OS Topic "3A": Initial discussion of Reviving Congress District by District

OS Topic "3A": Initial discussion of Reviving Congress District by District

for "DandDTrans," a "community of inquiry and action" regarding the role that Dialogue & Deliberation can play in addressing the mega-crises of our time

Couldn’t load preview

The file may have been moved or deleted, or is temporarily unavailable.

https://paper-hackpad-attachments.dropboxusercontent.com/hackpad.com_O7mT4ycEko8_p.22256_1416484929380_great%20transition%20image.png?fit=max&w=882

Image courtesy of www.NewStories.org

Initial discussion of "Reviving Congress District by District," now OS Topic "3A"

NOTE: THE CONVERSATION BELOW WAS MOVED FROM +THE MAIN OS TOPIC 3 PAD IN ORDER TO MAKE SPACE FOR DISCUSSION THERE BASED ON THE NEW FRAMING PROVIDED BY INITIATOR LAURA CHASIN ON 1/12.

FEEL FREE TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION HERE, AND ALSO TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NEW ONE THAT IS BEING INVITED+ ON THE ORIGINAL PAD

Initiated by: Laura Chasin January 6

Description: Pilot projects to increase voter engagement and congressperson accountability at the district level

Participants making comments below:

Terry Steichen

Ben Roberts

Stephanie Jo Kent

Robert V

Terry Steichen, 1/7: This interests me greatly.

Many/most of the other participants (and most of the NCDDers) focus on facilitation of group decision-making. As I'm sure we agree, D&D techniques can be quite effective in helping a group (including participants representing a variety of competing stakeholders) arrive at decisions. This process typically involves a meeting convened for the purpose of conducting face-to-face discussions with and between participants. Participants often belong to (or at least support objectives sought by) a common organization.

But when you focus on the political realm (voter engagement and politician accountability), things are quite different in some fundamental ways. We're no longer talking about any specific meeting, but a well-defined, pre-existing legislative process. And the direct participants in that process are not the stakeholders, but representatives supposedly representing (only) the public stakeholders (aka, their constituents). In reality, of course, there are other stakeholders (aka, special interests) whose views are represented, albeit surreptitiously (thus giving rise to political corruption).

Thus the challenges faced by the objectives described in your topic, seem to be quite different from "traditional" D&D work.

Do you agree? And if so, how do you approach these particular kind of challenges?

[Ben Roberts, 1/8]. I'm not sure what you describe is necessarily what Laura is thinking about, Terry. If it is, I agree that we're not in standard "D&D" territory. But I can see other possibilities here that might be, e.g. finding groups with initiatives focused on this work--voter engagement and Congressional accountability-- and using D&D to support and enhance those efforts.

[Terry 1/8] - Of course: D&D can be very useful for supporting such efforts. My point, however, is that D&D, per se, probably can't be the driver of either political accountability (see my expanded comment below) or broad voter mobilization.

Agreed. AND, as Tom Atlee, Linda Ellinor and others point out, there is also something about the D&D worldview that has transformational power, e.g the very notion of "collective intelligence" and the faith that, if we do sit down and talk with one another in a "well-constructed container," we can transcend our (apparent) differences and align on meaningful action. That doesn't necessarily address the power structures that ignore "the will of the people," which I think is one of your main points, but it' also places "D&D" in a larger role than simply a set of tools for change agents.

Then there's +the Wisdom Council model, which seems like a direct hit for what Laura is describing (and which +Jim Rough does not consider to be either "D" or "D").

[Terry 1/8]: Yes, there are some approaches (sometimes included in the D&D category) that seek to, in effect, replace the current political system, with one that's arguably improved.

He's launched the "Blind Spot" project (see the video below) with support from Tom Atlee and many other thought leaders in the our community of practice, that needs funding (they're half way to a $15K target). What if we used some traditional D&D to gather a large group to educate them about this possibility and make a funding ask? [Easy, Jim--just musing!]

http://vimeo.com/116468433

More replies to Terry (and Ben)?

If someone doesn't mind explaining, I'd very much like to know how +Jim Rough distinguishes Wisdom Councils from D&D! {Steph Jo 1/9}

@Ben Roberts, did you happen to see this question? No rush, but this is some of the evidence of "storming" that I mentioned. This info and perspective may fit within Peter Block's Dissent question, if we get to it. Also, yes, I saw your reservations about this model; will respond there in due time!

Additional Thoughts on Laura's topic?

Terry 1/8

I would like to expand my comments a bit on Laura's objective of "congressperson accountability." In order to hold someone accountable (for their behavior, which in this case would be the politician's legislative actions), you must (a) monitor what they're doing, (b) have a standard against which to evaluate that monitored behavior, and (c) have a process of dealing with those whose actions fail to meet this standard.

My comment was based on the observation that none of those three essential elements of accountability appear to be direct D&D applications, per se. At the same time, I point out that D&D can play a significant role in, for example, developing the standard for accountability (which is presumably a measure of constituents' values).

Comments on Terry's post above?

[Ben R., 1/10] I'm curious why this appears to be a "tension" for you, Terry.

Terry 1/10 I don't recall using the term "tension."

Isn't D&D pretty much always being used in service to something, even there's no agenda or "action-oriented" outcome and it's "simply" to build connections and coherence within a group, or to generate some valuable insights? And as you say, D&D can play a role here. Are you simply suggesting that we focus on what that role might be, perhaps looking for some specific opportunities tied to initiatives that are in place or could form, and that a "small" group of us could align around?

Terry 1/10 What I'm saying is that D&D is group-focused. But the problems we're trying to deal with (climate change, etc.) transcend any meaningful group. IMHO, when you're dealing with the public, it goes beyond any group per se. For example, we have a process of arriving at public decisions - it's called the vote (with all of its warts). If you put people into a room and work out a group point of view, that's fine for some things. But for public policy development, it's individual citizens who make (and must make) the decision (through their representatives).

Ben R., 1/10. In what sense are processes like World Cafe or Open space inherently "group" focused? 10,000 people did a World Cafe in Tel Aviv a few years back, for example. And what about all the civic engagement work that is so often featured at our conference and in other ways?

Terry 1/11 While there are some D&D activities that address large groups (and they are still groups), that's a world away from the general public (whom we need to mobilize if we're going to successfully tackle the big problems that this whole Hackpad targets).

Ben R., 1/9

Reading Paul Krugman and Timothy Egan in the NYT this morning, and reflecting on last night's +Group Works Card of the Evening conversation about whether or not "all perspectives are equally valid," I'm noticing that one thing that's missing for me in the whole DandDTrans conversation so far is a direct discussion of our actual politics, and Republican support for business-as-usual (or worse) in particular.

Terry, 1/9 I'm afraid I disagree. Intentionally introducing partisanship would be a mistake. Yes, I agree with many/most of your observations about Republicans. But an objective view would be almost as critical of Dems. So what's the point?

We're so damn polite, and like Obama in 2010, we really want to be transpartisan. Indeed, there's a theory of change that says that's the only way we can get out of this mess, and my sense is that Laura's framing assumes that theory is true. But as Krugman points out in the conclusion of his "Voodoo Time Machine" piece in today's NYT:

Congress is now controlled by men who never acknowledge error, let alone learn from their mistakes. In some cases, they may not even know that they were wrong. After all, conservative news media are not exactly known for their balanced coverage; if your picture of how health reform is working is based on Fox News, you probably have a sense that it has been a vast disaster, even though the reality is one of success that has surprised even the law’s supporters.

The main point, however, is that we’re looking at a political subculture in which ideological tenets are simply not to be questioned, no matter what. Supply-side economics is valid no matter what actually happens to the economy, guaranteed health insurance must be a failure even if it’s working, and anyone who points out the troubling facts is ipso facto an enemy.

And we’re not talking about marginal figures. You sometimes hear claims that the old-fashioned Republican establishment is making a comeback, that Tea Party extremists are on the run and we can get back to bipartisan cooperation. But that is a fantasy. We can’t have meaningful cooperation when we can’t agree on reality, when even establishment figures in the Republican Party essentially believe that facts have a liberal bias.

I know the Dems are not exactly agents of systemic transformation either, for the most part. But at least they are willing to say that climate change is real, and many of the more progressive ones are willing to fight for policies that might address it.

[Terry, 1/9]

That's largely an "urban myth." Very few Dems are real progressives - many are indistinguishable from conservatives (and often labeled neoconservatives). Yes, Dems do say that climate change is real and mostly caused by human activity. But, if they really believed what they say, why no action? Sure, the Republicans would oppose them. But why not at least try to take a principles (aka, progressive) stand? It doesn't happen.

Still, as Naomi Klein points out in "This Changes Everything," we can't count on any politicians, or companies, or big green NGOs, or billionaires, to come to our rescue.

Terry, 1/9

Completely agree

The people must rise up and lead the way, especially if we want changes that go beyond "reform" to fundamental transformation at the scale that scientists and others are saying is needed. Or at least, that's one "theory of change." For me, it's incomplete though.

In the short term (and maybe the long term either), the people can't make a complete end run around the existing economy and power structures.

Terry, 1/9

Agree. But why assume that it's desirable to do an "end run" around the existing system? Why not take action to fix it?

I think the end-run is Klein's theory of change, and that of many others who like to quote Bucky Fuller. At the New Economy Coalition's conference earlier this year, more than one plenary speaker spoke about the need for a time horizon of many decades--50 years even--before the new alternatives are ready to replace the current system. Hunter Lovins was there, and told me how absurd she thought that was when the climate science says we've only got a decade, or even less, to start dramatically turning things around. [Ben R, 1/9]

Steph, 1/10

Is anyone talking about this as the endgame? Not an end-run, but the finale. Our swan song. (FYI, that's what I thought the Closing GroupWorks card on the Jan 6 call might be about.) What if this DandDTrans event isn't just the intro to cool technology, but actually marks a break with previous strategy? Along those lines, has anyone read or seen anything by Derrick Jensen? I've been working my way through Deep Green Resistance.

Ben R, 1/10 Can you say more about this, Steph? How might we be breaking with previous strategies here? And how does that address the existing POWER STRUCTURES, which is my concern in the comments above.

Steph Jo, 1/11

Ben, I don't see evidence that we've broken with previous strategies here, not yet (!). There is definitely interest in using technology as a new tactic...

Jensen's work is all about the existing power structures, challenging them, openly, overtly and without reservation. He and the Deep Green Resistance movement are radicals and revolutionaries. They are anti-civilization, understanding "civilization" as the entire techno-capitalist-sexist-industrial political economy. What I see here is tame by comparison, quite conservative, in fact. Non-risky, even averse to risk-taking.

The difference is DGR members have internalized the urgency and are acting upon it without reservation and, in large part, without regard to adverse social consequences to themselves, individually. I'm not saying we should all jump aboard (see my comment about valences in the +proposal for addressing all of Block's transformative questions in the time remaining to us, here), but if "we" don't start seeing ourselves through the lenses of others I don't believe we can contribute on a macro-scale. (I use "we" loosely, referring to everyone participating here as well as the organizational umbrellas or tribes that brought us together, specifically NCDD and Tom's Wisdom Council/Collective Intelligence network.)

And we need transformation NOW. So the theory of change that resonates for me these days is that we have a massive push for radical change from both bottom-up and top-down forces. Where is that top-down energy? Where is Power ready to work with Love? I have some thoughts, but I'll save those for another post...

Terry 1/9

I'll look forward with interest to your thoughts on this.

Me too @Ben Roberts! I'm gonna enjoy that TED talk, too. {Steph, 1/10)

:-)

The quote from MLK, Jr seems quite appropo: "Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic." {Steph, 1/11}

Jarod Holtz--having read your Intro, I'm wondering if you have some thoughts on the "top-down" piece I mention just above, and perhaps a tie in to your point that "the macro solutions for helping organizations, ecosystems, and humanity adapt and thrive in our volatile, complex, murky world are closely linked to... individual challenges" (i.e. doing the inner work of developing and "integrated, authentic, and balanced way of living and acting in the world?" [Ben R., 1/9]

Steph, 1/10

@Laura Chasin, I'm thinking about @Ben Roberts' question about where is the top-down energy to meet the bottom-up energy.... there's no absence of that top-down energy, it is directly meeting the most lively bottom-up energy happening "now" but not in a join-we-altogether manner. Ben, the bottom-up energy is currently with #BlackLivesMatter, and it's being met with repressive police force, just as #Occupy was, (and also with white/privileged class indifference), just as movements for social justice are countered by governments around the world. So, Laura, my suggestion would be that whatever strategies you want to seed and cultivate to reclaim Congress representatives for the local level, they need to represent the motives of people joining such surges. Then, the bottom can perhaps achieve enough pressure on the top to force the top to do what's needed, painful and self-sacrificing as that may be (from their point-of-view).

Terry 1/10 I certainly support grassroots efforts. But it's completely unclear how you convert the energy from such efforts into actual top-down pressure. Yes, you can get lots of people to pressure their representatives on one or two matters, and maybe achieve some success. But what about the dozens of other issues? Can we have massive grassroots movements on all of them? Not really. A grassroots movement that has some potential is one that's directed toward removing from office politicians who act against the public's wishes, regardless of the particulars. But I don't think that's the kind of movement that most here are thinking about.

Ben R, 1/10

Above, I mentioned Hunter Lovins' frustration with plans that will take many decades and that require an entirely new system that does an "end-run" around the existing ones. Hunter also told me she is convinced we can solve climate within a capitalist framework if we curtail Wall Street's power.

Terry 1/10 Absolutely agree. What I'm not seeing are ideas on how to do that ("curtail Wall Street's power").

She is convinced that many corporate leaders are ready to be agents of transformation. She's recently begun to convene a group of thought leaders, in partnership with Jo Confino of The Guardian, to develop strategies for doing so. This possibility ties into comments from Tom Atlee and Sharon Landes in yesterday's Bohm Dialogue.

Terry 1/10 I think you're dreaming (and no insult intended). Corporate leaders are leaders because they're focused on making money - that's all they're trained in and that's basically all most of them know (and I say this from personal experience as well as common sense). I can't see them as agents of transformation (if it doesn't boost or at least protect profits).

Ben, 1/10. You might be right, Terry, but what makes you so sure? And what other alternatives make sense to you as being worth trying, that might have the leverage we require?

Terry 1/11 My point of saying that corporate leaders are not obvious candidates for transformation agents is, as I noted, common sense (backed up by personal experience with many such individuals). As to your question about other alternatives worth trying, we need to look at the context you set above. You say (and I agree) that we must curb Wall Street's power. I have said repeatedly that the key to doing that is mobilizing the public to properly use their vote to remove representatives from office who project that power.

Ben R responding to Steph Jo 1/10

I would add the climate movement to your list of places where the bottom up energy is strong. the recent NYC march is one example. What Klein refers to as "Blockadia" is another (or more accurately, a term that covers the myriad of grass roots actions springing up around the globe). +The Climate Justice Alliance is an initiative that is riding (and helping to generate) this wave. They are also using a "trans-local" model, with on-the-ground action in five "front-line communities" as their initial focus, and plans to add more--a powerful model IMHO. I'm connected to some of the Alliance's organizers through Movement Generation, which is active in the +Thriving Resilient Communities Collaboratory that I help steward. So if we wanted to partner, I could organize a meeting to discuss that with them.

Terry 1/10 Yes, there is a lot of energy within the "climate movement." But it's directed every which way. Everyone wants "something to be done" but they're usually vague about what, and when they do get specific, the energy gets dissipated. If something is ever going to be done, we've got to get down to the specifics - not the weeds, but something more than "do something." (Note: politicians are very adept at responding to "do something" demands - like jujitsu of words. It's when demands get specific that they start to twitch a bit.)

Ben, 1/10. Reading through all your latest responses to me, Terry, I feel a kind of exhaustion. I could argue various points, as it seems you are inviting. But I'm not sure what value would be generated. Maybe I've missed it, but I'm not seeing a declaration of positive possibility in what you're posting. Are you resigned to a future that looks like the past? It's not that I don't welcome dissent, but I find myself curious about whether or not your basic stand is that of a cynic. I would love to read your answers to the two +What's Possible? questions.

Terry 1/11 Ben, I too feel a kind of exhaustion. I think I've laid out a course of action several times. However, I also assert that the role of D&D in solving these problems must be supportive of a good governance initiative which is focused on the objective of ending political corruption - after which we need lots of D&D to get focused on specific solutions.

I realize this may not be what D&D advocates might prefer to hear. But I would hardly describe that as the view of a cynic.

Ben, 1/11 OK, Terry, I can totally work with that! It would help though me if I knew where to look for the "course of action" you've laid out, or better yet, if you posted it to the +What's Possible? pad, which is where others are sharing such thinking. Would you be willing to do that? We're also now beginning to "process" those What's Possible answers, by the way, +in OS Topic 6. My request, however, is that you post to the original pad first, before engaging in the OS round.

Terry 1/11 OK, I responded to this via a direct email. Let me know if it helps.

Steph Jo 1/12 Hi Terry, I'm curious about your proposed plan of action too. Are you exhausted because people aren't following it? No uptake can indeed wear a person out! And, it makes me wonder what kind of feedback you're receiving.... one thing that keeps returning to mind is a statement someone made in the third Jan 6 World Cafe, that I transported to +OS#4 in the frame of a question, that "everyone wants it to be their prototype."

Additional comments on Steph's 1/10 post?

Additional Thoughts on Laura's topic?

Robert V., 1/12

I would be glad to have you notice the Electoral Reform Act of 2015 and the just now emergent effort to create an open source everything toolkit for all activists and their organization (the latter addresses Micah Sifry's critical observations in his new book, The Big Disconnect: Why the Internet Hasn't Fixed Politics (Yet). I have posted a preliminary essay and many book reviews at http://tinyurl.com/Steele-Reform and have turned notifications on for this. I will be doing a workshop in Portland on Open Power: Electoral Reform and the Open Source Toolkit in late February as part of the Economics of Happiness event, would be glad to dry run the ideas here. I believe that if we can all come together on ONE THING: electoral reform, this year, in time to open 2016 to a coalition ticket and a coalition cabinet and a small but vital swing vote of Independents in each chamber of Congress, we can restore integrity to our electoral process.

[Ben R. 1/14] Thank you for posting, Robert. This sounds a lot like what Terry Steichen's been saying too. that the one thing we need to address first is political corruption. I told him I thought that almost all of the D&D community of practice probably gets that the system is corrupt and urgently needs fixing. He isn't so sure.

+Ben Levi's "super-ordinate goal" conversation also has s dimension that connects here, as he sees the articulation of such a goal as potentially catalyzing something akin to the 2016 vision you mention.

I often hear the "if we can all come together on ONE THING" wish expressed. It's almost a meme. I'm curious--how do you think that kind of collective focus can be

Also, I don't see an intro from you yet. Would you be willing to post one so the group can "meet" you?

I responded to your kind invitation and have entered intro information about myself. What is most germane here is that I ran for President in 2012 for six weeks, accepted as a Reform Party candidate, in order to a) gather the best of the transpartisan ideas in one place (We the People Reform Coalition , still up as a placeholder -- ands the URL, bigbatusa.org is available for the unified movement I see in my mind -- not in reality -- that could raise $1 billion a year -- $20 from each of 50 million cultural creatives ) and b) to be able to write to each presidential candidate as myself a presidential candidate, inviting them to unite on this ONE THING that could bring us all together and put down the two-party tyranny (with a shout out to Theresa Amato's wonderful book, Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny) , that ONE THING is the Electoral Reform Act of 2015. My 6 minute video telling Occupy in 2011 that they could do this for 2012 went in one ear and out all the waggling fingers. I know exactly how to fix this country, but from Joan Blades to Mark Zuckerberg to Tom Steyer, I have zero access -- these people are all out of touch with the meta and when I send them letters, some 12 year olkd intern seems to be in the way of their ever reading serious stuff. What I learned from my campaign is documented -- more harshly than I would write it today -- in a Reality Sandwich article, How I Tested the Boundaries of the Two-Party Tyranny

-- while more recently I wrote in CounterPunch, Where is Jesse Ventura When You Need Him? I will be in Portland speaking at Economics on Happiness , on 28 February, with the workshop theme of OPEN POWER: Electoral Reform & an Open Source Activist Tool-Kit.

I know, with absolute certainty, that we can scare the existing Congress into passing the Electoral Reform Act of 2015 by November 2015, if we can come together on this ONE THING. My vision for 2016 is a two-party ticket (think Jon Huntsman - Elizabeth Warren) with a coalition cabinet announced in advance, a balanced budget eliminating 30% of the 45% that is known waste across the government from energy to health to military), and a commitment to end all income taxes and other taxes on the working poor (the 99%) while implementing the Automated Payment Transaction Tax of a tiny percentage on ALL transactions including currency and stock transactions not taxed now. The Elelectoral Reform Act of 2015 would also make it possible for small parties and Independents now blocked from state ballots to get on the ballot for all federal elections, it would slam down on the 42 billionaires that now provide the bulk of the immoral financing for extremist candidates from left and right, and it would create a "swing vote" in both the Senate and the House that would bring us back to centrist open dialog with integrity.

We are all being screwed -- Thom Hartmann is one of my author heroes, along with William Greider and others -- and we are allowing ourselves to be distracted by false flag events and a media that is at best stupid and at worst actively complicit in crimes against humanity. So in 2015 I am seeking a team and no less than $250,000 but ideally $2,000,000, to be spent on two tracks: an Electoral Reform Summit that makes the Electoral Reform Demand, occupies front lawns and home offices until the Electoral Reform Pledge is signed, and then presses until the Electoral Reform Act is signed this year, in time for 2016; and a Public Empowerment Summit in which we bring together all the open source wizards and we build the World Brain / Public Intelligence Network on top of CrisisMappers, OpenCity, PediaCity, etcetera.

​​