common good

Given the high levels of partisanship and dysfunctionality in our Congress, perhaps Thomas Friedman is right to suggest a new way of drawing Congressional district lines, thanks to inspiration from a leader in the field of democracy studies, Stanford scholar Larry Diamond.

Diamond suggests two innovations. First, let every state emulate California’s recent grass-roots initiative that took away the power to design state electoral districts from the state legislature and put it in the hands of an independent, politically neutral, Citizens Redistricting Commission. It will go to work after the 2010 census and reshape California’s state legislative districts for the coming elections. Henceforth, districts in California will not be designed to be automatically Democratic or Republican — so more of them will be competitive, so more candidates will only be electable if they appeal to the center, not just cater to one party. (There is a movement pressing for the same independent commission to be given the power to redraw Congressional districts.)

As I see it, this has two benefits.

1.) This puts one of the republic's responsibilities (defining constituencies for representatives) back into the people's hands. Thus, ordinary folks not only get to choose their representatives, but they also exercise more power in reconstructing that process.

2.) It leads to more honest electoral races. With the elections constructed by the people themselves, campaigns have more incentive to focus on the common good as opposed to the interests of elite insiders (notice I didn't say they will be exclusively focused on the common good -- more needs to be done).

It's not often I agree with Friedman, but I concur with his endorsement of Diamond's proposal. The people need to reassert their will on our governing processes. Taking over redistricting is one way of doing so.

In his weekly address to the nation yesterday, President Obama stated that the ways of Washington are changing. What's particularly heartening is that the change can be seen in a variety of areas. One such change is a program Sec. of State Clinton announced at NYU's commencement ceremonies on May 13th at Yankee Stadium.

The program would encourage millennials to flex their diplomatic muscles.

Virtual Student Foreign Service (VSFS) Internships, announced by Secretary Clinton at the 2009 New York University commencement speech, are part of a growing effort by the State Department to harness technology and a commitment to global service among young people to facilitate new forms of diplomatic engagement. The VSFS Internships will be developed over the next year and will seek to harness the energy of a rising generation of citizen diplomats.

Working from college and university campuses in the United States, American students will partner with our embassies abroad to conduct digital diplomacy that reflects the realities of our networked world. By combining the talents of young people across America and the right technology, we can forge the solutions that our century demands.

What a difference a new administration makes. This effort highlights the hallmarks of millennials -- technology, service, and a participating in constructive dialogue among diverse groups of people. It also takes advantage of the enthusiasm of millennials for working through institutions to pursue a common good. Finally, this trains young people already interested in foreign service early in their careers, encouraging more effective service later in life. Another win-win situation for youth and the future of the country.

Robert Frost once described education as "hanging around until you've caught on." Thanks to a generous scholarship program linking high school graduates with the local community college, many more young people will have that chance in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania.

In 2002, a foundation started by John E. Morgan, whose knitwear manufacturing company was one of the few large businesses to spring up out of Tamaqua since the decline of coal production there, agreed to cover two years of tuition at Lehigh Carbon Community College for graduates of Tamaqua Senior High School.The stipulations are few: eligible candidates must have attended the high school for two consecutive years before graduation, file a federal student aid application, and enroll in at least nine college credit hours per semester.

Morgan's effort has now become the community's, inspiring another similar donation building on top of the original.

Morgan's gift has now inspired a copycat, to the benefit of Tamaqua's students. The Scheller family, which has an aluminum coatings manufacturing company and donates generously in the region, this April announced its own $1.5 million endowed scholarship program that aims to pay for Lehigh Carbon Community College students’ next two years of schooling at certain four-year institutions in the state. Roberta and Ernest Scheller announced the endowment and dedicated the half-million dollar firehouse-turned-student center on the same day, in honor of their daughter, Lisa Jane, an alumna of LCCC and now the CEO of the family's company.

The two scholarships together permit students to finish bachelor degrees at regional state universities, like Bloomsburg or Kutztown.

Congress advanced education and the public good with passage of the Serve America Act, which strengthens the bond between service and education. But programs like these represent what else might be needed. Yes, I believe the federal government can support and implement education-improving programs effectively, but perhaps an effort to strategically create these locally-focused scholarship programs across the country has its place too.

Sarah's post yesterday was correct -- we need to bring education in this country into the 21st Century. But while we're doing that, we should keep an eye on access to higher education, which has continued to be problematic for low-income students. In improving access, we should review win-win situations that not only improve education, but rewarding the communities supporting educational institutions as well. Tamaqua, Pennsylvania's program is a great example of this, providing underrepresented students with an opportunity to get that crucial college degree while settling in their home region.

In a post last weekend, I wrote about Sec. of Education Arne Duncan's recent appearance on the Charlie Rose show and his vision of how schools might increase their roles in local communities to become the hub of activities, fortified by partnerships between educators and local non-profits. The thought is that schools already possess important resources that could be of use to the community once the school day is over; there's no reason for these buildings to see little activity the rest of the evening.

In thinking about that some more, I see libraries as a natural partner in this effort. I read a post this week from Suzanne Morse at Smart Communities, who sees libraries as an important civic institution, especially in these hard economic times.

...Libraries are, and continue to be, "third places" often times where people gather for meetings and other activities. But, they too, are feeling the crunch of demand from the economy. Libraries have become an outlet for jobseekers and others who just need a place to go ... Sure demand is driven in part by job-seekers who want to use computers to do resumes or unemployed parents who need something to do with their children, this return to libraries tells me that we need places in communities where people can go to do exactly this. I am not suggesting that libraries become "rec" centers for the community but I am suggesting that the demand while high now is really a reflection of the important civic role they play.

Libraries offer those less fortunate in the community that free access to meeting rooms, technology, printing services, an audio/video rental program, and simply, a place to gather (if quietly). Libraries are also an essential part of that ideal rooted in the American dream, that one can pull him/herself up by their bootstraps, given strong support from the community. The values of life-long learning and independent education are represented in a community library. Furthermore, libraries offer us the information we need in making educated decisions about political candidates and issues.

Unfortunately we're seeing funding for libraries cut all over the country, as lawmakers see it as easy way to get budgets back in check, because many libraries serve this role in an understated manner. In reality, though, libraries form a central role in our economic crisis. Money Magazine, in 2005, noted that nowhere else is someone going to enjoy free access to technology, important information using that technology, and "experts" to assist them in finding this information and sorting through it. Yet another example of an efficient use of resources.

As we're enjoying an increase in civic engagement among young people today, we should be looking at our future -- that seven or eight year old who is now making the choice (with his/her parent[s]) between watching TV every day after school and going to the library to get some books to read, some computer time, and to meet some kids their age. By cutting funding for our libraries, we're shifting our investment -- including our resources and our confidence -- elsewhere. We're making it that much harder for that child to live a self-driven, healthy, and productive life in the future. We all deserve better than that.

President Obama has encouraged us a few times now to view our economic challenges as opportunities. In the midst of our financial crisis, our communities now have opportunities to revisit how we do things in the name of conserving resources while making our nation stronger. Sec. of Education Arne Duncan appeared on the Charlie Rose show a couple weeks ago discussing how rethinking the use of our nation's schools could open up several doors to our communities.

Secretary Duncan outlines his vision of schools serving as "community centers," in which facilities are not limited to educating children during the day, but also holding functions at night to improve the community. Duncan points out that schools are one institution in our society that has a plethora of resources -- "classrooms, computer labs, libraries, gyms, and pools" -- and they're all the taxpayers'. Duncan also sees this effort not falling solely on educators' plates, but instead being pursued by a partnership of school officials and non-profits, especially the YMCAs and Boys and Girls Clubs. School officials would have class from 9-3 (or thereabouts, depending on the school system's schedule), with the partnership of non-profits coming in and running "academic, social, enrichment, and even medical services" from 3-9.

There's no doubt that Duncan thinks outside the box. But what I really like is his focus toward the end of the clip on the foundational aspects of education and ensuring that we provide enough there to combat negative forces outside of the classroom affecting the students' ability to learn. In the clip above, Duncan explains that, while working in Chicago, he made sure that students had breakfast, lunch, and dinner, because if they're hungry, it's hard to concentrate in the classroom. Duncan discusses giving out tens of thousands of glasses each year to ensure that students can see the blackboard. And he also made sure that students had a safe atmosphere in which they could learn, otherwise they might be thinking about their walk home instead of their education. Talk about a student-centered approach...

Duncan seems determined to do everything he can to deeply invest in our future. But he's also thinking big, observing that schools can form the backbone of our community life. There's no reason for schools to sit empty from 4:00 to 9:00, while youth are going home, eating high fructose corn syrup in bulk amounts, and watching television. Duncan's plan to create that seamless array of resources for students and families could have a huge impact on our public life. Opening the doors of these schools, filling them with collaborative non-profit organizations dedicated to improving various facets of the community, opens doors for our communities. Duncan's plan is a great example of taking advantage of our present economic situation, turning it into an opportunity for the future.

(h/t to Peter Levine.)

Peter Panepento, a blogger at Outside Erie, has a post up about Erie's biggest enemy being its past. Simply put, Erie can't move forward because it's always looking backward.

When I think about my experiences in Erie and also the smaller cities of Meadville, Pennsylvania and Salem, Ohio, I think the same thing could be said of them. It's a cliche anymore to discount local politics as too bitter and nasty to accomplish anything, and I think in each place I've been over my 24 years, this has held true. People can't separate the common good from the personal, and so they go to the mud, taking the public with them (there are too many who go willingly).

Yes, I said the word "bitter." And maybe this is what Barack Obama was trying to say when he famously slipped up last spring in San Francisco. People are too scared to change; they're paralyzed by fear, because, as Panepento notes, the last memory these people have of success is too far gone.

I’ve heard many people over the years talk about how we can get Erie back to where it used to be — back in the days when the factories were booming and people were flocking to the region in search of family-sustaining blue-collar jobs. The days when men with calloused hands could put in a honest 8 hours at the plant, head to the corner bar for an after-work beer, then get home for dinner.

Older citizens of these northern cities and small towns are in this thirty-year depression, and they just can't snap out of it.

Now that change is on the way, it's our responsibility to grab these people by the shoulders and shake them. Change relies on these people. Panepento concludes his post with a rallying cry to pressure government like they haven't been pressured before. I'd certainly agree with this. Contrary to what these "Yes We Did" people think, our job isn't over. Elections aren't the be-all, end-all of our political system. As citizens of these communities, we young people have a duty to push those representing us to lead in the right direction -- forward. And until a significant number of citizens living in the Great Lakes region realize this, these communities will continue to sulk and become pathetic shells of their former selves -- at the expense of the common good.

Bumped. --Mike

I would think that the introvert in me would love America's coffeehouses (when I use this term, I am referring to the shops that most Americans experience -- places like Starbucks, Caribou Coffee, Dunkin' Donuts). They're small, usually fairly quiet, lounging customers usually have headphones on typing on a laptop, and no one talks to you until you go get a cup of coffee or a refill. But I don't love them. Let me count the ways.

1.) When I describe them as "usually fairly quiet," that's ignoring the sound of making the lattes and smoothies which, at worst, can be severely irritating.

2.) I like being left alone to some degree, but in today's coffeehouses, I can't avoid noticing the missed storytelling opportunities. Each person has an intricately woven set of experiences that every other person in the world can learn from. Where else in society do we have the opportunity to organize these experience-based exchanges?

3.) These chain coffeehouses are usually surrounded by strip malls, big box stores and found on four lane highways. This restricts the building of any kind of community, and it deteriorates the economic health of our small town walking districts.

When I was first thinking about this topic, I consulted a book titled The Great Good Place by Ray Oldenburg. The book reviews the importance of the "third place" in our civic health, a place apart from home and work that allows us to relax and enjoy the company of others. In addition to coffeehouses, we do have other places like hair salons and taverns that serve as third places, but, as Oldenburg writes in the book, coffeehouses have always had the intellectually social side to them. Most of the chain coffeehouses that we have today do fit some of Oldenburg's "third place" characteristics.

But what if we tinkered with some things?

For example, what if the focus of the coffeehouse was not the beverage, but the conversation? What if the "coffeehouse" became a "commons"? Starbucks initially was started with its focus on the environment within the store (after realizing selling just coffee beans was a bit bland). Howard Schultz, the founder of the company, got the urge to start Starbucks when he visited the streetside Italian cafes, was impressed with their environments, and wanted to bring it back to the United States. But the difference between this idea and between Schultz's wish is the injection of interpersonal communication into this mission. This commons should be a place that welcomes everyone into the collective conversation. Oldenburg writes a bit about these qualities found in the London coffeehouses of yesteryear in his book.

In the era of its reign . . . the coffeehouse was often referred to as the Penny University. A penny was the price of admission to its store of literary and intellectual flavors. Twopence was the price of a cup of coffee; a pipe cost a penny; a newspaper was free. The coffeehouse of the seventeenth century was the precursor of the daily newspaper and home delivery of mail . . . Whether on a regular schedule or not, many Londoners dropped into the coffeehouse several times a day in order to keep abreast of the news. Customarily, the literate would read aloud from the house's newspapers, tracts, and broadsides so that the illiterate could digest the contents and discuss the issues of the day (185).

The focus definitely was centered on the dialogue. The conversation, as you read, was set up like a course (the Penny University). You got the news, but you also had the opportunity to digest it, to play with it, with other people just as interested as you. I emphasized "discuss" above because it was not enough even for the illiterate to know the news -- they were expected to discuss it too. The newspaper was free, so there was an obvious focus on substantive conversation. How much better could our society be if we had discussions about public events that happened more frequently? We'd be more educated, more prepared to perform our civic duties. And because the focus is centered on the dialogue and not the beverage, the fancy drinks of Starbucks and Caribou Coffee turn to a more quietly made coffee.

What if this outlet was more centrally located? What if it sucked more people into the plighted downtown areas many rust belt communities are stuck with? What if this "commons" served as an incentive to live in these areas? These commons could be the heart of "walking districts," the downtowns of tomorrow. With a burgeoning emphasis on green behavior, these districts could take off and restore the promise of smalltown America. Improved public dialogue and civic health could result in better school systems, as citizens become more involved in the town's institutions. Better education brings more corporations to these towns to set up shop. It also infuses energy into the town leading to entrepreneurs who are dedicated to the town's future.

I realize this is a very rough, brainstormy entry. But when we look at the "common good," I think we should start in our local communities. The "common good" can only be appreciated, targeted, and pursued when people are talking, and while we have these fancy technological tools (like this blog), the best communication continues to be face-to-face. Coincidentally, Mike offers this tidbit about Clay Shirkey's "cognitive surplus" thesis in a comment on the recent volunteerism entry. It fits in quite nicely with this discussion. This "commons" could find incentives that would enable us to get youth to take one more step and invest some of the time spent on the internet in these grounded, substantive conversations.

What do you think of this commons idea? Is there anything else we can do to reinvigorate the hearts and restore the civic health of our small communities?