“10,000 Strong Peacefully Protest In Downtown Baltimore, Media Only Reports The Violence & Arrest of Dozens”

There is a struggle underway to influence how Baltimore is portrayed visually to America. My news feed is full of images like the one above–of peaceful protests or hardworking Baltimoreans cleaning up the streets. I doubt many of those photos are getting through to the mass TV audience that is watching hurled stones and burning police cars.

For my own part, I believe the property damage and physical conflicts with police were pretty much inevitable; but images of them don’t communicate two other crucial facts: that thousands have protested peacefully (which is difficult to organize and sustain, by the way), and that everyday life in cities like Baltimore is deeply oppressed.

The experience of the 1960s teaches us that it matters which images predominate.

In 1964, the summer’s urban riots/insurrections were seen to benefit Barry Goldwater’s campaign. Johnson’s aides called them “Goldwater rallies” because they played into the Republican presidential nominee’s narrative about America. LBJ nevertheless beat Goldwater soundly. But 1968 was different. As Clay Risen writes in the Guardian,

The [1968] riots thus provided an entrée for conservatives to finally, fully assert law and order as a national political issue. Something that had been brewing for decades at the local level, and which had played a role in the GOP victories of 1966, became after April 1968 the single most important domestic concern in the 1968 presidential race. Polls repeatedly put it at par with, and even above, the Vietnam war. Richard Nixon, who had largely avoided talking about riots and civil rights before April, now made law and order – and the revulsion of white suburbia against the violent images of rioters reacting to King’s death – a central theme in his campaign.

The riots also vaulted Nixon’s eventual running mate, the obscure Maryland governor Spiro Agnew, to national prominence. In the wake of the violence in Baltimore, Agnew had called local civil rights leaders to a meeting and then ambushed them with accusations that they had facilitated the racial militancy that he – and much of white America – believed to be the cause of the riots. Nixon aide Patrick Buchanan clipped a news story about the speech and handed it to his boss. And while Nixon toyed with other running mates, he ultimately chose Agnew based on his newfound fame as the standard-bearer of the “silent majority”.

To be clear: I don’t care whether Democratic or Republican politicians benefit or suffer from the images from Baltimore and other cities. But it is important which direction the nation takes. And (fairly or not) it’s people far from Baltimore, Ferguson, and Cleveland who will decide. That is why we should all be drawing attention to the alternative images from Baltimore.

The post the struggle to control images from Baltimore appeared first on Peter Levine.

This is the ninth in a series of occasional posts with lists of open positions:

Executive Director, Opportunity Nation: “Opportunity Nation is a bipartisan, multi-sector national campaign comprised of more than 300 employers, educational institutions, faith-based and civic organizations, community groups and nonprofits working to expand economic mobility and close the opportunity gap in America. As it moves to execute on an ambitious two-year strategic plan, Opportunity Nation seeks a skilled leader, influencer, storyteller, and champion to usher in a new era of growth and collective impact as Executive Director.”

Program Manager, Healthy Democracy: “If you’re passionate about political reform and civic engagement, this position is a unique opportunity to advance your values while making a lasting and positive impact on democracy. Healthy Democracy is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Portland Oregon. Our mission is to elevate the voice of citizens in our democracy in order to give voters information they can trust.  Our signature program, the Citizens Initiative Review (CIR), brings representative groups of citizens together to fairly and thoroughly evaluate high-profile ballot initiatives for the benefit of all voters. It’s a new and highly effective approach to democratic reform.”

Research Director, Harvard’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics (soon to be led by the excellent Danielle Allen): “Working closely with the Center’s Director, faculty, and fellows, the RD will develop and manage a portfolio of collaborative projects and dissemination projects that would yield a stream of work outputs of interest to broad audiences, and support the intellectual work of grant development to sustain this portfolio of activities. The RD will participate in thematic seminars and conferences, and will work with the Director on their development. … The RD will assist with the development of the newly launched Fellows-in-Residency program, including helping to plan and oversee a weekly seminar, and evaluating its progress. The RD will assist with short and long-range planning to meet objectives, policy development and implementation, and other projects such as writing the annual report and other communications.”

Budget and Fiscal Administrator at Tufts University’s Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts (where I work!). See the Tufts Careers website, and enter requisition 15001129.

Program Administrator, Talloires Network (also based at Tufts). The Talloires Network is a coalition of universities — 340 institutions in 75 countries — that are moving beyond the ivory tower to tackle pressing societal problems. The Network is the primary global alliance committed to strengthening the civic roles and social responsibilities of higher education. It mobilizes its members to improve community conditions and, in the process, to educate students to be leaders for change. … The Program Administrator is responsible for organizing and managing conferences, workshops and other meetings; leading office management and systems; managing the annual MacJannet Prize Program; contributing to other core programs; and managing membership affairs. “

The post job openings in civic renewal (9) appeared first on Peter Levine.

The General Social Survey asked a set of questions about political values or principles twice, in 2004 and 2014. The questions were phrased, “How important is it ….?” and the items included: always to obey the law, always to vote, never to try to evade taxes, and always to understand other people’s reasoning. Respondents were also asked how important it is for people to be able to participate in making decisions. It’s a nice mix of conventional civic obligations and deliberative and participatory values.

As is my wont, I have looked at the changes generationally. Graphs are helpful for visualizing these changes. For instance, the first graph below displays an interesting pattern in attitudes towards understanding other people’s reasons. Generation Xers have become substantially more committed to this value as they (or I could say “we”) have aged, although we still lag a bit behind our elders. Older Americans have lost their commitment somewhat, especially the group that was born between 1926 and 1945. Millennials enter the picture with the highest levels of support currently, although they rate listening as less important than their grandparents did a decade ago.

I’ll display a second graph that shows quite a different pattern. The younger you are today, the less likely you are to believe that it’s very important for people to be able to participate in decisions. At least since 2004, the older cohorts have not changed their minds on that topic. Millennials continue the pattern of declining support by entering adulthood with the lowest levels of commitment to the value or principle of participation. This graph suggests that unless we do something to change the trends, generational replacement will gradually lessen our commitment to participation.

The pattern for always obeying the law looks like the second graph above, although the gaps are smaller. Millennials seem less committed than their predecessors, which could reflect an openness to civil disobedience.

All the older cohorts have grown to oppose tax evasion more as they have aged. Millennials enter the picture least committed to that ideal, but they are just where the Xers were a decade ago, and it’s possible that people’s focus on this topic naturally grows as they age.

Voting, finally, shows a pattern like participation in decisions (the second graph above). Commitment is lower for each generation, and much lower for Millennials. The older generations did not change their minds between 2004 and 2014, but the shrinking of the pre-War cohort and the growth of Xers and Millennials pushes down the average for the population as a whole. Voting is becoming less of a perceived obligation due to generational replacement. However, it’s important to note that this is a question about the obligation to vote. Actual voting rates have been flat over time. In other words, Millennials vote at similar rates to their predecessors; they are just less likely to conceive of that action as a duty.

The post the Millennials’ political values in context appeared first on Peter Levine.