Public Issues in Southwest Missouri

Group Agrees, Fixing Social Security Means Some Will Get Short-Changed

2007-06-01T11:51:00.000-04:00

Personal accounts are not the answer to fixing Social Security but other changes and program cuts are going to be necessary for the program to last past the retirement of baby boomers.

At least, that was the perspective of most participants at a public issues forum hosted by University of Missouri Extension. The forum was aimed at deliberating Social Security, whether or not it needs to be fixed and some possible ways to fix it.

“We had a diverse group of attendees who considered three different approaches to dealing with or fixing social security,” said David Burton, civic communication specialist with University of Missouri Extension and moderator of the forum.

According to Burton, participants (even those approaching retirement) agreed with reducing Social Security benefits by eliminating the $250 funeral benefit, slowing annual “cost-of-living increases, removing the $90,000 ceiling on payroll taxes, setting up a national commission to develop a list of long-term options, lowering benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees, requiring Americans to work longer before becoming eligible for Social Security benefits and reducing the number of non-retirement related programs Social Security funds.

“The group also thought that for the long-term health of the program, the nation needs to revisit the purpose of Social Security. President Roosevelt said it should be one leg of a three-legged stool (pension, savings and Social Security) instead of what it has become – the only source of retirement for many,” said Burton.

The first approach deliberated dealt with reinventing the program with personal accounts, something proposed by both President Clinton and current President Bush.

“Overall, the group was opposed to this approach. Too many questions and concerns, the greatest of which was serious doubt that a majority of Americans would be responsible enough to manage personal accounts,” said Burton.

While some attendees said they would benefit personally, this was not seen as a way to solve the financial problems of Social Security itself.

In the post-meeting survey, 100 percent of participants disagreed with this statement: “People will get far better returns on their Social Security contributions if they control how their money is invested.”

Approach two of the deliberation emphasized that Social Security is a promise made to working Americans and to retires, and it is a promise that must be kept.

“The group agreed that Social Security is a promise that needs to be kept. However, no one thought the promise could be kept or maintained at its current level,” said Burton.

At this forum there was widespread agreement that benefits should be reduced (eliminate $250 funeral benefit), annual increases should be slowed, the $90,000 ceiling on payroll taxes should be removed and a national commission should be formed to develop a list of options.

In the post meeting survey, 90 percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We need to make drastic changes to save Social Security from bankruptcy.” Sixty percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We should scale back Social Security to encourage people to take more responsibility for their financial future.”

Revising Social Security for a new generation was considered in approach number three.

“It was interesting, even though the group was mostly older, they agreed that reform is needed in order for the program to continue,” said Burton.

Part of the reform embraced at this forum was addressing the fact that Social Security has been expanded beyond its original intent and is no longer just one leg of a three-legged retirement stool (pension, social security and savings). For many, it is the only leg.

“Participants felt like we need to begin the process of rewriting Social Security now but not implement new rules on people who are age 55 or older. It may seem unfair, but the younger generation will bare the blunt of most Social Security changes,” said Burton.

In the post meeting survey, 80 percent of participants agreed with this statement: “We should slightly reduce Social Security benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees to guarantee benefits for those who need them most.”

“What attendees at this meeting said loud and clear is that Social Security needs an overhaul that ignores partisan politics and instead focuses on making sure the program remains solvent into the future without increasing the burden on payroll taxes,” said Burton.

Great Minds Think Alike: American President Idol Style

2007-05-16T14:23:00.000-04:00

All I can say is that great minds think alike. My post last week about searching for the American President “idol style” was picked up and printed in the Springfield News-Leader. The editorial got online comments and I got six phone calls at work as a result.

It seems that other people have had this same idea. One person is working on a book with this type of plot. Another wanted to see something like this done but on a more local basis. Two other people with connections to the entertainment industry called to say projects with a similar theme/idea (projects which I promised not to mention specifically) are also in the works.

But the kicker is when I found out that a show like this was tried in 2004. It failed (partially because it only aired on Showtime) but Mark Burnett is working another attempt at this idea for this year.

The first show, done in the summer of 2004, was known as “American Candidate.” Montel Williams was the host. Here is what Burnett’s production company had to say about the program:

“American Candidate is a ground-breaking television series in which the American
people will identify a People's Candidate that they would like to see run for
President of the United States.

AMERICAN CANDIDATE will attempt to identify one individual who has the qualifications and qualities to be President of the United States.

AMERICAN CANDIDATE will debut with 12 contestants from all walks of life. Over the course of 10 weeks, those 12 will face-off against each other in a series of challenges designed to test their presidential mettle and to show viewers what really goes on in the making of a presidential candidate. Week-by-week, the original pool of candidates will be winnowed down. The final episode will be a showdown between the remaining two candidates, and one person will emerge victorious -- the "American Candidate."

The winner received $200,000 and a nationwide media appearance after the show so the winner can address the nation. After winning “American Candidate,” Park Gillespie dropped out of the race for a seat in the South Carolina House of Representatives. The Republican Party in that state basically told him to take a hike. So, just like the show itself, Park bombed.

But brace yourself, Mark Burnett is going to try it again. This time his show, “The Independent,” is being partnered with MySpace.com and is going to appear on a “major network.” The prize money is still too small but here is the official word from a story written by Michael Schneider in Variety.

“Mark Burnett Prods. is partnering with MySpace to discover the modern-day Mr.
Smith. The two entities are behind “Independent,” an online project targeted to become a full-fledged TV series built around a search to find the next great politician.

The show, timed to the 2008 elections, hasn’t yet been pitched to networks. It comes with a $1 million prize … and a catch: Winner must donate the money to a political cause or use it to run for office.

“This is the ‘American Idol’ of political action,” said Burnett development head Roy Bank. “We’ve been exploring for a while how to do something in and around what is going to be the topic on everyone’s tongues next year — the elections. We wanted it to be legit, and there’s no greater democracy in play right now for people in their 20s than MySpace.”

Bank dismissed similarities between “American Candidate” and “Independent,” however. “That was smaller, with no public interaction,” he said. “That’s the biggest
difference. This is real people, real constituents, with interaction here.”

What do you think? I’d love to hear your comments.

Find Our Next American President -- Idol Style

2007-05-08T13:12:00.000-04:00

American Idol continues to reign supreme on television. Millions of people call each week to select their favorite talented singing adolescent. The show is all the rage on the Internet, in classrooms and around the office water cooler.

Why do we not have that same level of interest in American politics?

Over 35 million votes are cast in just two hours for American Idol contestants – each week. Meanwhile, in the 2004 presidential election (which was open all day), 122 million Americans cast a vote. Why is there so much difference between the participation rates in these two elections?

I have an idea that might help change this trend.

Why not host a national television show (starting this summer) called "American President?" Have people apply or tryout to run as the "citizens candidate" for President. Get a group of about 100 solid candidates (from varied backgrounds, experiences and with varied ideas) that could do the job but don't have the money backing them to campaign nationwide.

Then, each week, have the candidate’s present ideas or solutions to various problems facing our nation. Then each week selected groups of candidate’s debate issues and Americans then vote on who stays and who goes home.

Each week the group gets smaller and each week interest in the show, and the solutions proposed by candidates, increases.

When the show is down to the top 10 the show could start airing “candidate” profiles. Each week, candidates would be given five or 10 minutes to address the American public and present their ideas on how to tackle certain issues.

By the time the final person is selected in "American President" we would have a viable and well-known third-party candidate who would have national support and recognition.

Perhaps part of the show's prize would be money to begin a national campaign. If the show finished up in time this person could be showing up in national primaries.

Since this is my idea, I'm even going to volunteer to be a judge or consultant to the program. I work pretty cheap.

Something like "American President" might get citizens more engaged in the election process. If we could just get young Americans as interested in the Presidential race as they are American Idol, that would be a great success story.

Do Dropping Newspaper Circulations Impact Democracy?

2007-05-02T21:04:00.000-04:00

Circulation numbers for newspapers are going down nationwide. A report in Editor & Publisher documents this trend. The Newspaper Association of America says daily circulation nationwide has dropped 2.1 percent in the last six months. The downward trend can also be seen with weekly newspapers in southwest Missouri.

Still, the decline in readership has some concerned about the future of our democracy. How do citizens stay informed? How can they fully understand the issues facing our country? How do the get the information they need to be an active citizen?

Some say Americans are going elsewhere for their news. Audiences for radio appear healthy and cable news channels have seen growth.

Readership of online news sources is also up. In fact, I have a friend who has never subscribed to a newspaper. His parents didn’t subscribe to a newspaper when he was growing up and he didn’t after getting married. However, he has, within the past year, become a daily reader of online news content (from area and national newspapers).

That example makes me wonder if readership is really down or just going elsewhere. I don’t know of any studies right now that answer that question.

However, if newspapers are losing circulation I think there are some core reasons why.

Over the past 10 years, study after study has found that American citizens are losing confidence in the news media. This includes a study published May 28, 2003, by USA Today and Gallup Poll that found only 36 percent of Americans “believe news organizations get the facts straight.”

The downward trend began in the 1980’s and gained steam in the 1990’s, long-before the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times gave the credibility of large newspapers a black eye. Nationally, a majority of citizens no longer trust the news media in general, and newspapers in particular.

Some citizens think the news media covers up real stories for the sake of owners or advertisers. Others find liberal bias in much of what is written and said (or left out). Still others find the news sensationalized and hyped for the sole purpose of profit. Meanwhile, others say the news media is nothing but entertainment while the real hard issues of our culture get ignored.

Meanwhile, this downward trend may be harming our democracy. What do you think?

Forum Attendees Develop Shared Vision on Stopping the Trend of Violent Children

2007-04-25T11:39:00.000-04:00

Finding ways to develop public policies in a democracy to deal with violent children was the purpose of a recent program entitled “Violent Kids: Can We Change the Trend?”

All of the participants in this forum were childcare providers and they offered a unique perspective on an issue that frequently grabs headlines nationwide.

“The make up of this forum was unique and so was the shared perspective. This group basically agreed that violence in media and entertainment plays a role but parents who are absent or just simply don’t parent are the biggest part of the equation,” said David Burton, University of Missouri Extension’s civic communication specialist and forum moderator.

The focus of the forum centered around three very different choices.

CHOICE ONE

Choice one said violence saturates the popular culture, immersing kids in a social environment where violence is portrayed as accepting, exciting and without consequences.

“Folks who took this position say it is time to ban violent entertainment to children under 17 and increase investment in television and after-school programs for children to provide healthy alternatives to the harmful popular culture,” said Burton.

In general, participants agreed that parents too often use different forms of indoor entertainment – television, the Internet and video games – to raise their children instead of being more actively involved in their lives.

CHOICE TWO

Choice two put the emphasis on giving more help to children at risk of violence. This approach says cultural violence is a minor distraction from the real tragedy -- no system for helping troubled kids before they slip into serious trouble.

“Participants who took this position say we must take a systematic approach to identifying troubled and at-risk children, treating those who are traumatized and rescuing more from chronically abusive homes,” said Burton.

In general, participants felt that mental illness was a very small part of the problem. Certainly less significant than parents who are afraid to discipline or don’t teach respect.

CHOICE THREE

Choice three said the root cause of violence in America is a meltdown in society and a lack of moral discipline. The problem is that too many children grow up in permissive homes where they are not taught the boundaries between right and wrong.

“Folks who liked this approach said that as a society, we need to take a much firmer hand in raising disciplined and respectful kids and parents have to be held accountable when their unsupervised children cause trouble,” said Burton.

In general, participants felt parents should be held more responsible for the actions of their children but that other institutions, like the juvenile system, are also failing our children.

FEEDBACK

Based on pre- and post-forum questionnaires, participants did change some of their views as a result of the forum.

For example, before the forum, 60 percent of participants said they were not sure about what should be done on this issue. After the forum, 60 percent said they had a definite opinion about what should be done.

A majority of attendees, 90 percent, said a “ban on the sale and advertising of violent movies, song lyrics and video games to children” was important.

There was also a strong sense that we should “expand character education programs in schools,” a statement that found 100 percent of participants said was important.

The idea that we need to “treat juvenile violence as a mental health problem,” got less support, with only 50 percent of attendees saying that was important.

“Making parents who do not supervise their children accountable when the children commit crimes,” was rated as important by 60 percent of attendees.

One-hundred percent of participants said it was important to “increase efforts to rescue children from abusive homes.”

Another statement, “too many parents and teachers are no longer teaching children the difference between right and wrong,” was something that 90 percent of attendees said they were concerned about.

And perhaps most telling, 90 percent of participants favored this statement: “We should restrict and control extreme violence in the popular media even if this places some limits on freedom of expression.”

For more information on these forums, contact David Burton at (417) 862-9284. More information is also available online at http://extension.missouri.edu/greene or at the National Issues Forums website.

Too Many Children Left Behind: How Can We Close the Achievement Gap?

2007-04-17T23:07:00.000-04:00

The newest issue book put out by National Issue Forums deals with the hot topic of education.

The following is from the introduction to the issue book "Too Many Children Left Behind: How Can We Close the Achievement Gap?"

In a nation that prides itself on providing equal opportunity for all, too many low-income and minority children are falling behind their peers in school. In an increasingly competitive global arena, the United States cannot afford to ignore this widening achievement gap. What can be done to close it?

This issue book presents three possible approaches for dealing with this problem:

Approach #1: Raise Expectations and Demand Accountability
African Americans, Hispanic, and Native American students in many schools have become victims of what President George W. Bush calls "the soft bigotry of low expectations." If we are to close the achievement gap, we must push for increased academic performance of all students, and make educators accountable for the results.

Approach #2: Close the Spending Gap
Schools in low-income, high-minority districts often lack science labs, computers, up-to-date textbooks, and well-qualified teachers who most often choose to work in better-paying, better-equipped suburban school districts. We cannot realistically expect more of poor, minority students until these resource and funding inequities are addressed.

Approach #3: Address the Root Causes
Problems that show up as poor academic performance begin long before low-income minority children come to school. And they cannot be remedied unless we address underlying causes, such as unresolved health problems, poor nutrition, stressful living conditions, and lack of parental support, which are the source of these deficits.

For more information, find the discussion books online at www.nifi.org or check out these material links:

Download the Issue in Brief, Too Many Children Left Behind.pdf (260 K)

Download Forum Questionnaire for Too Many Children Left Behind.pdf (37 K)

Reader's Surveys Important for Weekly Newspapers and Other Small Market Publications

2007-04-11T12:07:00.000-04:00

Doing a reader’s survey for a publication is one way to involve the public in the evolution (and improvement) of a publication.

The use of reader’s surveys (or focus groups) to improve a publication is nothing new. Publications in larger markets have been doing these for decades. But the idea of doing a reader’s survey at a smaller market publication (or weekly newspaper) is fairly new.

One reason why reader’s surveys were not as prevalent (or maybe even as relevant) for weekly newspapers and small market publications was because those publications practiced real community journalism. The owner or publisher was active and visible in the community. Staff members lived in the same community, sent their children to the public school, shopped at local stories and went to a local church – the same as the people they wrote about. If a reader had an idea (or complaint) about the newspaper they were able to easily pass that information along to the owner, publisher or editor.

Now, small market publications have more turnovers in staff and owners. Plus, the staff and owners are too busy in other areas to be very active in the community. The dynamic with the community has changed (in many cases but not all). That change makes reader surveys more important now than ever before.

Readership surveys are important for any publication (online or in print). Time is probably the single biggest factor for not doing a reader’s survey but if done right, the information gained from the survey could save the editor time and increase both circulation and readership.

The goal of the survey is to find out why people read the newspaper/publication, why they do not read the newspaper/publication, what they like to read, what they hate about the publication and what information they need the most.

Experts on this topic, including one that spoke recently at the annual conference of the Ozarks Press Association, say focus groups work well for reader surveys. The other option is to put a publication survey in the newspaper itself and offer a significant coupon, prize or gift to persons who complete the survey and turn it in. One person suggested giving one-year subscriptions to readers who answer the survey.

Some important questions to ask in the survey include the following:

Have you looked in a newspaper during the last week?
If so, which newspapers do you read?
What time of day do you read the newspaper?
How long do you spend reading the newspaper?
How often to you read the newspaper?
Do you find this newspaper to be accurate?
Are mistakes corrected?
Please rate the job this newspaper is doing with covering local government, public schools, elections (and other topics important in your community).
Are the editorials fair, conservative or liberal?
What could we do better?
How interested are you in the following: columnists, school news, sports, government news (and other top items in your community).
What would be one change you would like to see made at your newspaper?
How much of the news in this newspaper do you find to be accurate?
To what extend to you find this newspaper to be fair?

If you have done a reader’s survey in the past post a comment here. I’m sure other publications would be interested in both the questions you asked and the results of those surveys.

Restoring Trust in the News Media - Results From Two Forums

2007-03-28T11:53:00.000-04:00

Finding ways to restore the public's trust in the news media is the purpose of public issue forum materials developed by the Kettering Foundation. Free resources any individual or group can use to conduct an issue forum or study circle on “News Media and Society” can now be found at http://extension.missouri.edu/swregion/news.

A series of six news media issue forums were held in Springfield, Mo back in 2003. A total of 95 people attended and deliberated all sides of this issue before making choices and finding common ground.

It was apparent from the forum’s beginning that a majority of citizens no longer trust the news media.

Some citizens think the news media covers up real stories for the sake of owners or advertisers. Others find liberal bias in much of what is written and said (or left out). Still others find the news sensationalized and hyped for the sole purpose of profit.

Over 80 percent of participants agreed that irresponsible journalists are eroding public trust in the news media. The blame, however, was placed on owners, with 85 percent of participants saying the news media is "more concerned with profits than with public service."

There was also universal agreement that the “failure” of America’s news media is a serious challenge to the functioning of our democracy. There was some difference regarding the source of the news media’s failure and few solid solutions on how to fix it.

Only 15 percent of participants agreed with licensing journalists like lawyers and teachers.

"The ownership of too much of the media industry rests in a handful of huge companies," was agreed with by 85 percent of forum participants. There was support for public broadcasting among 48 percent of participants but the issue of tax money being used was a concern.

There was support for making the media more accountable to public interests, but no suggestions of how this could be accomplished without government involvement.

The idea of “getting citizens involved” with the news media was the most appealing to participants. There was agreement that citizens need to engage the news media more and take a more active role.

There was also agreement that the news media needs to do a better job of listening to the citizens of their community. In fact, 93 percent of forum participants agreed, "the local media should initiate community discussions of civic issues in their communities."

This issue of restoring the public trust is a serious one for the future of our nation's democracy. It is serious for the news media too, especially when you consider that 50 percent of participants agreed with giving the federal government power to “more strictly regulate the news media."

In case you think I’m making these numbers up, a series of forums on the same topic done with 60 participants on Jan. 13, 2004 at the Classic Center in Athens, Georgia found similar results. The forums were conducted by students in a leadership program organized with assistance from the University of Georgia.

Here are the numbers from that forum.

Irresponsible journalists are eroding public trust in the media.
64 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

Broadcast journalists are more interested in improving their ratings than in serving the public.
80 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

The news media are more concerned with profits than with public service.
89 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

The ownership of too much of the media industry rests in a
handful of huge companies.
85 percent agreed or strongly agreed

Citizens should have more influence in setting standards for the news media.
64 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

Boycotts are an effective way for citizens to exert influence on the media
59 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

Journalists should develop a set of standards for news coverage that they would all be expected to follow.
87 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

Journalists should be licensed as other professionals, such and doctors and teachers, are.
41 percent favored or strongly favored.

We should increase government funding for public broadcasting.
59 percent favored or strongly favored.

The federal government should more strictly regulate the media industry.
23 percent favored or strongly favored.

Local media should initiate community discussions of civic issues in their communities.
86 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

Citizens should start their own news sources, such as Web sites or newsletters, to address issues their local media fail to address.
79 percent agreed or strongly agreed.

And, there you have it, some good food for thought and maybe even some action.

EXCEL programs success all over Missouri

2007-03-22T16:52:00.000-04:00

University of Missouri Extension's program known as EXCEL, an Experience in Community Enterprise and Leadership, builds community leadership capacity. What distinguishes EXCEL from other approaches to leadership development is its high degree of flexibility, local control, inclusiveness, and focus on the future of community governance.

There are EXCEL programs or similar community leadership programs all over the state.

Barton County has an active EXCEL class again this year.

Over 1000 people representing approximately 60 towns throughout Missouri have participated in 40 locally-based, EXCEL-type leadership development programs. A telephone survey of those associated with the various programs revealed the following:

"The local United Way now raises three times as many funds as 3 years ago. Most members of their board are graduates. The board seems better organized, more focused, and makes better use of resources."
"The county fair was reborn and is phenomenal now. Many fair board members were EXCEL participants."
"A campaign for passing a school levy was directed primarily by past participants of the program."
"At least a couple of big projects have been initiated by alumni, such as raising $3 million for the YMCA."
"Any project that goes on in the community has EXCEL participants involved. A pool of net workers who call on each other has been created."

If a community needs to build a pool of community leaders then this program is one way to do that successfully.

CECH-UP Puts Middle School Students in Touch with Local Government

2007-03-09T12:39:00.000-05:00

A program known as Citizenship Education Clearing House (CECH-UP), organized from the college of Education, University of Missouri - St. Louis and University of Missouri Extension, has a free program that teaches middle school students about about local government.

To become informed and active citizens, students must do more than read about government; they must get involved in the political process and practice the skills of democracy.

Missouri Local Government CECH-UP shows students how to get involved in the governance of their own communities. Based on a successful program model started in St. Louis area schools, the statewide version includes over 1,700 students statewide.

The program has put together a new website that includes a video about CECH-UP. In fact, the video is a great tool to show teachers and administrators and local government officials to get them excited about the program.

Here is what you need to know, in a nutshell, about the program:

This what CECH-UP has to offer:

* Handbook/website www.cech-up.org
* Classroom Visits with local government officials (arrangements made by Extension Staff)* Site Visits to city hall (Extension staff helps makes the arrangements and CECH-UP pays for bus transportation)
* Teacher Workshop
* Mini-grants for project expenses (up to $500 per teacher) Application is on our website * Projects Fair (if we can get at least three schools in your area to participate…we will host a projects fair in your area)
* $100 Stipend for teachers (just a small “thank you” for teacher who fully participate)

Enroll now to participate in the Local Government CECH-UP Program for the next school year. Contact Program Director, Karen Pippin by email pippink@umsl.edu or by phone (314) 516-6853.

If More Editors Admitted When They are Wrong, Public Opinion of the Media Might Improve

2007-03-01T22:26:00.000-05:00

Over the past 10 years, study after study has found American citizens are losing confidence in the news media. The downward trend began in the 1980’s and gained steam in the 1990’s, long-before the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times gave the credibility of large newspapers a black eye.

I’ve conducted a public issue forum, “News Media and Society,” over 15 times in the last three years and one of the things citizens complain about is the perceived “arrogance” of the news media. One of the factors contributing to that perception is that citizens don’t feel like media outlets admit when they are wrong.

That is why Amy Brant’s editorial, “The best of intentions can often prove to be a mistake,” in the weekly Republic Monitor newspaper (Republic, Missouri) was so refreshing this week. Here is an excerpt:

Last week, when I wrote my column and shared my feelings on the situation of
moving the cooperative program (at Republic R-II Schools) into mobile
classrooms, my heart was in the right place, but as I quickly found out, not all
of my information was accurate.

Before you say anything -- I know-a good journalist wouldn't have done that. …

The column was written Tuesday for Wednesday's paper, but by the time I found out at Tuesday night's school board meeting that I was wrong, it was too late -- the newspapers were already on the stands and in the mail.

Therefore, it is my intention this week to let you know of my mistake, and try to communicate the correct information …

Editors and reporters of all shapes and sizes -- both locally and nationally -- make mistakes of fact in stories. Some of those mistakes may be intentional (bias) and others may be unintentional (miscommunication).

The difference with the error outlined in this editorial is that the editor of the Republic Monitor had the guts to admit to the mistake publicly. She corrected the information in the same space she made the mistake one week before and she did it with the same zeal.

It takes big shoulders for an editor to openly say, "I was wrong."

She didn’t pass the blame to anyone else and she didn’t defend the error with fuzzy, situational ethics.

If the rest of the American media establishment was this honest -- and went this far to correct errors in a manner equal to the error itself -- I think public opinion about the news media would improve.

Kudos to Amy Brant for honestly admitting to making a mistake instead of demonstrating “arrogance” like others who make a habit of defending their work, no matter the facts.

Common Ground for Revitalizing Democracy

2007-02-22T22:25:00.000-05:00

Remember, these comments come from the summary report on the democracy forums held nationwide last year. The authors of the guide conclude the summary report but asking if there was any common ground among participants?

Yes. Forum participants shared these understandings:

• Something is fundamentally wrong with the way we live and that what’s wrong relates to what’s going on in Washington.
• People are less connected to their communities than they used to be, a reality that negatively affects not only the quality of life but also the democracy.
• People want public officials to be more accountable, but lack a clear sense about how to accomplish that goal.
• Many saw no entry point by which they could make a difference, especially in terms of national politics.
• People want to be more than passive spectators; they want to be deciders instead of bystanders, they want to have their voices legitimized and their concerns validated.
• Even some civically active participants professed to being shut out of venues they assumed to be “public spaces.”
• People yearn for something that’s been lost in public life and want to break down the isolation. They are looking for the ties that bind in a democratic society, a greater sense of “being in this together.”

The Role of Religion in Democracy

2007-02-12T23:15:00.000-05:00

The Kettering Foundation’s report from public issue forums on revitalizing democracy in America has an entire section that deals with the role of religion in democracy. I’m going to include an portion of the report here:

While agreeing that broadly shared moral values are vital to a democratic society, participants shared a respect for, but no common conviction about the role of religious values in a diverse society. In the forums, some participants pointed to the decline in the moral behavior of political leaders as evidence of the need to bring religious values into politics.

Some agreed with a man in El Paso, Texas, “We could [use] … a bit more faith and morals … in the political structure.” Addressing a broader point, another man argued, “The underlying purpose [of separating church and state] is not to keep religion out of government; it’s to keep government out of religion.” An Atlanta woman agreed, saying, “I believe in the separation of church and state but not [a separation between] religion and state.”

Participants in fact seemed to agree that a healthy democratic society stands on a bedrock of basic moral values shared by the populace. Within this context, many said these values stem from religion. A woman in a Los Angeles forum said that religious morals and ethics are “what make … the country better.… It makes us stronger.” Indeed, a few implied that religion is the sole source of such values like a woman in an Atlanta area forum who said, “Without religion, we don’t have any reason to do the right thing.”

But as the forums progressed, a tension emerged. On the one hand, some felt that the country has lost its moral bearings and that its public and private morality is not what it used to be. In a forum in El Paso, a man complained, “We have an absence of … morals [today].… [It’s] almost like the church, the values … [that] were the basis … [of American] democracy …[are] … no longer important; those things are passé.”

While some called for greater morality in the culture, others raised the flipside of the issue, saying “morality” is essentially a private matter. Participants in a Bowling Green, Ohio, forum asked, “How do we accommodate everyone with a uniform moral code when diversity is what makes this country so great?”

Others were uncomfortable trying to impose one set of moral values on a vast nation, saying they did not want to exclude those with different cultures, backgrounds, or viewpoints. A South Dakota man illustrated the point:

“I have a problem anytime somebody starts to impose their values on me.…What’s appropriate for one person to believe is … not necessarily [appropriate]for another.”

Is it public or private morality? What do you think?

The Roots of Our Trouble

2007-02-07T08:52:00.000-05:00

This summary text is from the national report on forums dealing with issue of revitalizing our democracy.

As they deliberated, people struggled to identify the underlying causes of their alienation and disaffection.

They talked about a loss of public space, including the design of many communities: subdivisions without sidewalks, gated communities, and the loss of areas where citizens meet informally and talk about whatever’s on their mind, including community problems and political issues. More and more Americans—and more and more children—are withdrawing, they noted, living in cocoons, content to stay home, indoors instead of being active in their community.

Participants felt that Americans today focus far too much on their rights and not enough on their responsibilities.

Some felt that our children’s moral values are at risk, adding they had questions about values education in the public schools. They also were troubled about how to balance their commitment to diversity with their own rock-hard traditional, moral values. The media, some argued, exacerbate people’s alienation in several ways including cynical reporting that in turn increases cynicism, and a focus on the divisions among us, which increases polarization.

When they turned to the political system, participants almost threw up their hands in despair. Money talks, they asserted; the system responds to special interests, not the broad, general public interest; the average citizen has no voice and is unrepresented. The idea of genuine reform is a fantasy they said, because those who are expected to enact the reforms are the ones who benefit from the status quo.

Moving Forward

At the end of these forums on democracy’s challenge, many concluded that their initial take was not quite right. At the beginning, they had seen this issue as something beyond their control—deteriorating moral values, a decline in community life, and an unresponsive political system are all something they felt powerless to affect. But by the end of the forums, many made connections—saw how community life relates to national affairs, how values education ties into community life, and how they both relate to what goes on in Washington.

And how all three add up to something larger than any of them. Not everyone felt this way, of course. Some left feeling as cynical and dispirited as when they came in.

Others left the forums “stewing” about the issue: more likely to see how some of the pieces fit, more aware of the trade-offs and conflicted about values: the role of the family, religion in politics, the role of the schools, community involvement, public service, and money in politics.

But on the whole, these results suggest that a national dialogue focused on public involvement about this deeply troubling issue might be the key to reducing the alienation, mistrust, and cynicism that are so widespread. Public deliberation just might rejuvenate the hope and public-mindedness that typify the nation at its best because by the end of the forums, some participants—although by no means all of them— concluded that they, after all, had a significant role to play in dealing with the issue.

By the end of the forums and after their long deliberations, some claimed the issue as their own: this is “our” problem not “their” problem, they said. Democracy’s challenge is a challenge facing citizens like ourselves.

For more on this issue check out www.nifi.org.

National Democracy Report Released

2007-01-31T12:02:00.000-05:00

A report summarazing the results of the national issue forums done on revitalizing democracy has been released. For the next few weeks I'll be sharing some of the highlights from that report. Your feedback is welcome.

In National Issues Forums across the country, citizens came together to deliberate for several hours about the challenges facing the country— democracy’s challenge. This report on people’s thinking in those forums is divided into four main sections: a detailed summary of what happened in these forums; a description of key tensions in the deliberations that became apparent as people deliberated; particular interests, which outlines some ideas that participants gravitated towards; and important questions and answers about the forums which suggest that people do not connect to the issue as conventional wisdom suggests. Below is a brief summary of results.

Something’s Wrong

People in these forums felt that something is dreadfully off track in our democracy. Beyond their immediate sense that the nation is headed in the wrong direction and their low level of confidence in the leaders of both political parties, participants’ comments suggest that there is something else— something below the surface that is far more troubling. And during these forums, they grappled to identify what problems trouble them and what steps might be taken to deal with those problems.

Alienated and Disconnected

As people deliberated, many felt alienated from politics and community affairs—and powerless to do much about them. They felt that community engagement has sharply declined over the past few decades but, initially at least saw no connection between such engagement and the health of the democracy or their own feelings of alienation.

A Nation of Consumers

Some felt that Americans have become consumers in the democracy instead of its citizen-proprietors. People noted that gated communities, which segregate the privileged from the larger community, have become status symbols, something to aspire to. Some including a man from Texas said that Americans are actually taught to be consumers. “We were really groomed to be consumers.…Buy a bigger house and more cars.”

Spectators not Participants

In many forums, people saw themselves as part of the audience, bystanders in the democracy instead of active members with a sense of ownership. Others saw themselves as participants at the local level but not nationally. Citing their involvement with community organizations, some felt like citizens in their community, but not in the democracy.

Feel free to add your comments or take the online survey about democracy available through this blog. See the left hand column and click on the link to our survey on "Revitalizing Democracy."

What is Deliberative Democracy?

2007-01-23T23:07:00.000-05:00

This blog talks a lot about deliberation and democracy. Put the two together and you have deliberative democracy. What? Ever wonder what exactly that is. Well, here is a great explantion from Dr. Sandra Hodge with University of Missouri Extension. Dr. Hodge also gives examples of successful deliberation HERE and has a great website full of deliberation material HERE.

Written by Dr. Hodge:

There are two threads in democratic thought. One is the institutions, rules and procedures—the machinery—of democracy: written constitutions, one person/one vote, political parties, free and fair elections, representative government, checks and balances, independent judiciary, etc.

The other has roots in the citizens’ forums of ancient Greece and Rome and in communities anywhere in which citizens come together to talk about their issues and their plans for the future.

In this workshop, we are taking about the second idea—about how people come together to talk about issues. It is called “deliberative democracy” because it builds on the capacities of citizens to think, talk and work together in their common interests. “Politics” in this tradition is what citizens do when they come together to work on their own problems in addition to the electoral, legislative and decision-making processes of governments.

1. For “politics” to work as it should—to have the qualities we want it to have—¬requires citizens to be actors. The political system won’t change by itself. People have to claim their responsibilities and act on those responsibilities, both by setting directions for government and by joining together in public action. The purpose of this workshop is to enable participants to create experiences in which citizens can develop their capacities as political actors. This workshop is about how people become political actors.

2. People can’t act together, either to set directions or build relationships to work together as citizens, without making choices, or decisions. This is always difficult because choices about what kind of community or country we want to have forces us to deal with what is important to people. While people share many values, the priority placed on them can vary and result in conflict.

3. When people have different concerns and competing solutions, this “choice work’ can really only be handled effectively in a deliberative dialogue. Deliberation is a particular form of reasoning and talking together in which we weigh carefully the costs and consequences of our various options for action, in the context of the views of others. Forums (gatherings of citizens) have to be deliberative if they are to lead to sound decisions.

4. Deliberation tends to change first opinions into more shared and reflective public judgment about how we should act. We discover what we share, despite what we don’t agree about. Deliberative forums create public knowledge (a deeper understanding of what people feel they need and why) and a public voice (a shared sense of concern).

5. Deliberation helps people find connections among their varied purposes and a shared sense of direction. People have to “work through” conflicts and deal with the trade-offs. They may not come to full and complete agreement, but may get to the point that they have reached a shared understanding of the problem, and possibly have a shared sense of direction for moving ahead and some idea of what people are and aren’t willing to do to solve a issue. Often we live our lives somewhere between complete agreement and complete disagreement. Public action becomes possible when citizens discover where their interests are interconnected.

6. Though not complete agreement or consensus, when people find a shared sense of direction, this provides common ground for action. Thus, deliberative forums create a basis for public action, which is often citizen-to-citizen actions that are mutually reinforcing, or complementary, because they serve compatible purposes. Public action can often make governmental action more effective. Sometimes citizen action is in itself more effective than government action.

7. The public knowledge or public voice that comes from a forum—about how citizens think and talk about an issue and what they are or are not willing to do to address it—is essential information for officeholders. When governments act in accord with public judgment, they acquire public legitimacy.

The Energy Problem: Choices for an Uncertain Future

2007-01-17T23:41:00.000-05:00

There is a new public issue book available and being released nationally by the National Issues Forums (NIF) and the Kettering Foundation. The title of this new guide is "The Energy Problem: Choices for an Uncertain Future."

The full-length discussion guide can be ordered from the E.C. Ruffalo Company for $3.90. An 8-page discussion-guide-in-brief and a moderator’s guide are available as free downloads from the National Issues Forums website at www.nifi.org. A companion video is currently in production.

The following is an excerpt from this new issue discussion guide, including an overview of the issue and three possible way of dealing with that issue:

America's way of life seems threatened by unstable sources of energy, while many see growing evidence of environmental damage. As demands for energy escalate, both in this country and in rapidly developing nations, we may soon reach a point of no return. It is time to face the difficult choices that must be made to ensure a sustainable future.

This issue discussion guide invites people to consider the following three approaches:

Approach #1: Unreliable Sources - Reduce Our Dependence on Foreign Energy

Much of the oil Americans use comes from the Middle East and other politically volatile countries that cannot be relied upon to continue supplying our needs. This poses an ongoing threat to our security. The United States has many untapped reserves of oil and natural gas. Our best course of action is to make all possible use of these domestic energy sources.

Approach #2: Get Out of the Fossil-Fuel Predicament

The escalating use of fossil fuels is wreaking havoc on our environment. Most scientists agree that global warming has begun in earnest and unless we slow down the burning of fossil fuels, we face catastrophic climate changes. We must get serious about developing alternative energy sources such as wind farms and solar power, and rethink the use of another clean energy source--nuclear power.

Approach #3: Curb Our Appetite - Reduce Our Demand for Energy

We are missing the point when we go looking for new sources of energy. What we need to do is find ways to use less energy in the first place or to use it more efficiently. The United States is home to less than 5 percent of the world's population but uses more than 20 percent of its energy. Cutting back on consumption is the cleanest and most workable way to deal with impending shortages.

Would your community or organization want to host an issue forum on this topic?

Host a Work Force Development Deliberation by Feb. 15 and Get Your City in Regional Report

2007-01-09T16:12:00.000-05:00

Would an organization in your community be willing to host a local forum on work force development called “Building the Next Workforce: Making Choice for your Community?” It is part of a regional deliberation process being done through the Southern Workforce Summit.

Missouri Governor Matt Blunt is the Governor’s chair of the Southern Growth Policies Board.

From the forums that are held a document on workforce development will be presented at the Southern Workforce Summit on June 3-5, 2007 in St. Louis, Missouri and Governor Blunt will be hosting the meeting. To be included in that report information about the community forums must be communicated by March 1.

By participating you would join more than 2,000 other citizens from 13 states who will engage in discussions about their community's and the Southern region's economic future.

Communities hosting a forum will also be recognized on Southern Growth Policy Board’s website and in print in the Southern Growth Policy’s Board 2007 Report on the Future of the South. More importantly, your community’s input will be used in developing the policy recommendations.

For more information on this initiative, visit: http://www.southern.org/forums.

The Southern Growth Policies Board will provide you with all the materials including a moderator's guide, discussion guides for citizen participants, and evaluation questionnaires. You can preview the materials at http://www.southern.org/forums/forumdownload.shtml.

If you have an interest in this topic, and if you think it is worth organizing, I would be willing to moderate the meeting. It would be a 2 or 2.5 hour event and it would likely be held during the day. The goal would be to get 15 or more business owners/leaders and/or educators to attend and participate.

Any community would benefit from being included in the report and by having some of these issues discussed.

Send me an e-mail at burtond@missouri.edu and let me know if an organization in your community wants to proceed.

Visioning Effort in Lamar involves Extension and Drury

2007-01-04T18:05:00.000-05:00

After meeting its fundraising goals, the Lamar Community Betterment council is starting the next phase of its community visioning effort by partening with the Center for Community Studies at Drury University’s school of architecture.

University of Missouri Extension will assist in coordinating the work and supplement the community’s developing vision with related programs on entrepreneurship, sustainable development, housing development and revitalization.

Ideas gathered during recent town hall meetings are serving as a starting point. This preliminary input will be worked into vision statements for each of the 13 focus areas identified by citizens. The Drury architecture students will then consider the physical, aesthetic, social, cultural and economic factors that will shape the community’s vision for 2030.

Beginning the last week of January 2007, students will come to Lamar to tour and meet with concerned citizens, city leaders, and get a general feel for the area. Typically this includes touring specific sites, learning about the area’s history and exploring specific areas or buildings as candidates for example projects.

Drury architecture students will then develop area maps and diagrams, locating the current assets of Lamar. The students will then develop visioning concepts showing how these assets can be improved and linked to achieve the NextStep 2030 vision.

Their work will also include case studies that will report on towns and projects that have successfully accomplished some of the ideas that are being considered in the greater Lamar area.

Finally, the Drury architecture students will prepare displays, brochures and booklets for review during the Truman Days celebration in early May.

For Lamar, this work will serve as a cornerstone for updating city comprehensive plans and in developing private grant proposals. The primary goal of the project is to develop quality pieces to include in a D.R.E.A.M. Initiative application during the summer of 2007.

The Lamar Community Betterment Council and University of Missouri Extension have been key to bringing this project together. Other contributors to the project fund include John and Sharon Gulich, US Bank, the City of Lamar, and Barton County Chamber of Commerce.

The NextStep 2030 process will resume at 6 p.m., Thursday, Jan. 18, 2007, in the meeting room of the Thiebaud Auditorium. This working session will review and revise preliminary vision statements for the 13 focus areas.

For further information contact Jeff Barber with MU Extension at (417) 682-3579 or by e-mail at barberj@missouri.edu.

Restoring Trust in the News Media

2006-12-20T21:12:00.000-05:00

Over the past 10 years, study after study has found that American citizens are losing confidence in the news media.

The downward trend began in the 1980’s and gained steam in the 1990’s, long-before the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times gave the credibility of large newspapers a black eye.

Finding ways to restore the public's trust in the news media is the purpose of public issue forum materials developed by the Kettering Foundation and being delivered in southwest Missouri by University of Missouri Extension.

Free resources any individual or group can use to conduct an issue forum or study circle on “News Media and Society” can now be found at http://extension.missouri.edu/swregion/news.

A series of six news media issue forums were held in Springfield, Mo back in 2003. A total of 95 people attended and deliberated all sides of this issue before making choices and finding common ground.

It was apparent from the forum’s beginning that a majority of citizens no longer trust the news media.

Some citizens think the news media covers up real stories for the sake of owners or advertisers.

Others find liberal bias in much of what is written and said (or left out). Still others find the news sensationalized and hyped for the sole purpose of profit. Meanwhile, others say the news media is nothing but entertainment while the real hard issues of our culture get ignored.

Over 80 percent of participants agreed that irresponsible journalists are eroding public trust in the news media. The blame, however, was placed on owners, with 85 percent of participants saying the news media is "more concerned with profits than with public service."

There was also universal agreement that the “failure” of America’s news media is a serious challenge to the functioning of our democracy. However, there was some difference regarding the source of the news media’s failure and few solid solutions on how to fix it.

Only 15 percent of participants agreed with licensing journalists like lawyers and teachers.

"The ownership of too much of the media industry rests in a handful of huge companies," was agreed with by 85 percent of forum participants. There was support for public broadcasting, with 48 percent supporting more funding (although the issue of tax money being used was a concern).

There was support for making the media more accountable to the public interests, but no suggestions of how this could be accomplished without additional government involvement.

The idea of “getting citizens involved” with the news media was the most appealing to participants. However, it was not without concerns. There was agreement that citizens need to engage the news media more and take a more active role.

There was also agreement that the news media needs to do a better job of listening to the citizens of their community. In fact, 93 percent of forum participants agreed, "the local media should initiate community discussions of civic issues in their communities."

This issue of restoring the public trust is a serious one for the future of our nation's democracy. It is serious for the news media too, especially when you consider that 50 percent of participants agreed with giving the federal government power to “more strictly regulate the news media."

Bringing the public back into politics

2006-12-12T16:31:00.000-05:00

The chief problem, from the third perspective in the issue book on restoring American democracy, is neither the erosion of the nation’s moral foundation, nor its neglect of civic habits and skills. It is, rather, a serious flaw in a nation dedicated to government by the people. At a time when the country seems to be run by an oligarchy of insiders, there is a growing sense that politics is something they do—not something that involves us, and not something we the people can control.

Consequently, most Americans no longer see a role in politics for themselves. We are political consumers, not active citizens. Growing distrust of politics and politicians, and a widespread sense that the country is going in the wrong direction are symptoms of what has gone wrong. In a nation where the people are supposed to be sovereign, citizens have lost control of the government. As John W. Gardner remarks, “a prime ingredient in the citizen’s negative mood is a sense of disconnection. ‘We the people’ feel a long way from the centers of decision. It doesn’t seem like our venture any more.”

As this approach sees it, Americans did not retreat from civic life. They were shut out by elected officials more interested in poll numbers and lobbyists’ positions than in the genuine, complex thinking of citizens. There are few remaining occasions for most Americans to do what only citizens can do, which is to make judgments about what direction we should be headed and help set priorities for public action. As advocates of this perspective see it, until we fix the political system so citizens once again have a central place in it, none of the other efforts to bring the public back into the public square is likely to make a difference.

What do you have to say?

Newspapers and democracy

2006-12-07T10:00:00.000-05:00

Alexis de Tocqueville, the Frenchman who was a keen observer of American life, said some 170 years ago: "You can't have real newspapers without democracy, and you can't have democracy without newspapers."

While I am still reading the national report from the national issue forums on revitalizing democracy I am starting to see more discussion about the role of newspapers in our democracy.

One speech, the text of which is online, caught my eye: "The Role of Newspapers in Building Citizenship," by Jan Schaffer Executive Director Pew Center for Civic Journalism given in SÃ£o Paulo, Brazil on September 13, 2004.

Here are a few comments from that speech worth sharing in the context of this important public issue.

"It's no longer enough for journalists themselves to think they are doing a good job. Readers have to agree that a free press plays an essential role in our democratic society for journalists to merit their special place."

Survey after survey shows that American citizens think the linebetweenn entertainment and news has become blurred (at best).

Journalists seem to be unable to "get it right." The news media are spending more time serving elites than ordinary citizens. People tell pollsters that the media is out of touch with the public. They also say that journalism is motivated by commercial interests, which are driving sensational coverage.

What is the state of U.S. journalism now? As a business it has become very profit driven. As a product many say journalism has become something to watch instead of believe. Adding to the difficulty are problems with reporters who ask loaded questions, expect fast answers, begin stories with a mission or pre-existing belief, along with some high profile ethical problems in the profession.

Do these factors impact civic engagement in America? People are not voting, not volunteering and not participating in our democracy. Is this because of problems in the news media? Or, is the source of the problem much deeper, even spiritual?

"The Pew Trust feared that democracy was broken. And they wondered, in part, if it was because journalism was broken, too. Among the questions civic journalists asked: Were we creating a nation of spectators watching a daily civic freak show instead of a nation of citizen participants engaged in the issues and the choices that must be made in a self-governing society?"

Jan Schaffer ended with the interesting thoughts on what civic journalists wanted to see. She asked:

"Is it possible to: retain the mediaÂs watchdog role, spotlighting corruption and injustices; abandon the attack dog role that seemed to be just creating a lot of noise in a very noisy media environment; add the duties of a guide dog helping people figure out what kind of roles they could play in a democracy beyond simply casting a ballot. In other words, could you hold citizens accountable for doing their jobs as citizens, much as you would hold public officials accountable for their actions in public office?"

What do you think? Is our current state of journalism part of the problem in our democracy?

Online forums being delayed

2006-11-30T13:57:00.000-05:00

Back when this blog was first started, I wrote that the purpose was to: 1) gauge the interest in public issue forums in Missouri by blogging about forums, 2) to engage more people in the process of hosting forums and 3) to look for new ways to deliver forums.

One of the ideas had been to do forums via interactive television. That does not look like it is going to be possible. One of the biggest barriers is logistics. But, forums, by there very nature, need to involve folks who are connected with a topic in a similar way. A forum via ITV lends itself more to statewide topics or programs.

The other method I was going to pursue was having public forums via the computer. The University of Missouri has a program called Centra that allows for net meetings. As long as I was hosting the meeting then members of the public could join in. Individual users would need to download the Centra software first (a few days before the event) and register for the program several weeks ahead of time.

Just as I was beginning to try and work out some details to set up our first online forum, Microsoft introduced Internet Explorer 7.0. Home users who update their operating systems got the update automatically (I know my two computers at home got it several weeks ago). I think it is a good upgrade to the software. But, the bad news is that IE 7 does not work with the Centra software. Come to find out, neither does Moxilla or Foxfire browsers (which are growing in popularity).

The idea of doing online forums during the day was that folks could participate from work. But, as with anything dealing with computers, the process needs to be very simple for the average user to participate. Right now, the entire process of removing IE7 and downloading Centra, then using Centra, is not very simple.

So, there are more details than you wanted about why I won't be hosting forums online via Centra. There are simply too many unresolved issues and too many things that would make it hard or impossible for members of the public to participate easily.

For now, it is back to the drawing board and back to the library for forums. I'll keep you posted on upcoming dates and programs locations.

Texas Forums providing audio online

2006-11-30T13:53:00.000-05:00

Another organization hosting issue forums has joined the blogsphere.

In November, Texas Forums hosted two online events -a workshop on Civic Reflection and a discussion with the author of the report on Democracy’s Challenge: Reclaiming the Public’s Role forums.

These and other online workshops are archived on the new Opal Online Civic Engagement Archive Page! You can watch and hear the entire presentation including the slides we used (you WILL need a PC with Internet Explorer) or you can download the audio to your MP3 player and take us to your exercise class! We’ve also provided a link to the slides for your use.

This organization has moved online discussion in a positive direction. What do you think?

Is it Getting Harder to Make Ends Meet?

2006-11-20T23:14:00.000-05:00

Researchers tell us that millions of Americans are working full time and still struggling to stay economically afloat. What has come of the American Dream that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will prosper?

What can be done to ease financial problems that plague both working poor and middle class families?

Nationwide, some believe putting stress on personal responsibility is the answer.

Some say the real problem is that many people make bad personal decisions. For example, too many families give into easy credit and buy more than they can afford. Still others make their future difficult by dropping out of school, never acquiring usable skills, getting married too early or having a child while unmarried.

Folks in this camp say individuals must take responsibility for improving their own lives.

Others nationwide stress the need to improve employment opportunities for Americans.

Advocates in this camp say that although the U.S. economy is growing, millions of working Americans are falling behind. Part of the reason, they say, is that wages have not risen fast enough, while health, housing and education costs have risen too fast.

People who share this view believe government policies should be revised to ensure livable wages and adequate benefits for Americans. Another answer would be for employers to reconsider outsourcing to protect the jobs of American workers.

Nationwide, there is a third perspective on this issue that asserts a need to rethink the safety net for America’s poor.

Presently, a combination of private and government programs provide a safety net for people in economic difficulty. Many changes in America’s economy have made this safety net inadequate.

Supporters of this view advocate for the development and expansion of assistance from both private and public sources to help unemployed and poor working Americans.

What do you think?

A Report on Democracy's Challenge is Available

2006-11-16T12:25:00.000-05:00

A Report, entitled "Public Thinking about Democracy's Challenge: Reclaiming the Public's Role," is available now online HERE.

This 52-page report presents an analysis based on National Issues Forums (NIF) that were held during 2005 and 2006 using the issue discussion guide titled Democracy's Challenge: Reclaiming the Public's Role. The analysis was drawn from a sample of forums that were held in 45 states and D.C. The report methodology also included moderator interviews, observations of forums, tabulation of post-forum questionnaires, and the convening of six research forums/focus groups.

Some of the report text is a surprise to me. I plan to read it over again this weekend and then share some of the statements from the report.

In the meantime, feel free to read the report yourself or post a comment here telling us what you think our American democracy needs to be stronger.

The Way We Were

2006-11-09T11:22:00.000-05:00

These comments come from Approach 2 in the discussion guide on reinventing democracy …

Throughout the first two centuries of our history as a nation, most Americans shared common experiences and almost instinctively came together when necessary to take common action. They formed a wide variety of organizations and associations—clubs, churches, associations, neighborhood groups, unions, secret societies, and more.

Through such experiences, Harry Boyte and Sara Evans write in their book Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change, “People learned civic skills and developed a civic identity. People encountered an intergenerational mix of ages, interests, and points of view. They learned to argue artfully, to think strategically about public work, and to work together across lines of difference.”

In these places, in other words, people learned the art of citizenship.
The problem is that there are fewer public spaces today and far less engagement with one’s local community. “We do not communicate, relate or connect as a people,” writes Roberta Brendes Gratz, of the Project for Public Spaces. “And we have few public places left. Without the variety of common grounds on which a diverse people mix and mingle in an unplanned manner, the health of the commonweal is undermined.”

Across the nation, says sociologist Robert Putnam, people have disengaged from churches, unions, associations of all kinds. “We have been pulled apart from one another and from our communities over the last third of the century.”

Most people no longer have the time nor, it seems, the inclination to do what citizenship requires. Politics and public life have become, for many Americans, a spectator sport. As a result, our civic muscles have atrophied and democracy itself has weakened.

In 1995, Putnam focused the nation’s attention on its civic habits in his book Bowling Alone, which argued that America has changed from a society in which people form and join bowling leagues to a society of people who bowl alone. He pointed out that not only has voter turnout declined, but people report going to fewer public meetings, serving on fewer volunteer groups, and working less often in political campaigns.

Across the nation, Putnam said people have disengaged from churches, unions, and associations of all kinds.

What is needed to rebuild the web of civic connections? And what needs to happen to revive an active sense of citizenship?

Reviving civil society will be no easy task. In an era in which many adults struggle to balance the demands on their time, carving out time and energy to devote to civic associations is by itself no small task. But it is clear that efforts to revive civil society have to start with a conviction that the role of citizen is both demanding and rewarding, and indispensable in the life of a democratic nation.

What is needed to get Americans engaged again?

If candidates were angels

2006-11-01T22:20:00.000-05:00

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

-- James Madison

Forum Develops Shared Vision on Money and Politics

2006-10-30T17:58:00.000-05:00

Today, especially with campaigns underway, there is a widespread perception that the political thirst for cash is out of control.

The truth is, money has always been a political problem, but now so much money changes hands in politics that our suspicion is growing.

Along with political contributions, we continue to hear news about the money lobbyists spend to kill legislation or get tax breaks and favored treatment.

Large campaign contributions and high-dollar lobbying runs counter to the American belief that our entire political system must be done in the spirit of one person, one vote.

Many public surveys find that the issue of money and politics has caused the public to feel alienated from the process and that, in turn, calls into question the legitimacy of our democrat form of government.

The issue of money and politics was the topic of a public issue forum that I moderated at the public library in Republic on Sept. 23, 2005. Based on pre- and post-forum questionnaires, participants did change some of their views as a result of the forum.

For example, before the forum, 40 percent of participants said they were not sure about what should be done on this issue. After the forum, 90 percent said they had a definite opinion about what should be done.

A majority of attendees, 90 percent, agreed that “high campaign costs discourage good people from running for office.”

There was also a strong sense that “current election laws favor those who already hold office,” a statement that found support from 100 percent of participants.

The statement, “candidates depend too heavily on large campaign gifts from wealthy donors,” was also agreed with by 100 percent of participants.

At the end of the forum, 90 percent of attendees favored this statement: “Reduce the power of special interest by using public funds to finance elections even if that would cost taxpayers more money.”

This statement, “Curb the power of lobbyists for special interests even if that means reducing the power of interest groups that speak for you,” was favored by 100 percent of attendees, including an active member of AARP who attended the forum.

2006-10-26T09:55:00.000-04:00

Two more submissions from readers that bear repeating for the purpose of further discussion. In regard to democracy having a moral foundation, this from an unknown reader:

No one said it better than John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."

Then, this regarding the need for a moral foundation to our society and democracy, also submitted by an unnamed reader:

Every society has two choices: whether ir wants to be ruled by an authoritarian ruler or whether there can be a set of shared values and certain things we hold in common that give us the philosophical underpinnings of our value system in our life.

Without that value system a society cannot exist.

The reason we have the most terrible crime problem in the word in America today is simple: we've lost our moral consensus. We are people living for ourselves.

What are your thoughts and comments?

Can ethics be democratic?

2006-10-24T14:39:00.000-04:00

Another unnamed blogger posted this comment last week. I think it deserves to be shared with the entire readership.

Ethics is not, cannot be, democractic. Ethics by its very definition is authoritarian. Ethical standards do not change. Morals change all of the time. So, with shifting morals, if 90 percent of the people say that it is all right to do this, then that must be perfectly all right to do because 90 percent of the people say it is. It is a very democratic nation.

Ethics, by contrast, are set in stone.

Any thoughts or comments as they related to discussion should be posted here.

Are American's self obsessed?

2006-10-24T14:36:00.000-04:00

I've received many interesting posts to this blog over the last few weeks. Several of them, I think, bear repeating here in order to foster further discussion.

This one from an unnamed blogger:

Reinventing citizenship? You are missing the point I think.

Sociologist Robert Bellah wrote a book titled "Habits of the Heart" Bellah examined the values of several hundred average, middle-class Americans. He came to the conclusion that the reigning ethos in American life in the 1980s was what he called "ontological individualism." This is a radical individualism where the individual is supreme and autonomous and lives for himself or herself. He found that Americans had two overriding goals: vivid personal feelings and personal success.

Bellah tired to find out what people expected from the institutions of society. From business they expected personal advancement. Okay, that’s fair enough. From marriage, the wanted personal development. No wonder marriages are in trouble. And from church, personal fulfillment! Unfortunately, the personal became the dominate consideration.

This self obsession destroys character and without citizens with character, our democracy is doomed!

What do you think? Please share your comments here.

Approach two: Reinventing Citizenship, part II

2006-10-17T17:31:00.000-04:00

Reinventing citizenship

The underlying problem isn’t erosion of the values on which democracy relies, but rather the loss of civic habits and skills. As advocates of this approach see it, democracy consists primarily of common experiences and civic practices, which take place most of the time in local groups and associations—the YMCA, the Rotary Club, Boy Scouts, church groups, charity organizations, and groups that form spontaneously to address community problems.

It’s essential, say advocates of this second approach, to recognize the key role played by these small, less formal organizations and associations that are closer to home. By participating in these local associations, most Americans gained an apprenticeship in public life.

Citizenship refers not to abstract membership in some group but to practical, repeated involvement in public problem solving. It is not something that we are, or that we have, but something that we do. It presumes a set of common experiences, the recognition of common interests, and the willingness to search for common ground.

It refers, most of all, to certain skills that are essential in identifying public problems and deciding what to do about them.

From the perspective of this second approach, the most troubling symptom of our public problems and the main reason we are unable to solve pressing problems is that the fabric of local associations has been unraveling and citizenship itself has lost its meaning.

As Frances Moore Lappe and Paul Martin DuBois, founders of the Center for Living Democracy, observe, “When we chisel through to the single largest barrier blocking solutions to the multitude of issues facing us, what we find is the impoverished problem-solving capacity of our people. None of our society’s most daunting problems—from poverty to the environment, from racism to crime—can be addressed from the top down.”

The public square has emptied, in other words, because many Americans aren’t making the civic connections that form the habits and sharpen the skills of citizenship.

What are your thoughts?

America's social circles are shrinking

2006-10-12T16:18:00.000-04:00

Perhaps this is part of the reason that our democracy needs to be revitalized? A recent study published in American Sociology Review, says in 1985 the average American had three people in his/her closest intimate circles.

Now, nearly 20 years later, that number has dropped to two. In 2004, one in four said they have no close confidants at all, compared with one in 10 in 1985.

Basically, Americans have one-third fewer close friends and confidants than just two decades ago and the number of people who have none has more than doubled -- another sign we may be living lonelier lives.

Studies have linked isolation and loneliness to mental and physical illnesses. Not to mention the fact that it runs counter to what is needed for an active democracy and citizenry.

The percentage of people, according to this same study, who confided only in family increased from 57 percent to 80 percent.

The number of Americans who depend totally on a spouse is up from 5 percent to 9 percent.

What are your thoughts?

Blogs add to decline of our democracy?

2006-10-10T14:12:00.000-04:00

Blogs seem like a good way to get citizens talking but is posting information online the same as talking face to face? Not really. Readers don't respond to this blog in the same way they respond to each other during a forum, that is for sure. And many readers seem to think this type of "distant" discussion is bad for the country.

Reader this comment posted last week:

I've tried to have discussions on this topic but people are so divided. If you don't agree with them then forget it. There seems to be a continual struggle for power instead of a continual struggle to make America better. I think the news media contributes to this some. Talk shows like Oprah contribute to the problem and so do, frankly, many blogs.

What are your throughts?

Another view on democracy from an editor

2006-10-06T12:18:00.000-04:00

We will get back to Approach Two after learning more about a forum in Iowa on this same topic.

An article by Carol Hunter about a National Issues Forum (NIF) held at the Des Moines Central Library in Des Moines, Iowa, was published at DesMoinesRegister.com on July 30, 2006. The article describes a public deliberative forum that was held earlier in July using the NIF issue discussion guide Democracy's Challenge: Reclaiming the Public's Role. About 60 people participated in the forum that was convened by Iowa Partners in Learning.

Here is what Carol Hunter had to say ...

Hunter: Increase citizen involvement by fostering thoughtful dialogue
CAROL HUNTER
REGISTER EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

A sunny Saturday morning two weekends ago beckoned young and old alike to come outside to play.

Yet about 60 Iowans volunteered to spend their time in a meeting room inside the Des Moines Central Library, lured by a higher purpose: reinvigorating our democracy.

The event was a forum conducted by Iowa Partners in Learning, a member of the National Issues Forums Institute's network. Participants discussed the proposition that frustration with gridlock and partisanship have prompted many Americans to tune out on public life. That trend is seen in everything from low voter participation to lack of interest in running for school boards or city councils.

The format followed by National Issues Forums is to give participants reading material that lays out an issue in an even-handed, nonpartisan way and outlines multiple ways to approach it. At the Des Moines forum, participants discussed three broad approaches to reclaiming the public's role in democracy: rebuilding democracy's moral foundation; re-forming the web of citizen connections in clubs, religious groups and local associations; and increasing the public's role versus powerful special interests by measures such as campaign-finance reform. Specific steps were recommended to further each approach. Groups of eight to 10 people discussed the merits and drawbacks of each.

The rub came with the specifics. In discussing the approach emphasizing democracy's moral foundation, participants in the group I observed balked at a recommendation to tighten divorce laws. But several liked a recommendation to integrate character education into school curriculums. Others, however, were skeptical: "Not sure common values can be agreed upon," one participant wrote afterward.

Too often at public gatherings today, elected representatives and members of the public alike seem mostly interested in speaking their minds, and much less interested in listening as others speak theirs. Framing the discussion around varied approaches forces participants to think through the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives.

"People came in with some very passionate ideas," said participant David Johns, coordinator for the humanities curriculum at Des Moines schools. But the process of working through the three approaches "helps people focus their position."

Making progress on complex issues is "about meeting people halfway sometimes," he said, or perhaps about starting with agreement on "a subset of ideas." Participants in his group approached the day's issue from varied perspectives, but found common ground in believing that people should seek out different perspectives in different media.

Johns is exploring the idea of using the National Issues Forums format in high school courses such as social studies. Teachers could collaborate to research and write up varied approaches to issues important to students, such as the minimum wage, teen driving restrictions or the draft, and then guide students through discussing them.

There's a possibility the format could make its way into class discussions at Drake University, too. Part of Drake's mission statement is to prepare students for "responsible global citizenship."

Participant Lon Larson, a Drake pharmacy professor who teaches courses in health policy, found that conferring on three sometimes overlapping approaches, each with potentially beneficial elements, "leads to a much more nuanced discussion. It can be an excellent way to get at the complexities of the issues."

He foresees the potential for faculty to use the format in efforts to help students become more engaged citizens.

It's a concept worth considering by school boards, city councils and other bodies, too. Participants clearly thought their voices weren't being heard, even on the local level. Several participants complained that their congressman's "listening sessions" have turned into speeches about what he's doing, and the public's comments seem to go nowhere. And they believe school board members, councilmen and legislators have their minds made up before getting constituents' input at public hearings.

Why not foster thoughtful public discussion of thorny issues such as city budget priorities or property-tax reform before motions are drawn up or bills drafted? Our communities and our democracy would be stronger for it.

So if everyone loves the concept, why are more groups not doing it? In five years I've never gotten a newspaper interested in sponsoring a forum but I suspect that may have more to do with shrinking staffs than anything else. What do you think?

A reader responds: What is citizenship

2006-10-03T11:47:00.000-04:00

Approach One of the "revitalizing democracy" discussion had only a few comments in the course of two weeks. But already, Approach two has gotten several comments and we are not even into the meat of the topic. This post today, submitted by an unknown reader, I thought would be useful to throw out for more general discussion.

Here is is:

Money and power is what politics and citizenship has become all about.

Politicians will do anything to retain power and money (for themselves or the party). It is all about self-interests.

Interestingly, most American citizens are no different. Citizens will vote for anything if it benefits them individually. That is why senior citizens vote against school taxes (won't help them) but push for increased social security payments and prescription coverage even though both of them are huge expenditures.

We criticize our government for not thinking ahead but most Americans are not better. We vote and act based on short term gains instead of long-term impact.

Citizenship is more than just showing up to vote. Citizenship has to involve understanding the need to "establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty."

None of these things say the work has to be done by the government and none of items require us to make money or gain power as individuals.

What is best for the entire society and culture? That is the question of citizenship and many American's can no longer answer it because they are solely focused on self.

What say you?

Approach two: Reinventing citizenship

2006-09-29T11:43:00.000-04:00

What is referred to as "Approach two" in the discussion guide for revitalizing democracy focuses on reinventing citizenship through a web of connections.

Here is a short discription: "Democracy requires the ability to work together on common concerns—civic skills that most people learn in clubs, church groups, and local associations. The public square is emptying because many Americans aren’t making the civic connections that form the habits and sharpen the skills of citizenship."

Have you had an experience that fits with this approach? Or perhaps you know of a club or group that is making and forming these connections? If so, please share.

What are others saying about impact of moral decline?

2006-09-25T11:45:00.000-04:00

Here are a few of things others are saying about “approach one” to revitalizing democracy. Read over the ideas and then share your thoughts.

Public actions favored by Approach One

• Schools should integrate character education into the curriculum.

• Various measures should be taken to reinforce the message that marriage is not something easily entered into or quickly dissolved. Divorce laws should be tightened and premarital counseling should be readily available.

• Reward marriage and discourage childbirth outside of marriage by ending the “marriage penalty” in the tax code and taking other measures.

• Television networks should agree to a code of content that reinforces social responsibility rather than undermining it. The Federal Communications Commission should use its power to regulate use of the airways in the public interest by minimizing toxic messages and reinforcing socially responsible values.

• To underline the importance of public responsibility, public service should be required of all young people.

What others are saying about/against Approach One

• The sky is not falling. Americans are no less moral today than in the past. The erosion of public life has many causes.

• Most Americans don’t want to legislate morality. They reject black-and-white depictions of how people should behave, and they reject the view that America is morally bankrupt.

• Separation of church and state is a fundamental American principle, not to be abandoned lightly. Moreover, some of the values taught in religious institutions are incompatible with democratic life.

• The United States continues to be one of the most religiously observant countries in the world.

• The real source of our public troubles lies elsewhere. Among the root causes is the erosion of civic associations.

Remember, the questionnaire for the “Revitalizing Democracy” forum is now online. After reading the blog and submitting comments (to foster further discussion) please take the online questionnaire. Click here to take survey.

What do you like, or dislike, about this stated position so far?

A Final Indication of moral decline?

2006-09-21T15:59:00.000-04:00

A final indication of moral decline, say advocates of this approach, is that the value of sacrifice is conspicuous by its absence. Self-restraint, once considered an honorable character trait, is widely considered quaint and unnecessary. The dominant cultural lesson—reinforced by an endless stream of media messages—seems to be: Grab all you can. Why wait? Make your own rules. Don’t worry about the next generation.

To advocates of this first perspective on what has gone wrong with America’s public life, these developments are different facets of a single, fundamental problem: the erosion of the moral foundation on which public life in a democratic society depends. Many have begun looking for ways to restore these foundational values to the place they deserve. Choosing to take seriously the values on which democracies depend will require a series of changes in family life, in the schools, in the messages featured in American culture, in our preference for favoring individual rights over collective responsibilities.

You can read rest of Approach One in the (Democracy discussion guide) online.

Remember, the questionnaire for the “Revitalizing Democracy” forum is now online. After reading the content of this blog and submitting comments (to foster further discussion) please take the online questionnaire. Click here to take survey.

What do you like, or dislike, about this stated position so far?

Answer online questionaire about Revitalizing Democracy

2006-09-15T14:54:00.001-04:00

The forum questionaire for the Revitalizing Democracy forum is now online. After reading the content of this blog and submitting comments (to foster further discussion) please take the online questionaire found at Click here to take survey.

A call to Civil Society?

2006-09-15T14:54:00.000-04:00

In a democratic nation, the connection between moral foundations and civic health is immediate and inescapable. “America’s civic institutions are declining,” the nonpartisan Council on Civil Society pointed out in a recent report entitled A Call to Civil Society: Why America Needs Moral Truths. That is “because the moral ideas that fueled and formed them are losing their power—the power to shape our behavior, to unite us as one people in pursuit of common ideals. Too many Americans view morality as a threat to freedom, rather than its essential guarantor.”

In the name of personal freedom and respect for diversity, the family—which has long been the first and most important place where values are learned—is under assault. “The family is the cradle of citizenship,” as the report A Call to Civil Society puts it. “It is in the family that a child first learns, or fails to learn, the essential qualities necessary for governing the self: honesty, trust, loyalty, cooperation, self-restraint, civility, compassion, personal responsibility, and respect for others. . . . Families can teach standards of personal conduct that cannot be enforced by law, but which are indispensable traits for democratic civil society.” Along with families, schools have traditionally played a crucial role in teaching and reinforcing our shared moral heritage. For all the attention devoted to teaching children about respecting individual rights and honoring diversity, one report after another has noted the neglect of civic education that teaches the values of democratic life and its corresponding obligations and responsibilities.

Just as the erosion of family life and neglect of civic values in the schools have undermined the moral foundation, so too, say advocates of this choice, has the marginalization of religious institutions. The repeated message, in the words of the Council on Civil Society, is that we should be “a society sanitized of public religious influence.” The virtues promulgated by religious institutions—tolerance, compassion, and the importance of conscience, to name a few—are essential to democratic society.

You and read rest of Approach One (in the Democracy discussion guide) online.

What do you like, or dislike, about this stated position so far?

Rebuilding the moral curriculum

2006-09-12T22:03:00.000-04:00

WORK. FAITH. COMPASSION. Responsibility. Sacrifice. These are some of the values Americans have traditionally honored, values that are essential to a robust democracy. They provide the moral foundation that gives America its strength. For most of the nation’s first two centuries, these moral qualities were an integral part of the cultural curriculum. They were taught in the family and the schools and reinforced in places of worship.

But, as advocates of Approach One (in the Democracy discussion guide) see it, that foundation has weakened because the moral curriculum has been neglected. Families, schools, and places of worship no longer instill or reinforce the values that are essential to democratic life and self-government. The erosion of our moral foundation is a key cause of our public troubles.

As a nation, we have become self-indulgent and self-absorbed, inclined to accept neither hard choices nor sacrifice in the interest of future generations and their welfare. Civic obligations such as voting, jury duty, and military service are routinely avoided. As individuals, and as a society, we use natural resources with little regard for the future.

“The more serious problems of American democracy,” writes Don Eberly in The Soul of
Civil Society, “have to do with the erosion of democratic character and habit. A society in which men and women are morally adrift and intent chiefly on gratifying their appetites will be a disordered society no matter how many people vote.”

What do you like, or dislike, about this stated position so far? Do you think this perspective is accurate so far? What are some drawbacks?

Is our democracy in decline?

2006-09-06T17:17:00.000-04:00

Do a google search for "is our democracy in decline" and you get 15.9 million hits.

It is a topic of great discussion among bloggers and media types. Special interest groups seem to be chirping about the topic too. But what about the common American citizen? Do they think our democracy is in decline? If Americans do think it is in decline, they are not acting with any type of urgency about fixing the problem. Heck, voter turnout of 10% does not suggest to me a high interest in our democracy?

What can be done? I know this much, there is not a magic bullet or easy solution. I've had some calls from groups to come and speak about this issue and public issue forum available on the topic of revitalizing democracy. The funny thing is that everyone seems to want a speech that is 20 or 30 minutes long and comes with a solution.

I don't have a solution. Do you?

I'm guessing that the answer comes one person and one community at a time. Have you started a discussion about democracy in your community? If so, let me know about it.

Free Materials for Discussion of Important Community Issues

2006-09-06T17:13:00.000-04:00

A healthy democracy is one where citizens take an active role in governing.

But to take an active role, citizens must be able to have civil discourse about issues important to the democracy.

Americans have forgotten how to discuss topics, and develop solutions, without thinking there is a winner and a loser. The format of public issue forums let participants address important topics and find common ground for a solution in a positive and peaceful manner.

I’ve done public issue forums for invitation only groups, for clubs and organizations, for city groups and for the public at-large. Forums can be productive in any of those settings if attendees are willing to prepare ahead of time and be able to deliberate and listen to each other during the two-hour process.

University of Missouri Extension has specialists involved in hosting and moderating public issue forums on a variety of local and national topics. MU Extension also provides training for persons wanting to moderate public issue forums on their own.

You don’t have to be an expert to be a moderator. Many moderator guides are available from your local Extension center for free and those booklets provide everything you need to host a forum or study circle in your neighbor, at your local library or even at church.

Some of the most popular issue forums with materials currently available online (or through your local MU Extension office) include: "Democracy's Challenge: Reclaiming the Public's Role," “The Social Security Struggle,” “Making Ends Meet,” “News Media and Society,” “Land Use Conflicts: When County and City Clash” and “Should We Ban Fireworks?”

A complete list of available guides for public issue forums, as well as the materials needed for various forums, is available HERE.

Fixing Social Security - deliberation in review

2006-09-06T16:43:00.000-04:00

Fixing Social Security means some people will get short-changed for the good of the program.

At least, that was the perspective of most participants at a public issues forum I hosted by University of Missouri Extension in early 2006.

The forum was aimed at deliberating Social Security, whether or not it needs to be fixed and some possible ways to fix it.

Participants (even those approaching retirement) agreed with reducing Social Security benefits by eliminating the $250 funeral benefit, slowing annual "cost-of-living increases and removing the $90,000 ceiling on payroll taxes.

A majority of attendees also agreed with lowering benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees, requiring Americans to work longer before becoming eligible for Social Security benefits and reducing the number of non-retirement related programs Social Security funds.

The group also thought it was important to revisit the purpose of Social Security. President Roosevelt said it should be one leg of a three-legged stool (pension, savings and Social Security) instead of what it has become – the only source of retirement for many.

The first approach deliberated dealt with personal accounts, which, the group opposed. Too many questions and concerns, the greatest of which was serious doubt that Americans would be able to manage personal accounts.

Approach two of the deliberation emphasized the promise that has been made to working Americans and retires. The group agreed Social Security needs to be kept viable although no one thought the promise could be maintained at its current level.

In the post meeting survey, 90 percent of participants agreed with this statement: "We need to make drastic changes to save Social Security from bankruptcy." Sixty percent of participants agreed with this statement: "We should scale back Social Security to encourage people to take more responsibility for their financial future."

Revising Social Security for a new generation was considered in approach number three.
Participants felt like we need to begin the process of rewriting Social Security now but not implement new rules on people over age 55.

In the post meeting survey, 80 percent of participants agreed with this statement: "We should slightly reduce Social Security benefits for middle- and upper-income retirees to guarantee benefits for those who need them most."

What attendees at this meeting said loud and clear is that Social Security needs an overhaul that ignores partisan politics and instead focuses on making sure the program remains solvent without increasing payroll taxes.

Notes from the Nov. 3 forum are online at http://extension.missouri.edu/swregion/news.

Is the public no longer needed?

2006-09-01T07:53:00.000-04:00

One side of the deliberation about democracy says we Americans have entered into an age of politics that no longer needs a public. In fact, some say being a citizen has become a role with little substance.

If you would like to explore this idea, as well as ways for getting citizens more involved, please request a copy of the "Revitalizing Democracy" discussion guide materials from me.

Otherwise, you tell me, what is left for a citizen to do? What is the answer?

Findings about Deliberation

2006-08-31T21:02:00.000-04:00

For 25 years, the Kettering Foundation in Dayton, Ohio, USA, has been studying public deliberation. Over the past ten years, a score of studies, conducted with a variety of research methods, found that public deliberation makes a difference. Here are some of the highlights:

• Those who take part in deliberations come from every part of society.

• Virtually everyone is capable of deliberating about important public issues. Educational level, for example, is not a barrier.

• Participants reconsider their own opinions and judgments.

• People consider the views of others and develop a greater understanding of those viewpoints.

• Participants approach issues more realistically and are willing to consider costs, consequences, and trade-offs.

• People define their self-interests more broadly.

• Deliberation leads many to feel a greater sense of confidence in what they can do politically. That is, people become more inclined to see themselves as political actors capable of making a difference.

• Participants become more interested in political and social issues.

• Deliberation in a community enhances communication among groups.

Make an "Informed Decision"

2006-08-28T14:06:00.000-04:00

Thanks to former Springfield-Greene County Library District board member Teresa Bledsoe for letting me know about this great online resource. Called "The Informed Decision," this website offers online resources related to the hottest topics of discussion in Springfield and Greene County.

Current topics with links to resources on each topic include: eminent domain, red light cameras, prohibition of pit bull dogs and minors in bars.

Is an online resource like "The Informed Decision" useful?

Simarily, many of the public issue forum discussion guides are available online. These guides provide unbiased pro and con information on various issues. My experience with hosting forums has found that few people actually read the guides. However, if they would it would enhance deliberation and help groups better understand issues and the common ground that exists.

The same might be said about "The Informed Decision" website. Great resources and a great tool, but will anyone bother to read it?

Three perspectives on how to fix democracy

2006-08-27T22:56:00.000-04:00

While there is no widespread agreement on how this rekindling can be done, “Democracy’s Challenge” provides a framework for a discussion of the possibilities. It presents three perspectives on the problem, each of which suggests a somewhat different course of action:

The first perspective, “Democratic Values: Rebuilding democracy’s moral foundation,” suggests that as a nation, we have become self-indulgent and self absorbed, inclined to accept neither hard choices nor sacrifice. The emphasis on individual rights and personal freedom has undermined democracy. In recent decades, the moral curriculum has been neglected; this is a key element in our public troubles.

The second perspective, “Web of Connections: Reinventing Citizenship,” says democracy requires the ability to work together on common concerns that most people learn in clubs, church groups and local associations. The public square is emptying because many Americans aren’t making the civic connections that form the habits and sharpen the skills of citizenship.

The third perspective, “By the People: Bringing the Public Back into Politics,” says government is no longer “of, by and for the people.” Governance is something politicians do, not something that involves citizens. In a democratic nation where the people are supposed to be sovereign, citizens have lost control of the government. The political system has to be fixed so citizens once again have a central place in it.

To download free materials for conducting an issue forum or group study using “Democracy’s Challenge,” visit http://extension.missouri.edu/swregion/Publicissues/issueforums.shtml.

This blog gets national attention

2006-08-24T22:44:00.000-04:00

Patty Dineen, who writes for and works with National Issues Forums, let me know today that this blog is being featured as a news item on the NIFI website. I met Patty about 8 months ago when she came to Springfield and helped to conduct an excellent training about conducting deliberation.

Here is part of what the story says:
There is a new blog online that is focusing on topics related to public issue forums. David Burton of Springfield, Missouri started the blog called the Public Issue Forums of Southwest Missouri. Burton launched the blog on August 15, 2006, with a posting titled "Just the Facts About Public Issue Forums." The blog also includes links to discussion guides materials and other related sites.

Keep watching this space for announcements about future forums as well as information about some forums coming up that may be delivered in some unique ways.

Do we argue just for the sake of disagreeing?

2006-08-24T22:32:00.000-04:00

In her essay "The Problem of Moral Disagreement and the Necessity of Democratic Politics," Noelle McAfee warns about political disagreements that run so deep that there is no need to argue. She asks if that is where American democracy is going. If so, deliberation can help.

Deliberative democracy can only get off the ground if there is something uncertain and contested that we as a community need to decide but also only if there are limits to uncertainty and contestedness. It also only gets off the ground if we are included to take part.
I've conducted over 30 public issue forums. They have varied in size and success but one thing remains constant: people attend forums because they are worried about what is happening regarding a certain topic.

A forum on Social Security attracted retirees. A forum on fireworks attracted 60 people from one community. What about forums on revitalizing democracy. So far, attendees seem to want an answer that can be given in 30 minutes.

The fact is, deliberation can be a real success when people with real concerns about their community come to the table ready and willing to participate. McAfee happens to agree.

Moreover, only a small portion of deliberation follows the course of rational argument and the give and take of reasons. For the most part it proceeds with people explaining how they came to have the views they have and what their experiences are that shaped their sense of the world. In the course of these conversations, participants change their views of other's views. They enlarge their understanding of problems and begin to appreciate the complexity of how issues affect other members of the community. Sometimes, instead of reaching agreement, participants leave saying that they are more uncertain than ever.

The salient feature of these deliberations is not a search for agreement; rather it is a sensitivity to others. Afterall, politics is about relationships.

What do you think?

Why is Voter Turnout Higher in Polk & Webster County?

2006-08-23T11:59:00.000-04:00

What is going on in Polk and Webster County?

Voter turnout in both counties far exceeded neighboring counties during the August primary.

In Greene County, we had about 15% turnout for the primary election in August 2006, which also included a countywide sales tax increase.

This bit of news comes from Dave Berry at the Bolivar Herald Free-Press:

Last week I called attention to the civility of Polk County elections and campaign ads when compared to those in other counties. Well, I need to back up and give Webster County its due for the effectiveness of its election robustness.

They do spend a lot more for campaigns there, and it's difficult to argue with their results. The Aug. 8 voter turnout in Webster County was nearly 40 percent of registered voters, compared to a little more than 23 percent here.

It does pay to advertise.

* * * * *

A 40-percent turnout is outstanding among current American voting standards. However, there are those who will say we should be ashamed to see that as a good result.

Frankly, I'm not ashamed. I'll gladly rejoice over 40 well-informed voters out of a group of 100 registered voters making decisions on leadership and tax issues.

Our better interest as citizens is in better hands even if only 20 percent show up, as long it's the right 20 percent.

And by that I don't mean you have to agree with my positions in order to be among the "right" 20 percent. I don't mind voters of the opposite ilk, as long as they go to the polls knowing - before they get there - what and/or who is on the ballot.

Could it be that negative advertising is driving voters away from the polls? Is there something special going on in Bolivar when it comes to public issues? No doubt, Bolivar is a healthy community with a fine newspaper. Perhaps communication is the key? Of course, with a university there perhaps having an educated population is part of the answer?

What do you think? Why the high numbers in Polk County? What can be done to see an increase in other counties? The answers are all part of revitalizing democracy.

Sounding retreat on democracy

2006-08-21T15:57:00.000-04:00

While most Americans are still proud of living in a country that is governed by and for the people, many of them are no longer sure that Abraham Lincoln’s vision of a democracy has withstood the test of time.

They have become increasingly dissatisfied with the democratic process and increasingly disillusioned with politicians who appear disinterested in what they have to say.

Too many Americans today have retreated from the public places, meetings, and associations at which they traditionally met to say what they thought and do what needed to be done to improve their communities and their nation.

To download free materials for conducting an issue forum or group study using “Democracy’s Challenge,” visit http://extension.missouri.edu/swregion/Publicissues/issueforums.shtml.

This forum study guide is about what citizens can do. It suggests that citizens themselves can and should provide the motivating power that will rekindle the vibrant relationship a democracy demands between the government and its people.

Is Democracy Dying?

2006-08-21T15:53:00.000-04:00

Is Democracy Dying? I posed that question to www.google.com and got back 12,100,000 responses with the same phrase. Folks are using this phrase in blogs, news stories, research papers -- everywhere. Red states, blue states, right, left and in the middle, all types of Americans seem concerned about the future of American democracy.

Research shows many Americans are turning away from public life, becoming spectators rather than participants in democracy. Increasingly, people say they are frustrated with politics and the seemingly insurmountable partisan divide.

Those involved in National Issues Forums (NIF) are committed to changing this trend by bringing people’s voices back into politics by involving citizens in deliberation and decision-making on local, national and global issues.

Most NIF issue books focus on a specific public issue. People learn about deliberation and think about democracy as they work through issues that are important to them.

This year, NIF is presenting an issue book entitled, "Democracy's Challenge: Reclaiming the Public's Role," which tackles the obstacles and issues people face in a democracy that appears to have nudged its citizens onto the sidelines.

The forum on democracy encourages citizens to think about what they can do to strengthen the relationship a democracy demands between the government and its people.

To download free materials for conducting an issue forum or group study using “Democracy’s Challenge,” visit http://extension.missouri.edu/swregion/Publicissues/issueforums.shtml.

What is there for a citizen to do?

2006-08-17T14:56:00.000-04:00

Matthew Crenson and Benjamin Ginsberg, in their book "Downsizing Democracy," write that "contemporary elites have found that they need not engage in the arduous task of building popular constituencies. Public interest groups and environmental groups have large mailing lists but few active members; civil rights groups field more attorneys than protestors; and national political parties activate a familiar few rather than risk mobilizing anonymous millions."

According to Crenson and Ginsberg, the outcome is that we have become "a nation of emphatically private citizens -- customers and clients who find it difficult to express coherent common interests."

One side of the deliberation about democracy says we Americans have entered into an age of politics that no longer needs a public. In fact, some say being a citizen has become a role with little substance. What is left for a citizen to do? What is the answer?

Keith Melville, a senior faculty member at the Fielding Graduate University, says "to revive public life, we need to devise new ways -- or revive old ways -- for citizens to join together around common concerns to regain a sense of colletive agency."

Many say we have become a nation of private citizens. What can be done?

Do we expect too little from citizens?

2006-08-16T22:49:00.000-04:00

"DEMOCRACY’S CHALLENGE: Reclaiming the Public's Role" is the current public issue forum dealing with the issue of democracy. The booklet and materials placed online are great and can be used to foster group deliberations.

Here is one thought from that issue book worth pondering. Keith Melville writes about the central question to democracy that is discussed in the book, "Downsizing Democracy: How America Sidelined its Citizens and Privatized its Public." He writes, "it is one of the most practical questions you could ask about democratic governance. What, exactly, are citizens expected to do? Beyong voting and paying taxes, what is their public role and what are their responsiblities? It is not that most people today are disinclined to act in the public interest but rather that they are no longer asked to do much."

So what do you think? Do we expect too little from our citizens?

What is Deliberation and Have You Done It?

2006-08-16T07:28:00.000-04:00

The National Issues Forums (NIF) is a network of organizations joined by a common desire to discuss critical issues. Local issue forums offer the space to deliberate about public issues. Deliberation, rather than debate, lets us talk about concerns, weigh drawbacks and tradeoffs, and find a shared sense of direction before making decisions. This is a skill that is disappearing from American democracy and the community suffers as a result. Forums (which take about 2-hours) are is designed to help citizens examine the issues that surround a topic, become more informed about the larger issues that impact a topic and also learn how to participate locally to address the issue. Have you participated in a forum before? What was the result?

Just the Facts About Public Issue Forums

2006-08-15T23:40:00.000-04:00

There are three main Public Issue Forum topics this blog will focus on. Various content from the forums will be shared and readers will be able to deliberate online.

Most importantly, each of these forums have online moderator's guides, questionaires and other material available online (for free) that can be used to host large or small group forums or discussions.

You can learn more about these forum topics, and download the available material, online at http://extension.missouri.edu/swregion/Publicissues/issueforums.shtml.

DEMOCRACY’S CHALLENGE: Reclaiming the Public's Role
Most of us have become spectators instead of participants in the political process. What has gone wrong, and what should we do about it?

NEWS MEDIA AND SOCIETY: HOW TO RESTORE THE PUBIC TRUST?
Everything you need to host your own forum or study circle on this topic.

SHOULD WE BAN FIREWORKS?
A discussion guide for a public issues forum entitled, "Should We Ban Fireworks?" is available online. You can also read notes from previous forums on this same topic.

As this blog develops it will include Q&As and public issue forum content.