AI on How to Save Inclusive Democracy

Asking our AI overlords to do my job for me:

Me: “What are the most disruptive, yet feasible, ideas to support inclusive democracy in the United States?”

Here are some disruptive yet feasible ideas to support inclusive democracy in the United States:

1. Implement ranked-choice voting for all federal and state elections. This would allow voters to rank their preferred candidates in order of preference, and ensure that winners are elected with majority support. This would also allow for more third-party candidates to run without being seen as “spoilers” in the election.
2. Enact campaign finance reform that limits the influence of big money in politics. This could include public financing of campaigns, stricter regulations on lobbying and dark money, and transparency requirements for political spending.
3. Create a national database of voter registration that is updated in real-time. This would make it easier for citizens to register to vote and help prevent voter suppression by ensuring that all eligible voters are on the rolls.
4. Introduce automatic voter registration for all eligible citizens when they turn 18 or obtain a driver’s license or state ID. This would help ensure that all eligible citizens are registered to vote, particularly those who may not have the time or resources to register on their own.
5. Establish a national holiday for voting or move Election Day to a weekend to make it easier for people to vote. This could help increase voter turnout and ensure that all citizens have the opportunity to cast their ballots.
6. Create an independent redistricting commission to redraw congressional districts every 10 years. This would help prevent gerrymandering and ensure that congressional districts are drawn fairly and without political bias.
7. Institute ranked-choice voting for all primary elections, including presidential primaries. This would encourage more diverse and moderate candidates to run, and help prevent extremist candidates from winning the nomination.
8. Create a system of citizen assemblies to deliberate on key policy issues and make recommendations to elected officials. This would ensure that a diverse and representative group of citizens has a direct say in the policymaking process.
9. Introduce digital voting technology that is secure and easy to use. This would make it easier for citizens to vote, particularly those who may have mobility or accessibility issues, and help ensure that every vote is counted accurately.
10. Establish a national commission to study and recommend changes to the electoral system, including reforms to the Electoral College, the use of proportional representation, and other innovative approaches to promoting inclusive democracy. This commission could also explore ways to address voter suppression, increase voter participation, and ensure that all voices are heard in the democratic process.

Me: “Are these really radical ideas? They seem quite technical.”

You make a valid point. While some of these ideas may be considered innovative, they are not necessarily radical in the sense of being extreme or fundamentally disruptive. Rather, they are practical suggestions that could be implemented through changes to existing systems or the introduction of new technologies or policies.

However, in the context of many existing political systems that may be resistant to change or have entrenched interests, some of these ideas may be considered radical in the sense that they challenge the status quo and require significant shifts in power and decision-making. Ultimately, whether these ideas are considered radical or not will depend on the specific context in which they are proposed and the level of resistance to change that exists in that context.

Me: “These are not disruptive enough.”

I understand your point. Here are some additional, more disruptive ideas to support inclusive democracy in the United States:

1. Abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a national popular vote. This would ensure that every vote counts equally and reduce the influence of small, less diverse states in presidential elections.
2. Introduce a system of participatory democracy, where citizens have a direct say in the policy decisions that affect their lives. This could involve giving citizens the power to propose and vote on laws, budgets, and other policy decisions, either through digital platforms or citizen assemblies.
3. Create a constitutional amendment to establish a right to vote for all citizens, and prohibit discriminatory practices such as voter ID laws and purges of voter rolls. This would help ensure that all citizens have equal access to the ballot box and prevent voter suppression.
4. Institute a system of proportional representation for all federal and state elections. This would ensure that all voices are heard, including those of third-party candidates and marginalized communities, and prevent the two-party system from dominating politics.
5. Require all political candidates to disclose their tax returns, assets, and conflicts of interest, and establish strict ethics laws to prevent corruption and conflicts of interest in government.
6. Create a national commission to study and propose reparations for the descendants of enslaved people and other communities that have faced systemic discrimination, such as Indigenous peoples and immigrants. This would help address historical injustices and promote equity and justice.
7. Establish a public banking system that is owned and controlled by citizens, and provides affordable and accessible financial services to all communities, particularly those that have been historically underserved by traditional banks.
8. Create a system of citizen oversight for police departments, where citizens have the power to investigate and hold police officers accountable for misconduct and abuse of power. This would help address systemic racism and bias in law enforcement and promote public trust in the police.
9. Establish a national basic income program, where all citizens receive a monthly stipend that allows them to meet their basic needs and pursue their goals without fear of poverty or economic insecurity.
10. Finally, introduce new forms of democracy, such as liquid democracy, blockchain-based voting systems, and other innovative approaches to civic engagement and participation. These would help increase transparency, accountability, and public trust in the democratic process.

So there you have it.

Promoted at the Kettering Foundation

I am honored and delighted to report that I have been promoted at the Kettering Foundation, to the newly-created role of Director of External Affairs and DC Operations.

l-r: Gilmore, Rourke, Dallas, Doherty

This move is part of a larger set of promotions along with good colleagues and friends: Paloma Dallas is Senior Program Officer for International Programs; Joni Doherty is Senior Program Officer for Democracy and the Arts; and Melinda Gilmore is Director of Communications — all these changes designed to position Kettering to move quickly as we complete a comprehensive strategic planning process. (Here is today’s full announcement.)

As many friends know, I have been on staff at Kettering for almost exactly ten years, serving primarily as executive editor of issue guides. But my association with, and affection for, the foundation goes way back. As early as 1997, after traveling from Maine to visit Kettering, I called my wife from the airport: “I have found where I want to work,” I told her.

Kettering, it seems, has always been in my heart.

Democracy, now under threat from so many quarters, needs defenders such as Kettering more than it ever has, both in the U.S. and globally. As Kettering reassesses how best to meet these threats, I am thrilled to be tasked with raising the impact and profile both in DC and beyond.

Thank you specifically to Kettering president and CEO Sharon L. Davies, who is a force of nature as she leads us in this strategic reinvention.

More to come!

Joining the Board of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation

I am pleased to share that I have joined the board of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD), joining a group of stellar practitioners and thinkers in the democracy space. I am excited to try to add what I can to help lead NCDD into its next level of development.

NCDD is one of the oldest networks in the dialogue and deliberation field, arising out of a conference in Washington, DC in 2002. As the field has matured and strengthened, NCDD has been there throughout. Many of us can remember pivotal NCDD conferences, which were a core part of NCDD’s offerings until COVID-19 limited such gatherings.

I’m happy to say that the biennial conference is set to return, in-person, October 13-15, 2023 in Atlanta.

Many thanks to my fellow board members and NCDD leadership for inviting me to join them at this important time.

Strategy and Tactics

Often, one will hear someone in the workplace telling someone else to think or act “strategically” — when what they really mean is “be smarter.”

Like the term “leadership,” it is a shorthand for a larger idea — but for most people this idea is ill-defined.

What is “strategy?”

I learned strategic planning from one of the people who helped develop our modern understanding of its application to business (he was at GE under Reg Jones). While strategic planning has changed many times since it was first elaborated in the late 70’s, this definition from my mentor always sticks with me:

“Strategy is a decisive allocation of resources.”

In other words, a strategy is something that, if you pursue it, other avenues are foreclosed. Many different tactics, on the other hand, could be used in the pursuit of a particular strategy.

In most cases, I’ve found that the answer to this question depends on the size of the theater. What is a tactic when looked at from one level can be a strategy at another level.

As an example, a company might have a strategy to use social media as its primary marketing communications tool. It would use various tactics to achieve that: blog comments, Facebook pages, Twitter, and so forth.

However, depending on the size of the theater you are looking at, a tactic can become a strategy. Just thinking about the fictitious company’s “social media” strategy, imagine the marketing department that is charged with implementing this. The fact that the overall thrust is social media will now be a given, just a parameter.

The strategic decisions at this level really will center on which tool to use and how strongly to bet on it. And then, even more granularly, there can be questions of strategy within each tool — it is possible to have a “Twitter strategy” and a “Facebook strategy.”

The key is always the decisiveness of the moves. Strategy, in whatever theater, is always decisive.

(Adapted from an earlier post.)

What Do We Think When We Hear “Civic?”

I am proud to be a board member for the funders’ affinity group Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE), a group which provides an important learning space for organizations at the forefront in thinking about civic life.

PACE has released a significant new report that details the results of a rigorous and searching effort to explore how Americans respond to so-called “civic” language.

CIVIC LANGUAGE PERCEPTIONS PROJECT

Players in the civic space have a distinctive lexicon. What role is language playing in polarization,  especially related to challenges of trust, legitimacy, belonging, and agency in our democracy and civil society? Are we talking past each other? Are we furthering divisions, disillusionment, or disengagement? PACE partnered with research firm Citizen Data, who fielded a large-sample representative survey (n=5,000) testing responses to a number of terms commonly used in the civic space. This was followed by a set of focus groups drilling down on some of the findings. The full dataset is available at a dashboard and can be explored further.

TOPLINE FINDINGS FROM PACE

(From the PACE release)

Assumptions we hear about civic language that our data affirm

• “Civic education makes a difference.” Respondents who reported having civic education are 11% more familiar with and 7% more positive towards civic terms than their counterparts without civic education.
• “Civic terms code liberal and college educated.” Liberals are 8% more positive on civic terms than conservatives and college graduates are 10% more positive than non-college graduates. Additionally, Americans are more likely to say liberals and people with college degrees use civic terms. 
• “Messengers matter.” The data demonstrate a person’s perception of a term is changed based on their feelings towards the people using it. The impact ranges between 7% and 36% across all terms. Who uses the term seems to matter the most for social justice, privilege, and patriotism.

Assumptions we hear about civic language that our data complicate

• “Americans are divided and don’t aspire to unify.” While some words (patriotism, activism) and identities (political, racial) tend to demonstrate different sentiments towards our civic language, there are also major areas of alignment. Taken collectively, Americans’ positivity for civic terms far outpaces their negativity, with unity as a stand-out unifying term (70% positivity).
• “Words are ‘owned’ by certain people or groups.” While some groups are more positive towards terms and other groups are associated with terms at higher rates, the range of association was 11-61% and the average was 31% across all terms, which means there is only a 1-in-3 chance overall that any group could be associated with any term. Even for groups that Americans associate with terms at higher rates, it does not mean they themselves are positive towards the term (for example, Black people and racial equity). Given these points, we believe it is hard to assert that any group “owns” a particular term. 
• “Young people are negative about democracy.” While young Americans have the lowest positive perception of the term democracy across all age groups, they are still significantly more positive than negative towards the term. In fact, 47%–almost half–of 18-34 year olds have positive perceptions of democracy; they may just express it differently.

Findings about civic language that the civic field needs to face

• “Civic” is not landing. For the words in our survey that included “civic” or “civil” as adjectives–civic engagement, civic infrastructure, civic health, and civil society–our data signal that Americans do not have much response, association, or relationship to these words overall, and the words are not intuitively understood by many. Which begs the question, are there better ways to talk about our work?
• Civic terms are favored by historically “dominant” identities. Americans of historically “dominant” identities (such as White, Christian, college graduate, upper class, male) are 6% more positive and 3% more familiar with the civic terms. While those are not double digit numbers, the consistency of these identities outpacing other identities in positivity and familiarity of these terms is not something we can overlook. 
• The disconnect between professional usage and public perception of civic language is real. Respondents with characteristics similar to those who work in civic philanthropy professionally (such as income of >$100,000, college degree) are, on average, 4 percentage points more familiar and 9 percentage points more positive towards the civic terms than everyone else. Some words are at a higher risk for disconnection with the public (like pluralism and bridge builder) while others present potential for understanding and connection (like unity and justice).

I encourage you to dive deeper into the project here.

RESOURCES

• Full description
• Report announcement
• Full report 
• Data dashboard 

PACE had support in this from the Rita Allen Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Charles F. Kettering Foundation (my employer), and the McKnight Foundation.

My Approach to Annual Review and Reflection, 2021-2022

As the year ends, and the new one begins, many people reflect upon and review their past year, and think about how they wish to act moving forward. Some call it “making resolutions,” some “setting intentions.” People do it all different ways.

Here is the way I have been ending each year since 2015. It is an approach that has served me well. I typically go over my review with my spiritual adviser and sometimes I share it with my spouse.

Aspirations (Virtues and Defects)

This, for me, is the most important. I reflect on my behavior over the past year, think about where I fell short and what patterns suggest themselves. Which defects of character were most bedeviling? I think about what the corresponding virtues might be. These become the guideposts for how I want to behave overall in the coming year. This list rarely changes from year to year. For the past few years, my list has been:

Humility (vs Pride)
Generosity (vs Selfishness)
Acceptance (vs Self-Pity)
Diligence (vs Sloth)
Tolerance (vs Judgment)

It was two years ago that I added the last item in the list. Before that, the list had been stable for many years.

Areas of Focus (Plans, Results, Plans)

I next look across the key focus areas of my life: Faith, Family, Work, Health, etc. For each, I had set plans in the previous year. I write down my results as I reflect on the past year. Did I meet my goals? Considering this, I then set out plans for the upcoming year.

Here is an example:

• Body (health & fitness)
  • Plans 2021: Follow doctor’s orders, reduce cholesterol. Continue running — 5 mile routine.
  • Results 2021: Stasis. Periodic yoga, periodic lifting. Struggled to lose weight. Stayed on track with medical appts.
  • Plans 2022:
    • Improve fitness routine, focusing on consistency
    • Resume yoga
    • Achieve and maintain body weight below 200 lbs (185-190 ideal)

This gives me a roadmap to follow, as I check in periodically throughout the year. The plans are not static, I revisit them and adjust where appropriate.

Then, at the end of the next year, the last bullet (Plans 2022) moves to the top, and I will add “Results 2022” and “Plans 2023.“

Here is my full list of focus areas:

Faith
Family
Work
Community/Civic
Body (Health & Fitness)
Mind (Learning & Creativity)
Finances
Home (Dwelling)

What are your focus areas? How do you approach year-end reviews?

David Mathews on Deliberative Democratic Politics

David Mathews, longtime president and CEO of the Kettering Foundation, was interviewed recently by AL.com. In a brief passage, he gives perhaps the best and most concentrated description of deliberative democratic politics I have seen.

For those who have heard Dr. Mathews describe various aspects of democracy — its origins, how it can be seen as an ecology, the importance of seeing the tensions between things held deeply valuable — this may sound familiar. But in just a few paragraphs, much is conveyed.

Below is a brief passage (left) with commentary from me (right):

What we call democracy is really an accumulation of survival lessons over centuries.	Democracy as emergent, organic (vs. built).
We learned that we had to come together to be safe and be successful.	Origin of collective security as a key thing held valuable.
We learned that we had to be free to do what we felt like we needed to do.	Origin of freedom to act as a key thing held valuable.
We learned that we couldn’t really work together unless we divided what we had produced equitably amongst all the people. Because if we didn’t, they’d leave the tribe and next time we went out to bring down a big chunk of protein with four hooves, they weren’t the meal, we were the meal, because we were too small and frail.	Origin of being treated fairly as a key thing held valuable.
And most of all, we learned that we had to have some measure of control over what was happening to us to get all the other things that we want.	Control over future as overarching thing held valuable.
When people make a political decision, what they do is they sit down and they look at the things they might do, and they weigh them against the things that are deeply important: Is doing this going to make me safe or unsafe?	Weighing trade-offs (deliberation) as core to collective democratic life.

Building a New Life on the Ashes of Collapse: 2,500 Daily Letters

Some of my friends know that some years ago, in a deep spiritual crisis and in anguish, I began trying a new practice. I wanted to be serious about my inner spiritual life, to see if it would help me. I am not religious, but felt called to do this.

Now, each morning, I do the same thing I began back then. I rise, I sit on my sofa, I subvocalize a set prayer, I read a few pieces of spiritual literature, and I write a brief letter to God.

Since early January 2015, I have done this every morning, without fail. After a couple of years, I started posting each letter, mostly in order to have a record but also just in case anyone might find them helpful.

This morning I wrote Letter #2,500.

Letter 2,500

Doing something daily for so long may seem daunting but in reality it is simple. I set the bar for myself very low: the letter simply has to exist. It can be as short as necessary. The letter is just a mechanism to make sure I am really doing my practice, there is no magic about writing it down, nor its form. It could just as easily be an “X” marked on a calendar.

Doing this on a daily basis, without fail, has changed my life. I am convinced that any consistent spiritual practice can yield similar benefits for anyone. It does not have to be “religious” and does not have to be literally daily nor persisted in for years and years. The benefits come very quickly (for me things began to shift within a few weeks).

If you are searching for a regular spiritual practice, you might try picking something easy that you can do daily, and seeing what happens when you try it for a week or two. That is how I started.

If you are curious, or have your own practice to share, or just want to chat, please feel free to drop me a line.

(At the site you can sign up for the daily email for free. I would love it if you sign up, just because it provides a nice sense of community.)

The Resistance to Democracy

Lately I have been thinking about resistance to democracy.

By democracy I mean people exerting citizenship (that is, making choices and acting together on shared challenges), starting in their communities (the places where people make decisions and act), supported by governing institutions (such as government, NGOs, businesses, and other organizations).

Three problems can fundamentally interfere with the functioning of this democracy: when people don’t exert citizenship; when they do not work together in community; and when the work of institutions and that of citizens is out of alignment.

There are many possible reasons for these problems, and some of those reasons may reside in the other problems. For instance, maybe people do not exert citizenship because governing institutions treat them as clients instead of as producers.

I also believe there are psychological elements behind some of these problems, which in my own thinking I collectively term “The Resistance.” (An adaptation of Steven Pressfield’s thinking.) Thinking about these sometimes allows me to better understand behavior of people in a democracy.

What is behind The Resistance?

These are not the only ones, but here are three inbuilt psychological elements of The Resistance:

1. Fear of Agency. This applies to individual citizens in their informal capacity as well as professionals in their organizational capacity. As an ordinary person, I can tell you there are many situations where I actively seem to shun freedom. Think of all the times I have been asked, what would you like to do? And then, terrified of the choice, I instead wonder: What do they want me to answer? Can’t they just decide what to do?  Deep down, sometimes, some part of me wants to be told what to do.When it comes to the professional realm, the fear is then inverted: What would actually happen if everyone had freedom? Wouldn’t my job become ten times more difficult? What if they (people in the public) decided they didn’t need me?
   
2. Drive for Homeostasis. In other words, equilibrium — lack of disturbance. Human beings crave homeostasis and are constantly acting in ways to keep things as they are. This often manifests itself as denial of problems. I refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of climate change because, if I did, then I would be obligated to change what I do.
   
3. Hatred of the Other. While we can and do express love, we are all also indeed built to mistrust those from other groups. We are programmed over eons to search for and identify potential enemy groups. Today, in modern life, I think about all the ways that we seek to categorize people in our day to day lives, and to separate the world into people we do care about . . . and people we don’t.  We live in a world where all the different groups are very much in alignment and so these boundaries are reinforced.

I think these are elements that are within all of us, that they are common and shared. That suggests that those who are trying to improve democracy should remember these headwinds that lurk in our human hearts.

The Gymnasia

Imagine you walk into a gymnasium. Different people doing different things all over. There are all sorts of stations: weightlifting areas, cardio machines, fitness rooms. There is a yoga room and a room for a spin class. There is a basketball court.

Too, there are all sorts of people all throughout the gym. They’re each doing their own workouts, trying to get fit. Maybe it is January, and they feel like it is time to get serious about their resolutions! Weightlifting, elliptical, treadmill, stair machine, calisthenics, aerobics. Each with their own plan, or no plan.

Some people have come in small groups. They enjoy working out with friends. It motivates them, and it is fun.

Into this gym, now add a few trainers and coaches. Some people are being trained one on one. Others in more small groups, being led on how to do certain exercises. These coaches can help them build skills, stay motivated, progress, and stay on track.

There are larger fitness classes, in some of the side rooms. Yoga, led by a yoga teacher. Cardio, led by a fitness instructor. Spin class, led by my friend Kenny. These classes also help people build skills, build connections with others, and get fit.

Now . . .

Imagine that some of the coaches and fitness instructors are trying to pass along more than just workout routines. They want to teach their students and groups that they can get fit anywhere. That all they need is some fresh air and a place to run. That they can do it themselves, along with others if they so choose, without any special apparatus or guidebook or video. Imagine the yoga instructor enjoys helping people do the poses, but also wants them to walk away knowing that they could do the yoga at home. Or, that they could themselves teach their family how to do the poses. These coaches and instructors are trying to pass on a mindset toward health.

These kinds of coaches and fitness instructors are a bit analogous to some of the people in civic life you might meet in communities. Sure, they work on projects, but they also try to do so in a way that leaves behind greater capacity. They want to arrange things so that when the project is over, everyone involved can go on to start their own projects, and work on their own issues.

Back to the gym. Someone started that gym. They decided that they wanted to lease the land, build the building, install the equipment, and put effort into making sure it is there for people. Imagine that the owner wanted it to be the kind of place where the coaches and instructors we talked about before felt at home. Imagine they wanted it to be the kind of place where coaches could pass on lifelong fitness attitudes, and it could be a place where people could come together to work out – and to do more than that. The gym could become a place where people got a new mindset toward what they are already doing.

Sure, people come to work out . . . but they are doing more than that. The coaches are trying to do more than that. The gym owner is trying to make it a place where it is welcoming for all kinds: people just working out, and people who have been bitten by the lifelong fitness and health mindset.

The gym owner is somewhat like the institutes, or centers, that exist in some communities. Organizations that work with others who are in turn doing their own projects. These institutes serve as a way to knit together disparate efforts, making space for them, and creating a place where people can learn from one another.

Imagine a learning community or network made up of these kinds of gym owners and some of the more expansive-thinking coaches. They share what they are learning about how they approach their craft, how they set up their spaces. Their craft isn’t exercise routines – it is awakening people to fitness.

Just think what all these gym owners and coaches could unleash, simply by arranging and fostering the right kinds of conditions, and removing obstacles to this kind of development. Imagine what they could learn from one another about how to do that.

Imagine what a new gym owner, someone with the germ of an idea, could learn from such a network.