Wicked problems share these characteristics: there are no quick fixes; they are complex and multi-faceted; conventional methods (legislation, regulation, money, power, technology) don’t – and can’t – solve them; solutions depend on how the problem is framed. Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.

Many of the wicked problems we confront today are familiar:

• growing income inequality;
• blocked social mobility;
• political polarization;
• climate change;
• erosion of our social ethics;
• a health care system spiraling out of control;
• a prison system that warehouses the mentally ill and stigmatizes huge numbers of young black and Hispanic males;
• a less democracy-friendly form of capitalism.

Our most urgent wicked problem, I believe, is our blocked system of social mobility. It poses the most immediate and gravest threat to our political stability and it makes all the other problems worse. When people feel trapped, large income inequalities and other frustrations become far less tolerable.

Americans insist on a culture that encourages self-improvement. We crave the opportunity to better ourselves economically and socially. If we feel that the playing field is reasonably fair such that each of us has a chance to improve our lot in life through hard work and living by the rules, our society will remain reasonably stable. But if increasing numbers of us become convinced that the system is rigged against us, our political stability can be readily undermined.

If current conditions continue, radical movements on both the left and the right are bound to arise with virulently populist, violence-prone tendencies. In such a political climate, it will become impossible to adopt the sorts of thoughtful, long-term workable solutions to the wicked problems we confront.

It has happened to other civilizations. It can happen here.

Rebooting Democracy is a blog authored by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich. While the views that Dan shares in his blog should not be interpreted as representing official Public Agenda positions, the purpose behind the blog and the spirit in which it is presented resonate powerfully with our values and the work that we do. To receive Rebooting Democracy in your inbox, subscribe here.

Public Agenda is partnering with AAAS to facilitate a series of dialogues between scientists and evangelical Christian pastors throughout the summer. The purpose of the project is to improve dialogue, relationships and collaboration between these two communities, often viewed as staunchly divided. This blog is one in a series from our public engagement team, who write to reflect on their experiences moderating the dialogues. For more information about the project, email Allison Rizzolo.

As we make the final preparations for the next set of Perceptions Project dialogues, I can’t help but think back to our first dialogues in Pasadena.

We spent considerable time preparing for those conversations, between evangelical pastors and scientists. We worked with our partners on the project, AAAS, thinking about who should participate and how the dialogues might unfold. We anticipated the tensions that might emerge – tensions that could stall conversation between the two communities. And we thoughtfully planned ways to surface areas of common ground and shared understanding.

Yet despite the many hours of planning that led up to the dialogues, I was unable to foresee what it would feel like to be in them. What I hadn’t, and perhaps couldn’t, anticipate was how eager participants would be to talk to one another and ask questions about each others’ experiences. While there was some tension between the groups, the overarching theme was curiosity.

One interaction in particular has stayed with me since that first dialogue. We were discussing the manner in which scientific data is presented in popular media. A few pastors expressed frustration with the seemingly constant stream of new evidence that is presented as fact yet often appears to be contradictory.

In response, several scientists described the scientific method. They also noted that they are limited in the claims they can make based on a single study and expressed their own frustration at the way their findings are often presented—and inflated—in the media without sufficient context or qualification.

This was an “a-ha” moment for one pastor who, prior to the dialogues, assumed that scientists were responsible for how their findings were presented in different media outlets.

That “a-ha” moment reminded me of the critical role that dialogue can have in connecting us in spite of our differences. For the Pasadena participants, dialogue provided an opportunity to break down misconceptions and provide each group insight into how the other community operates.

As the next dialogues approach, I eagerly anticipate the “a-ha” moments that lie ahead and wonder what questions participants will ask of one another that will deepen their understanding of each others’ experiences.

Americans must become as adept and engaged as citizens as they are as consumers.

The public must be willing and able to give as much thought as they do to buying a car or a new home to alternative choices on policies relating to the economy, health care, education, the environment and other matters of concern to individuals and the community.

Successful public engagement involves both will and skill, and at present both are lacking.

The public’s task as citizens is to deliberate on the nation’s most important issues and form thoughtful judgments free of bias and wishful thinking.

This is a far call from the present response patterns of the public. In recent years, the American public has almost lost the habit of becoming engaged in the search for solutions to the nation’s most pressing problems. Successful public engagement involves both will and skill, and at present both are lacking.

In its place we find polarization, demonization of those who hold different views, passionate conviction without thought, and extreme subjectivity. Just at the time when we most need a thoughtful pragmatic public, we get instead a public on vacation from reality.

From my more than a half century of experience in monitoring the values and attitudes of the American public, I have reached the reluctant conclusion that the American public is not currently well prepared to take on one of democracy’s most essential tasks – restoring fairness to our nation.

On the other hand, I believe that this could improve for the better with relatively modest changes in our culture. At present, Americans are frustrated because their voice is neither welcome nor heard. But there is enormous potential willingness among Americans to act as true citizens, if given a genuine opportunity to do so.

In later posts, I’ll elaborate how this could happen with good leadership and a bit of luck.

Rebooting Democracy is a blog authored by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich. While the views that Dan shares in his blog should not be interpreted as representing official Public Agenda positions, the purpose behind the blog and the spirit in which it is presented resonate powerfully with our values and the work that we do. To receive Rebooting Democracy in your inbox, subscribe here.

If we are to dig ourselves out of the hole created by the shift away from democracy-friendly capitalism, our system of democracy must function at its best rather than at its present mediocre level.

What does this mean in practice? For sure it means that our political leaders and elites (as well as the public) must do things differently.

Our political leaders and elites must:

• Define and clarify for the public the problems created by growing inequality.
• Anticipate worse case scenarios, and do contingency planning for their possible occurrence.
• Formulate a manageable range of options for voters to consider.
• Draw out the likely consequences of these options in language understandable to the public.
• Offer the public models of discussion based on dialogue and mutual respect as well as partisan debate.
• Find ways to invite the public into the tent, and demonstrate that policy makers want and need input from non-expert average Americans.

In the next blog, I’ll address the role of the public in helping democracy work better.

Rebooting Democracy is a blog authored by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich. While the views that Dan shares in his blog should not be interpreted as representing official Public Agenda positions, the purpose behind the blog and the spirit in which it is presented resonate powerfully with our values and the work that we do. To receive Rebooting Democracy in your inbox, subscribe here.

Reprinted from The Huffington Post (The Blog) - July 28, 2014

Are we becoming a more polarized people, as a new and important study from the Pew Research Center seems to demonstrate? In spite of the hype surrounding this new research, I argue that the public is not as polarized as a cursory reading of the Pew study would suggest.

Certainly, this research reflects an important problem, but that problem is less about the public and more about our political system.

The vast majority of participants in the research (about 8 in 10) do not actually fit Pew's definition of ideological polarization. Further, as Stanford political scientist Morris Fiorina explains in an excellent analysis of the research, the methodology used -- forcing respondents to choose between two dichotomies -- leads to a result that can exaggerate the ideological consistency of respondents.

Fiorina also examines the wider body of public opinion toward specific policy issues. He finds that most Americans are not either/or thinkers. Rather, they see merits in various points of view and are open to compromise.

In a related vein, a new public opinion analysis from the organization Voice of the People finds "remarkably little difference between the views of people who live in red (Republican) districts or states, and those who live in blue (Democratic) districts or states on questions about what policies the government should pursue."

Certainly, there is some evidence in the Pew research of a hardening of positions among the ideologically minded, and we don't deny that there are important disagreements among the American public. Still, this evidence does illustrate that common ground is not only attainable but, on many counts, already exists.

Even among those who take an ideological stance toward Beltway politics, many are much more pragmatic and open to compromise when it comes to local issues.

I say this with the confidence of 20 years facilitating conversations around the country with everyday Americans from across the political spectrum. During these discussions, there will often be a handful of participants who come off, at first, as rigidly partisan, voicing talk-radio-like rhetoric. But this rhetoric is almost always superficial and falls away quickly. When the conversation digs into concrete local issues such as improving schools or making streets safer, these participants become much more flexible and less dogmatic.

The Way Forward

There is indeed a serious problem of political polarization, but its source is not the American public. Rather, political parties have realigned and are much more consistently partisan than they've been in our lifetime. Activists on both ends of the ideological spectrum are much more influential via primaries and campaign donations than are average citizens. And media coverage generally reinforces what is most conflicted about our politics. All of this adds up to a highly polarized and dysfunctional national politics.

How then can we make progress?

Fortunately, there's a lot we can do at the local level - and we don't have to wait for national politics to get its act together to do so. Broad-based public engagement can support and even drive local progress on a host of issues that people care about and are willing to work together on. When it comes to education reform, jobs, climate change, public safety and a host of other concrete challenges, we can and should get on with it locally.

In fact, metropolitan regions are already getting it done, and have become the locus for progress on public policy issues.

On matters of national policy, however, we still have some work to do before we can make real progress on difficult challenges like immigration reform or climate change. First, we need to work through the tricky issues that are making effective problem solving practically impossible.

Unfortunately, we can't expect current office-holders on the national stage to fix things like money in politics or partisan and distorting gerrymandering; they've thrived in the current system and are therefore unlikely to champion needed reform. And in any event, they can't get anything done!

Instead, some form of people power will be necessary to drive reforms that enable us to collaborate and solve national problems rather than fragment, polarize and sink into stalemate.

Citizens must mobilize to demand practical, bipartisan progress on the issues that challenge our future as a nation. Those who fight for such progress must be rewarded at the ballot box and those who undermine it must be punished. Support must build for measures that protect our national politics from interest group and partisan manipulation.

Helping the public come to terms with these prerequisites for national progress is among the central political projects of our time. The Pew study does nothing to dissuade us from this fundamental point. Rather, now more than ever, we should get to work.

This is a sampling of comments from focus groups exploring American attitudes on foreign policy and on the crisis in Ukraine in particular, conducted this spring (before the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17) by the FDR Group and the Kettering Foundation. National polls over the last few years pick up responses similar to those captured above.

According to the Pew Research Center, for example, 8 in 10 say the U.S. should “concentrate more on our own national problems” and “not think so much in international terms.” More than half of Americans want the country to “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own .”

So what does this mean for U.S. foreign policy? The crisis in Ukraine, heartbreaking violence in the Middle East, the unraveling “Arab spring,” disintegrating relations with Russia, gang violence and turmoil in Central America--these are just a few of the tough international challenges we face. Do people really want the U.S. to step back from the world stage? Has the country become more isolationist? What happens when people begin to weigh the implications of U.S. disengagement?

Understanding public thinking on foreign policy is a complex assignment, whether you rely on surveys, focus groups or on community discussions such as National Issues Forums. Events abroad are in constant flux, and there are few policy issues where the public learning curve is steeper.

Polls capture people’s reactions about foreign policy questions whether they understand the stakes involved or not. Even in focus groups, it takes prolonged discussion to help participants consider the costs of getting involved in an international crisis versus the costs of staying out. And focus groups contain an important warning for anyone looking at the polls. People routinely assume that “involvement” or “action” means military combat. Most are unfamiliar with other diplomatic and economic tools the country might employ.

Yet despite these caveats, a closer look at recent polls and focus groups reveals some important themes.

Isn’t it time to work on our own problems?

Both surveys and focus groups show an authentic conviction among Americans that the U.S. needs to reduce its footprint abroad and take better care of business at home.

In the FDR/Kettering research, participants repeatedly asked why we were investing money, time, and attention in so many foreign hotspots given our own problems. “We have people living on streets; kids that aren't eating,” a New Jersey woman said when she was asked about U.S. policy on Ukraine. “And we focus all this money and attention on something that is none of our business, none of our business.” A man made a similar point about Afghanistan: “All that money that was spent in Afghanistan. Some of it should have been spent on Sandy, Katrina, Irene and all these other issues.”

Why are we always out front?

According to surveys, only 12 percent of Americans want the U.S. to be the “single world leader” compared to 72 percent who want us to have a “shared leadership role.” More extended focus group discussions underscore this concern. Even when reminded that wars abroad can endanger us here at home, many participants still wanted to know why the U.S. so often seems so eager to step forward.

“Why does it have to be us right away?” was a typical comment. Commenting on the dispute with Russia over Ukraine, a woman said: “Why should we be the first one? Always getting ourselves involved . . . At this point, it's more of like an ego trip. Who's the stronger man? Who's got the better country . . .?”

Surveys suggest the public is considerably more open to foreign policy initiatives when the U.S. works in concert with other countries, an idea that also emerged in the focus groups.

There are also indications that some Americans do reconsider their initial rejection of U.S. engagement abroad when they begin to weigh the consequences of “not acting.”

The FDR Group’s Steve Farkas describes what happened in the focus groups he led as participants wrestled with how the U.S. should address the crisis in Ukraine:

“As the evening wore on, some of those who shrank back from U.S. leadership and activism on a crisis like Crimea-Ukraine-Russia started to worry about the consequences of letting Putin have his way. Others in the room talked about the possibility that not confronting a bully would encourage him to escalate, and you could feel that a few of the isolationists started, just started, having second thoughts. Others held fast, they had thought through their position, saying Putin would not respond to sanctions —‘he'll do what he wants to do.’”

Does U.S. involvement abroad really make us safer?

Current surveys show that three-quarters of Americans now say the war in Iraq was “not worth the cost.”

One key insight from the research is that many Americans see “costs” to military action on top of the heavy human and financial toll. Some worried that the U.S. is now seen as a bully or an aggressor, and that this in itself endangers us.

“Really,” one woman said, “we dictate to other countries what they can do, who can have nuclear weapons, who can't, you know. . . It's just honestly, we're hated for a reason because we think we know the best way and if they don't do what we think is the best, we get mad, we send troops, we spend money, we go on TV.” Another said: “You know, if we minded our own business, we'd take the target off our back.”

Experts sometimes assume that public hesitancy about U.S. involvement abroad stems from indifference or a sense that what happens outside our borders doesn’t matter. But a closer look from the FDR/Kettering research suggests that many Americans are in fact quite worried about what happens abroad. They’re just not sure that U.S. assertiveness makes us any safer.

Who can we trust? Can anything really make any difference?

Perhaps the most troubling observation from the focus groups is the profound sense of weariness, mistrust, and cynicism evidenced by so many Americans.

Participants repeatedly questioned whether leaders and the press are telling the truth and whether U. S. foreign policy could make any difference even in the best of circumstances. For many, deep disappointment with our own country seeped into their thinking about what we can or should do abroad. “I think that we should support democracy when we start to practice it [here]. . . and we don't.” Another participant asked: “We're not even friends in our own country. How are we going to be friends with people from another country?”

Attitudes like these strongly suggest that rebuilding public confidence in this country’s foreign policy will require much more than replacing one set of strategies with different ones.

And yet despite the pervasive discontent in the focus groups, there were also sparks of curiosity and interest beneath the surface. Most participants delved into discussions about Ukraine even though they didn’t think we should get involved. Many listened intently to other people’s views. As the conversations progressed, some acknowledged their own lack of certainty about what the country should do.

Given the supreme difficulty of America’s foreign policy challenges, an open mind, a little humility and a desire to hear what other people think isn’t the worst place to start. Perhaps some of the TV talking heads who so insistently push their own “just do it my way” policy options should take note.

I fear that the current state of our democracy is not robust enough to prevent the damage a biased-toward-the-rich form of capitalism is bound to wreak on our society.

We are doing reasonably well in observing the external trappings of democracy – voting, the rule of law, divided powers, etc. This is vitally important because it helps us to preserve our freedom and political stability.

Government by the people clearly implies that the people must have a say in the decisions that affect their lives.

But we are not doing as well on the substantive side of democracy – the side implicit in Lincoln’s definition of democracy as government of, by and for the people. Government by the people clearly implies that the people must have a say in the decisions that affect their lives.

Jefferson observed that a well-informed public is indispensable to democracy’s success. What he meant by “well informed”, however, included not only relevant factual information but also the hard work of deliberation needed to form thoughtful and considered public judgment.

The current state of our democracy fails on these counts. The public voice rarely plays any significant role in shaping policy. People are badly informed about the relevant facts. And most important of all, they lack both the incentive and the tools needed to reach considered public judgment on vital policy issues.

An astonishing example: the public voice had no role whatsoever in formulating the health care policies of either the Clinton or Obama administrations. Nor did the majority even understand either of these health care initiatives, let alone form thoughtful judgment about them. Remember that these were initiatives from Democratic Presidents who strongly believe in the importance of the public voice.

These acts reveal a vast disconnect between the rhetoric of our political leaders and the practice of a robust democracy.

Rebooting Democracy is a blog authored by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich. While the views that Dan shares in his blog should not be interpreted as representing official Public Agenda positions, the purpose behind the blog and the spirit in which it is presented resonate powerfully with our values and the work that we do. To receive Rebooting Democracy in your inbox, subscribe here.

If traditional economic policies can get our economy back to healthy growth that benefits average households (the old normal), then we can be optimistic about the future.

I don’t think, however, that we can return to the old normal. The conditions that made the old normal possible – lots of low-skill/well paying manufacturing jobs, strong labor bargaining power, less mechanization of jobs, less demand for higher education skills, unique global competitiveness – no longer exist. Nor have we developed policies to induce the new form of capitalism to benefit average households.

The perceptive political analyst William Galston reluctantly draws the inevitable inferences in a recent column in the Wall Street Journal. He personally favors old-normal economic policies. But he admits that the facts push him “to a more radical conclusion," namely, that “we need a …revised social contract that links compensation to productivity and…new policies to bring it about.” He realizes that there is no going back to the policies that worked in the past.

In the near future, momentous decisions need to be made. Do we accept as the new normal the reality that large numbers of Americans are no longer needed for the private sector job market of the future? If so, what do we do with all these “redundant” people?

It is unthinkable that these decisions should be left to experts and elites and that the public should have no effective voice in shaping a new social contract that addresses the failure of the economy to provide economic mobility for the majority of Americans.

This challenge cannot be met successfully without the American public becoming fully engaged in the process. A paralyzed national government in Washington, accustomed to kicking the can down the road, is grossly inadequate to the task.

People’s jobs define their standing in our society as well as determine their standard of living. If our new form of capitalism proves unable to support a labor market that provides enough good jobs, We the People need to grasp the issues and understand the far-reaching choices our society will have to confront.

Rebooting Democracy is a blog authored by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich. While the views that Dan shares in his blog should not be interpreted as representing official Public Agenda positions, the purpose behind the blog and the spirit in which it is presented resonate powerfully with our values and the work that we do. To receive Rebooting Democracy in your inbox, subscribe here.

Public Agenda is partnering with AAAS to facilitate a series of dialogues between scientists and evangelical Christian pastors throughout the summer. The purpose of the project is to improve dialogue, relationships and collaboration between these two communities, often viewed as staunchly divided. This blog is one in a series from our public engagement team, who write to reflect on their experiences moderating the dialogues. For more information about the project, email Allison Rizzolo.

When I told people that I was headed to LA to facilitate a conversation between evangelical pastors and scientists, most reactions fell somewhere between surprise and cynicism. "Why bother," asked a friend, "when they’re never going to agree on anything anyway?"

But a strange thing happens when you get a small group of people together in a room for a facilitated dialogue: they listen to one another. And instead of trying to persuade the group to support their worldviews, the pastors and scientists each respectfully introduced themselves and explained why they do what they do for a living. Similarities emerged right off the bat: curiosity, compassion and an unyielding search for truth.

It wasn’t long before the conversation took on a lighter tone. One participant, a reproductive biologist, acknowledged the tension in the room as he explained his research: "We already covered religion and politics," he said, "so I figured I’d throw sex in there too."

And there were profound moments as well, like when a scientist explained that he wasn’t 100 percent certain of anything, and that all scientific theories exist only until proven false. "What you just said makes me feel safe," a pastor replied, "because many of the scientists I know seem so definite in their beliefs, so I don’t feel comfortable expressing my faith."

Three hours later the group had hammered out areas of common ground and ideas for next steps to foster collaboration between the two communities. But more importantly, the conversations continued well past the end of the formal discussion. Most participants lingered in the room and talked, exchanging contact information and discussing how to keep the conversation going.

As a facilitator, it was humbling to witness a group of people overcome significant differences to explore how to work together to improve their community. Let’s hope that they can continue to defy expectations and set an example for the rest of us.

The recent decline in moral norms is, I believe, relatively superficial. It reflects frustration with the political status quo rather than its outright rejection. People are frustrated because they feel they don’t have a voice.

This is the common pattern we've seen in recent years:

• Americans demand a greater voice in shaping the decisions that directly affect their lives. This demand is repeatedly unfulfilled.

• In frustration, the public’s mistrust of our institutions, inattention to important issues, and general cynicism all grow stronger.
• Elites often seem contemptuous of the views of average Americans. This attitude contributes to the public’s frustration.
• Elites also tend to define problems in technical terms that the general public doesn’t understand, exacerbating the public’s feelings of isolation.
• Both Democrats and Republicans show a disregard for the public’s voice in shaping policy initiatives.

My studies of American public opinion and changing values over the past five decades lead me to the conclusion that American concern for the common good has not been destroyed or fatally harmed. It lurks just beneath the surface of today’s extreme individualism. With the right kind of leadership, its potency could be readily renewed.

The best way to reverse the trend toward normlessness is to apply a bigger dose of democracy. When leaders show genuine sincerity in inviting people to participate, the public responds positively. Experience shows that when people are convinced that their point of view will be heard, their cynicism disappears and they readily become engaged.

Rebooting Democracy is a blog authored by Public Agenda co-founder Dan Yankelovich. While the views that Dan shares in his blog should not be interpreted as representing official Public Agenda positions, the purpose behind the blog and the spirit in which it is presented resonate powerfully with our values and the work that we do. To receive Rebooting Democracy in your inbox, subscribe here.