who have been ruined by their money or killed by their courage”

Aristotle

Actions have consequences. Whatever we do in both our private and public lives has consequences. The policies that we enact on the local, state, and national levels affect individuals, groups, and society at large—and they may do so in different ways. I even heard someone recently argue that policies do not matter that much, and what matters in the real world are their consequences. There are, however, all sorts of consequences—but we rarely consider the wide range of effects that our actions and policies may have in the heat and excitement of making policy decisions, where we tend to focus narrowly upon their desirable consequences. If that is true, then the discussions of the great variety of potential consequences should have a much more prominent place in our public policy discussions than they usually do.

One of the most prevalent comments about the consequences that I hear is that they are either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. It is understandable why people may talk this way about the consequences of their actions in their personal lives. But I do not think that this is an appropriate way to talk about the consequences of our policies, because the actions we take to implement them will typically benefit people with certain values, interests, and goals and hurt those with different values, interests, and goals. I think that it would be better to simply talk about their possible consequences without assigning them the moral attributes of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ that too often plague our public policy discussions and contribute to the lack of civility in them.

Another problem is that people tend to talk almost exclusively about a policy’s desirable consequences. But the reality is that we can never know exactly what the consequences of implementing any policy will be, because the world is too interconnected and complex, and the future too uncertain, for any one mind to comprehend what the consequences of an implementation will actually be. There is, however, still a value in discussing more and less likely consequences. I think that it is very important to try to discuss and understand at least some of a policy’s undesirable or unintended consequences—because in some cases, the harm of failing short of a desired consequence is greater than if we never attempted to do anything at all. One could argue, for example, that the policy aims of the Soviet Union—equality and brotherhood—were noble and admirable, but that the failure to achieve them resulted in an oppressive, ruthless, and inhumane political regime.

It is also important to understand that inaction has consequences as well. It is true that a focus upon possible undesirable consequences may lead to inaction. In some cases, inaction may be good. Not creating the Soviet Union at all, for example, would have been the best policy. In other cases, the costs and consequences associated with inaction may lead to ruin, and even to the destruction of our planet and life as we know it, as proponents of the theory of human caused global warming claim. The problem, of course, is how to tell which is which.

Finally, I think that the main blind spot in our thinking about the possible consequences of our policies is that we too often focus on quick fixes and short-term solutions and ignore their possible long-term effects. Such myopic vision is the bane of our times and election driven democratic political systems. Consider the recent example of how America went to war to bring freedom and liberty to Iraqi people and preempt attacks on our soil. These were clearly admirable goals. But one of the consequences of our policy, after nearly ten years of fighting, is that our financial prosperity and security is gone, along with the financial security that our children, and our grandchildren might have had—and future Americans will have to pay off an inherited debt with huge interest for generations to come. It is thus always important to talk about the possible consequences of our policies—and especially the possible undesirable consequences of our policies and their implementations—and to ask ourselves, over and again, what might happen if our policies and the actions that we take to implement them do not go entirely according to the best-laid plans.

IF discussions encourage participants to think broadly about a topic, promote multiple perspectives, and at times contribute ideas or opinions that they believe someone who is very different from them would possess.  Under these circumstances, it seems like it would be contradictory to also stress the importance of recognizing self-interest, but it may actually be a very important component of a successful deliberation.  Understanding one’s own motivations and desires can obviously help a citizen articulate their own points, but it can also serve another important purpose; to help someone realize and appreciate the perspectives of others. 

There are different types of participants in all deliberations.  Sure, there are those who will try and talk until their face turns blue while attempting to get their points across, but there are also those citizens who fear that sharing ideas based on their own self-interests will create some kind of conflict in the discussion.   Sometimes I think facilitators inadvertently create an atmosphere where people are afraid to express self-interest because, like some participants, they fear that the discussion will become too aggressive.   Taking all of this into consideration, it might be a good idea for a facilitator to encourage or at least explain the positive aspects that incorporating self-interest into discussion can bring.

I heard an interview with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor earlier this month. She talked about the importance of civic engagement in our democracy and her concern about the state of policy discussions in America. She was particularly concerned that people are not being taught how to think and evaluate policies. (And let’s face it, no one is born with it.) Indeed, we are not taught how to think about policy in our schools, our universities, or our increasingly polarized media. This poor civic knowledge and engagement weakens American democracy.

Jay Stern, the founder of the Interactivity Foundation, wanted to address this concern by facilitating and encouraging the development and thoughtful consideration of contrasting policy possibilities. We explore and develop a wide range of contrasting conceptual possibilities for public policy pertaining to our areas of concern in our sanctuary projects, and we then organize and facilitate discussions of them among the general public. The facilitators who conduct these discussions do not tell you what to think about policies pertaining to food, property, genetic technology, or work; which possibilities you should or should not support; or which congressman to call. They focus instead on the process of thinking carefully, critically, and seriously about the possibilities themselves. They focus, in other words, upon understanding the different concepts, principles, beliefs, values, interests, and goals that might motivate different policies; understanding how they relate to the possibilities themselves; exploring their possible implementations; and exploring their intended and unintended consequences (for more see Mark Notturno’s four part series on ‘How to Evaluate an IF Policy Possibility’). And they try to do this for each of the conceptual possibilities that we present in our reports.

But it is not an easy process. It is, first of all, very difficult to think conceptually. Most of us are focused upon the more practical everyday world and are unaccustomed to thinking about abstract concepts, principles, beliefs, values, interests, goals, and the reasoning behind them. And it is even more difficult to carefully and critically and seriously consider ideas that are fundamentally different from our own—especially because they just seem to be outright wrong.

But we do not try to show you that possibilities are either right or wrong in IF discussions. We do not try to change your mind. We simply provide a forum in which you can discuss—as opposed to debate—the different policy possibilities with your neighbors, and explore the possible ways of approaching important issues to our society.

Consider the description of the possibility from the Democratic Nation Building Report that we discussed last time: ‘This possibility would have us forgo all active efforts to build democratic nations abroad’. This description is typical of the descriptions of IF policy possibilities, and indeed of policy possibilities in general, in that it briefly describes what the possibility would do, but not the reasons why it would do it. If you had only this description to go on, then you would be at a loss as to how to evaluate it. You could say ‘salvation at last’ or ‘over my dead body’. But this is just a reaction, and not an evaluation. It may, no doubt, be based upon the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that you have pertaining to democratic nation building. But there are all sorts of reasons why someone might think we should not try to build democratic nations abroad. And the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that motivate this possibility may be very different from your own.

So what are the concerns that motivate this possibility? And what are the beliefs, values, goals, and interests that underlie it?

These are the questions that you have to ask yourself in order to understand the reasoning behind it. The question at this stage is not whether you like the possibility, or would be willing to support it. It is not whether you share the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that motivate it. It is not whether the possibility is consistent with the beliefs, values, goals, and interests that underlie it. And it is not even whether or to what extent it is likely to address the concerns that motivate it. We will get to all of that soon enough. The question at this stage is what those concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests actually are. But in order to understand what they actually are, you will have to understand the possibility on its own terms. And in order to do this, you will typically have to see the possibility—and, indeed, the world—through the eyes of someone who might propose it.

But here, we may once again be our own worst enemies, just as we are when we are trying to understand what a policy possibility says and does not say. For we are all almost inevitably over-burdened by the conceptual baggage of our own concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests when we try to understand a policy possibility on its own terms. And if we are not very, very careful about it, then we may all too easily end up understanding it on our own terms instead.

Thinking seriously about contrasting policy possibilities is not for sissies. This is because it can be very difficult to understand a possibility on its own terms. It is because most of us are so locked up in the prisons of our own minds—so certain about the truth of what we believe and the falsity of what we don’t—that we never even recognize the bars. But it is also because trying understanding a policy possibility on its own terms can also be very frightening. It may force us to question some of our deepest and most fundamental beliefs, values, goals, interests, and concerns. And it may, for many of us, even challenge our own self-identities and self-understandings of who we are.

All of this would be bad enough. But there is also the human condition.

We may feel that we have understood a policy possibility on its own terms when it begins to make sense in light of the beliefs, values, goals, interests, and concerns that motivate it. But human beings are inherently fallible and always subject to error. So it is always possible that, even when everything seems to make sense, we do not really understand the things that we think we understand.  The upshot is that even when we think that we have understood a policy possibility on its own terms, we may always come across something that makes us think that we haven’t. So we should always remain open to the possibility that we have not yet understood a possibility on its own terms and must rethink the whole thing all over again.

This is the human condition. And there is no way around it. One of the most difficult things in life is how to know whether we are ahead or behind—whether, in other words, we disagree with someone because we do not quite understand the reasoning behind his beliefs, or because we understand the reasoning behind them well enough and believe that they are false.

But this is where your imagination, creativity, and courage come in. In order to understand a policy possibility on its own terms, you will typically have to break out of your own mental prison far enough and long enough to think how someone who thinks very differently from you might think. This will require your creativity to find a way to explore the world with someone else’s eyes. It will require your imagination to see how the world might look to someone who has very different concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests than you do. And it may even require your courage to question your most fundamental beliefs, values, goals, interests, and concerns—and, very possibly, the courage to become a very different person than you currently are by doing so.

The Interactivity Foundation (IF) promotes a different culture in its public discussions. IF promotes public discussions among citizens all of the time — not just in the lead-up to an election or in the aftermath of a crisis. We encourage people to think broadly and in contrasting ways about policy possibilities, because we think that it is important for the health of a democracy that its citizens have an opportunity to think through the contrasting policy possibilities that might emanate from the diverse beliefs, values, goals, and interests of this nation.

The Interactivity Foundation also promotes non-advocacy discussions about policy. We do not push for consensus among our discussion participants, and we do not ask them to choose their preferred possibilities from our reports. The possibilities in our reports actually are neither policy recommendations, nor necessarily the best possibilities to adopt. They are, however, developed with an eye toward engendering thoughtful discussion about that area of concern.

Our policy possibilities are typically articulated in a sentence or two in our reports. But these sentences are not sound bites with which we ask you to agree or disagree. Right below it you find a description of the reasoning behind the policy possibility, which is well thought out and internally consistent and essential for understanding what the possibility is all about. We engage small size groups—preferably six to eight participants—in our public discussions, which give everyone in the group an opportunity to articulate and explore their own thinking about the policy possibilities that we present, as well as the thinking of the others in the group. So you do not get the feeling that you are one in a crowd of thousands listening to some candidate tell you what you should think or how you should vote—but a feeling that you are actually exploring what possibility means through a discussion with a small group of your neighbors.

IF policy discussions are also free of the negativity that permeates policy discussions during the political campaigns. We focus on the exploration and development of ideas, rather than the critique of current policies. We discuss what is possible, but we are not Pollyannas about it. Our reports present a wide variety of issues and concerns and policy possibilities. People may find some of our possibilities attractive, and others repulsive. But our discussions are not debates about which ones are right, wrong, or the best.

But the best way to understand our policy discussions, once again, is to actually participate in them. So please come and join us for one of our public policy discussions.

IF typically organizes a discussion series—usually 3 or 4 meetings—for small groups of people to explore the possibilities in our reports. The possibilities in our reports emanate from the different concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that Americans might have about an area of concern. They thus present contrasting possibilities that emanate from conceptual differences. Our reports are thus very different from other policy reports, which generally tend to advocate specific possibilities, and rarely explore possibilities that conflict with them. Our reports are not recommendations, or policy proposals, or calls for action, like so many other policy reports and discussions. They are designed to engage citizens in an interactive discussion and to encourage a thoughtful exploration of an area of concern, and a better understanding of why some citizens might support one possibility and not another.

IF creates opportunities and public space for small groups of people to engage in thoughtful discussions. Our public discussions usually involve about eight participants. We usually take an hour or so to explore each possibility, and there are often eight possibilities in a report. Our discussion meetings are often spaced a week or two apart. This gives our participants time to reflect upon the discussions. We do it this way because it takes time to be thoughtful, and because we want to give our participants a chance to thoughtfully explore each possibility. We find that our participants often come back with new insights and new ideas and better prepared to explore the other possibilities in the report with more open minds.

We ask our participants to approach each possibility by trying to appreciate what it means and why someone might propose it. We also ask them to try to consider the possibility from the perspective of someone who might propose it before they begin to assess it from their own perspective. This often means looking at the world through someone else’s eyes and with someone else’s concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests in mind. The point is to try to understand the possibility and its connection to the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that inspired it before you think about where you stand in relation to it.

This is part of what it means to have an interactive discussion. Interactive discussions promote thoughtfulness by encouraging people to seriously consider concerns, beliefs, values, goals, interests, and policy possibilities that may be fundamentally different from their own. We explore each possibility through interactive discussions as we try to understand it. But we do not debate the possibilities or the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that inspired them, since debates tend to polarize the discussion and can even impede understanding as they often are more about attacking and defending a possibility than understanding it.

Our facilitators do not try to lead the group towards ‘the best possibility’ or to show why a certain possibility is the most feasible, or the most likely to be adopted given the political realities. They do not advocate for or against any possibility. Nor do they push for consensus. Our discussions are more about understanding the possibilities, and the concerns, beliefs, values, goals, and interests that motivate it, so that each participant is in a better position to make up their own minds for themselves.

Another difference between IF discussions and many other public policy discussions is that IF discussions tend to be more civil. This is partly because they are conducted by skilled facilitators, and partly because the exploratory nature of the IF discussion process and each policy possibility does not really threaten anyone by forcing them to conform or subscribe to the majority’s values and beliefs.

The best way to learn what IF public discussions are like is to participate in them. IF is continuously organizing them in different parts of the country. Do not hesitate to join one.

Where to begin with his stories? Underage Navy veteran of World War Two? Progressive supporter of the farm implement strikes round and about Moline, Illinois? Budding investigative reporter of the early Civil Rights movement, after a detour through a fine arts program? Aide to a visionary municipal leader? Communications advisor to many officials and causes? Or citizen activist on matters large and small? Or picking up the Habitat for Humanity hammer at seventy-plus in the delta country of Mississippi?

This week of fond remembrance has helped me see that he was much more than the sum of these parts. I realize now that he was one of those who I regard as a model of active citizenship. He was constantly engaged and looking to leave things better than he found them. He certainly had a point of view: comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. In the wake of shared difficulties (usually reactions from powers-that-be to our assaults on the status quo) he would assure me that one significant measure of a life was the types of people one had managed to make angry. In the wake of problems solved he was just as quick to point out that another measure of a life was the diversity of people one could work with. Let’s say Owen was blessed by abundance in both categories.

It was this abundance in his friendships, partnerships, and information sources that made me think of him as one of my models of civic engagement. For over forty years he participated in a weekly luncheon discussion of issues of the day. His conversation partners in these luncheons included Republican and Democrat leaders, business executives, government administrators, old Milwaukee socialists, labor union officials, peace and civil rights activists, and clergy. But at the end of the day those partners were exchanged for cab drivers, machinists, office workers, and nurses. He could bring something to and learn something from both conversational environments.

Owen had an abiding interest in helping people understand how government worked and what policy meant in every day terms. If you were his favored political candidate he could not abide ill-informed comments out of your mouth. If he was backing your cause he did everything he could to help shape a clear and compelling message based on facts. He held us all to high standards.

Wisconsin noted the passing of another notable character this week. One of the four co-conspirators of the bombing of the Army Math Center on the University of Wisconsin campus in 1970, Dwight Armstrong, died at 58. Owen and Dwight were both opponents of the Vietnam War. They obviously had very different ideas about how to shape public opinion about that fracas. Oddly enough their paths crossed a number of times in some fairly unusual ways, including Owen calling in a labor union favor to have Dwight transferred to a less dangerous cell block in the prison where he was doing time for a methamphetamine manufacturing conviction in the 1980s. No doubt some large part of Owen probably thought of Dwight as a total knot head. At the same time, he knew full well the passions of the time and the chain reactions of bad decisions that young men seem so prone to. Owen was a compassionate grouch.

Owen would have probably found it amusing and predictable that a week after he and Dwight died that the Sunday New York Times devoted forty column inches to Dwight. Owen tallied zero inches in the national record. But here in Wisconsin, Owen’s legacy runs deep. He shaped conversation and touched lives. He taught so many how to talk and argue in ways that brought out the best in them. And he never so much as touched a bomb after his World War Two service.

IF discussions are not debates about which policy is the best for us to adopt. They are opportunities for us to learn about the possibilities that exist, and to come to a better understanding of our own minds. We do not aim at persuading people of policies or at forging a consensus among them. We aim simply at describing the different possibilities, and at encouraging people to discuss them. Each of our policy possibilities presents a conceptual approach toward an area of concern that deserves exploration in its own right. And taken together, they represent a wide range of the different concepts, beliefs, values, interests, concerns, and goals that might motivate public policy in that area of concern.

But here, someone might ask ‘What use is it for us to discuss policy possibilities at all?’ This question goes to the very heart of what we are trying to do. It may suggest that action is all that really matters and that discussion is a waste of time. It may also suggest that the decisions will ultimately be made by an elite group of policy makers and experts regardless of what we say or do.

The discussion of contrasting policy possibilities that we envision may ultimately lead to action and should be followed up by a thoughtful discussion of the actions that might be taken to implement them. But all actions are taken to achieve some end, regardless of whether or not that end is recognized or stated. And one of the very best ways to ensure that policy choices will be made without consideration of what the citizens in that society want is for them not to have any contrasting possibilities to discuss, or any opportunities to thoughtfully discuss them. We think that the discussion of a wide range of contrasting policy possibilities may also:

• help us to better understand our own concerns, beliefs, hopes, and desires–which in turn may help us to make better policy choices
• promote tolerance and respect for the concerns of others by helping us to understand what they believe, hope, and desire—and why
• help us to better evaluate the policy proposals that others might make
• help us to treat public policy as a choice among different visions of the future–as opposed to a battle between good and evil, or right and wrong
• help us to develop ideas that we may decide are preferable to our current ideas
• give us recourse to several well-developed alternative policy possibilities if and when we decide to abandon the ones that we have currently chosen to pursue, and
• leave us better equipped to exercise our democratic will at the ballot box if and when policy makers ignore our input.

Several issues concerning good governance and useful deliberation were exposed by those chaotic events. The surprise on the part of the officials who convened those events and the media who covered them provides something of a teachable moment for those devoted to citizen conversation.

Among some of the possible lessons are that many of our public officials have a fundamental misunderstanding of what goes into useful deliberation and how to achieve it. It appears to many that public officials are mostly concerned with the fact that these events “got out of control”. That language itself suggests that they would not know meaningful citizen governance deliberation if it bit them in the behind. Given that these are supposedly experienced people, their naiveté is almost shocking and their embarrassment at being out-hustled and out-organized obscures not only their lack of preparation on the policy but on the process.

These events were not “town hall” meetings. The town hall meeting has fairly precise meanings and usages in the jurisdictions were it is available. They have the benefit of continuity and certain civic habits. They can certainly provide forums for passionate debate, but they do follow process and they can provide follow-up and adjustment. The noisy events in question might be better characterized as “listening sessions”, though the angry statements issued seemed more geared toward political theater than reflection and deliberation.

There are thoughtful and deliberative Congressional representatives who have been holding productive listening sessions for years on the big picture of health care. They were less susceptible to ambush and have left their constituents with a much clearer picture of their stance on the various ways health care reform might be approached.

Those calmer heads and clearer minds tell us something about how helpful citizen interactivity might proceed on contentious issues:

• Useful citizen conversation gets out in front of emerging issues and helps everyone understand the issues and interests at stake.
• Citizen conversation relies upon continual cultivation of civic habits and civility—making sure that there is as much listening as talking going on.
• The whole community is responsible for the civic literacy that is required to keep citizen conversation on a rational and well-informed basis—thus being resistant to misinformation and manipulation.
• Citizen conversation should include feedback loops and ways for citizens to  monitor developments and participate in later stages of governance discussion where possible.
• Those responsible for citizen conversation events must take their responsibilities seriously and organize and conduct them in ways that build community and create positive deliberative experiences—not further spread the feeling that “nothing works”.

The town hall meeting in the 21^st century can rely on many new tools, but it will be helpful to approach these tasks with common sense and sensitivity older than the town hall itself.

Debate among opposing views, political brokering, and agency listening sessions may pass for deliberation in some quarters, but are far from what is needed in a healthy democracy. Working with the IF discussion process has given me a sense, after nearly 30 years in pubic sector work, that a more holistic deliberative approach in government calls for a number features that are seldom present in most government operations:

• A genuine effort to look beyond present controversies and to improve our ability to deal with the future.
• An open attitude that encourages the exploration of a wider array of possibilities for policy development and government action.
• Creation of non-partisan deliberative bodies that assist government with the challenges of future focus and broader consideration of alternatives.
• Greater inclusiveness and diversity in the voices represented in those deliberative bodies, with independence and expertise valued more than political connections.
• Dedication to periodic review of practices that allow assumptions to be questioned and that favors adjustments to reflect changing conditions.

IF founder Jay Stern was very interested in the concept of advisory bodies that might help agencies and officials deal with some of these deficiencies. The basic idea was that such bodies could operate more independently and exercise judgment unclouded by political pressures. Under that type of approach, we might hope to see more than two overtly partisan options and the split-the-difference compromise discussed seriously.

Unfortunately, progress toward such practices has not been impressive in our highly partisan era. However, we are not without models for better deliberative practices. Here and there Progressive Era innovations still function in a number of states, and local governments still offer some opportunities to serve as laboratories for deliberative mechanisms—like participatory budgeting and facilitated citizen participation in land use planning.

As is the case with most “reform”, broader use of deliberative best practices probably awaits more obvious demand for them from the public and more experience with those practices at the grassroots level.