Politalk

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.

Recently, I created a list of possible topics for future blog posts. One of the topics on that list is, “Why I do the Work I do.” This evening, as I watched John McCain’s appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman, I found myself sitting through a barage of negative campaign ads, mostly from independent organizations that are not accountable to any particular campaign or to the public in general. It was very discouraging, yet reminded me of why I do the work I do.

For those of us who follow politics and public policy, one does not have to wait very long before seeing claims made in negative ads, that are complete distortions of reality and obvious attempts to rewrite history, in the name of promoting a particular candidate, or more likely, in the name of tearing down their opponent.

For too many Americans, its already difficult enough to engage with family members or work colleagues in rational debates on the important issues facing our country. Watching these television ads, does a disservice to those millions of American’s who donate time and money to work on both political and advocacy campaigns, with the hope of making our country better.

My personal interest in online democracy and citizen engagement, is in finding ways to make it easier for individuals to participate in the political process and local decision making, without feeling as if they have to sell their souls.

Several years ago, I attended the Politics Online Conference in Washington DC. As I explained to some friends at the conference, I felt very much out of place. At that time, too much of the conference seemed to be about how to use online tools to divide and conquer, in the name of promoting a particular candidate or issue. Too much of the focus of that conference, in my opinion, appeared to be aimed at determining the best ways to polarize the public, to achieve one’s preferred political agenda.

It is my own belief, that democracy works best when we work together and when everyone feels as if their opinions and contributions matter. One of my personal goals in the field of online democracy, is finding tools and techniques that bring people into decision making processes and help them better understand the sincere interests and beliefs of their political opponents.

Much of the important work at improving our communities and our countries is done by people who are willing to set aside their own personal agenda, to find commonalities and opportunities to cooperate with those who usually disagree with them. I’m interested in the use of online tools, to help folks of diverse political opinions to speak with each other, instead of “at” each other. I’m interested in online democracy, as a potential tool to help individuals find their voice in what can be an intimidating, aggressive, and overwhelming world of politics and policy making.

I hope to explore this theme further in future blog posts. Thanks for listening/reading.

I’d love to put together a workshop on this topic. But, for now, I’ll start with a blog post.

In my work with E-Democracy.Org, we always worked hard to include elected officials as participants in our Local Issues Forums. Sometimes, elected officials were the first in their community to sign up for a new forum and could be listed among the most active and enthusiastic members of that forum. However, it isn’t always easy to sell participation in an online forum, to elected officials that are already very busy, deluged with electronic communications, and cynical about online forums.

When I have the opportunity to speak with elected officials about the pro’s and con’s of involvement in an local blog or online forum, here are a few of my key points:

What They Should Understand

1. Online forums are seldom representative of the community. Understanding this should not reduce the value of the forum to an elected official, however it should help them keep their participation in the forum in some kind of context.
2. Online forums cannot, and will not any time soon, replace face to face contact with constituents or community meetings. They should think about their online participation in forums as an extension and enhancement of their existing participation in community events and meetings.

Why They Should Participate

1. Online forums are great “early warning” detectors for hot/current issues that might not already be on their radar screens.
2. Visibility in online forums sends a powerful message to local constituents and activists about their accessibility and interest in constituent opinions.
3. Keep track of what people are saying about them and their colleagues. Its not always fun to read, but its helpful to know what is being said on the “street.”

Tips For Participation

1. Use online forums to spread the word about important community meetings and public hearings.
2. Don’t feel the need to read everything in the forum. Its acceptable and sometimes necessary to scan subject lines and only read the topics of particular interest to you. Even if you only read a small minority of the posts, scanning subject lines will still give you a sense of what is being discussed across the entire forum.
3. Don’t engage in tit for tat arguments. Lots of elected officials are afraid that they will get bogged down in one-on-one arguments in online forums. Its quite possible to be active in the forum, yet stay above this kind of exchange (although is some cases, it can be difficult).
4. Occasional “informational” posts to the forum, demonstrate that the elected official is paying attention to the forum and connected with constituents.
5. When a “hot” topic breaks out, elected officials can use an online forum to direct constituents to good sources of information or informed government officials willing to answer questions or accept citizen input.

This is really just a rough draft. I welcome input or comments. If you’d like to see an extended version of this blog post (which I hope to write soon), please contact me at: tim@politalk.org

It was during my first NCDD conference, that I first connected with colleagues from around the country working in the field of online deliberation. It was during this conference, that we tentatively took steps towards forming the online working group of the Deliberative Democracy Consortium. It was through the relationships I developed at that conference, that I began to feel a part of a national network and was able to connect the work I had been doing in a corner of my basement, with my larger efforts going on around the country and the world.

During the subsequent conferences that I’ve attended, the faces representing “online” deliberation have changed, as more folks are gradually moving into this sphere, bringing new ideas and a fresh perspectives.This year, most of the “online” folks at the conference were attending NCDD for the first time. Over the next few days, I hope to write more about the “online” folks that I met at NCDD and the work that they are doing.

Here is a short video that introduces three of the “online” projects represented at this years conference.

On Sunday evening, after the end of NCDD 2008, a group of us met at the Congress Avenue bridge in downtown Austin, to see the bats emerge from under the bridge. In theory, the bridge is home to 750,000 or more Mexican Free-tailed Bats. Every evening, tourists gather on and around the Congress Avenue bridge to watch the bats come out to eat. The night before, some of our colleagues watched the spectacle. However, we weren’t so lucky. After waiting for over an hour and a half, we only saw a few hundred bats emerge alone or in small groups. We’re not sure what we did to scare them away.

Joining me on the bridge, from left to right: Lou Klepner, Tim Erickson (me), Tom Murray, Sandra Zagon, Martin Rutte, Miriam Wyman.

This year, I’ve extended my NCDD experience by a week. I’m taking an extra 7 days to drive home from Austin, TX to St. Paul, MN. The direct route would be about 1,100 miles – but, I don’t plan to take the direct route. I’m hoping to use this time, to reflect on what I learned at the conference, where I’m at today, and my plans for the future. I’ll be sharing some of these reflection in my blog and on Twitter. This morning, I’m in Lake Charles, Louisiana soon to be on my way to Vicksburg, Mississippi.

One of the great things about the NCDD is the interesting mix of individuals and methods of dialogue that are part of the conference. You can get anything from “The Inquiry Process: Zen Meditation and Dialogues as Liberating Intimacy in a Social Context” to “Findings About Public Participation from the New National Academy of Sciences Report” (including powerpoint presentation).

For most participants, a NCDD conference will engage both their head and their heart in meaningful ways. Last night at dinner, someone asked if I had attended the workshop in which participants were asked to “stare each other in the eyes and hold hands.” In fact, I had been a part of the workshop on “Compassionate Listening.” The workshop began with a guided a mediation, which lead to an exercise in which we were asked to partner with the person next to us and spend 3 minutes each, looking into the eyes of our partner and speaking uninterrupted about anything that was on our mind or in our heart.

Looking a relative stranger in the eye, while they listen to you speak  without any interruption, for  3 entire minutes – is more challenging that it might seem. I found it a challenge to speak and/or listen for that long, without either being interrupted or interrupting the other speaker, even if only to ask a question. Yet, it did feel good and I think I learned something about what it means to REALLY listen to someone and to REALLY be heard. Some participants reported that they were physically unable to look their partner in the eye for that long, without turning away or closing their eyes.

At the close of the workshop, we did in fact form a circle and hold hands, while the facilitator brought the workshop to its conclusion.

Not everyone at NCDD is there for that kind of experience and over the years, I’ve spoken to some folks who are really uncomfortable with this aspect of the conference. While, I could have attended the “Social Media” workshop that was taking place at the same time, I accepted the challenge of conference organizers, who in the opening session of the conference suggested that we try to “step out of our comfort zone.”

I’m thankful that I did.

(FYI – Touchy-Feely).

One of the themes that has come up at every dialogue and deliberation conference that I’ve attended, is the challenges that we face as a community of attracting conservative viewpoints to our conferences and oftentimes to our dialogues.

Yesterday, I attended a workshop called “Attracting Conservative Citizens to Dialogue Events: Liberal-Conservative Campus Dialogue & Mormon-Evangelical Interfaith Initiatives.” The workshop was lead by Jacob Hess (Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Illinois) and Rev. Greg Johnson (Pastor and Director of Standing Together).

The Rev. Greg Johnson gave a very personal and inspirational account of his personal relationship with a Mormon professor, Robert Millet. This video captures much of his story.

Jacob Hess talked about his experiences facilitating a class that brings together a specially selected group of students with both liberal and conservative viewpoints, for a series of discussions about “hot” political topics.  He provided a very interesting outline of three “fears” that conservatives bring to the table.

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

He suggests, that facilitators or organizers wishing to engage conservatives in their dialogue or deliberation events, need to carefully frame and organize their events, taking these fears in mind.