Sender: "Bruce Schuman"
Subject: The Uninvolved Citizen and Transpartisanship
Date: Mon, Mar 24, 2014
Msg: 100831

From: List for transpartisan leaders and innovators [mailto:TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG] On Behalf Of John Steiner/ Margo King Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 11:16 AM To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG Subject: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] The Uninvolved Citizen and Transpartisanship

Hi All and warmest greetings...

Great threads here...mahalo!

Several points to add...

Somewhere around 40% of us self identify as independents -- whatever that actually means! Check out http://independentvoting.org/ if you don't know them. I wonder what percentage of Millennials (and give or take a few years) would call themselves that?

It would be great to do some polling/focus groups around these issues, including what would rewards look like. If anyone has access to pollsters who might be willing and interested to explore the transpartisan meme/possibilities in more depth (on their dime!), as an add on to polling that might already be happening, let us know.

How much of a reward in itself might it be to know that folks are running for office and committing to govern in a collaborative way, are focused on solutions, and are willing to employ new 'transpartisan' methodologies? Do check out No Labels problem solvers caucus.

And we all have attention (another important thread) deficit disorders of one kind or another!

Cheers, John Steiner

From: Evelyn Messinger Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 Subject: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] The Uninvolved Citizen and Transpartisanship

Your message is very inspiring Bill, thanks so much for sharing it with us. I find the concept of rewarding people for engaging not only exciting but thought-provoking. I hope people on this list will put their minds to what you wrote:

"...my peers will participate in a political system where they believe their effort will be rewarded. What 'reward' means and how to develop that system are complicated questions for conversation, but I think the premise of lack of perceived reward is a good frame for the conversation."

And let me turn it around, if you don't mind: the premise of receiving a reward is also a good frame for conversation.

Speaking personally now, I believe we live in an attention economy. Attention is a limited resource, much in demand. We each have some but no one has as much as they would like, and the competition for your attention is fierce. As Esther Dyson said in the Wall Street Journal way back in 2006, "People go on the Web in search of attention; they don't want to give it as much as get it."

In our world, receiving attention is a reward...but it may not be the only, or best, reward for participating.

You have brought us back to the original question, can uninvolved citizens be activated to participate? Framing the question in terms of what they get out of it - their reward - would be very fruitful.

-- Evelyn Messinger http://citizenschannel.org +1.415.377.6278 > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 5:15 PM, William Schenken wrote: >> Greetings, >> >> Introduction: My name is Bill Schenken. I am on the Board of the >> Bellingham (Washington State) City Club, bellinghamcityclub.org. I >> was referred to this list as I am in the process of working to expand >> the City Club's activity activities to include dialog based events. I >> am also passionate about transpartianship and the hope of productive civic discourse. >> >> A big thank you to the founders and participants - my few days of >> reading have been truly inspiring! >> >> Re thread topic: I got started as an activist 30 years ago helping my >> mom label and stamp mailers (I'm 36). I have been on the sidelines of >> activism for the past 10 years because I came to believe that all of >> the modes I knew of political interaction were ineffective at >> catalyzing the kind of change we need to address the systemic >> challenges we face (from my liberal >> perspective: climate change, bio-diversity, economic inequality, >> etc). I do believe that activists and political groups win battles >> but are losing the war, so to speak. >> >> Someone once told me laziness does not exist; just a lack of >> perceived reward. I feel this situation is that simple. It was for >> me. Most of my peers are very enthusiastic about localism and make >> economically irrational (from a neo-con perspective) choices to >> pursue its aims because they believe it will make a difference. That >> leads me to believe that many of my peers will participate in a >> political system where they believe their effort will be rewarded. >> What 'reward' means and how to develop that system are complicated >> questions for conversation, but I think the premise of lack of >> perceived reward is a good frame for the conversation. And finish my >> personal story, I think tranpartianship (as I understand it) holds >> the promise of rewards significant enough to motivate me to get back into the game. >> >> Thanks for listening, >> Bill Schenken >> wschenken@gmail.com >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:46 PM, peter altschul >> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi: >>> >>> While I am certain that ignorance plays a role in citizen >>> noninvolvement, I'm not convinced that's the main reason which, I >>> believe, has to do with the rancorous ways most political leaders >>> choose to react to those with whom they disagree. What most of us >>> see in these interactions is a blend of snarky condescension, which >>> is a big turn-off. In my experience, this is often different from >>> the way "average" people deal with those they disagree with - a >>> blend of ignoring, cautious conversing, and sometime, at least, the >>> hint of a common understanding. It is, I believe, these differing interaction styles that creates many of us to shut down. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> >>> >>> Peter Altschul, MS >>> www.peteraltschul.com >>>

On 3/11/14 12:43 PM, "Evelyn Messinger" wrote:

> Engaging citizens is at the root of the Transpartisan mission, and > some recent posts on this list provide an opportunity to confront the > question of citizen engagement head-on. > > Rick Raddatz wrote, "60% of adults can't name their senators, and this > had remained steady across time and across all large democracies -- > it's not just an American thing..." Michael Strong added that "the > vast majority of citizens are stunningly ignorant regarding the most > basic facts of political debate." And we all know how dismal voter > turnout is in the US and Europe. > > There is some disagreement about the make-up of the great disengaged, > and resolving this would be helpful. Do they occupy the "center," > essentially agreeing on a great majority of issues, ending up > disengaged because partisan ideologies have become too extreme? Are > they generally "sigle-issue" types, with strong feelings on the right > to life or climate change, but otherwise alienated from the parties > that champion these positions? Or are they too busy, uneducated, > frivolous and/or cynical to engage in the political process as it is > now configured? > > Two additional questions can be framed by applying Tom Atlee's > excellent dissection of the "Trans" in Transpartisanship to the issue > of engaging the uninvolved masses: > > - Can more people be engaged by reaching across the divide, and > therefore giving them what they long for, political bodies willing to > compromise in order to achieve results? > > - Would people be energized by going "beyond parties and ideologies > altogether," focusing on issues where nascent agreement already > exists? > > Finally, does it even matter if most people remain disengaged? Is > there a magic number of supporters - I've heard 20% of a given > population - at which an issue or political platform or candidate > becomes viable? > > Your thoughts most welcome! Thanks and regards, > > Evelyn

############################

To unsubscribe from the TRANSPARTISAN list: write to: mailto:TRANSPARTISAN-SIGNOFF-REQUEST@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG or click the following link: http://lists.thataway.org/scripts/wa-THATAWAY.exe?SUBED1=TRANSPARTISAN&A=1