Network Nation

NETWORK NATION

NCDD TRANSPARTISAN

NCDD TRANSPARTISAN
All messages

Sender: Bruce Schuman
Subject: Re: Conservatives - values - cocreativity
Date: Mon, May 5, 2014
Msg: 100967

I appreciate this response, and thank you.

Just for perspective -- I might be a little radical (or a lot radical) -- because it looks to me like the problems with USA national governance are so fundamental that no "adjustment" is really possible. It looks to me like there are primary and "ontological" issues about the way we are doing things that are fundamentally misconceived. The category systems don't work. The language doesn't work. Human-to-human understanding doesn't work -- not well enough. Things don't mesh. The battles are built into the system -- the battles and the failures and paralysis that go with them. Let's not "curse the darkness" -- or our fellow citizens we are tempted to regard as moral inferiors. Let's conceive a brilliant new vision of ideal collaborative decision-making and co-creative democratic governance that convenes our collective intelligence in an influential way.

So -- I want to advocate for a few radical design principles -- such as a fundamental recognition of the "holistic and integral" quality of any truly sound solution. Issues in the world are not separate from one another. They are intimately interconnected, to an absolute degree. We need a political framework -- a process for making collaborative decisions -- that recognizes this, and builds everything on this basis.

And for me, this does not mean "throw out the existing system". It means -- "build a collective force of People Power that comes together in an emerging and enlightened way, and can begin to influence the existing system" -- what I have heard described as "a new center of gravity".

Right now, what is emerging for me -- is a kind of information-gathering and coordinating idea based on surveys or polling -- very much inspired by the recent NCDD survey conducted through Codigital.com -- as described here by Sandy H as a brilliant success: http://ncdd.org/14641

Just finding myself leaping ahead into designs I am doing my best to actualize -- I think I see ways that this kind of approach could become a massive data-gathering framework the solves the problem of overload, that addresses the huge and critical issue of diversity and social fragmentation, and builds a simple and intuitive and very natural pathway to large-scale agreement. I'll attach a graphic at the bottom of this email illustrating the beginnings of this idea...

*****

BILL:

Re public values failure - If I remember right, something like 60% of the country wants to further restrict access to firearms. Congress just has incentives (campaign donations) to not act. To me, this is a failure of the two party system and that failure is that even though there is generic support for gun control, there is not broad consensus for a specific policy proposal or a way for voters to enforce it if the consensus were there. For example, if you are a conservative that wants gun control, then you likely have to become a single issue voter and vote democrat to vote for gun control ( and possibly support gun control candidates in the primaries or support an initiative effort). If you are liberal, then the only choice you have is work against the incumbent in favor of a gun control candidate in the primary (assuming your representative was one of the Dems who didn't support gun control).

BRUCE:

Yes, somehow we have to get past these monolithic ways that voting by party is organized -- and develop a recognition of the huge actual on-the-ground diversity in American opinion.

BILL:

This illustrates the inability of our current system to represent the diverse and complex views that voters hold.

BRUCE:

Yes -- I sometimes think we need a complete "a la carte" way to vote -- people should have absolute freedom to express themselves as unique individuals -- and be able to express a meaningful opinion (vote) on issues separately.

BILL:

It allows for the politicians to play games with positions to get you to vote for them even though they don't represent your interest because you don't have a better choice. With the added pressure of the need to raise money, politicians seek to be the least bad choice for voters that maximizes campaign contributions.

My idea for a solution is that we have a system for citizens to express their policy desires and develop policy consensus independent of the election process. Then citizens would ideally vote for politicians based on their success in implementing those policy desires and NOT their policy views. To me, that would radically shift the dynamic.

BRUCE:

I too would like to see a way for the views and insights and "collective intelligence" of the citizens to become an effective and influential force. I tend to suppose this will require a kind of "revival" spirit -- a reawakening of belief in the potential of democracy-in-a-republic -- that we have to somehow enable by overcoming the primary blockages that prevent effective citizen engagement (primary among them being overload and complexity).

BILL:

Re: bedrock fundamentals- I happen to share Bruce's ideals because I have had access to a liberal education, thought leaders and the luxury of pursuing personal growth and development. To me, the trick is that almost any way we frame that vision, most people will find a way to object or just not engage because on that level of values, we all say it slightly differently and we all have slightly different relationship with it. That's what I was trying to express- we have see different parts of the elephant based on the path we are on.

BRUCE:

Yes, I absolutely agree. Great metaphor, and very much to the point. Maybe what I am sensing -- is a emerging new capacity we might have in the world to "collaboratively construct the elephant" -- by first of all recognizing that none of us can see it all -- and that this is natural and not a moral/ethical failing. It's just a humble fact of life in a complex world. Let's try to be friendly....

BILL:

The trick and the point of this conversation, is to find a way to name IT in a way that most people will be inspired to action. I believe that the process of working collaboratively to understand the elephant together is that unifying framing.

BRUCE:

Yes, thank you. Let's collaboratively create an "elephant weaving" system -- to build an invisible wholeness (the entire USA) from millions of visible small parts (local neighborhoods, particular issues).

BILL:

The only people that won't come to play are the fundamentalists - meaning people that willfully do not seek to change their mind. These will be everyone from idealogical extremists to political activist traumatized from years of trying to make change in an insane world. They will be threatened by a system that seeks to find new perspectives and change existing power structures. At the same time, I think we will be pleasantly surprised to find that there are people willing to change their minds and learn from others in every community and every way we can group people- young, old, conservative, religious, etc.

BRUCE:

Yes -- and to echo the emerging new "doctrine of community"-- we need all those points of view, all those perspectives. We need the libertarians, too -- to push against the weaknesses of excessive collectivism. All things in balance.

BILL:

The thing I can't decide is if that is really very different from what Bruce is suggesting or just a specific way of saying it. To me, the thing is that I want to entice people that may not be in communitarian solutions.

Sent from my iPhone

BRUCE:

Yes--meet people where they are. Maybe we can avoid the turnoffs of "labels" -- and just -- connect in very basic ways. That would take a lot of trust-building -- but who knows -- the appetite for a rebirth of faith in "the system" .

And PS -- you typed this message on your phone? You are a master...

On May 2, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Bruce Schuman wrote:

Just to chime in on this -- my own instinct on this -- is to look for the deepest values in a vision of successful community.

And work to build a movement based on people that share those values. We have to find them, and build from there.

This is where the revolution is, imho -- in a new vision of inclusive ("integral/holistic/collaborative/transpartisan") community.

Some on this list want to find some strategy to manipulate the thinking of the mass market and attract them in from some angle. But for me -- that angle has to be the deepest core human values -- shared by everyone who recognizes that "we're all in this together, and we have to work it out together".

This is a core American value. It goes to the traditional vision of "melting pot" and the "we are a nation of immigrants" idea. "Diversity makes us stronger". Find people who can see that and start weaving them together.

The kind of movement I would like to see happening -- would be based on a simple vision of human cooperation in the big-bad national context of extreme diversity -- and extreme social fragmentation.

This is where the heroic forces are, I think. This is where the inspiring new flag-wavers are, the new patriots, the new lovers-of-country, the new lovers-of-fellow-humanity -- who want to see our nation brilliant and successful -- and who know in their souls that no mere concentration on a few issues is going to get us anywhere.

The first "public values failure" -- is a failure of community. It's a failure of trust. It's a failure of teamwork. It's a failure of suspicion and doubt and accusation -- and the self-righteous anger that too often goes with it (see Jon Haidt).

We need a revival of the Spirit of Democracy. We need a core recognition that no one human has all the answers -- that we need each other. The ancient social contracts were implicitly built on that awareness. We need a new social contract based on co-creativity.

Once that comes into place -- then all these issue-specific questions can be looked at carefully. Until then -- we are a nation divided -- divided and manipulated. If we want a new politics -- we must build it on a core foundation -- on absolute bedrock. That bedrock is the fundamentals of healthy community.

Bruce Schuman

NETWORK NATION: http://networknation.net

SHARED PURPOSE: http://sharedpurpose.net

INTERSPIRIT: http://interspirit.net

(805) 966-9515, PO Box 23346, Santa Barbara CA 93101

From: List for transpartisan leaders and innovators [mailto:TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG] On Behalf Of Roger Bernier Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 1:32 PM To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG Subject: [TRANSPARTISAN] Fwd: [TRANSPARTISAN] Conservatives

Not sure policies will always follow, and anyway, policy decisions delayed are policy benefits denied. For example, the values of the majority appear to be aligned on the value of human life and those values align with beliefs that guns increase the risk of death in the population as a whole. However, improved gun control policies are not following predictably and excess deaths are being recorded every day. This is an example of a "public values failure" as first described by Barry Bozeman.

What does this group of readers think is the best feasible way to address "public values failures" and/or to prevent them from occurring in the first place?

Roger Bernier

University of Georgia

College of Public Health and

The Epidemiology Monitor

678-361-5170

_____

From: millershed@EARTHLINK.NET To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG Sent: 5/2/2014 2:56:10 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time Subj: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] Conservatives

Good stuff, Bill! I would just say that, when values become aligned (regardless of what we believe, though it's nice if these become aligned as well), policies will follow, reflecting those values (given, of course, the inherent lag time due to resistance from vested powers).

John Miller (952) 797-2302 Green Tea Party Movement

-----Original Message----- From: William Schenken Sent: Apr 30, 2014 12:27 PM To: TRANSPARTISAN@LISTS.THATAWAY.ORG Subject: Re: [TRANSPARTISAN] Conservatives

All,

For me this conversation is about the level on which level partisan dialog should happen. It seems to me that the dialog would ideally happen at levels but that is not practical. We are never going to get everyone to agree on everything.

So I think of three levels. First is values. By values, I mean the things we want before we define ourselves as conservative or liberal. They are inherently difficult to discuss because they are largely emotional and experiential. I view values as the subject expression of our individual experiences.

The second level is beliefs. These range from our beliefs about what is a fact (creation vs evolution) to more philosophical areas (conservative vs liberal, science vs religion vs scientific religion). In the world of beliefs there appears to me a spectrum from art to science. Some things like political questions about the role of government will always be an art where compelling arguments can be made but the answer cannot be known. Conversely, some things like whether vaccines cause autism do submit themselves to scientific study.

To me, the middle of that spectrum is most fruitful area for transpartisan dialog. That is where there is the greatest ability for people to change their beliefs because the discussion can be based mostly in facts. Let me use abortion as an example. The morality of abortion is very close to values and people are not likely to change their values from a public dialog. That said, no one wants more abortions. So it seems there is fruitful ground around what we can do to reduce abortions while still allowing women control of their own bodies.

The third level is policy. We use our values and beliefs to determine the policies we want. To me, the goal of a transpartisan movement is to use dialog on beliefs to build consensus on policy. And the key to making that dialog successful is to avoid overly philosophical discussions that will highlight differences and focus on accomplishing shared goals. Then in the long term, finding ways to move the more philosophical discussions forward and maybe if we don't agree, at least have them.

One other thought on freedom vs order. My personal belief it that it will forever be a struggle for humans to understand the proper balance of the two and how to determine the role of government. The only way forward is to keep having the conversation and make adjustments as we gain evidence from past experiences.

RE: Incentive Reform

The problem I have with incentive reform is that I don't agree with Rick's premise that "government is currently dramatically beyond such limits". I think the government is bloated and corrupt in places but I want higher taxes, more wealth redistribution and more regulation of Wall Street and pollution. From what I have gathered, it is based in conservative principles. I think the idea has merit, but it's something short of what I envision.

RE: Apologies

I would feel like this would be productive if most Americans felt a strong association with either political party. To me, this assumes that the political division shown on cable news permeates America. I see a small percent of political elites in a heated battle and most people thinking those people are the problem.

And, well, I had to re-read that part several times because I thought conservatives should be apologizing to liberals for the 2008 crash, the patriot act and based on the work of Piketty, the entire Reagan/Thatcher NeoCon movement. And yes, I think our police/fire departments, mental health support services, addiction recovery services, environmental protection/conservation efforts, and schools still need way more funding before we call social efforts failed. That said, I think there are structural problems stemming from the unprecedented inequality in out country that will take a generation of wealth redistribution to address because institutional effects. I believe that markets are effective at allocating scare resources but no at determining what should be scarce. So, I only elaborate on this to emphasize that these issues are complex and nuanced. Where one person sees a slam dunk, another sees another chapter in the conversation.

I would also point out that my views on them change constantly as I learn new information. I have gone from being very liberal to being more conservative back to being more liberal. So people who are engaged are constantly going to be evolving their understanding. How can we help those of us that want to understand more and find news ways forward to learn and connect?

Cheers

Bill Schenken

Bellingham City Club

Wschenken@gmail.com

_____