Tiny House
More About The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation • Join Now!
Community News

Guidance for Writing Op-Eds on Edwards Proposal

This article was written as part of the “Democracy Communications Network,” a 2007-2009 project that encouraged leaders in deliberative democracy to periodically write op-eds and blog posts as part of larger, collaborative media campaigns to raise awareness of the importance of quality public engagement. Use the “Democracy Communications Network” tag to see the articles  written in association with this project.

Joe Goldman from AmericaSpeaks sent this extraordinarily helpful message out to those considering writing op-eds…

Background on the Situation

This week, a unique opportunity has arisen for people in the citizen engagement field to collaborate with one another and raise awareness about the need to provide the public with a greater voice in the governance process. If we are successful, it may serve as a precedent for creating an ongoing public communications network for the citizen engagement field.

The purpose of the memorandum is to offer guidance for individuals who have expressed interest in writing an op-ed or blog post to take advantage of a major candidate for President calling for regular national discussions.

The Facts

Former Senator Edwards will unveil a government reform agenda as part of his Presidential campaign. Among his proposals for government reform, Senator Edwards will call for the creation of a Citizen Congress that will on an annual or biannual basis convene one million Americans in national discussions on issues of high public concern. The Citizen Congress will offer our nation’s leaders with advisory opinions on the challenges facing our country and the trade-offs among different solutions.

The current plan is for this speech to be made on Saturday in Keene, NH. As is true with anything on a campaign, this could change at any point. Op-eds and blog posts should be targeted to immediately follow the speech.

Linking the Announcement to Your Message

It is up to you to write about whatever key message you would like. In general, our intent is not to write about the candidate, but to use the announcement as an opportunity to talk about the importance of involving the public in policy making. To help jog your thinking, here are examples of ways that you can frame the announcement and link to your message:

• Across the globe, public leaders have begun advocating new means of involving citizens in governance. [quick references to Canada, Britain, France, Venezuela, etc.] Now, finally, a candidate in the United States has followed suit…

• An idea is percolating up in America–the idea that citizens should have a greater role in making public policy. It’s been tried and tested boldly in communities across the country [possible local reference here]. Now, a Presidential candidate has picked up its scent and has declared it’s time to move these ideas to the center of the American process of self-government. John Edwards has declared …

• In the crowded Democratic primary, candidates are looking for ways to distinguish themselves in a field where policy positions often match up quite closely. John Edwards may have found a way to set himself apart by being the first to call for …

From there, you could simply say “it’s about time,” “here’s what he proposes,” and “here’s why this direction of engaging the public is important.”

Sample Messages about Engaging the Public in National Discussions

It is up to you to write about whatever message you would like. Here are examples of messages with regard to the value of national discussions. However, you may choose to focus on local civic engagement or other important topics that are vital to your work.

1. Challenge: We Need to Rebuild the Public’s Trust in Our Democratic Institutions

– The American public no longer trusts its leaders to do what is right. People do not see their values reflected in Washington and have lost faith in the institutions that are supposed to represent them.

— According to a July 2007 CBS News/NYT Poll, the percentage of Americans who think you can trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time” has declined steadily from its peak after September 11th from 55% in 2001 to 24% in 2007. Similarly, a CNN/USA Today/Gallop Poll in January 2006 found that 32% of people trusted government to do the right thing “just about always” or “most of the time,” compared to 60% in October 2001.

— In a March 2007 poll by The Pew Charitable Trusts, only 34% of Americans said that they believe government “cares about what people like me think.”

– Special interest groups have come to dominate our political system. By flooding the capital with paid lobbyists and flooding the air waves with one-sided advertisements, special interest groups prevent our nation’s leaders from finding common ground and working in the public interest.

— There is no shortage of examples of critical public issues on which leaders have been unable to find agreement to support the common good of the nation. One can look back to the Clinton Health Care Plan in 1994 – a time in which the public believed something needed to be done to fix the nation’s health care system – in which special interest groups manipulated the system and prevented action from taking place. A national consensus will help to provide leaders with a mandate to act.

– Time and time again, our best, most respected political leaders have lamented that the atmosphere in Congress has changed, and that governing has become more about winning and partisanship than representing the best interest of the nation.

— See The Broken Branch by Mann and Ornstein

2. We Need to Look Beyond Elections to Fix Our Democracy. Democracy is More Than a Spectator Sport.

– On the issues of highest public concern – Iraq, taxes, health care, jobs – Americans have no formal way to wrestle with the choices facing policy makers and let their preferences be known.

— All to often, when we talk about fixing our democracy, we focus on elections: campaign finance reform, redistricting, and policies to increase voter turnout. People need a voice beyond elections. Special interest groups don’t just try to influence elections. They pay lobbyists to influence decision making the other 364 days of the year and spend millions of dollars to shape public opinion outside of the election cycle.

3. National Discussions will Strengthen our Democracy by Providing a Voice for the Public and Identifying Common Ground Positions for which Leaders Can Advocate

– National discussions will foster consensus and encourage people to focus on solutions for the common good. Rather than just talking with their neighbors, citizens respond to the opinions and views of people from across the country. Together, they seek to identify the common priorities, not of a city or a state, but of the American public as a whole.

– National discussions will empower the public and increase the capacity of our governing institutions to address difficult policy issues. Not only does a national discussion identify clear public priorities, it mobilizes citizens behind those priorities. It builds the political will needed to act by creating a constituency behind a given action.

– National discussions will make the public less subject to manipulation. By providing the public with a chance to learn about an issue and struggle through the tough policy trade-offs involved, deliberation would increase resistance to spin by special interests.

4. In Local Communities Across the Nation and Countries Around the World, Citizens Are Already Playing a Role in the Policy Making Process

– Insert examples as needed

Op-Ed by Kim Pearce for San Francisco Chronicle Open Forum

This article was written as part of the “Democracy Communications Network,” a 2007-2009 project that encouraged leaders in deliberative democracy to periodically write op-eds and blog posts as part of larger, collaborative media campaigns to raise awareness of the importance of quality public engagement. Use the “Democracy Communications Network” tag to see the articles  written in association with this project.

Almost everyone I speak with feels the way I do—our current political process for discussing crucial and complex issues and arriving at wise and sound solutions is broken. Take any controversial domestic or international issue and you will find the inability of congress to act. Citizens are left mostly on the sidelines watching our politicians battle it out without a way to effectively contribute to the national conversation.

Finally, a Presidential candidate has recognized the importance of “thinking outside of our current political box.” On Saturday, October 13, Presidential candidate John Edwards proposed the “One Democracy Initiative: Returning Washington to Regular People.” Among other things, Edwards is calling for the creation of a Citizen Congress that would convene one million Americans on a biannual basis to discuss important national issues. Sounds improbable? Fortunately, we have success stories of just this kind of citizen engagement in countries such as Canada, Australia, and Denmark. Sadly, America is not leading the way in involving citizens in important policy discussions.

Why is a proposal like this important? For starters, we need to rebuild the public’s trust in our democratic institutions. Most Americans no longer trust their leaders and we have lost faith in the institutions that are supposed to represent us. Time and time again, our best, most respected political leaders have lamented that the atmosphere in Congress has changed and that governing has become more about winning and partisanship than representing the best interests of the nation. The issues are too important and the risks too high for this kind of behavior to occur.

Second, we need to look beyond elections to fix our democracy; democracy is more than a spectator sport. Special interest groups don’t just try to influence elections. They spend millions of dollars to influence decision making on Capital Hill the other 364 days of the year. On the issues of highest public concern—Iraq, health care, education, jobs—Americans have no formal way to wrestle with the choices facing policy makers and let their preferences be known. We need a mechanism by which to meaningfully involve the public in these critical issues.

Third, national discussions will strengthen our democracy by providing a voice for the public and identifying common ground positions for which leaders can advocate. National discussions will empower the public and increase the capacity of our governing institutions to address difficult policy issues. Not only does a national discussion identify clear public priorities, it mobilizes citizens behind those priorities. It builds the political will needed to act by creating a constituency behind a given action. National discussions will also make the public much less vulnerable to manipulation. By struggling through the tough policy trade-offs in any decision, deliberation increases the resistance to spin by special interest.

Lastly, in local communities across the nation and in countries around the world, citizens are already playing an effective role in the policy making process. The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (www.ncdd.org) is an umbrella organization involving hundreds of groups working across the country and around the world to involve citizens in meaningful dialogue and deliberative processes that can and do make a difference. Over the last fifteen years, these groups have demonstrated that well organized and facilitated events (even those involving thousands of people in remote locations) are possible, that they strengthen democracy and civic engagement, and they make it easier for political leaders to make tough decisions that move the country forward.

The time has come for creative and bold ideas about how to involve the public in the policy issues that affect us all. I applaud John Edwards in his clarion call for a Citizen Congress. I hope the other Presidential candidates take the same kind of bold leadership, recognizing that the current system is broken and that one way to fix it is to provide meaningful opportunities for citizens to be involved in the choices that affect us all.

Kimberly Pearce
Professor, Communication
De Anza College
Cupertino, CA

Setting Standards in San Jose, California case study

This 2006 case study examines Public Agenda’s work with the San Jose Unified School District and the Danforth Foundation to initiate a program of focus groups that would culminate in a district-wide community conversation on academic standards and expectations.

Resource Link: http://www.publicagenda.org/public-engagement-projects/setting-standards-san-jose-california

Transforming Public Life: A Decade of Citizen Engagement in Bridgeport, CT

On the face of it, the story of Bridgeport, Connecticut, is a familiar one. After losing much of its manufacturing and industrial base following the Second World War, the city confronted the problems of many old industrial cities—high unemployment, a shrinking tax base, the growth of violent crime and drugs. So far, so familiar. But what sets Bridgeport apart from cities with similar histories is the evolving story of its uncommonly rich civic life. When it comes time to solve community problems or make and implement public policy, the institutions, organizations, and individuals of Bridgeport defy business as usual through a remarkably inclusive and deliberative citizen-centered approach to problem solving. This 2007 case study written by Will Friedman, Alison Kadlec, and Lara Birnback for Public Agenda traces the evolution of this unusual civic culture and reflects on its lessons.

Resource Link: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/cape_bridgeport.pdf

Reframing “Framing”

This 5-page article (2007) written by Will Friedman for Public Agenda addresses the concept of nonpartisan framing for deliberation, which aims to clarify the range of positions surrounding an issue so that citizens can better decide what they want to do.

While framing has received significant mainstream attention of late, what is not being discussed is the limited context in which framing is conceived. The current infatuation with framing is concerned virtually exclusively with the power politics of parties and interest groups, and the winning or losing of their respective battles. But what if we asked instead about the relationship of framing to fostering citizenship and enabling democratic deliberation and dialogue? What if we were to reframe framing to focus less on how it can help one side or another win the political game and more on what it means, and can mean, for strengthening the democratic process?

Resource Link: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/Reframing%20Framing.pdf

NCDD’s Three-Year Strategic Plan

The NCDD staff, Board of Directors, Steering Committee, and membership all participated in a collaborative visioning and planning process to provide us with clarity about NCDD’s objectives, vision, resources and strengths, and a blueprint for effectively incorporating all of these things into our decision-making process. Our Strategic Plan is the result of this process. For an organization that is being pulled in dozens of different directions due to the varied needs of our members, our field of practice, our communities and humanity in general, this plan will help ensure that NCDD develops into an efficient, forward-thinking organization.

Funds from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation enabled us to work closely with Cathy Flavin-McDonald of the Leadership Research Institute to answer the question “What is the vision of what NCDD can and should be, and how can we get there from here?” We are indebted to both the Hewlett Foundation and to the Leadership Research Institute for their roles in enabling this plan to come into fruition.

National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, January (2007)

Resource Link: www.ncdd.org/exchange/files/docs/NCDD_%20Strategic_Plan.doc

Sandy Heierbacher, Director of NCDD
sandy@thataway.org
717-243-5144

Ready for 21st Century Careers Choicework guide

Whether they’re planning to attend a four-year university, a two-year degree program or enter an on-the-job training program, today’s students will be living in a world of rapid technological change where more and more good jobs and promising careers will require a solid background in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM). From nursing to auto mechanics to marketing, workers will need a greater mastery of these subjects than ever before. Even many jobs that do not directly involve STEM will require the kinds of analytic skills that these subjects help students to develop. This 2005 Public Agenda Choicework guide explores the questions: How can we change these trends and make sure that all students who graduate from our high schools have the STEM education they’ll need?

Based on decades of research and experience concerning how average citizens think and talk about issues, Public Agenda’s Choicework Discussion Starters are designed to help groups and communities talk productively about public problems. Public Agenda’s Choicework guides and Discussion Starters outline several different approaches to solving specific public policy problems, along with the pros, cons and trade-offs of each choice. They use everyday language, not professional jargon, and focus on the kinds of concerns and values that non-experts can readily understand.

Resource Link: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/choiceworkfor21stcenturycareers.pdf

Preventing Crime and Promoting Public Safety Choicework guide

There are a variety of strategies that can guide a police department in its efforts to prevent crime and promote public safety. Some of these strategies may be more effective for a given community than others. To help citizens better understand the range of strategies that police departments can use, the Public Agenda created this 2005 Citizen Choicework guide that reviews three key approaches: improving police procedures for solving serious crime; sweating the small stuff; and partnering with the community to fight crime.

Based on decades of research and experience concerning how average citizens think and talk about issues, Public Agenda’s Choicework Discussion Starters are designed to help groups and communities talk productively about public problems. Public Agenda’s Choicework guides and Discussion Starters outline several different approaches to solving specific public policy problems, along with the pros, cons and trade-offs of each choice. They use everyday language, not professional jargon, and focus on the kinds of concerns and values that non-experts can readily understand.

Resource Link: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/public_safety.pdf

Everyone Ready for School: How Can We Ensure High Quality Early Childhood Programs? Choicework guide

Many families choose to place their children in some of preschool program, but these programs can vary widely in quality. This 2005 Public Agenda Choicework guide explores the question: How can we make sure that all preschools provide safe and enriching environments that do a good job preparing children for school?

Based on decades of research and experience concerning how average citizens think and talk about issues, Public Agenda’s Choicework Discussion Starters are designed to help groups and communities talk productively about public problems. Public Agenda’s Choicework guides and Discussion Starters outline several different approaches to solving specific public policy problems, along with the pros, cons and trade-offs of each choice. They use everyday language, not professional jargon, and focus on the kinds of concerns and values that non-experts can readily understand.

Resource Link: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/school_readiness.pdf

Ensuring Teacher Quality Choicework guide

Most people would agree that you can’t have good schools without good teachers, and that it’s crucial to ensure that there is a quality teacher in every classroom. This 2005 Public Agenda Choicework guide explores the questions: How do we ensure teacher quality? What are the qualities, skills, knowledge and behaviors that set quality teachers apart?

Based on decades of research and experience concerning how average citizens think and talk about issues, Public Agenda’s Choicework Discussion Starters are designed to help groups and communities talk productively about public problems. Public Agenda’s Choicework guides and Discussion Starters outline several different approaches to solving specific public policy problems, along with the pros, cons and trade-offs of each choice. They use everyday language, not professional jargon, and focus on the kinds of concerns and values that non-experts can readily understand.

Resource Link: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/teacher_quality.pdf

-