Photo Credit: ~Steve Z~ via Compfight cc

Leaping Across the Divide: A New Conversation on Guns (Part One)

I am not violently opposed to guns, but they play no part in my life and I cannot think of a person I know who owns one. As such, I know very little about them, their distinctions and uses. When it comes to the controversy over guns, I think of gun violence—suicide impulses acted upon, family shootings, Newtown or Colombine, two hundred rounds discharged in the Watertown shoot-out with the Boston Marathon Bombers. I have a lot of trouble parsing out the language of the Second Amendment to mean that we ought to be allowed to bear semi-automatic guns and 100-round magazines of ammo. Overall, I have had a real problem understanding people who like guns.

Recently, I attended a dialogue event co-hosted by Public Conversations, The Mantle Project and the Christian Science Monitor called “GUNS: An Evening for Story and Dialogue” (see video here). I went because I have been thinking for a while that the gun issue is not only about guns. I know that people on both sides of the gun debate care so much about the issue because for them, it’s about something deeper and more complex. I went to the event in search of that—in search of what we at Public Conversations call “the heart of the matter.”

At the event, I met an extraordinary fellow. We sat next to each other by chance, and in the course of the program, I found out his name was Brent Carlton, and that he was a co-founder of Commonwealth Second Amendment, an organization established to protect Second Amendment rights.[1] In addition, he was an intelligent, authentic and open person whom I found very engaging and easy to speak with. When he mentioned that he conducts gun safety and use training courses, on impulse I asked if I could attend. He agreed to invite me as his guest. In all of a few moments, I realized an enormous opportunity to learn from him. [2]

So here I am, a board member of Public Conversations, volunteering to chronicle my entry into dialogue with this fellow who stands for something I do not understand. In doing this, I am taking the action that I want us to practice as a society.

In a few days, I will attend his gun safety and training program. I will bring along all my biases and an open heart and a commitment to dialogue. And I will bring respect and curiosity with a hope to learn and participate in some meaningful way in the conversation about guns. I hope to go to those deeper levels of understanding of myself and of those whom I have looked at as “other”— those I have labeled and misunderstood in one way or another—as I listen carefully to what he may wish to tell me. I shall ask for the opportunity to ask him questions of genuine curiosity about guns and his beliefs, values and identity.

Wish me luck; I will keep you posted.

[1] You can learn more about Brent’s organization, Commonwealth Second Amendment, by visiting their website: www.comm2a.org

[2] Before posting this I asked Brent if he might be willing to review what I had written. He graciously offered to help me avoid some of the traps that anti-gun folks fall into when speaking to gun owners and/or Second Amendment supporters. I am very appreciative. Upon his recommendation, I have used the term “semi-automatic gun” instead of “assault weapon” and “magazine” instead of “clip” in the first paragraph. I’m looking forward to learning more from Brent about the range of firearm terminology.

The draft tool can be found at
www.ncdd.org/storytelling-tool and I encourage everybody to take a look and give the tool a test drive by entering one of your dialogue and deliberation projects!

For a long time now, NCDD has wanted to find a way to collect more stories from our members about their dialogue and deliberation projects.  We’re working with both the Kettering Foundation and Participedia.net to broaden the reach of your stories — and give you more incentive to tell us about the great work you’re doing!

We’ve designed the tool to be as simple and streamlined as possible, with few required fields.  But if you find that something is missing or confusing in any way, we want to hear about it now so we can improve the tool.

We know how busy you all are, and that it can be hard to finish up one project before diving into the next.  We hope this simple tool will help you make a point of reporting (however briefly) on your D&D projects and programs on a regular basis.  By partnering with Kettering and Participedia, and by feeding appropriate entries into the NCDD blog and resource center, we’re helping you spread the word about what you’ve been accomplishing and learning.

Kettering is interested in learning more about innovative dialogue and deliberation projects, across a variety of different methodologies.  Participedia is interested in learning about more projects so they can potentially build fully formed case studies on them for inclusion in Participedia.  Other partners may be added in the future, if they can help broaden our reach.

Let me know what you think of the tool, whether you have any questions, and especially if you have any suggestions! Add a comment to this post, or email me at sandy@ncdd.org.

Note:  The photo shown here depicts Martin Carcasson and some of the students he brought to the 2012 NCDD conference in Seattle. It was taken as part of a photo slideshow project we ran leading up to the conference.

We had over 100 participants, 75 of which dropped in on the call’s collaborative doc, which this time was hosted on Hackpad.com and focused on several thoughtful questions and next steps. One next step we’ll be following up on from this call is to create and host a listserv for those in our field working on red/blue or transpartisan dialogue. We think this will help folks working in this arena stay informed about each other’s efforts and collaborate when possible. Add a comment below if you’d like to be added to this new listserv!

Use the links below to listen to the audio recording of the call and check out other call-related material posted on the NCDD blog.

1. Listen to the Confab Call.
The full conversation with questions and comments.

2. Check out the Confab Call’s Collaborative Hackpad Doc.
Participants were encouraged to introduce themselves, ask questions and respond to discussion points.

3. Check out the Confab Call’s “Recent History” Infographic.
The infographic looks at Red/Blue Dialogue initiatives within the NCDD community over the past 10 years.

4. Read Jacob Hess’ “Questions about your work in red-blue dialogue”.
Take a moment and go through the 40+ fascinating comments generated by Jacob’s inquiry.

5. Thoughts from CSD’s Brandon Lee on yesterday’s call on red-blue dialogue.
“So much of cross-ideology participation has to do with how conversations and issues are framed.”

The Kettering Foundation has an exciting new opportunity to test deliberative decision making in a new and challenging environment –Israel.

KF will be working with Udi Cohen and the Citizens Accord Forum as they plan to hold deliberative forums with Israeli Jews and Arabs on shared everyday problems, such as education. At least 600 Jewish and Arab citizens will be involved, including some ultra-Orthodox Jewish citizens.

Cohen says the ultimate goal is to help begin to transform the Arab-Israeli conflict. “Of course, we are aware that ‘peace’ will not necessarily come as a result of this project,” Cohen says. “However, we are convinced that it will contribute a great deal to the transformative conflict work that we have been conducting in recent years.”

Cohen has previously participated in and served on the faculty for KF’s DDW workshops. He became convinced that deliberative politics could be helpful in Israel, where he describes the basic political problem as the difficulty of “decision makers and citizens from different backgrounds to make progress in reaching a transformative solution of the core issues and episodic problems in the conflict within Israel between Palestinian-Arab and Jewish citizens.” Based on recent studies of Jewish-Arab relations in Israel, Cohen describes a complex and contradictory situation amongst citizens there, “where on the one hand the gap and the alienation between Jews and Arabs are consistently growing, and on the other hand both parties testify to a will for a different future of truly shared life in this country.”

The project also gives Kettering a chance to build in a number of its ideas about deliberative decision making into the learning process itself. Because deliberation is not an American invention, associates from around the world will be involved in helping Cohen to prepare for the forums. This has, in turn, required us to make use of technology whenever possible, which is another kind of experiment for us in how we work with others. A Skype call last week between KF president David Mathews, program officer Phil Lurie, and KF associates Igor Nagdasev (Russia), Ruby Quantson (Ghana), Idit Manosevitch, Uri Cohen, and his team on how to develop the practice of deliberation in citizens went very well and may have implications for other multinational exchanges.

We got plenty to share, and we’re wondering if some of you would like a handful — or even a small stack — sent to you to distribute at conferences you’re attending or running, public meetings, or workshops you’re giving.  Distributing these postcards helps raise awareness of this great network we’re all involved in, and it could help you show people that the work you’re doing is part of a larger movement towards more engaged public and group processes.

Here’s what the front looks like:

And here’s the back…

Let me know if you’d like some postcards sent your way, and about how many (50? 100? 200?). Add a comment below or email me at sandy@ncdd.org.

Also – I’d like to take this opportunity to ask NCDD members what kinds of materials like this (affordable-to-print materials like postcards, brochures, handouts) would be most useful for you.  I’ve long dreamed of creating different postcards for different types of dialogue and deliberation processes, where on one side people would see the name, logo, and some inspiring text about the process they’re experiencing, and on the other they’d see more general text that lets them know that what they’re doing is part of a broader movement towards more participatory, empowered problem-solving in America, and sends them somewhere to learn more (like NCDD’s Beginner’s Guide).

Would something like that be useful for NCDDers?  What would be useful to you instead, or in addition, to something like that?  Please share your thoughts here!

Had a great time listening in to NCDD’s confab call this month on liberal-conservative dialogue. Unfortunately I had to jump off a little early, but there was still plenty of great conversation to be had. Here are some takeaways and other thoughts from the call:

• So much of cross-ideology participation has to do with how conversations and issues are framed. Folks from both sides have a tendency to incorporate their own viewpoints when advertising a discussion, or encouraging others to come in (IE: Everyone can participation in conversations about “social justice,” but some are turned off by the mere mention of the term “social justice.”). How can we be more open with how we discuss discussions?
• Just like we must consider the language we use in trying to be inclusive of those with other views, we must also consider who is moderating as well. If a trusted emissary brings the group together, the conversation will likely be more robust than if the conveners are one-sided in their stances. Here is a timeline of major liberal-conservative collaborations, via NCDD.
• People can spend at least some of their lives sheltered from others who share different viewpoints. When folks start to interact and have conversations with people who have seemingly opposing views, people find out that they actually like eachother. This is huge, and it prevents people from thinking that others are the essence of pure evil.
• Living Room Conversations is one model that allows people to have these sort of cross-ideology talks.
• The two speakers on the call, Jacob Hess and Phil Neisser collaborated on a book discussing their, at one time, unlikely friendship — You’re Not as Crazy as I Thought (But You’re Still Wrong)
• Check out NCDD’s hackpad for the confab, which contains questions, thoughts, and links to other resources discussed on the call.
• Keep an eye on NCDD’s news page for other media from today’s confab as well

We’ve been discussing civility in many contexts, not just “red-blue” dialogue between regular folks, but also with regard to race and the media (such as the use of the “I-word”), and how a lack of civility inhibits the work of Congress. This sort of cross-ideological conversation needs to happen in order for us to have a strong democracy, because as everyone remains in their own silos, no discussion actually happens.

A HUGE thank you goes out to NCDD to making this conversation happen! We’re looking forward to thinking and talking and acting on this further.

See the original post at http://strongerdemocracy.org/2013/05/15/thoughts-on-liberal-conservative-dialogue/ and learn more about the Campaign for Stronger Democracy at www.strongerdemocracy.org.

Like first brush strokes on a canvas, first thoughts provide a starting place for more refined thoughts, for subsequent brush strokes. First thoughts, like initial brush strokes, are rarely worth sharing. In fact, sharing first thoughts can be deeply counter-productive to good group decisions.

Practical Tip: Just because I think something, doesn’t mean I have to say it or act on it. When we share first thoughts we run a substantial risk of offending others, saying things we will regret, and requiring the group to spend time on issues that turn out to be a waste of time.

Best to sit with our thoughts until a clear picture emerges of what we want to say.

Hello friends,

I have important results to share with everyone!

The National Dialogue Network (NDN) conducted a survey in April 2013. A total of 415 people participated (including both self-selected and random panel responses). Each participant ranked their top five choices from a provided list of twenty-two issue titles to identify the top issue for our inaugural 2013 national conversations that will take place in communities across the U.S. in September. The top ranked issue title selected was “Poverty/Wealth in America.”

The NDN is a volunteer working group that received a Catalyst Award from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) to model a social and technical infrastructure to support “a national conversation on a common issue of importance in communities across the county.” The NDN working group and advisors confirmed the 2013 topic in early May. Broad public participation is requested to help NDN prepare nonpartisan core materials and a national survey that will be available to all this September.

To prepare for this, the public is again invited to help “frame and focus” the national conversation further by answering a quick survey on specific aspects of “Poverty/Wealth in America.” What should concern our communities as we struggle together under challenging economic circumstances?

Submissions received by June 30 will be reviewed by the NDN volunteer working group in a publicly transparent process to identify and prepare core materials and resources that touch on regional, urban, and rural concerns and questions. These materials will be used online and also offered to local hosts across the country to conduct their own conversations beginning Monday, September 2, 2013 until mid October (date still to be determined).

To submit one or more ideas to help frame and focus the national conversation on the topic of “Poverty/Wealth in America,” visit this link: http://tinyurl.com/NDN-Cycle2-2013

The formal PDF report from our NDN working group with summary, graphs, and rankings is available through this link: http://surveygizmolibrary.s3.amazonaws.com/library/95644/2013Cycle1report.pdf

To stay up to date on this topic, please subscribe to our NDN listserv that is hosted for us by NCDD:
http://tinyurl.com/ndn-listserv

And if you have any comments or other feedback then please leave us a message below. Thank you!

Voice messages for the NDN can be left on their info line: 800-369-2342; Email can be sent to info@NationalDialogueNetwork.org. Local collaborating organizers are being sought for a September rollout.

At times I feel like a mad scientist  bringing together people with diverse views to have conversations about challenging issues. In unstructured social circumstances, I would be concerned about potential blow-ups. What awes me again and again — the container that Living Room Conversations creates enables meaningful connections to form and defuses the explosive elements. It is such a joy to see the best in people as we learn from each other and discover our commonalities.

Living Room Conversations are a little startup right now, but as we connect with partners working on criminal justice reform, Wall St. reform, immigration, energy, eliminating corruption and more, the potential for empowering communities becomes clear. If this simple formula can help people connect and find common ground on a broad set of issues, just perhaps, we can change our civil and political culture.

How do we enable this simple open source project to go viral? We’ve created a sharable short video and even submitted it for the MacArthur Looking@Democracy competition.  Check it out, vote, and share it if you think of an organization or individual that might have ideas for how to use them!

Andy Fluke, NCDD’s creative director and co-founder, created a timeline for us to take a look at during this popular confab call (over 120 people have signed up so far!), to help us think about the trajectory of red-blue (or transpartisan, or political bridge-building) dialogue since NCDD’s early days.

Take a look at what we’ve featured on the timeline, and then add a comment about what you think is missing!  We know there have been many, many more red-blue dialogue efforts over the years besides the ones listed here.  Please add comments about the ones that have meant the most to you.

Also, looking over this timeline, feel free to add your thoughts and opinions on what has been tried in the past, and how we might do better going forward!  Wednesday’s Confab call with Jacob Hess and Phil Neisser is designed to get us talking about how we might work together to expand this area of dialogue and deliberation further, so your ideas are most welcome!!

And register for the call today if you haven’t already!