her public space is not about agreement but contention, and one needs a private space to develop enough individuality to contend.

See also: Hannah Arendt and thinking from the perspective of an agentHannah Arendt and philosophy as a way of lifehomage to Hannah Arendt at The New Schoolwhen society becomes fully transparent to the state; and on the moral dangers of cliché.

The post notes on Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution appeared first on Peter Levine.

Participatory Budgeting in Alagoinhas

Author: 
Preparing a write-up of this case will require knowledge of Portuguese (PBcensus 1 - complete raw data). Although there are no existing case studies in English on Alagoinhas, the city was surveyed in the Participatory Budgeting Census 2012 (Spada et al.). Thus, many of the fixed data fields provided by...

Take a Walk on the Wild Side

There’s a certain way one ought to live one’s life. Or at least that’s what many of us are taught to believe.

Finish high school, go to college. Get a job, find a career. Perhaps also get married, buy a house, and have children. If you’re into that kind of thing.

Social expectations are, perhaps, the biggest driver for following this standard path. But there are other incentives, too.

After all, the journey of life doesn’t end there and the other side of the spectrum demands attention as well: save for retirement, pay off the mortgage, care for your parents, put your kids through school –

Even if you’re not looking for a mansion in the Hollywood hills, the stability of a middle class lifestyle requires a commitment to middle class norms. Deviating from the path – intentionally taking a step backwards or even laterally can be scary.

That’s not the way the story is supposed to go, and it opens a risk for future financial instability.

The great irony here is that by and large, folks in the middle class enjoy great privilege – they have flexibility and a power over their lives that working class and poor folks can only dream of.

And yet the structures of middle class life can feel confining, as though once you’ve started on a path you must remain committed to it.

The days of a lifetime at one company are long gone, with job-hopping the new norm.

But there’s an even newer trend, I think, slowly emerging among my age cohort: career-hopping.

Because the truth is, you’re not locked into a job or even into a career: pick up and move to Europe if you want to.

There’s no path you have to follow; you make the rules.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

Reviving the Real American Dream

"In a neighborhood dispute there may be stunts, rough words and hot insults, but when a whole people speaks to its government the quality of the action and the dialogue needs to reflect the worth of that people and the responsibility of that government." - Program Notes, March on Washington, August 28, 1963.

As those of us in the March on Washington will never forget, the experience created a transcendent sense of hopefulness. In my view, this grew from the march's remarkable civic qualities. The civil rights movement made a statement to the nation and also to itself about the meaning of citizenship.

The question for today, as we head into an election season marked by bitter polarization--"stunts, rough words, and hot insults"--is how we can develop a renewed sense of ourselves as a "whole people," responsible for democracy as a way of life, not simply elections. This larger democratic imagination is what the nation is waiting for.

Stories of public work and civic action from the grassroots of American society and the tools of social media developed in recent years give us resources to help accomplish this task if we use them to integrate democratic stirrings into a larger democratic narrative that challenges today's overly materialistic and individualistic version of the American Dream.

There is a history to build on, detailed in books like Taylor Branch's Pulitzer Prize-winning Parting the Waters. The March on Washington channeled years of disciplined, nonviolent action in communities across the South. Such action by everyday citizens gave the nation a civics lesson. The country had watched unforgettable, televised images of thousands of domestic workers in Montgomery walking with dignity and determination to their work rather than ride of segregated buses. People had seen black children in Little Rock on their way to school brave crowds of segregationists who yelled insults and threw rocks. Television had dramatized nonviolent demonstrators in Birmingham facing down police dogs. Such scenes created the background for the march.

The march integrated and amplified such stories. It also deepened a citizen identity and a shared sense of people-hood.

This civic identity was expressed in Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. King called the nation to "rise up [and] live out the true meaning of its creed" that all are created equal. He also countered divisive politics. "Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline."

Citizenship was also expressed by the determination and dignity of the marchers. They took to heart the message of the program notes (above), which called for marchers to understand themselves as a "whole people" speaking to "its government," taking responsibility for "the quality of [their] action and the dialogue," and showing the nation and the government their worth as a people.

Acts of citizenship continue in the present below the surface of today's degraded public discourse. In his book Ecology of Democracy, David Mathews, president of the Kettering Foundation, shows what this looks like. Citizens, in his definition, are those who act with others to address "the problems behind the problems," what he calls problems "of" democracy not simply problems "in" democracy.

Problems of democracy--polarization, devaluation of the talents of lay citizens, feelings of widespread powerlessness and others--cripple our collective ability to respond to the vast array of issues in democracy. These range from incarceration of black males to inequality, failing schools to climate change.

Sometimes citizenship acts are very localized such as acts of kindness to neighbors, or visits to lonely people in nursing homes. Sometimes they are community wide, as in the stories of what is called "broad based community organizing" bringing together people of different faiths, races, and income levels to address complex problems like economic development or school reform. In other cases, they involve creation and care for public goods, from garden groups to public spaces. Finally, some involve large acts of public reconstruction, like the efforts I recently described at the Rutgers University-Newark to discover and live out the identity of a "democracy university," reviving a once great American tradition.

Such civic stories furnish a foundation for an American Dream far different than the scramble for fame and fortune we see on the nightly news. By tending to the welfare of the community and the larger society, they suggest a renewed story of "the whole people" taking responsibility for democracy as a way of life.

In recent years we have heard a call for strong citizenship from political leaders. I saw first hand President Clinton's interest in citizenship when I coordinated the "New Citizenship" effort with the Domestic Policy Council from 1993 to 1995, culminating in a Camp David meeting on the future of democracy on January 14, 1965, just before Clinton's State of the Union address. In that address, "The New Covenant," Clinton described the work of citizenship as "the great strength of America." Barack Obama struck this theme in the 2008 election campaign, as Nancy Cantor and I detailed in an earlier Huffington Post blog.

The lesson of recent years is that political leaders by themselves will not sustain a strong citizenship message in the face of ferocious opposition from the elite political culture, even if they believe in it and have strong evidence of its appeal.

For a new sense of "the whole people" to take hold will require the work of the whole people.

The tools of social media offer us opportunities. For instance, in recent years they have shown their immense potential for responding to natural disasters. As Dina Fine Maron described in Scientific American, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) wrote in its 2013 National Preparedness report that during Hurricane Sandy, "users sent more than 20 million Sandy-related Twitter posts, or "tweets," despite the loss of cell phone service during the peak of the storm." Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association, testified to the House Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications that "the convergence of social networks and mobile has thrown the old response playbook out the window."

We need to define our elections as now a "civic disaster." And we need to develop a strategy for enlisting the energies and talents of the people in the work of response.

Harry Boyte is editor of the collection Democracy's Education, with many contributors describing the stirrings of a democratic American Dream.