democracy

Last month Karlo and Colin wrote a post following Netroots Nation that called for some reconciliation in the name of progress.

Millennials carry the spirit of the founding fathers, perhaps more closely than generations in recent times. We understand that quality interactions with our counterparts advocating in good faith are more important than building huge e-mail lists based upon tactics of fear and hate. We talk to others, on this blog, on Facebook, on Twitter, and we do it with civility - or at least we try. We interact this way because we know others are watching and that everything we do and say is on-the-record. This does not mean that we don't stick to our principles and our values and voice our opinions. What it does mean is that we know that we are having conversations with people, other than those that just agree with everything we say. We're not about burning bridges; we're about mending them and building them out into the future.

I agree with their vision as expressed here. I think the two predominant political camps in this country do spend too much time trying to find the most vulnerable aspects in the opposition's activities for their own short-term political advantage. While I would point out that not all Millennials carry the spirit Karlo and Colin describe, the prevailing view among youth today is that compromise is important. "Pragmatic idealism" is a descriptor I have seen used for the way we view politics. To engage in this approach, though, I believe we need to take a step back and rethink the way we view politics.

Obama was elected on a platform that had at its core the notion that we could disagree without being disagreeable. And I still believe that's one of the more redeeming qualities our president possesses, to be able to espouse that and enact it day to day. However, to our detriment, he does this while viewing politics as an episodic adventure, as a negative thing. I can't tell you how many times I have heard him accusing someone of "playing politics."

First, politics isn't something to be played. It's a reality. It happens all around us. My writing this blog is political. You reading it is political. You daring to think about it later today and telling someone about it (crossing fingers) is political. What I'm trying to convey is that politics is not a battle that can be joined and not joined.

In addition, politics is not inherently negative. Interestingly, in its original Greek form, the definition of politics is less loaded; with polis meaning "city state," politikos roughly translates to “of the citizen,” signaling a citizen-centered view of politics with a focus on those things concerning city or state affairs. Aristotle argues that politics consists of the interplay between people from different backgrounds and interests, holding different views, while aiming to complete a task. In other words, politics is a constant that citizens cannot ignore; in fact, acknowledging and embracing one's constant participation forms the heart of democracy.

Viewing politics this way, we can see why E.J. Dionne's column is so discerning in today's Post.

Obama's mistake is captured by that disdainful reference to "politicking." In a democracy, separating governing from "politicking" is impossible. "Politicking" is nothing less than the ongoing effort to convince free citizens of the merits of a set of ideas, policies and decisions. Voters feel better about politicians who put what they are doing in a compelling context. Citizens can endure setbacks as long as they believe the overall direction of the government's approach is right.

I suppose this is another take on the whole "Obama needs a narrative" meme that has been playing out. But I like this because I think the critique is more accurate. His attacking politics undercuts himself and what he is trying to do. This damage is then made worse by not giving any foundational rationale for what he is trying to do in the first place. Talk about giving special interests and "anything goes" politics a free pass...

Colin and Karlo were right: as long as we're fighting about character issues and other small-minded topics, we have already lost. When we are not talking about a set of ideas, policies, and decisions to be made in an honest way, we let special interests wreck everything (at which point Millennials may as well turn on some John Mayer).

It behooves all of us, including our president, to view politics as a constant, something we cannot ignore. The mixing of various views, backgrounds, and interests is always at work, and, especially now, there will always be a task to pursue. If the 2008 enthusiasm was genuine, if it meant something -- if Obama was serious about his call for citizens to step it up -- our president and all of us need to re-calibrate our views on politics. Pragmatic idealism just might have a shot then.

Here's a fun project: My Jar of Pennies vs. The Supreme Court.

We're doing this because we're furious at the Supreme Court (at least the 5-4 Republican majority that decided Citizens United). And we don't want to feel powerless about the fact that corporations, even foreign corporations like BP, can now essentially spend billions of dollars to buy US elections. It's just wrong. It's morally wrong. It's un-American. And the Supreme Court 5 should be ashamed of themselves. Shame! So we're putting them on trial in front of the American people. Big Corporations have their billions. We have our jars of pennies. And we're going to fight back. We're going to collect millions of pennies and put moral heat on politicians, corporations, and the 5 Republican villains who sit on Supreme Court.

Add yourself to the facebook page here

There's going to be a small kick-off action at Noon this Monday June 21 in front of the Supreme Court. Bring your pennies and be in a video shoot. The video will promote a National Day of Action in front of every local Congressional office when Congress is home in August.

Matt Bai wrote an interesting piece in the Times last week, noting how far we've come in our various debates since the 1960s, while acknowledging that, in some ways, we have not come far at all. Bai used the controversies surrounding Rand Paul and Richard Blumenthal to make his case.

Why then, to quote the ubiquitous Bono, is our political debate so stuck in a moment it cannot get out of? In part, it is probably because so many of the Americans most engaged in politics — as well as those who run campaigns and comment endlessly on them — are old enough to remember Altamont. It is your classic self-fulfilling prophecy: the more the ’60s generation dominates the political discourse, the less that discourse engages younger voters, and the longer the boomers hold sway over our politics.

On a deeper level, though, this all probably has as much to do with our basic human tendency toward moral clarity. As much as conservatives may view the decade as the crucible of moral relativism and the beginning of a breakdown in established social order, there remains something powerfully attractive about the binary, simplistic nature of it all, the idea that one could easily distinguish whether he was for war or against, in favor of equality or opposed.

By contrast, war today seems more a question of degrees and limits, while equality seems less about the laws of the land than about disparities in economic and educational opportunities that are subtler and harder to address. The choices of our moment are not nearly so neat or so satisfying as they were a generation ago, which makes them less useful as a basis for one’s political identity, and harder to encapsulate in some 30-second spot or prime-time rant.

Emphasis is mine. I find myself agreeing with Bai's explanation, especially given my work with college students. Our students today are getting their bachelor's degree and I would wager that, the way we construct our educational system in this country, a significant number get out of it without having to think critically about issues. If I'm a student and I have followed external formulas guiding my behavior, never having this behavior challenged, I am not even aware that there is anything other than my cozy dualistic system from which I can choose (Harvard developmental psychologist Robert Kegan would say I am subject in my meaning-making capabilities). Of course a simplistic, yet disingenuous politics is going to thrive.

In order for us to challenge this lack of preparation we are offering our students, we must challenge the hegemonic structure dictating that campaigns or discussions on public affairs must run this way. Simultaneously, we must purge ourselves of the assumption that we must go to college to have a chance to learn this. These are big tasks; these notions unobtrusively penetrate our lives everyday, seducing us to believe that, because its the way things work, we must follow it. You go to college, get a four degree, and then work somewhere because you are deemed to be bright enough to do so and be a citizen. There's a code for it: it's "tradition." It's romanticized. The degree is money, we're taught. Yes, our realities are much more contextual than they used to be; our technology, while improving our lives and making them more efficient, gives us a tangential responsibility of learning supplemental skills to be able to cope with the effects of the improvements.

Yet, how many of these college degree-holding, former students come home from work and sit in front of their TVs, allowing the sonorous voices of Bill O'Reilly, Wolf Blitzer, and/(but most likely) or Keith Olbermann to fill their living rooms? Many, I'd be willing to bet. And it's because "we're tired." We've been thinking all day. We need someone to explain things to us, not help us understand anything better. And so when Blitzer's voice gets pitchy with excitement, indelicately discussing stories as complex as the history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the opportunity to parse what he is saying, to explore it, to uncover it, comes and goes. "Why is this garbage on TV?," someone might ask. But given the way we tackle education in this country, we are all too often incapable of answering our own questions.

So when I read Matt Bai's piece last week, I couldn't help but get excited. A writer for one of the main cogs in this hegemonic structure takes notice of the primary problem -- it's a welcome event. Yet, until we have younger people willing to challenge the status quo of journalism and education in this country (and older ones courageous enough to assist), our external formulas will triumph.

As we move down the road toward big change in our energy and healthcare policies, there is an increasing number of calls for change in our education system. And I'm not referring to the cliched change we hear from every politician running for an office. I'm talking about actual, systemic change that many might consider radical.

Harry C. Boyte from the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship, housed in the university's Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, wrote a post on Wednesday which referenced a few other works that, one by one, challenged integral parts of our education system, including our core philosophy as a country. Boyte rightly laments the increased specialization of our education system, in which students, once pursuing what they wish to pursue, are trained to silo themselves off from the rest of the academy. Boyte wants to return to "civic education."

How do we develop citizens and citizen leaders who work with others to solve problems and build a flourishing democratic society? This question, the heart of civic education, was once at the center of American schooling, from kindergarten through higher education. In recent decades it has been increasingly neglected. We are faced with the challenge of breaking out of gated communities of our minds and work identities that are as sharply drawn as those of our neighborhoods. In recent months, a growing number of leaders in higher education have called for far ranging change in our institutions to address this.

One of the pieces Boyte uses to support his argument is written by Mark Taylor, the chair of the religion department at Columbia University. Taylor trashes today's system of higher education in the United States, noting that the gap between today's academic specialists and the tools and knowledge needed to solve our largest problems is expanding at an alarming rate. Taylor calls for tenure to be abolished and for an end to the organization of academia by discipline. Instead, Taylor believes that we should produce a list of problems to conquer. Not afraid of generalities, Taylor offers his own example of a list: "Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water." Taylor envisions these problems as opportunities forcing academic disciplines to converge and use their special knowledge in collaborative actions as opposed to exclusive ones.

The reason I like this idea so much is why Boyte seems to dig it. Our capacity for solving large problems in this country is diluted because of the deterioration of civic thought. Developing citizenship and citizen leaders, as Boyte labels it above, seems to have flown under the radar of those formulating the curriculum and solidifying the structure of American education. Months into Obama's presidency, buzz surrounds the importance of service-learning and political engagement in the media. Fortunately, there are examples of the service piece of citizenship being taught and practiced within the classroom. But unfortunately, you'll notice that many of the examples journalists use of young people engaging in political activity cite college students who had to take time off school in order to participate. Young people had to be politically involved despite their education. Furthermore, there's a missed opportunity when service is not connected to politics: to serve is a political act. What's needed is the solidification of a link between education and patriotism/citizenship: to be educated is to be a problem-solver. This is why Barack Obama's line comparing dropping out of school to dropping out on one's country in his joint congressional speech in February was both effective and encouraging. By dropping out, someone is resigning themselves to allowing problems to overwhelm the country.

Education should be seen for what it is -- a public good. Education is not merely our supertrain to be used to catch up with China and India. Before we even entertain the thought of that, perhaps we need to know who we are as a people and how we can use the knowledge we gain to solve the gargantuan problems we face. Those designing our education system would be well-served to keep JFK's advice in their heads -- the education system should help us recognize and pursue what we can do for our country. It's common sense, but that is the change in higher education we need to see.

Lots of stuff today hitting on the relationship between technology and democracy. Enjoy!

• Sam Stein details the rise of thirteen year old Jonathan Krohn, the latest excuse for the GOP to not have to do anything to court the youth vote. Check him out here.
• Micah Sifry's post on the complexity of user rights on Facebook.
• At tech President, Nancy Scola examines the governing tension inherent in Facebook's relationship with its users and vice versa.
• Adam Green argues that Facebook, in order to become the ultimate organizing tool, needs to eliminate a few self-imposed barriers first. One of those involves the group mass-email policy.
• More Micah: Sifry examines the larger, philosophical questions regarding the 'net's impact on democracy.
• "Youthanized" is a documentary short from Project Youthanize that examines something which we discuss on this blog quite frequently -- the transition from youth-led, street protest-based activism in the 1960s to youth-led, digitally-inspired activism today.
• Glenn Hurowitz's discussion of the Powershift Conference, focusing on one member of a group of young climate activists that Glenn Beck describes as "Hitler youth," Meg Imholt.
• Rock the Vote announces the premiere of Rock the Vote Radio -- a weekly 30 minute, roundtable discussion centered on politics and current affairs, with a rotating panel of young adults. Check it out!
• More testimony to the "parasitic nature" of student loans.
• Rev. Lennox Yearwood sounds a call for action among America's youth, given the increased importance in governance over elections. I wish Tom Friedman sounded more like this.
• Where is Obama's CTO? A Politico article asks the question and searches for the answer.
• Mayor Daley of Chicago has a YouTube channel.

It would not be shocking to know that I'm thrilled that Obama won; my friends know me as a big Democrat (figuratively, but also literally, as I'm a 6'6" 290 lb. guy), and my very liberal politics bleeds into my writing. But what might shock some of my friends (and probably none of you, given the topics of my recent posts) is the reason I'm happy he won. It's not just that Obama is the first Democrat to win the presidency since my political awakening; it's not just that he's the first black president (sorry Bill); and it's not just that he is a Millennial-friendly president. For me, the excitement is rooted in his views on the relationship between Americans and their government.

On Thursday Peter Levine wrote a blog post about this relationship in the context of other presidents' views.

Obama's core idea is that citizens are at the center of politics. Not private individuals, not the government, not politicians, but people working together in public, on public matters. Campaigning in New Hampshire in 2006, he said, "There's a wonderful saying by Justice Louis Brandeis once, that the most important office in a democracy is the office of citizen. ... All of us have a stake in this government, all of us have responsibilities, all of us have to step up to the plate."

Obama broke away from the helping model that still guided Hilary (sic) Clinton and from the privatism that was the main theme of modern conservatism. On the campaign trail, he modeled his new conception in two important ways--by making his campaign maximally participatory (pushing power out to the network) and by lowering the partisan temperature a notch. He is a Democrat and he was willing to debate and compete with Republicans. But he never seemed to relish this difference. The reason is that citizens are both liberal and conservative, and they need to work together to solve any serious problems. Competition is appropriate in a campaign, but campaigning is a role for politicians, and they are not the heart of politics.

Obama believes the epicenter of American politics is the people, Levine notes. And Obama's campaign certainly reflected this belief. Obama had the largest grassroots operation in history, and created my.barackobama.com, the internet-based propellant for the movement. Obama inspired legions of supporters, building a new coalition of Americans that would lead him to victory Tuesday night.

But Levine emphasizes that politics is not limited to elections in Obama's eyes. And so the election itself is not about merely winning; the election is about getting the chance to solve problems. Such an approach necessitates a responsible, civil, supporter-focused campaign, one focused on the issues that yields the fewest number of barriers possible to effective problem-solving, and one that empowers the problem-solvers, energizing us to do the post-election work.

So what about that work? And how does it fit into our discussion about the relationship between the people and their government?

On July 2nd of this year, Obama touched on his expectations for Americans in an address on active citizenship and service in Colorado Springs, CO.

The thesis of the speech (and his campaign):

I am running for President, right now, because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now. This moment is too important to sit on the sidelines. Our country faces determined enemies abroad, and definitive challenges at home. But I have no doubt that in the face of these odds, people who love their country can change it. That is why I am running for President. That is why I’m determined to reach out - not just to Democrats, but to Independents and Republicans who want to move in a new direction. And that is why I won’t just ask for your vote as a candidate - I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am President of the United States.

This will not be a call issued in one speech or one program - this will be a central cause of my presidency. We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve. And we will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges.

[...]

...Make no mistake: our destiny as Americans is tied up with one another. If we are less respected in the world, then you will be less safe. If we keep paying dictators for foreign oil, gas prices are going to keep rising, and so are the oceans. If we can’t give all of our kids a world-class education, then our economy is going to fall behind.

And that’s how it should be. That’s the bet our Founding Fathers were making all of those years ago - that our individual destinies could be tied together in the common destiny of democracy; that government depends not just on the consent of the governed, but on the service of citizens. That’s what history calls us to do. Because loving your country shouldn’t just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, and our country will be stronger.

We need your service, right now, at this moment - our moment - in history. I’m not going to tell you what your role should be; that’s for you to discover. But I am going to ask you to play your part; ask you to stand up; ask you to put your foot firmly into the current of history. I am asking you to change history’s course. And if I have the fortune to be your President, decades from now - when the memory of this or that policy has faded, and when the words that we will speak in the next few years are long forgotten - I hope you remember this as a moment when your own story and the American story came together, and - in the words of Dr. King - the arch of history bent once more towards justice.

This speech certainly defines the citizen and his/her responsibilities as the center of American politics. It calls on citizens to serve each other based on the common purpose shared with their American brothers and sisters. But even more importantly, Obama doesn't stop at the end of the election. Obama is clearly not limiting this discussion to campaign workers doing their part in a campaign, and he's clearly not stopping with the request for votes. He's asking for Americans to take ownership of their country by hitching their individual hopes and dreams to the greater American saga. He's asking for Americans to invest in a country that's already given them so much. Service is symbiotic, as Obama noted: "Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, and our country will be stronger."

One visit to change.gov demonstrates his commitment to this philosophy. Under "America Serves," Obama broadens the opportunity to serve, tripling the number of service-oriented "corps" in the government.

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

The message is clear: Americans can serve [and should be serving] their country no matter what their background is, no matter what their skills are; everyone has something to offer everyone else.

Frances Moore Lappe wrote about citizenship in her book Hope's Edge (2002).

To me, democracy is an exciting, living practice, what we do every day. But to most, democracy still means something done "to us" or "for us" -- it doesn't relate to our daily lives, and it sure isn't much fun. I now see that to engage in democracy, to jump into this living practice, we all need something tangible to act on. (p. 31)

Obama's victory excited me because he empowered me. He asked me to do something. He welcomed me to the table, asking me to bring my gifts so they could mesh with the gifts of other Americans. He wants me to be involved -- not just to get him elected, but to make our country better. He's not interested in a paper-thin democracy that only asks citizens to get involved when his career's at stake; he wants to thicken democracy, forging connections between the "Great Experiment" itself and the millions of lives it benefits.

Joe knocks another one out of the park. My favorite line is his analogy of the electoral college as three-legged dog. You need to watch this.