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.
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?
Politics runs on issues, which are questions about what should be done. Deliberative politics runs on issues that are widely seen as shared and critical. Yet, in public discourse, conditions, topics, and issues are often conflated.
Conditions are societal: norms or pathologies in how individuals or groups behave. Example: a state of division, or divisiveness, is a condition in society or a community.
Topics are conceptual descriptors: collections of issues which serve to separate one general field from another. Example: education is a topic area.
Issues are the specific domain of politics: shared problems on which collective action is possible and about which a decision must be made. Example: Addressing opioid addiction is an issue.
In preparing materials to prompt public deliberation, it can be a challenge to distinguish between these things. But there is no decision to be made, nor collective action to be taken, on conditions or topics. We cannot deliberate over “education.” What aspect of education? Disparities in achievement? Shortfalls across the board? The subject matters to be taught?
Finding Issues
Over time, in our work at the Kettering Foundation we developed heuristics that have proven helpful in distinguishing such issues.
Is there broad agreement that a decision must be made?
Is there disagreement over the cause of the issue?
Will any solution require a range of actors, including citizens working together?
Do potential solutions threaten the things people hold dear?
Are there institutions and other organizations that could be a part of that acting, but which do not have sole responsibility?
These are not the only such questions, nor are they definitional. But they help point the way towards materials that can be helpful.
Often, concern over a condition or a topic prompts us to explore whether there is an issue that might productively be deliberated over. Two recent examples:
In 2018, Kettering began to research “divisiveness.” We began to wonder whether this was a problem of democracy — that divisiveness was getting in the way of our democratic functioning. However, divisiveness itself cannot be deliberated over nor politically acted on: it is a societal condition. There is no democratic policy that could be made “against” division. Research suggested, though, that there is a question for communities to deliberate over: Given the divisiveness we face, in which people increasingly behave in uncompromising ways, what should we do in order to have a functioning political system? This resulted in the issue guide, A House Divided: What Would We Have to Give Up to Have the Political System We Want? (2019).
In 2015, the “economy” was prominent in public discourse and was a consistent worry in communities. But this is a topic area, there is no question to be answered. Public research led us to see that at issue was the increasing difficulty in getting by coupled with the growing disparities between those who are thriving and those who are not. What should we do to make sure all Americans can achieve economic security? This resulted in the issue guide, Making Ends Meet: How Should We Spread Prosperity and Improve Opportunity? (2016).
Note in each case, the title of the issue guide is in the form of a question at issue.
Americans, individually and as a nation, are worried about high health-care costs. Many of us fear that skyrocketing drug prices and surprise medical bills could keep us from getting the care we need or ruin us financially whether we have insurance or not. Businesses and governments also face increasing costs. Health-care costs continue to grow faster than inflation.
How can we bring costs down while getting the care we need? This issue advisory looks at three ways of making our health-care system sustainable and fair. Each option offers advantages as well as downsides.
If we create a single government program to pay for everyone’s health care, would taxes rise and quality suffer?
Can gradual reforms hold costs down and still get everybody covered?
Should we take responsibility for our own choices in a more transparent and competitive marketplace even if that means those who make poor decisions will suffer the consequences?
The issue guide in a printed, 28-page format and as a downloadable PDF
A briefer 6-page issue advisory that presents the same three options for deliberation (printed and PDF)
A 4-minute overview video
Post-forum questionnaire
Spanish versions of the issue advisory and questionnaire as downloadable PDF, and a subtitled overview video
This issue is part of the Hidden Common Ground initiative, a joint project that brings together nationwide survey research by Public Agenda, reporting and editorial coverage from USA TODAY, issue guides developed by the Kettering Foundation, and the network of National Issues Forums. The forums are meant to foster deliberation where people make decisions together on what actions we should take on pressing issues, and where we are divided and still have work to do.
As part of its unique local-to-national coverage of the 2020 presidential election, the USA TODAY network and Public Agenda are joining forces to explore the Hidden Common Ground in American public life.
Through nationwide polling, detailed reporting and community events, Hidden Common Ground will explore areas of authentic public agreement on major issues facing the American electorate.
The project will launch in December with an exploration of where citizens stand on the need for common ground and its role in our democracy. Subsequent installments will delve into health care, immigration and economic opportunity, all accompanied by original commentary from USA TODAY’s award-winning Opinion team.
“We believe a strong focus on what Americans agree on can make it more possible for Americans to confront and navigate their real divides and disagreements, such as those stemming from tensions of race, class and fundamental questions of political philosophy,” said Will Friedman, president and CEO of Public Agenda.
The Hidden Common Ground project will also feature a unique partnership with the National Issues Forums (NIF). The nonpartisan forums will be sponsored by libraries, educational institutions, and civic organizations all across the country. The issues will be those USA TODAY has selected for its election coverage, starting with Partisan Divisiveness and the Collaborative Divide and how it might be bridged, and followed by health care, immigration, and the economy.
Each of the four partners will play a key role:
Public Agenda will research and explore the issues, publishing its findings every few months beginning in December 2019;
The National Issues Forums Institute will encourage other sponsors to join the NIF network and also provide online forums that will be available to everyone through the Common Ground for Action platform.
The Kettering Foundation will use its research to provide nonpartisan issue guides on these major election issues.
The USA TODAY network will publish stories and opinion pieces on each issue and the associated research, as well as surface “Strange Bedfellow” stories of people in communities actually working together for the common good across partisan and other divides.
This unique partnership provides an opportunity to bring more thoughtful public judgment to bear on our nation’s most important elections.
Let me know if you are curious to know more, and I can connect you with the proper contact person.
I am pleased to announce publication today of a brand-new update to the National Issues Forums issue advisory, How Should We Prevent Mass Shootings In Our Communities? The materials are meant to support deliberative conversations in community and other settings, and are free to download.
From the guide:
The tragic attacks in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; Parkland, Florida; and other places have raised concerns among many people across the nation. Such shootings have become more frequent and more deadly in the last decade. Each mass murder has devastating effects on a whole community.
Overall, the United States has become safer in recent years. Yet mass shooters target innocent people indiscriminately, often in places where people should feel safe—movie theaters, shopping centers, schools. Many believe these attacks are nothing short of terrorism. How can we stop mass shootings and ensure that people feel safe in their homes and communities?
This issue advisory presents three options, along with their drawbacks. These are not the only options, and you may think of others.
Option One: Make Mass Killings More Difficult
According to this option: The problem is that we are too vulnerable to gun violence. Communities and homes should be places where people are safe. The tools for carrying out mass shootings are all around. It is too easy for individuals to obtain weapons that are designed to kill a large number of people in a short time.
We cannot stop all violent impulses, but we can and should make it much more difficult for people to act on them. We should restrict the availability of dangerous weapons, identify potentially dangerous people, and prevent them from carrying out their plans.
Option Two: Equip People to Defend Themselves
According to this option: The problem is that most people are not able to defend themselves from the sudden danger posed by mass shootings. There will always be some who are a threat to those around them. We cannot afford to rely on the presence of police to rescue us. We should be prepared for violence and have the means to defend against it. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees this right.
Option Three: Root Out Violence and Hate in Society
According to this option: The problem is that we live in a culture that perpetuates violence and numbs people to its effects. The Internet provides a platform and organizing space for hate groups and domestic terrorists. Violence and criminality are pervasive in movies, television, and video games. Mass murderers gain notoriety through nonstop media portrayals.
This results in a culture in which stories of mass murder circulate and gain momentum—so further shootings become a greater possibility. We must root out and stop the glorification of violence and promotion of hate to break this cycle.
Please let me know if you use these materials and, if you do, what happens.
* * * * *
I serve as executive editor of issue guides at the Kettering Foundation. We develop these nonpartisan materials to support deliberation on difficult public issues, and make them available for publication by the National Issues Forums Institute. The NIF network is comprised of all sorts of organizations who use the guides in their own ways, holding conversations in which people deliberate together about what we ought to do.
I was preparing my registration materials for an upcoming philanthropy sector meeting, and I was asked to give a recap of major items I wanted my colleagues to know about. The past spring (2019, in case you are reading this in the future) has been a busy one at the Kettering Foundation, and I thought the list might be more broadly of interest:
Report: Our Divided Nation: Is There a Role for Philanthropy in Renewing Democracy? American democracy faces challenges that raise difficult questions for philanthropy. This report from the Council on Foundations and the Kettering Foundation summarizes a two-day symposium the two organizations convened in May 2018 to wrestle with these questions. A group of prominent foundation leaders working at the national, state, and community levels explored how philanthropy can narrow the gap between people and institutions, strengthen public engagement, build civic capacity, and generally bolster democratic norms and practices in the United States. This report also served as the basis for a standing room-only session at Council on Foundations in April.
Paper: With the People: Making Democracy Work as It Should. In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address, and he spoke of an ideal of government, one that is of, by, and for the people. Do Americans today think our government is really “of” the people? That’s debatable. “By” the people? Doubtful. “For” the people? Perhaps for some, sometimes. This Cousins Research Group paper, based on a chapter from a forthcoming book by David Mathews, suggests trying another preposition—government with the people. It offers a strategy for bridging some of the divide separating the people of the United States from their government and from the country’s major institutions. It envisions a form of collaboration that would have institutions working with citizens, not just for them.
Event: A Public Voice, at National Press Club, DC. The 29th annual A Public Voice event was held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on May 9. The two-hour discussion brought together legislators, local elected officials, congressional staffers, and citizens from the National Issues Forums network. APV 2019 focused in part on the deliberations held in recent months using the NIF issue guide on political divisiveness, A House Divided: What Would We Have to Give Up to Get the Political System We Want? The program also looked ahead at what issues should be topics for issue guides and deliberative forums in the coming year.
Report: Beyond The Clash: How a Deliberative Public Talks about Immigration. Over the course of 2018, an array of organizations, under the auspices of the National Issues Forums Institute, convened 86 nonpartisan public conversations in 28 states across the country about one of the nation’s pressing issues: immigration. This report on the 2018 National Issues Forums on immigration offers a powerful demonstration that typical Americans with differing views can exchange ideas on immigration and that, as they listen to one another, their views become more nuanced and pragmatic. Most important, it shows that people with different starting points can and will find areas of common ground for action on which they would be willing to come together.
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day weekend is a time that many devote to public acts — serving their broader community, raising their voice about issues, talking together about current events, and more. This year features a shut-down government, a rancorous stalemate in Congress over myriad issues, and uncertainty over the future.
All this at a time when American public life is highly divided and people find it more and more difficult to talk to one another. Not only are there deep disagreements over specific issues, but people increasingly lament division per se. They are concerned about how we as a nation can self-govern.
New Issue Guide Released: A House Divided: What Would We Have to Give Up to Get the Political System We Want?
Many people are deeply disturbed by the state of American politics today. Trust in our national institutions and in the media has plummeted. Fewer bother to vote or participate in public life. Action on pressing issues is repeatedly kicked down the road. Perhaps most disturbing is that we find it harder and harder to even talk to each other. We often seem instead to shout at one another. There have even been recent acts of political violence. What should we do to get the political system that we want? How should we begin to work together to solve our most urgent problems?
This issue guide presents three options for deliberation, along with their drawbacks. Each option offers advantages as well as risks. If we regulate what people can say online, will we end up silencing voices we need to hear? Should we push politicians to compromise more often even if it means they must bend on their principles? Should we focus more power locally, or would that result in an unmanageable patchwork of conflicting rules governing many important areas of our lives?
Option One: Reduce dangerous, toxic talk. Option Two: Make fairer rules for politics and follow them. Option Three: Take control and make decisions closer to home.
Both an issue guide and a shorter issue advisory are available, as well as a video introduction. The advisory is also available in Spanish.
Please let me know if you use these materials and, if you do, what happens.
* * * * *
I serve as executive editor of issue guides at the Kettering Foundation. We develop these nonpartisan materials to support deliberation on difficult public issues, and make them available for publication by the National Issues Forums Institute. The NIF network is comprised of all sorts of organizations who use the guides in their own ways, holding conversations in which people deliberate together about what we ought to do.
At the NIFI link, there is also available an “issue advisory” for free download – such advisories are the core “name” and “frame” of the issue in an easy to use format, and are suitable to use in a deliberative forum setting on their own.
The immigration issue affects virtually every American, directly or indirectly, often in deeply personal ways. The issue guide is designed for people to use to deliberate together about how we should approach the issue as a society. It presents three options that reflect different ways of understanding what is at stake and that force us to think about what matters most when we face difficult problems that involve all of us — and that do not have perfect solutions.
The concerns that underlie this issue are not confined to party affiliation, nor are they captured by labels like “conservative” or “liberal.”
Coming to America: Who Should We Welcome, What Should We Do?
Option 1: Welcome Immigrants, Be a Beacon of Freedom
This option says that immigration has helped make America what it is today — a dynamic and diverse culture, an engine of the global economy, and a beacon of freedom around the world.
Option 2: Enforce the Law, Be Fair to Those Who Follow the Rules
This option says we need a fair system, where the rules are clear and, above all, enforced. With an estimated 11 million people living in the country illegally, our current system is unjust and uncontrolled.
Option 3: Slow Down and Rebuild Our Common Bonds
This option recognizes that newcomers have strengthened American culture in the past. But the current levels of immigration are so high, and the country is now so diverse, that we must regain our sense of national purpose and identity.
The Kettering Foundation researches and develops issue guides like this one and makes them available to NIFI to publish.
Follow the link for more information and to order or download your own.
I am pleased to announce a new “issue advisory” that is available as a free download (or fold-out hard copy) from the National Issues Forums Institute titled What Should We Do About the Opioid Epidemic? I am proud of my role in helping develop this resource. The Kettering Foundation researches and develops issue frameworks like this one and makes them available to NIFI to publish.
My friend and longtime colleague Tony Wharton wrote the text. Drafts of this advisory have been tested all throughout the U.S. and it has proven to spark a useful conversation.
The issue advisory is meant to support broad-based community conversation about what we, in our communities, should do in response to the drastically rising epidemic of opioid use, abuse, and deaths.
This difficult conversation involves tensions between compassion, personal responsibility, and freedom of choice. The advisory presents three options for people to talk about together:
We should extend and provide treatment for all, get people the medical help they need
We should crack down, people should take responsibility for their choices and actions
We should allow people freedom to do as they want, if they are not hurting anyone it is their business
There is a memorable scene in Aaron Sorkin’s HBO series The Newsroom. It is the culmination of an ongoing argument between Jim Harper and Hallie Shea: Harper is a national network TV news producer and Shea is a correspondent-turned-blogger. In the 3rd season episode “Contempt,” Harper and Shea are arguing over whether Shea was right to publish (on the blog, “Carnivore”) an account of a personal fight between them.
“Your problem isn’t with me and with the site, it’s with the audience,” says Shea. “You don’t like that they like what they like because you need them to like you. . . . I think you’re threatened by technology. . . . I want to be part of the digital revolution.”
“I’m not talking about the apparatus!” Harper interrupts, exasperated.
This is a remarkable moment, not least because it is such an odd thing to exclaim. I think of this scene often when trying to describe the way I think about political systems. To me, politics is ecological, emergent.
Especially when I am talking about what community politics consists of, and what it might mean to foster a more deliberative politics. I think about the ways “the apparatus” can intrude and occlude what I am really trying to talk about.
For instance, when I describe efforts to encourage deliberative discussions on community issues — it seems that often people hear “I am promoting NIF forums.” When I describe the idea of framing issues so that the things held valuable that are in tension are made clear — people often seem to hear “writing NIF issue guides.” When I describe framing an issue so that things commonly held valuable are made clear — people hear “three strategies.” When I describe strengthening civic capacity — people hear “civic infrastructure.” When I describe institutions aligning their routines with how citizens do their work — people hear “promoting participation.”
The Concept
All of these share a common feature. They mistake the apparatus for the the concept.
This is not to say it is wrong to talk about the apparatus. It is important and a worthwhile discussion. But this is also a challenge, because talking about the apparatus can get in the way of talking about the underlying ideas. I have come to believe it is not surmountable simply by “saying it the right way.” There is something, I believe, about the element of mechanics that short circuits the ability to see and talk about the underlying ideas.
Photo: Niels Heidenreich via Flickr
Indeed, the very word, “system,” can become problematic. While it is the correct term to describe the ecology, dynamics and interrelationships of all the disparate actors that make up a “community,” it is easy to mishear. By “system” I mean that set of interrelationships described above. But often, the term is taken to mean something built, mechanical. It’s the same with “network.” To me, that term means a disparate and interlocking set of relationships between and among people and other entities. Networks, in this understanding, emerge. But when the term is commonly used, it is often understood in the way computer networks are understood: as built artifacts.
As I try to explain what an ecology of political life in a community might look like and consist of, people will nod and affirm, “You are talking about systems. Networks. Yes. I get it.” But as we talk, it becomes clear that they think of systems and networks as built things. (They are thinking in machinebrain terms.)
And thus the conversation turns to the apparatus, which pushes out the concept I am trying to get at.
This is an area of research for me where I work. We often talk about it as a linguistic or technical problem: “How can we talk about these ideas in such a way that they are understood?” But even these articulations let the apparatus (of language) get in the way of the idea.
It is really a fundamental question. How is it that the insights of deliberative politics can come to be understood? What blocks this? What encourages it? (Note the passive construction, which is on purpose. Not how can I say them. But how can others understand them.)
This question is articulated throughout our research program and its strategic basis in more and less direct ways. The challenges we face in this area, though, are persistent.
From the guide:
Report: 
Paper: 
Event: 
Report: 
Brad Rourke's Blog 