How can we reinvent political dialogue?
Dave — Tue, 10/02/2007 - 21:01
Most people shy away from politics and political action because they find political dialogue obnoxious and pointless. They don’t enjoy engaging and they don’t think it produces much. Talking with someone who disagrees with you is almost always an argument. Talking with someone who agrees with you almost always centers around how bad the powerful people are who disagree with both of you.
One of our primary goals in setting up this website was to find new ways for people to talk about political issues, with an emphasis on presenting and developing solutions, and then brainstorming ways to make them happen.
- Instead of focusing on how bad things are, focus instead on what can and should be done.
- Instead of griping about things that you think should be different, sketch out what would be better and how change could actually be implemented.
- And instead of just talking about change, let's start planning possible change together.
I'd be very interested to hear any thoughts people have about these goals and our particular attempt to reach them on this site.
Better political dialogue
I think we need to get away from labels like democrat, republican, conservative and liberal. I believe that we have given over our (the people's) power to pundits, polling and so called media "experts" who shout at each other and discuss strategy based on what the polls say. I personally don't believe in polls because the questions asked are not questions that ask people to think about solutions. We are presented with leaders based on how they "look" and the strength of their "sound bites" instead of the substance of their ideas.
The questions we should be asking are:
How can we afford to educate, house and provide services to
all Americans so that we remain a strong, productive and competitive country.
How can we engage people in their communities so that we create a society of cooperation and support - instead of one of divisiveness?
Why are we waging War on a verb (terrorism)?
How can we re-direct our national policy toward Peace and prosperity for ALL Americans?
Can today's American political system really be called a "democracy" when there is such a huge gap in access to the political system and opportunity between the very wealthy and everyone else?
Excellent points and questions
(though I'm biased because I agree with all of them!)
The point you make about polls is a fascinating one. I've often been impressed by the not-so-hidden premises behind poll questions, and how radically they skew the results. The point you made hadn't occurred to me -- that polls discourage people from thinking about solutions. Very true. In many ways, our whole political system discourages people from thinking about solutions, or from having the information necessary to do so. What's often striking to me in polls is how little information (and how much misinformation) so many people have.
I think that the way that you have framed this question is precisely what's needed to begin building a broader consensus. Providing all Americans with the basic tools they need to provide for themselves is a prudent investment. I heard an interesting story on NPR a week or so ago about Minnesota's plan to invest in early childhood education for poor children, not simply out of an altruistic desire to help those in need, but because such investments will reap huge public dividends down the line. Every poor kid that is helped is likely to "repay" that investment a thousand times over, through the contributions s/he makes to the local economy and society at large.
Do you mean the divisiveness between people with different "labels?" What ideas do you have?
Beautifully phrased. The answer is obviously complex. A broadly and vaguely defined war (that can obviously never really be won) is obviously very convenient if you want to remain in a constant state of war. So I would add a question to your question: Why do we want to be perpetually at war? A large part of the answer is obviously the huge influence of the military-industrial-complex. Large sectors of our economy are dependent on an ongoing need for new, better, and more expensive weaponry. We may need to develop some new industries that can take the central place of the war ones before we'll be able to stop waging war on verbs. How about an alternative energy industry? What do you think of the Apollo Alliance idea (check out this solution by Bracken Hendricks)?
I don't think the national policy agenda will include the concerns of all Americans until the access gap you refer to is addressed. Most Americans don't vote. Most don't give huge campaign contributions that can be used to swing votes. Therefore, they don't count. In many ways, they can't count. Politicians function according to natural selection, just like all other animals. Those that don't do what it takes to get reelected don't get reelected. And in our system, relating to the concerns of disenfranchised Americans doesn't have the electoral payoff of relating to the concerns of wealthy contributors (first) and middle class voters (a distant second).
So I would have to say "no" to your final question -- we aren't really a democracy, in my opinion. How do you think we could become one? How can we begin to narrow the access gap?
How to Narrow the Access Gap
In the beginning of our great Republic the business of Congress was conducted in a set time because many of the Representatives had to return to their districts to run their own affairs.
Congresspeople were not career professionals with huge office budgets and professional staffs. Professional lobbyists and Political Action Committees weren't invented yet.
Fast forward to the present infusion of mostly lawyers and ex-congresspeople trading their influence for even more money as a highly paid lobbyist. We need to limit the professional lobbyist. (This of course is wishfull thinking) But short of that we need to make lobbying as transparent as possible. Perhaps a quarterly newsletter listing PAC's/lobbyists to a Congressperson's vote.
A rule that ex-Congresspeople wait at least 5 years before persuing a position as a lobbyist would help.
My other solution is term limits. Yes, I think the time has come
and has often been suggested. It's unlikely that Congress will vote themselves out of office? OR.....
Clean house altogether and organize at a grassroots level to elect a Congress that's as diverse as the constituency they represent in terms of occupations. (this may take a while)
Promote other occupations to Congress: ie: nurses, teachers, chef's, firepeople, etc. Take the "pro" out of Congress and limit terms could
1) be more responsive to the constituency they actually represent
2) Provide focus and incentive to actually get things done
instead of spending so much time fundraising.
OR.....how about.....
Set campaign spending limits. It's obscene what is spent just to get elected to the House not to mention the Senate.
Think of all that campaign money that could be used to go toward education or healthcare. We need to level the playing field.
How about making the Public Airwaves free for the candidates to hold public debates?
After all don't we the public "own" the airwaves?
Whatever happen to "equal time"? We need to bring that back.
Whatever happen to real public debates? We need to bring that back too.
And last but not least, make voting mandatory like they do in Australia. Or use an incentive approach. If a person does not register or decides not to vote the penatly is a hefty fine on their income taxes. If a citizen doesn't exercise his/her constitutional right at least it will raise revenue.
Yes, doing the same thing and expecting different results IS called insanity. We need to try somethings new.
Many solution ideas
Would you consider posting some of these ideas as solutions in our Solution Exchange?
To post a solution to any or all of these problem descriptions, you just need to go to that page and click on the link at the bottom that says "Post a Solution to this Problem."
Of course, in posting a solution, you are always welcome to frame the problem in your own words first, rather than simply linking to an existing problem description. You might want to describe all of the problems you list as one big problem ("Most Americans have far too little access to their elected officials, and far too little influence on our government" or something like that), with many different aspects, and then post a solution which includes all of your ideas.
Whichever way suits you, I hope you'll add your ideas to the Exchange so they can be seen and responded to by more people.
You're both overlooking
You're both overlooking (or not mentioning) the obvious. Our whole economy is dependent on oil, and oil is plentiful in the Middle East. Further, various local elements in that region want to maintain control of their own oil. If we want control if it, we have to fight them for it, and they fight back – with the only weapons they have -- the price of oil and terrorist tactics. Since we out-man and out-gun them, what other choices do they have? So we are at war against the verb "terrorism" because we're not willing to say "Islam," although that's what we mean, I think. We can back it up, because the most fanatical terrorists are Muslims from oil-producing countries who don't want either our gift of control (euphemistically named "democracy") or our equally "benevolent" control of their lands, their oil, their government, or their culture. I don't think they like our bombs or our threats of new "surges" either. Given our need – or greed – for their oil, what options do they really have?
I just wish it wasn't all sold to the American people as a crusade to democratize the oil-producing parts of the world. I wish even more fervently that the American public would stop buying it. No one else in the world seems to.
Housekeeping proposition
I wonder if this conversation -- about the so called "War on Terror" -- wouldn't be more appropriate in the Solution Exchange. The problem The "war on terror" is a destructive concept would seem like a good place.
Do any of you have a proposed solution to this tricky problem?