In a recent blog post, Peter Levine makes an interesting point about the importance of the “core principle of an administration.” He points out that:

“the most important question about presidential candidates is not what kind of people they seem to be or what they promise to do if elected, but rather how they view the relationship between individuals and the government.”

He goes on to say:

“Obama’s core idea is that citizens are at the center of politics. Not private individuals, not the government, not politicians, but people working together in public, on public matters.”

My professional interest in the relationship between individuals and government is largely tied to the role of technology in putting citizens “at the center of politics.” Wondering what Obama might have said during the campaign about the role of technology to engage citizens, I did a quick internet search that turned up an interesting article from almost a year ago, “Obama’s Plan for Open-Source Democracy.” The article references an interesting position paper from the Obama campaign on “Technology and Innovation.”

I was most intrigued by section two of the paper, “Create a Transparent and Connected Democracy.” In this section of the paper, the campaign promises that Obama will integrate citizens into the actual business of government, by (among other things):

“Making government data available online in universally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data to comment, derive value, and take action in their own communities.”

“Establishing pilot programs to open up government decision-making and involve the public in the work of agencies, not simply by soliciting opinions, but by tapping into the vast and distributed expertise of the American citizenry to help government make more informed decisions.”

“Giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days before signing any non-emergency legislation.”

“Employing technologies, including blogs, wikis and social networking tools, to modernize internal, cross-agency, and public communication and information sharing to improve government decision-making.”

And my favorite:

“Bringing democracy and policy deliberations directly to the people by requiring his Cabinet officials to have periodic national online town hall meetings to answer questions and discuss issues before their agencies.”

This is all very exciting for me and I look forward to seeing how this plays out in reality. While some of it is fairly benign stuff, the promise to allow the public to comment on legislation at the White House website, is very specific and significant, as is the notion that cabinet officials would be REQUIRED to have periodic national town hall meetings.

We know that none of this is as easy to impliment as it sounds on paper, but I also think that this is all possible and if done correctly will go a long ways towards putting citizens at the center of politics.

“Change” is the buzzword in the United States and possibly around the world, as we all digest the results of last weeks presidential election. Change is also the buzzword in my own head, as I continue through a period of personal transition and reflect on what “comes next” for me. In some ways, I’m a little disappointed that I’m not currently positioned to jump on the “change” bandwagon and leverage the current enthusiasm for civic engagement and channel it into one of my projects. On the other hand, this current wave of civic excitement suggests many opportunities, for someone like myself, that is not already overburdened with existing responsibilities.

The kind of political change that has been promised to the American people and the world is a very elusive target and will be difficult to achieve without the hard work and support of many individuals, non-profits, and community groups - working independently, but in support of our political leadership. Despite the economic difficulties facing our nation, I am like so many others who are buoyed by optimism and an overall sense of opportunity.

I believe that we are currently living in a moment that contains the seeds of social and political transformation. However, I’ve have no confidence in any single politician or administration to direct or lead that kind of change. The only chance that president-elect Obama has of meeting the expectations that the world has for him, is if he is able to inspire and then help channel the dispersed energy of millions of  individuals willing to commit themselves to real change in their nation, neighborhoods, and personal lives.

I recognize the opportunities that lay before us as a nation, as well as those that lay before me as an individual. What has yet to be determined is whether or not we have the courage and determination to seize upon those opportunities and achieve our personal and collective potential.

My very first experiences in politics and civic engagement, during my final years of high school, were through my participation in an organization called Frontlash. One of the primary goals of Frontlash, was to encourage young people to get involved in politics and get them out to vote. I became the (volunteer) High School coordinator for St. Paul Frontlash, with my very own desk in the offices of the St. Paul Trades and Labor Assembly. The summer after I graduated from high school, I received an internship in Washington DC, during which I contacted all fifty Secretary of State offices, to collect information for a guidebook on the various voter registraion laws and procedures across our country.

Today, my work still centers on encouraging people to take an active role in politics and local decision making. But, through my e-democracy and deliberative democracy work, I’ve adopted a more comprehensive view of civic engagement, in which voting is only the entry point towards an active and fulfilling civic life.

YET, we cannot and should not ever dismiss the importance of voting as an entree point into the many deeper opportunities for individuals to help shape their communities and our country. It is often during the act of voting, that individuals begin to recognize the very personal responsibility that they have in the civic life of our nation.

Thanks to my friend Anthony, I recently came across an organization called Why Tuesday? that claims to be “fixing our voting system, one question at a time.” I like their method of tackling the very large problems we have with our voting system in the US, by asking a very simply question - Why Tuesday?

Its clear, that they do not see weekend voting as the solution to all our voting problems, but they do see it as a very practical and realistic place to start. They are making good use of the internet and online video (check out their YouTube page) to raise the question and draw attention to their cause.

I plan to bookmark this organization to keep track of what they are doing and potentially take a more active role in their campaign, at some point in the future. I made a small financial contribution to their effort already.

By the way, their answer to the question of “Why Tuesday?” is:

“The reason we vote on Tuesday makes perfect sense — at least it did in 1845.
To understand the decision Congress made that year, let’s imagine ourselves as members of early agrarian American society. Saturday was for farming, Sunday was the Lord’s day, Monday was required for travel to the county seat where the polling places were, Tuesday you voted, Wednesday you returned home, and Thursday it was back to work.”

I just want to alert folks to a free webinar coming up tomorrow (Tues. Oct 28th, 2008 - 1:00 Eastern), addressing the question: “Where is Democracy Headed?” The webinar will be based upon a report, coorinated by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium. Special guests for this discussion will be Matt Leighninger, Executive Director of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium and Peter Levine, Director of CIRCLE (the Center for Learning & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement).

I’ve had the pleasure of working with both Matt and Peter through my own involvement in the Deliberative Democracy Consortium and look forward to hearing what they have to say.

In my effort to blog daily, I think I’ll make Fridays a “Fun” day, giving myself a little space to have relax and have some fun. For today’s post, I’m going to link to a list of my favorite political video’s of this campaign cycle.

Now, I’ve only spent a limited amount of time looking for political videos, most of the videos that I’ve found have been forwarded to me - and are fairly well know on the interent. So, my list may not contain many surprises for you.

Yesterday, I heard about Ron Howards endorsement video and love it.

• Another one of my favorites is the “5 Friends” video, in which a slew of hollywood stars encourage people NOT to vote.
  Five Friends.
  Five Friends (Uncensored) - Here is a link to a slightly different “uncensored” edition.
  Spoof of Five Friends = Don’t PSA (This is not really political, but a fun spoof of “Five Friends,” caution, it includes lots of expletives or naughty words).
• This one is slightly dated, but I enjoyed it at the time it came out. Its Paris Hilton’s response to the McCain ads, in which she was featured.
  Paris Hilton for President
• Another video that got quite a bit of attention (including a story on NPR) was Sarah Silverman’s “Great Schlep.” Caution, this one includes “expletives” and ethnic humor.
  The Great Schlep
• I had a great time following the infamous Letterman vs. McCain feud via YouTube. If you missed any of it, here are some clips:
  Letterman Vs. McCain - Day One
  Letterman Vs. McCain - Day Two
  Letterman Vs. McCain - McCain Finally Shows Up
• Of course, I’ve also been a big fan of Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin on SNL, much of which I’ve caught online:
  Sarah Palin Sketch on SNL - This is the original sketch, others can be found at NBC.Com or on YouTube (search for “Sarah Palin SNL“).
• I’ve been LisaNova fan for about the last year. She has done a number of campaign related videos, some which are better than others. I’ll link to a few, from which you can find others - if you like…
  Hillary vs. Obama
  Hillary vs. Obama II
  Palin Biden Debate

If you have a favorite political video that I’ve not mentioned here, I’d love to hear about it. Contact me directly, or post your link in the comments section.

I’m flattered that Anthony, from the Democratic Society Blog, took the time to respond to what I posted yesterday. While, I personally don’t have anything invested in the transpartisan movement, I’d like to take advantage of Anthony’s comments as an opportunity to develop my own thoughts on this matter.

Anthony’s response appears to be based upon related to a set of fears/concerns that were also raised at the recent National Conference on Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD), in regards to “Attracting Conservatives to Dialogue Events.” During this workshop, Jacob Hess identified three fears that conservatives bring to the table, when considering the possibility of participating in a dialogue on a “hot” political topic. I list them here, replacing the word “dialogue” with “transpartisanship.”

1. Doesn’t transpartisanship assume that all truth is relative? (Fear of having to give up the truth).
2. Is transpartisanship part of a larger effort to convince me of something? (Fear of hidden agenda)
3. Does transpartisanship mean I’m going to have to compromise my beliefs? (Fear of being changed)

I believe that one of the problems that we have in encouraging real face to face dialogue on the “hot button” issues in our society, is that potential participants are threatened by the prospect of having to abandon a core belief and/or value in the name of some abstract common good. I think that the concept of “transpartisanship” might trigger some of the same fears.

In the NCDD workshop, the Rev. Greg Johnson suggested the key to bringing conservatives into dialogues might be in stressing dialogue as an opportunity for “conviction with civility.”

From my brief readings, it seems that the term transpartisan was developed as an alternative to non-partisan or bi-partisan. Non-partisan seems to indicate the kind of “centrism” that Anthony is concerned about, while bi-partisan appears limited to the two majority points of view. It seems that the value of talking about transpartisanship might be:

1. indicating that on any given issue, individuals bring a multitude of (partisan) positions to the table.
2. that is it possible to dialogue with political opponents on issues, without giving up ones own position or values
3. that the goal is not to “get everyone to agree,” but rather to find a generally acceptable solution to a problem - GIVEN the fact that folks with very different ideas and viewpoints are sitting at the table

In short, I don’t agree with Anthony that transpartisanship is about centrism or that it is about getting everyone to agree on the issues. Rather, I think its a new word being attached to a very old concept, which is simply - “how do we get folks with very different ideas to work together respectfully, towards practical policy decisions.”

At the recent national conference on dialogue and deliberation, I was introduced to the concept of “Transpartisanship.” One definition of transpartisanship, found on wikipedia, looks like this:

“Transpartisanship recognizes the existence and validity of many points of view, and advocates a constructive dialogue aimed at arriving at creative, integrated, and therefore, breakthrough solutions that meet the needs of all present.”

The issue of transpartisanship came up at NCDD during a sub-plenary panel discussion about “Walking our Talk: What the D&D Community Can Learn from Conservatives.” One of the panelists, Joseph McCormick,
was introduced “a pioneer of the transpartisan movement, teaching people how to increase their political empowerment by constructively engaging across political divides.” At the end of the session, Mr. McCormick plugged an upcoming event being organized by the Transpartisan Alliance, timed to coincide with the bicentennial anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, dubbed the “American Citizens’ Summit.”

The American Citizens’ Summit, is described as an opportunity for:

“citizens, leaders and experts from all sides will come together in search of effective strategies for empowering a unified political voice that can restore a healthy balance of power in America. We will engage in a new type of political dialogue that respects and values all points of view. Together we will utilize dialogue, deliberation and conflict resolution tools that enable conservatives, liberals, independents and unaffiliated citizens to communicate respectfully and effectively, and to re-build trust. We will demonstrate that Americans can work together and cooperate for the good of us all.”

Personally, I’m still not entirely sure what to think about this movement or this “citizens’ summit,” however I’ve noted a number of friendly names associated with the project and the goals and values very much reflect my own. I’m not quite ready to register for the summit, but I think I’ll put a placeholder on my calendar and give it some serious thought over the next week or two.

Matt Leighninger

In the DemocracySpace.Org blog, Matt Leighninger recently posted an article about “Neighborhood Democracy,” specifically referencing an upcoming meeting, organized in part by the Deliberative Democracy Consortium. In his post, Matt mentions some of the groundbreaking experiments in neighborhood democracy, launched over 30 years ago and the lessons that have been learned in the last 15 years.

One of the interesting developments going on at E-Democracy.Org, is the fact that the latest wave of online Issues Forums are being launched at the neighborhood level. Having learned from successful online neighborhood forums at the hyper-local level, such at the Cleveland Park (Washington, DC) project, E-Democracy.Org has begun to take their model of city-wide issues forums and adapt them to “neighborhood life” forums, which provide simple online spaces for neighbors to connect and share information and opinions about things going on in their neighborhoods.

While these neighborhood forums are not meant to replace or compete with the kinds of neighborhood decision making and problem solving bodies that Matt describes in his post. Online neighborhood forums can be powerful tools to strengthen and support these experiments in Neighborhood Democracy. An online neighborhood forum, provides a place for local residents to connect on everyday issues, like finding a babysitter or swapping plants, to the bigger issues being addressed by their Neighborhood/District Council, such as traffic calming or crime prevention. Ideally, a neighborhood forum can serve as a “soft” entry point into the civic life of a community, for newcomers to a neighborhood and those who lack the confidence to simply show-up at a community meeting.

Here are some examples of the “neighborhood life” forums recently launched by E-Democracy.Org:

• Headington & Marston Neighborhood, Oxford (UK)
  
• Brislington, Bristol (UK)
• Seward, Minneapolis (USA)

Just a quick nod to Alexandra Samuel for a very helpful blog post on “Twittering your way to effective (and expressive) communication.” I appreciate her thoughts on considering your audience, when tweeting.

“When we think about the person or people who read our blog post and tweets, we reconnect to the effective value of communication”

Just thought that today might be a good day to put this blog into a bit of perspective. This is mostly for myself, but then again, I’m probably the only one that reads my blog (unless my mom is still reading it).

As I mentioned in a recent post, I’m in the middle of some personal and professional transitions. I started this blog, as a form of therapy AND to help me figure out what comes next in my life. For a long time, I’ve had a fantasy about being a writer. Over the last few years, I’ve spend most of my time writing, but not the sort of stuff that real “writers” write. I’ve been writing emails, training materials, and the occasional (yet highly irregular) blog post.

I’ve toyed with the idea of doing more writing, possibly even a non-fiction book of some sort. However, I’m held back by the fact that I’m not sure what to write about and uncertainty over whether or not I have the discipline to follow-thru with a project as ambitious as a book. This blog, is partially my attempt to deal with these two issues, among other things. I hope to use this blog as a training grounds of sorts, to test myself and see if I’ve got the stamina to write anything really serious or long. I also plan to use this blog, as a place to brainstorm topics that might turn into something longer and more widely read. Finally, I’m hoping that writing this blog might help me uncover/polish my writing style. I’ve been told by folks as impartial as my wife, that I’m actually a good writer. While, this might be true from time to time, I’ve never really tested myself on a regular basis - nor do I think I’ve really found my “voice” as a writer.

My goal is to write at least five posts a week, ranging from about 300-500 words each. I hope to write about online democracy, citizen engagement, a little bit about politics, and to include something about myself in most everything that I write. At the moment, I’m inspired by Jon Swanson, who wrote:

“I like to see the writer, to get a glimpse of who they are. The idea of an anonymous writer has an arrogance at a time when it is acceptable to acknowledge your existence. If there is any perspective at all in the piece, any proclamation of that this post is factual and true and must be followed, I need to know how you are sitting. I need to see your knee.”

Thanks to Chris Brogan for pointing me in the direction of Jon’s blog.