wrythings

I’d like to see the media get back to reporting as opposed to pretending to think for us, especially when they get the thinking wrong and ignore the bigger news sitting alongside and staring us in the face.

The story of the weekend was Obama’s supposed flip-flop on public campaign finance. I think we use the phrase too loosely. Changing your mind, or reversing direction/decision isn’t an adequate definition. Necessary, but not sufficient.

Fish flip flop when they are out of their element, politicians when they’re spineless - not when their decision is grounded in a position of strength and consistent with their higher values. So, I’d like to upgrade the definition to a reversal followed by subsequent reversal(s), or a reversal mainly employed by “leaders” to keep supporters or to keep one’s self in place when it was clear one’s position wasn’t grounded to begin with.

A strategic choice can not be a flip flop. It’s a clear decision.

Further: You’re going to have to go a little deeper to decide if something is hypocritical. It’s absurd to label someone hypocritical when their values are consistent. How much more must be said?

Obama has eschewed PAC money and has a tremendously broad base of financial support from none other than the public. This is the campaign that has drawn a bright red line between big money and the public. If Obama’s people change their mind and accept big money contributions or unleash 527s … then I’ll be disappointed, angry and feel betrayed as will millions of others. That would be hypocrisy and would undercut the values this campaign has established. That wouldn’t be a flip flop either, that would be a blunder, plain and stupid. Flip flops are about not knowing which way the wind was blowing ahead of time, not how strong the wind would be.

I’ll say it again, I’m not into hero worship or idolatry, but I also am not going to accept false logic. I’m not an apologist for the campaign but rabid punditry deserves a flogging.

Lastly, this strategic decision is not an attack on public campaign finance. I feel clear that Obama supports the principle of public campaign finance. It doesn’t mean one has to take it. It doesn’t mean he isn’t right to state bluntly that it is broken. It clearly is broken when the other candidate can illegally flip flop - i.e. reverse himself and reverse himself again - and the laws remain unenforced. McCain’s campaign is breaking the law and the law and order types are nowhere to be found, the media is fairly silent and worse offering us some red hering and it appears democrats are not pressing the issue, or meekly at best.

So, yes, it’s broken and it makes sense to opt out if the other candidate won’t be held accountable to the rules and you can effectively run a campaign grounded in your principles . It needs to be fixed, and it needs to be there for future candidates as an option.

Strategy and grounded campaigning are not opportunistic or hypocritical, and it’s not a flip flop.

Apply logic before speaking. Do a double dose before pontificating. Check some facts. Prioritize facts.

The people have to make up their mind whether the character of the campaign matters. I think it does. The character of the campaign reflects the character of the candidate. We’re deciding the character of discourse we’ll settle for, and the character of governance that we want.

Making little of nothing isn’t a sign of character.

These are the closing words of George, a hunter from the South who has just spent 30 Days with a group of Animal Rights activists. It’s a beautiful story. It’s what reality tv should be.

I’m really struck by the notion of immersion in a cultural setting - in the subcultures of our own society. The 30 Days series is great from that perspective and is doing us a “positive media” service.

This week has been odd for me. We still have so much polarization in our politics. Members of my extended family have views on the current election that are in stark contrast to my own and we haven’t been able to forge a sustained political dialogue that would be a basis for deliberation. That’s my higher ideal - dialogue that leads to deliberation. We need that first safe civil space however … a precondition to emergent deliberation where we really are working together to understand an issue… not debating in a winner take all modality where the end justifies the means.

Animal Rights is not the issue that wakes me up each day, but the questions of the cruelty of our factory farming system and vivisection are a burden to my soul. I’m just as concerned about our inhumanity to each other, but one thing is certain: this is not part of a beautiful society, this is beneath our human dignity, it debases all who are involved.

My bigger issue is how to be a better human being. I’ve got a long way to go. I’m ok with that, as long as I make progress, and others are with me.

I just caught this episode on Hulu. I don’t know how long Hulu keeps episodes available for those of us who will embed their video in a blog, but if it’s not here by the time you read this, blame them.

We’re making progress towards e-Democracy in Chicago. We’ve got a great steering committee in formation, and we’re eager to recruit participants to the Chicago Region Civic Forum. We’re relying on Twin Cities based e-democracy.org for hosting and for their local issues forum platform (based on groupserver). Our forum won’t go live until we reach a critical mass of subscribers.

We’re using their platform for several reasons … we’re committed to a civic discourse on an open source, neutral platform, so that no group or person in Chicago would feel “ownership” (or exclusion) except in the sense of a common, collective ownership and responsibility.

We also like the model, generally. The e-democracy project has been going strong for more than a decade, and continues to expand. It’s built on web technologies familiar to everyone: email and browser, yet also allows room for web 2.0 growth with RSS/XML feeds. The e-democracy forums pay a good deal of attention to the social dimensions of online communities, and have established sensible policies and practices for a healthy community. A clear and explicit policy is important.

The list/forum is open to the public, for the purposes of local civic discourse. Participants are expected to register under their real name, to conduct themselves with civility and generosity of spirit and to focus on issues of pertinence to the Chicago region. We’re all restricted to two posts per day so that no one person can dominate the discourse and so that participants don’t feel overwhelmed by excessive traffic. We’re all busy people, and we respect each other’s time and commitment to improving life in our city.

Feel free to register now… and let me know if you have any problems! We’re still testing some things.

This should take you to a registration page for the Chicago Region Civic Forum on the e-democracy site. Remember, we won’t be live right away, but you will be the first to know when we are!

What’s the deeper formula to “be the change” when you feel frustrated by mainstream media and their handling of presidential politics - and politics in general? Where can we direct our efforts to promote meaningful civic discourse? We need a space dedicated to that purpose and for which we share responsibility. What will serve as town square in the digital era?

The e-democracy project offers a model for supporting local civic discourse online. We take it as given that online efforts don’t replace other modes of interaction in civil society - they are meant to support and enhance civic life. We also take it as given that the digital divide and disparities in tech literacy and local Internet connectivity/accessibility remain a problem that should get more serious attention.

In Chicago I have been involved in numerous discussions around using technology to improve our quality of life, our capacity to work together for a better city, and to deal with the pressing issues of our day. I’ve come to learn that many efforts fall short when groups involved fail to remain open and inviting to others and when the impetus to control an initiative or block it if you can’t control it holds sway.

No one person or group can own a movement, nor can they assert themselves as the legitimate venue for public discourse. Others will feel excluded or will sense that if they support the effort they are bolstering someone else’s constituency.

What is needed? Venues and Resources that are truly held in common and over which we feel stewardship and responsibility, not ownership or control. With that in mind, I am working with others towards advancing the e-Democracy model within Chicago area. I invite you to join me in this effort.

This model is the embodiment of a fair amount of wisdom. In the local issues forums certain guidelines and constraints are necessary to safeguard the spirit and intention of civic space. Participants are expected to identify with a real name; everyone is limited to two posts a day; and topics are focused on our lives within the polity, from a local frame. In terms of technology - there is a sensible bridging of modes of online interaction. members can participate through email, through the web forum or they can keep up with the discussion via RSS feeds. None of these technologies are new, but they aren’t exactly going away either. They are widespread in use, and they represent a framework that can be built upon.

I know there is probably temptation for the civic minded tech group to roll your own, or perhaps make use of “groups” tools on well-known sites. I thought a lot about those options myself. It was easier for me to dismiss the latter as not being the best strategy for an effort intending to foster civic discourse. First, there is the issue of whether the public/commercial site will persist over the long haul or whether it’s policies might fundamentally change. Second there is the general issue of “joining” a site and submitting oneself to the terms of use under which your personal data is regarded as an asset they might trade upon, and where you are the object of marketing which relates directly to the third issue I’ll address in relation to this … maintaining the civic discourse in a space free from commercial speech (i.e. advertising).

I haven’t addressed the issues around “rolling your own” civic forum … certainly with the diffusion of open source content management systems such as Drupal, setting up a forum is relatively easy.

Establishing a successful online community isn’t as easy. Earlier I brought up the notion of “ownership” and perceptions of constituency building and branding opportunities that come up when a group launches efforts like this. We bypass those pitfalls in promoting the e-Democracy model. We’re not making a claim of ownership over the initiative - except in broadest sense of collective ownership. The other issue is that you are going to have to make a lot of design choices, and while exploring the technical issues is a topic of interest to me and many in the circles I frequent, it’s going to delay the effort, and the group may drop the project or worse the effort may fork based on ego or conflicting tech-philosophy.

Who’s with me?

What is historical consciousness? When does history touch our lives? How does the historical life of the nation become tangible for any one of us? These questions are difficult to answer in the abstract.

When Michelle Obama expressed her newly emergent pride in the country many were offended. But, the backlash of those who took offense is perniciously wrongheaded. We need to move beyond bombastic pride and unqualified emotionalism. It’s ridiculous to parse the language of another person’s inner experience of national identity while we willfully ignore the contradictions in our own relation or expression thereof. We have no standing to make such judgment.

It’s a matter of mote and timber in the historical mind’s eye, for no institution, no social relation can be accorded unconditional approbation. That is what our national identity suggests to me. Patriotism is a willingness to challenge the country when it does wrong, out of love. Glossing over inconvenient facts obstructs growth, leaving us in shadow. There is much to question in our present and in our past. We should embrace those with the will to question, raise dialogue and foster civic deliberation on matters afflicting the human condition.

Today I read a piece recounting many points in American history for which the only point of pride may be in the widespread hope or desire that we have since overcome those attitudes and behavior. It’s not clear to me that we have. There are many signs to the contrary.

Where does hope live? Hope is an active relation to the dream. The American project continues to unfold. Our best days are not behind us. Our living up to the civic principles we espouse requires questioning our selves and challenging false pride (as well as self-loathing).

Generations after Dr. King’s brutal murder we still aspire to a post-racial society, and we endeavor to live the dream he eloquently expressed. This is grounded in the wisdom that there is but one race. Some will say that the post-racial element of the dream is a denial of reality. I understand the point they are trying to make, even if I reject the categorical language of race in favor of a more nuanced dynamic of ethnic processes and social constructions of identity.

If I restated the case, our hopes would be realized in a post-racist society … a subtle difference, perhaps. We’re not calling for a denial of the past, or of present difference, but rather for a new relation to both.

This is not about homogeneity, it is about a deeper respect for histories and differences. We (as nation and as species) are the repository of a multitude of histories and we must be willing to face the darkness in our history, in a narrative whereby we collectively and continually rise above ignorance and prejudice. Attaining a degree of historical consciousness we no longer have an excuse to deny our past, nor to deny that which we are party to in the present. It is incumbent upon us to continue to grow, and to bring up those generations who follow in this attitude, that they may likewise live in active relation to humanity’s higher nature.

Once we begin to take maturity seriously, we will get down to the business of maturation.

We’ll not impugn others for their faith or for their doubts in the nation or in humanity, we’ll give them reason to be hopeful. Take pride in working towards the dream with others, don’t take excessive pride in the past.

How are we going to establish the post-racial society MLK foresaw when political opportunists can’t figure out when to stop digging when they have dug themselves into a hole? Any positive memories I might have had regarding Geraldine Ferraro have been dispelled. I’m embarrassed to share any heritage with her. I’m also embarrassed for NY, my state of origin. We’ll leave Spitzer aside… come to think of it, there is a lot to be embarrassed about in New York State this week - the most meaningful one being the censorship at RPI and in the city of Troy, not the stupidity and scandal of these unfortunate political persons. If only the media would pay attention to things that matter to the health of the polity.

But I do take Ferraro’s attitude as obnoxious and racist… or at least playing to racist sentiments. (Really - both, I think … her attempts to spin herself out of this is pathetic and makes her look much worse in the long run.)

I’m not ‘enamored of Barack’s blackness’ … It’s incidental. Clearly identity politics is at play - motivating supporters for both campaigns, but Barack has a consistent message that fits the post-racial ideals many of us hold. And Geraldine - I’m not black …. am I being racist in calling you on your racism?

I am sure there are many people out there who have said or thought the very things Ferraro has so bluntly stated. What is ridiculous to me is that they defend it as ‘fact’… their statement isn’t a fact. It’s just a sad sign of low character. More Americans need to study biology … there is one race: human.

And as for painting Barack as a Muslim… some people complain that Hillary didn’t take a stronger stance in regard to the fact that Barack is not of the Muslim faith. She said she takes him at his word. Yes. Do take people at their word and at their deeds when asked about their faith and character, but really, it’s the wrong answer to the wrong question. The right response is that although we know Barack to be a man of faith, with long-standing commitment to the same Church, if he were of the Muslim faith, that would NOT disqualify him for office. This reeks of the days when other religious bigots questioned Kennedy’s loyalty because of his Catholic heritage. Clearly, however, some of us in America are not done with anti-catholic bigotry either. Has Ferraro commented at all about Hagee and McCain?

The Democratic Party needs to transcend Identity politics. I’d support woman or man, a person of any ethnic heritage or religious faith, if they demonstrate themselves to be of high moral character, lead by example and inspire us to our higher calling as a people.

I’d also like to give people a little room to make some mistakes, and a chance to redeem themselves when they do. (But please, stop digging.)

The quote and context may be old news, but I just now happened upon this quote on Ellen Gill’s blog and thought it interesting…. here’s the full text:

The Bill of Rights is not a “suicide pact,” but an expression of courage and knowledge that courage is what it takes to keep a people free.~~From Ellen Gill’s letter to the editor of the Chicago Sun Times, December 29, 2005.