The Progressive Alternative Intervention

A couple of folks and I have spent the past months working to develop a vision for an alternative path for the Democratic Party.

We are worried about:

  1. the loss of integrity within the party: Democratic congresspersons being corrupted by monied interests, failure to prosecute Wall Street malfeasance, Democratic politicians and administrators cashing in their Washington ties for private gain; and
  2. the narrowing of vision of the party: the failure to present a broad, popular economic vision as bold as the New Deal, the failure to open up government and political participation to the people; the ceding of startup dreaming to the other side; and the policy blackout of local community-building.

But instead of quitting the Democratic Party, we hope to initiate a grassroots intervention in the Party to restore its integrity and broaden its vision. In the spirit of the democratic promise – the American belief in the constructive genius of ordinary women and men – we set our sights on an open nation populated by strong people: stronger citizens and communities engaging in a more open economy and democracy.

We are going to launch this website publicly around September, but I wanted to share our opening statement, which we call The Progressive Alternative Intervention. It is located at ProgressiveAlternative.org and copied in full below:

The Progressive Alternative

An Intervention in the Democratic Party
for Strong People and an Open Nation

i. The Dictatorship of No Alternatives

The American political system is failing. It is not narrowing our economic divide, tempering the climate crisis, nor supervising our global might. Our politicians are feeding at the trough of deep-pocketed donors, granting an ever-smaller cabal free reign over elections and policymaking. Our political parties are co-producing a 24-hour theater of fear and cultural resentment, abdicating their responsibility to point the way towards a better future.

We are politically disoriented. Shut out by the system, we are losing our ability to imagine ourselves shaping the economic and political forces that govern our lives. Bewildered by the lack of progress, we are resigning ourselves to the false belief that this must be the way politics is, has been, and will always be. With each passing election, we feel evermore discontent with the bland fruits of mainstream politics, evermore disillusioned with the failure of would-be saviors to realize change, and evermore disenfranchised by the concentration of political power in the hands of a self-interested few. The people of the hour and issues of the day may change, but the dictatorship of no alternatives remains.

And yet, even in these bleak conditions, we have found spaces and occasions to assert ourselves and make our dissatisfaction known. Street protests have rumbled for a globalization from below to displace sprawling corporatism. Rage at growing inequality has echoed from hundreds of city parks to millions of laptop screens. Wide-eyed youth have packed into campaign field offices on the hope that their candidate could change the way Washington works. Waves of un-cuffed hands have lifted to not only affirm their humanity, but also to volunteer to be included in power. Where are those who have not demanded something more than the corruption and minimalism of today’s politics? Where are those who have not demanded an end to the dictatorship of no alternatives?

If there is one thing to be learned from these moments, it is that simply demanding an alternative from those in power is not enough. The powerful may be unable to ignore our fierce discontent. But what they cannot ignore, they will appease; what they cannot appease, they will manage. We must not think they will provide a way out of the fog of today’s politics.

Rather than being ignored by the powerful, we should be engaged in the process of addressing our discontent. Rather than being appeased by the powerful, we should be equipped to develop and realize alternatives ourselves. Rather than being managed by the powerful, we should have power opened up to us, blurring the line between those inside and those out.

We must light our own direction. We must take our own first steps out. We must construct our own progressive alternative.

ii. The Democratic Promise

To move our politics from ignorance to engagement, from appeasement to equipment, and from management to membership is not only our strategy for realizing an alternative—it is our alternative.

Such a politics is based on a democratic promise: the promise of the constructive genius of ordinary women and men. This promise sees us as beings with more life inside of us, in each of us individually and in all of us collectively, than there is or can ever be in the structures and institutions that we build and inhabit. It rejects ideas that give past roles and present circumstances the last word on who someone is or can become.

This democratic promise built America. From it sprang democratic politics, the pursuit of a government that is not only for all people, but more importantly, of all people and by all people. This practice of politics presumes all our neighbors, not just a select few, are capable of participating in the co-creation of our shared world.

Those in power have forsaken the faith in ordinary women and men that underlies this democratic promise. They still preside over the church it built–our democratic government–but they are false priests. The Americans who still aspire for alternatives, who still believe in themselves, who still labor daily for progress in towns across the country—they are the faith’s lost congregation. It is time for them to return home.

iii. The Democratic Deficit: Weakened People and a Closed Nation

To realize this democratic promise, Americans throughout history have labored to build an open nation that broadly engages a strong people. Framers and suffragettes, free-labor abolitionists and unionists, Civil Rights marchers and free software programmers have all taken up this democratic project. We strove to institute reforms that moved us closer to this ideal by strengthening citizens and communities while opening up our economy and politics to more people in more ways. We worked to push ourselves from the consumption, clientelism, and spectatorship of a closed nation to the production, empowerment, and imagination of an open one. Instead of deflating and deflecting the people’s creativity, we welcomed and equipped it. We fueled a virtuous cycle: the more we opened the nation to broad participation, the stronger we became and the more open the nation had to become. Our motto became and continues to be: “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Those in power today have abandoned this heritage. They work to preserve a closed nation designed to pacify a weakened people. Rather than helping to develop our constructive capacities, they try to manage us. They close off our economy and politics, limiting our freedom of economic creation and political participation in exchange for unlimited freedom of consumption and biannual ballots. They feed a vicious cycle: the more the nation is closed, the weaker we become and the more closed, they say, the nation must be. Their motto is: “be afraid, be very afraid.”

This democratic deficit is enfeebling contemporary America:

  • Weakened Citizens: Our spirits are strong, but we are not adequately equipped.Despite having generated enough per capita wealth to eliminate economic insecurity nationwide, the innovative potential of tens of millions of Americans is hampered by day-to-day fears for financial survival. A singular focus on ‘creating jobs’ has failed to address the fact that millions with jobs are dis-empowered at their workplaces, resigned to see work as only a paycheck rather than a means to innovate, create, and empower. Furthermore, those who try to improve their prospects through higher education become burdened with immense debt. Our school system is two-tiered: some Americans have access to high-quality education while others are closed out. One tier provides the analytical, problem-solving and imaginative skills that empower individuals to adapt to and reinvent the world. The other emphasizes rote memorization and specific technical skills, which trains children to reproduce a world that has already left them behind. Moreover, despite progress in recent decades, racial and gender stigmas still linger, inhibiting individuals simply for being who they are.
  • Weakened Communities: We desire stronger communities, but are lacking in meaningful connections. Local communities throughout America have eroded as more and more people find the places where they live as spaces devoid of meaning and relationships. As American towns increasingly rely on distant corporate supply chains for their communal survival, a nation whose power grew from its multiple centers now feels centralized and managed from afar. Groups that could benefit from dense, varied, and empowering community networks are herded under corporate, media, and government bullhorns, unable to talk back in significant ways. On the national level, social solidarity is limited to cash transfers, as we pay the government to pay others who are in need, rarely meeting our fellow countrymen in authentic ways, and thus resenting the payments. The once-communal labors of caring, teaching, healing, feeding, sheltering, and serving have been bureaucratized and hidden from view.
  • Closed Economy: We want to be producers and innovators, but our markets are exclusive. Although the internet has inspired startup businesses, most dreamers are still shut out. Access to financial resources, regulatory know-how, technical skills, and industry connections are limited to a few. We have left our farmer and artisan roots to become a nation of employees. For most, becoming one’s own boss remains out of reach. The cutting-edge workplace cultures that blur the line between management and labor through fluid roles, continuous education, and distributed authority are still confined to a few industries. Meanwhile, multinational corporations unceasingly homogenize the economy, not only eradicating regional differences and small businesses, but also crowding out alternative economic forms, such as worker and consumer cooperatives, municipal utilities, and other forms of the commons.
  • Closed Democracy: We want to participate, but our democracy is closed, serving the interests of insiders. Washington’s endemic inertia has made political change dependent on crisis. Even proposals that garner wide support are shackled by partisan politics and industry insiders. As money increasingly corrupts the legislative and administrative process, the capability to make political change becomes evermore limited to those with the money to buy results. Tired of the gridlock and corruption, Americans limit their political participation to the minimal act of voting, or opt out of politics entirely. As popular participation and experimentation declines, the range of acceptable ideas narrows, and elites with special interests define the scope of political thought and debate.

Weakened people and a closed nation: this is the aftermath of the democratic promise forsaken and the democratic project abandoned.

iv. The Democratic Project: Strong People and an Open Nation

By renewing the democratic promise and reviving the democratic project, we can address this deficit and make stronger people and a more open nation:

We seek stronger citizens.

  • Fortify Economic Security: The struggle to satisfy the immediate needs of health care, food, shelter, and safety for oneself and family should not be a barrier to creative participation in our democracy and economy. Economic insecurity should not be a looming threat to an employee against asserting oneself at work or striking out on one’s own. Each individual should be afforded access to basic necessities and educational resources. Taking on insurmountable debt should not be a prerequisite of furthering one’s education.
  • Decentralize Capital for Productive Use: People should have a stake in our common economic resources for experimental and productive use. We should grant easy access to lines of credit and investment funds for the sake of innovation and creation.
  • Increase Revenue Streams for Security and Empowerment: For such security and empowerment, we should experiment with alternative public revenue sources, such assovereign wealth funds and land-value taxes.
  • Broaden Educational Opportunities: Location or age should not determine one’s access to quality education. Educational opportunities should be unlinked from property values, so that each American child, no matter his or her place of residence, has access to high quality public schools. Additionally, each individual should be afforded opportunities for lifelong learning, especially for those who want to make significant mid-life career changes.
  • Promote Empowering Pedagogy: Education should prepare Americans to think for themselves. It should equip us to challenge and change the world rather than simply reproduce it. It should develop the mind to not only navigate the present circumstance, but also to move against and beyond it. Education through rote memorization and training in static, specialized skills should be updated to reflect those skills necessary for entrepreneurship and empowered employment, like creative problem-solving, critical thinking and collaboration.
  • Fight Entrenched Discrimination and Stigmatization: The on-going efforts of the past century to fight entrenched discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation should be supported and continued. Entrenched stigmas that have inhibited our neighbors with physical handicaps, mental illnesses, non-traditional families, advanced ages, and minority religions should be confronted and overturned. Special re-examination should be given to stigmas created by the state, such as those which come with felony convictions and incarceration.

We seek stronger communities.

  • Revitalize Local Communities: Efforts should be made to transform meaningless spaces into meaningful places by developing initiatives that strengthen people’s ties to both their neighbors and towns.
  • Increase Communal Self-Reliance: We should work to better distribute industries and opportunities beyond major coastal cities so as to decentralize economic and cultural power throughout the nation. Local self-reliance movements, from community-sponsored agriculture to local green-energy initiatives, should be better funded and proliferated.  Special attention should be given to ensuring that the lives of rural communities suffering under de-industrialization are not wholly dependent on the placement and displacement of factories, stadiums, bases and prisons controlled by distant governments and corporations.
  • Create Participatory Counterbalances to Corporate and State Power: We should work to enable the routine organization of democratic counterbalances to undemocratic corporate and state forces. Through updated legal, funding, web, and media structures, we should fortify and promote the organization of such participatory interest groups, such as veterans organizing into federated societies, fans of sports teams organizing into fan unions, consumers of products organizing into consumer purchasing cooperatives, and tenants of public housing organizing into tenant associations. In addition, we should promote experiments in moving such counterbalances into full-scale alternatives, such as consumer groups moving from a product boycott to launching their own product.
  • Humanize the Caring Economy: We need to return to our heritage of participatory direct care. We should support projects that humanize the support for our sick, imprisoned, young, old, mentally ill, and destitute. The third-party bureaucracies that we currently pay to unburden us from responsibility towards one another should be supplemented with a culture of widespread participation in direct care for each other.
  • Build Programs for National Solidarity: National solidarity should be promoted through broader opportunities and stronger incentives to spend periods of one’s life engaging in American communities different than one’s own. Attempts to address national divides of race, culture, and class through the law and mass media should be supplemented with projects that encourage sustained, authentic in-person interactions in shared missions among individuals from divided groups. Such interracial, intercultural, and cross-class sports, music, conservation, education, worship, and service groups should be promoted and expanded.

We seek an economy open to our ambitions.

  • Ease the path to entrepreneurship: We should lower the barriers to starting a business by broadening access to capital, resources, and regulatory know-how. First, in order to increase aggregate venture capital, we should: (1) enlist finance in service of the real economy, providing incentives and opportunities for more investments to be diverted away from financial markets and towards production and innovation; (2) create public venture funds that will prioritize public objectives while returning profits to government treasuries for reinvestment in people; and (3) enable the broader population to invest in startups. Second, we should work to increase access to resources such as credit, technology, land, equipment, media, and technical skills. Third, governments should help upstarts navigate their relationship with public authorities, ensuring that complex registration requirements, regulations, and tax procedures do not lock out those without access to teams of lawyers, accountants, and government liaisons.
  • Make stable employment resemble entrepreneurship: Within the context of stable and secure employment, we should support and broaden trends that blur the distinction between being an employee and being a boss. Such trends include eliminating fixed roles in the workplace, linking routine production with constant innovation, rotating employees through varied teams, and cultivating cultures of continuous education. Structural trends with this aim include setting up employee stock ownership programs and other forms of profit-sharing, as well as ensuring employee decision-making power either directly, such as in worker cooperatives, or indirectly, through strong, flexible unions.
  • Preserve and encourage economic diversity: We should resist economic entrenchment, stagnation, and homogenization. The state should again take up the task of promoting the experimentation, development and growth of alternative market structures, as it once did at various points in American history. We should encourage experiments in expanding the commons, as well as other alternatives for how governments and markets can interact.
  • Break up monopolies and end cronyism: To ensure that entrenched players do not shut out upstarts, we should revitalize our anti-trust regulatory regime and terminatecrony-capitalist deals between government and industry.
  • Promote conservation and sustainable development. Throughout American history, the diversity and richness of our natural environment has served to stimulate economic and cultural innovation. We should conserve nature to ensure its continued use as a source of inspiration, diversity, and sustainable development.

We seek a democracy open to our ideas

  • Eliminate the corrupting influence of private money in politics: Legislatures and government administrators should be dependent on the people alone, not campaign donors. To achieve this goal, we should develop and expand programs for the public financing of elections, as well as the public provision of other campaign resources, such as media opportunities, to all ballot-qualified candidates.
  • Increase popular engagement in politics: We should invest significant public resources and efforts in ensuring a heightened, sustained, and organized level of popular engagement in politics. Social movements, civic education initiatives, forums for deliberation, and community projects should have broader access to media, funding, public space, and government resources.
  • Develop mechanisms for resolving gridlock: We should establish formal legislative mechanisms to more rapidly resolve Washington gridlock, such as innovative forms of ballot initiatives. We should pursue experiments in combining features of representative and direct democracy in formal decision-making.
  • Empower local and sector experimentation: We should create opportunities for experimental deviation in particular places and sectors. As national initiatives move in one direction, there should be opportunities for pursuing local experimentation and sector autonomy that enable alternatives.

These proposals are not blueprints for a new society: they are a series of first steps in ensuring a greater freedom for each woman and man to realize his and her constructive genius. The goal of The Progressive Alternative is not to create new institutions that will make up another dictatorship of no alternatives. Rather, it is to reopen the American story by empowering us to again participate in the making and remaking of our nation.

v. The Democratic Party

Some might call this project utopian. Some might say that a broad transformation of social, political, and economic institutions, such as those outlined above, is impossible. But such criticism misunderstands how change has happened in American history. Change has occurred through broad visions coupled with realistic first steps. Those reformist projects with realistic steps but lacking in broad vision address minor issues but fail to solve the underlying problems that generate such issues in the first place. Revolutionary projects with broad visions but lacking in realistic first steps acknowledge underlying problems, but fail to see a way forward except through rapid, full-scale replacement of one system with another.

That is why we pursue this progressive alternative as a project of visionary reform. Visionary reform is both the development of a vision about where we should be moving and the vigorous pursuit of accessible first steps in the direction of that vision. The vision outlines the ideal of transformation and the first steps to lead us there.

The democratic project can and should be pursued through many institutions and organizations, such as academia, education, business, media, and civic life. Electoral politics, however, plays a special role. Elections are the routine medium through which both our interests and ideals can be expressed, and by which future laws and policies can be introduced. They provide a regular opportunity for us to engage in a national conversation about both grand public visions and attainable first steps. Furthermore, electoral politics is the dominant focus of the American political media, making political campaigns an effective venue for quickly and easily popularizing a young intervention like The Progressive Alternative.

The political party remains the dominant vehicle of engagement in electoral politics. Whereas the political party in American politics today functions as a visionless fundraising and voter mobilization machine, we see a deeper potential. A party can be the vehicle through which to organize the keepers of the democracy to advance the democratic project in America. It can both articulate a broad, national vision for the project, and push the project into realization through policy development, community organizing, and the acquisition and exercise of formal political power. It can serve as the anchoring agent of the varied arms of this insurgent progressive alternative.

At different points in American history (and in other countries today), a third party has served in the role of visionary instigator. Today, we are less in need of a third party than a second party. If one of the two major parties was open to clearly defining itself as a visionary and publicly-interested alternative to the minimalism and corruption of today’s politics, its organizing structure, funding capabilities, and national stage could serve to jumpstart the revitalization of the democratic project nationwide.

Although both parties in their present form are far from serving the democratic project, the party most capable of again becoming the standard-bearer of stronger people and a more open nation is the Democratic Party. A renewed democratic promise would fit comfortably in the heritage of the party founded by Jefferson and Jackson as the democratic alternative to political insiders. It is the party that took the populist route out of the Great Depression, as well as the party that redeemed its originally-narrow view of who constitutes “the people” to become the eventual home of Civil Rights and women’s movement veterans. In the past century, it has been the party that has best understood the role that the ambitions of immigrants and young people play in enlivening the nation. With Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, it was the last party with a positive, active, and visionary program for American politics.

Over the past decades, the Democratic Party has lost sight of these principles. The democratic promise gave way to the elitism of Washington insiders. Support for ambitious upstarts was ceded to the other side, while an abstract, uninspiring push for “more equality” became the central goal of the party. The structural vision of Roosevelt’s New Deal fractured into the visionless trivialities of Clinton’s New Democrats.

Roosevelt’s particular program only went so far, and yet it continues to define politics today. At best, the Party is recycling his old solutions at the expense of imagining new ones. At worst, they are helping the other side dismantle his legacy without putting forth a new public-minded program. If we are to commune with the Party’s resident ghost, we should ask Mr. Roosevelt less how to revive his policies and more how to revive his will, creativity, and vision.

In that spirit, we call for an intervention into the Democratic Party. We call for an intervention to better align the party with the democratic project outlined above:

  • Our first task is to clarify the agenda of the Progressive Alternative, and to identify practical policies that take steps in support of this agenda.
  • Our second task is to organize supporters, re-engaging with local Democratic committees to redirect the Party at the grassroots.
  • Our third task is to run candidates who support this alternative path, opposing established Democrats in primaries if necessary.

These initiatives can return the Democratic Party to its roots in progressive action and democratic faithfulness. Through vision and action, we can reinvigorate American politics.

vi. The Democratic Moment

Today, in the early decades of the twenty-first century, there is an opportunity. Throughout America, efforts to make people stronger and the nation more open are already under way. These efforts can be harnessed for broader goals. The initiatives to close the gap in educational quality can expand into a larger project of equipping citizens generally. The increasing awareness of civic decline can be a precursor to a national community-building agenda. Themaker-movement and startup culture can grow beyond the internet, revolutionizing more industries in the spirit of an open economy. The renewed push for campaign finance reform coupled with increasing discontent with Washington gridlock lays the groundwork for an integrated movement for a more open democracy.

For these reasons, and echoing the urgency of all movements for progressive alternatives, the moment is now.

The Importance of Primaries

As political tribalism grew stronger over the past decades, general elections became less and less about ideas and visions and more and more about turning out your base and fighting over the tiny 10% sliver of non-affiliated electorate. Nothing has really been revealed, learned or discovered during recent general elections, except – of course – who wins.

For the three years following general elections, we tend to have a long echo of the general election, as the losing tribe deploys its Congresspersons, cable channels and newspapers to discredit the winning candidate while the winning tribe plays defense for him. This has made the period of governing resemble a continuing general election, making governing have all the bad things that come with it, such as divisiveness, grandstanding, and never-ending fundraising emails.

Fortunately, there remained one sliver of vibrant electoral democracy left in the process: The Primary. Primaries are the only part of the process where you had to take off your tribal war armor (because it was all internal to your own political tribe) and actually think about what you believed in. You would have more than two choices. You would hear multiple – sometimes dozens – of debates. You would get into the details of different policy plans. You would have a variety of viewpoints pose questions to a variety of other viewpoints. You would have Kuciniches and Deans and Obamas shake up more mainstream candidates. The tribal media would have to turn off its broken record of tribal chest thumping to actually compare and contrast real people. This is the benefit of the Primary process.

Unfortunately, we are on the brink of losing this last sliver of vibrant electoral democracy. The media has become so utterly tribal, that they can’t even imagine a Democratic primary. They have spent 7 years slamming the other side and defending their own that they can’t even bear to return to a short, one-year period where there’s no dog in the fight and they have to turn off the drumbeat and moderate a discussion between various candidates about the direction of the Party. They’d much rather just have seamless tribalism from this administration to the next.

So, a governor and big city mayor (O’Malley) is silenced. A mayor, Congressman and Senator (Sanders) is silenced. A Senator and Assistant Secretary of the Navy with three Purple Hearts (Webb) is silenced. They simply “aren’t serious” enough to face off against the very serious candidate who voted for the Iraq War (death toll: 500,000+; 21 Senators wisely voted against), was the last Democrat to endorse raising the minimum wage (suffering: 30 million works making less today, adjusted for inflation, than every worker made in 1968; all major Democrats endorsed before her), campaigned to expand the Drug War and mass incarceration (2.2 million Americans now locked in cages; 1994 Clinton ramp up of mass incarceration and Drug War opposed by Congressional Black Caucus members while Hillary said “we need more prisons”), turned her back on ordinary people facing bankruptcy when in the Senate despite Elizabeth Warren ensuring that she knew better (as explained by Warren in a 2004 interview), and took to the floor of Congress to oppose gay marriage in 2004 (she said there is a “fundamental, bedrock principle that marriage is between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history”; John Lewis meanwhile said *8 years prior* that Congresspersons must lead on this issue despite its unpopularity, that “we cannot tell people that they cannot fall in love”).

Let’s not let the one last sliver of vigorous electoral democracy — The Primary, the only place left in American electoral politics where we might (just might!) discuss visions for the future of our party and our country — be taken from us. Democrats: Reject the coronation! Let O’Malley, Webb and Sanders debate.

Civic Creativity talk featured in the Falls Church News-Press

I recently gave a talk to the Falls Church League of Women Voters entitled “Civic Creativity: Beyond Civic Engagement Finger Wagging.”  Here’s the original News-Press feature plugging it:

The League of Women Voters is hosting a forum called “Civic Creativity: Beyond Civic Engagement Finger-Wagging,” next Sunday, April 19, from 3 – 4:30 p.m. at the Falls Church Community Center. Pete Davis, co-founder of Our Common Place of Falls Church, will start the program with a presentation, which will be followed by a discussion about how civic engagement can be improved in response to the realities of contemporary life.

Davis’ organization, Our Common Place of Falls Church, is “a community web platform that is designed to make it easier for Falls Church residents to share and connect with each other,” according to a press release from the League of Women Voters about the forum. “American civic life is in crisis,” the press release said.

“Our civic infrastructure—from civic education in schools to our organizational structures, from our way of talking about politics to our local government’s methods of engaging citizens—is due for an upgrade. This event is designed to move beyond complaining about the decline in civic life to laying the groundwork for its revitalization.” For more information, visit lwvfallschurch.org.

And here’s the follow up:

Peter Davis, a 2008 George Mason High School graduate who will be entering Harvard Law School this fall, made a stimulating presentation to a gathering hosted by the Falls Church League of Women Voters at the Community Center Sunday that argued for a new “Progressive Era” like the one the U.S. experienced in reaction to its first “Gilded Age” in the late 19th century.

The nation is suffering a “new gilded age” now he said, and a form of civic engagement and activism is called for that goes beyond “flipswitch” politics – where a single issue is agitated for and then changed – to a more organic, community-based efforts at reform. Politics are now run by managers as mass spectacles, he said, where the public is alienated from its government that becomes more like an impersonal vending machine. “Wagging fingers doesn’t work” to fix this, he said. But instead “successful alternatives are the best protest,” achieved through the systematic public learning of civic creativity through new institutions dedicated to that purpose.

The goal is to achieve projects, not just back candidates: that was the model operative in the first “Progressive Era,” he said.

I will be posting a version of this speech on this site in the not-so-distant future.

On the Democratic Faith

The powers that be want you to lose your democratic faith. They want you to stop believing in the constructive genius of ordinary men and women. They want you to think: “less people should vote” “the average stranger is suspect” “my neighbor is an idiot” and “only an elect few are capable of learning this or leading that.”faith

Those at the top want us to think this about ourselves and our neighbors because, as we lose this American faith in our ability to co-create our shared world, it becomes easier for them to convince us to freely give away more power to them. It becomes easier for them to further transform our society from a membership society to a management society and, with that transformation, further convert ourselves from citizens to consumers, from members to clients, from neighbors to strangers.

But remember: to hold onto a lost faith is itself a powerful act. All we need to do to begin fighting back — to move from management to membership again — is to trust in that democratic faith again. The democratic faith’s prayers are “hello stranger” “I wonder what my neighbor thinks” and “let’s figure this out together.” The democratic faith’s rituals are the handshake, the gathering, the brainstormed plan, and the curious question.

This democratic faith — a faith that we are all endowed with a Graceful and surprising creative intelligence — built our country. Since the Founding, it has opened the door for Americans to have the confidence to be, what Martin Luther King called, “co-workers with God.”

In this age of political disappointment, we may have lost our hope. But we must not lose this faith.

RedAlert covers StrongReturns

RedAlert Politics ran a great story on StrongReturns.org, our Millennial Prison Reform organization:

The two men are behind Strong Returns, a project that aims to make prison reform “the” millennial issue in 2016. They are eager to hear about Smith’s experience with his local drug court, an alternative to incarceration. They’re both taking their “gap year” between their college graduation and law school to promote the effort.

So instead of writing white papers and lobbying Congress, they tour colleges and share stories. This time, it’s at Washington and Lee, a small, private university in west-central Virginia with under 2,000 students. As with any other campus they visit, Davis and Johnston begin recruiting student volunteers with the intent of having them help interview people like Smith, a man with first-hand experience of the broken prison system.

They spend hours interviewing these people, unpacking their pasts and picking their brains on how to improve the system. With their volunteers’ help, they later condense it all into short video presentations, which they put on for the school at-large. Storytelling, and its ability to go viral and drive politics, is a crucial aspect of the project’s vision.

“Connecting prisons and campuses. We think that’s where the magic happens,” says Davis.

Why prison reform? According to Davis, there’s both a moral and a political argument for choosing this particular battle.

“The moral side is, if you care about any of the major issues that you’re called upon in most religious and moral systems to care about—poverty, violence, families being ripped apart—you’ll find that the system that touches all of them and that has a hand in all of them…is the prison system.”

As for politics at the national level, Davis argues that the issue bridges the partisan gap. “It’s a left-right issue. Nothing else is going to pass in Washington except for this.”

The video they reference in the article — one we made with Bill Smith of Virginia — is here:

Civic Idea of the Day: Caring = Curiosity

Caricaringng = curiosity. Most bad things in public life have come from people not being curious enough: about how things work, about why something has become the way it is, about each other. Most good things in public life have started with people deciding to be curious about something. Sincerely wondering why something happened is often more useful than just being outraged by it. What in public life can we be more curious about today? Will we let our curiosity flourish into care?

Community, Integrity, Vision

The three major challenges in American politics today are the triplet deficits of community, integrity and vision.

COMMUNITY in America is in decline: people feel increasing disconnected from their neighbors; groups that could be organized into empowering networks — workers, customers, interest groups — are instead herded under corporate, media and government bullhorns; national solidarity is increasingly limited to writing checks to those in need as opposed to directly interacting with them in authentic ways; the once-communal labors of caringcommunityintegrityvision, teaching, healing, feeding, sheltering, and serving are becoming evermore bureaucratized and hidden from view; and words like “patriotism” become increasingly out of style, as some businesspersons move their activities overseas and some churches and neighborhoods become satisfied tending only to their own gardens, disengaging from our more difficult, shared needs.

Institutions that depend on INTEGRITY are corrupted by money: Legislatures and administrators meant to depend upon the will of the People alone are corrupted by campaign donations; businesses started to create value for everybody begin to limit their scope to creating value only for customers and then eventually limit their scope more to creating value only for shareholders and then eventually limit their scope even more to creating value for only their elite managers, inventing justification after justification to validate their insatiable appetite for more money; universities that were created as moral communities of shared uplift come to be seen as only tickets to one’s private success; and our emotions, vulnerabilities and precious cultural touchstones get endlessly converted by marketers and “public relations” consultants into tools to squeeze more money out of us, creating a national culture whose BS-to-non-BS ratio is becoming untenable.

Lost in the fog, we lack VISION of where to go from here: our political parties are abdicating their responsibility to help point the way towards better days, trading that role in for one of co-producing a 24-hour theater of fear and cultural resentment; our academics must laser-focus on tinier and tinier slices of policy analysis to get ahead; and our time has produced few moral leaders in which to turn for stories of where we came from, where we could go and how we can get there.

But there is hope! Much can change in a generation. If we can address these deficits, we can rise out of our present malaise.

Here are the questions our generation must be asking:

  1. How can we re-build COMMUNITY in America? How do we: come together to make spaces into places again; create participatory counterbalances to corporate and state power; humanize our caring infrastructure; and build programs for national solidarity?
  2. How can we restore INTEGRITY to American institutions? How can we: free politics from the grips of monied interests; return business to the holistic mission of creating value for shareholders *and* customers, workers, communities and the environment; re-moralize universities to their public interest covenant; and restore the sanctity of our personal vulnerabilities and emotions so as to lower the amount of collective BS in our national culture?
  3. How can we find VISION again for America? How can our political parties, intellectuals and moral leaders think broader and more long-term, helping shine light on a direction in which we could again move?

Can we feel part of a national community again?
Can we trust in the integrity of each other and our public institutions again?
Can we have the vision to know, in part, where we come from, where we could be going and how we get there again?

Yes, yes, and yes…but only if we get to work!

The Voting Apollo Program

Yesterday, I attended the festivities in Selma, Alabama marking the 50th anniversary of the Selma-to-Montgomery march for Voting Rights. Almost every speaker spoke of the threats facing voting rights today, referencing the efforts by various state legislatures making it harder to vote. For example, Obama said: “Right now, in 2015, fifty years after Selma, there are laws across this country designed to make it harder for people to vote. As we speak, more of such laws are being proposed. Meanwhile, the Voting Rights Act, the culmination of so much blood and sweat and tears, the product of so much sacrifice in the face of wanton violence, stands weakened, its future subject to partisan rancor.”

However, no speaker made explicit the two stories of what’s really going on here:

***

STORY 1: If everyone voted, the Republican Party, as it is organized today, would face an existential threat.

Take this Pew Poll of non-voters linked here:

If you bring non-voters into the fold, support for Republican candidates and Conservative ideologies fall:

  • 47% of likely voters supported Romney in October 2012 while 39% of all adults supported Romney because only 24% of non-voters supported Romney.
  • 51% of likely voters viewed Obama favorably in October 2012 while 56% of all adults viewed him favorably, because 64% of non-voters viewed him favorably.
  • 44% of likely voters consider themselves Ideologically Conservative, while only 38% of all adults do, because only 28% of non-voters view themselves as Conservative.

If you bring non-voters into the fold, demographic groups that generally support Republican candidates wane (and vice versa for demographic groups supporting Democratic candidates):

  • 74% of likely voters are White, while only 68% of all adults are White because only 59% of non-voters are White.
  • 20% of likely voters make less than $30,000 while 32% of all adults make less than $30,000 because 52% of non-voters make less than $30,000.
  • 54% of likely voters are over 50, while 35% of all adults are over 50, because only 28% of non-voters are over 50.
  • 13% of likely voters are under 29, while 21% of all adults are under 29, because 36% of all non-voters are under 21.

As you might expect from the facts above, if you bring non-voters into the fold, support for left-wing economic policy increases:

  • 39% of likely voters believe the government should do more to solve problems, but 44% of all adults do because 52% of non-voters believe the government should do more.
  • 49% of likely voters believe that Obamacare should be repealed, but only 43% of all adults do because only 31% of non-voters believe it should be repealed.

These 5-10% differences seem small, but given that most elections are decided by differences of this small size means that this matters: if all non-voters had been voters in the last 10 elections, American politics would be completely different. Specifically, it would be different in the Democratic coalition’s favor.

I don’t mean to be so partisan, but this seems to be the story that the facts are laying out:

  1. Among likely voters, the party coalitions are roughly balanced, ping-ponging electoral victories back and forth;
  2. Non-voters skew towards the Democratic coalition; and thus
  3. If all potential voters voted, the Democratic coalition would have a solid, more permanent majority in American politics.

Given this, it’s not surprising that Republican Party mega-strategists would, at best, not support efforts to have more non-voters vote, and, at-worst, discourage increased voter turnout.

So, that’s what’s probably happening here: Republican-controlled state legislatures are making it harder to vote based on a puffed-up “voter fraud threat”, Democrats are doing their best to parry such attempts, and serious efforts to dramatically increase voter participation are voted down or blocked because only one party has an interest in voter expansion being achieved.

***

STORY TWO: “Increasing voting rights” today is a technology question masquerading as a political question.

So what do we do about this voting scuffle between the Republican coalition (which has an interest in limiting voting people) and the Democratic coalition (which has an interest in expanding voting to more people)?

Well, the first thing we have to affirm that it’s not our formal democratic system’s problem that the Republican coalition doesn’t have a popular majority. That’s their problem to figure out. The democratic system’s job is to make sure our government is accountable to the will of the People. The integrity of the democratic system should be preserved and fortified regardless of the present consequences for either party coalition. Attempts to change the rules because you’re losing the Popular will should be called out for what they are: “attempts to change the rules because you’re losing the Popular will.”

The second thing is to remember that the spirit of a democratic electoral process is not the literal act of going to ‘polling places’ and ‘casting ballots’, but rather the general idea of having the People choose their governing officials. Too often, I’ve heard people act as if the literal technological mechanisms of voting are what voting is about: for example, I’ve heard many people say “If you’re too lazy to go to a polling place to vote, then you shouldn’t be able to vote” or “if you don’t have it in you to get an ID, you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.” But that’s an arbitrary poll test, one that’s randomly based on the technology we happen to use to transmit People’s wills to be centrally counted. Again, the spirit of electoral democracy is that the People choose their governing officials, not any specific literal task that was necessitated by the technology needed to transmit the public Will to a central counting mechanism.

One way to put it is to say that there are two different concepts that make up elections: (1) The political mission of elections: “Transmit the People’s will for certain candidates into a formal decision of who is elected”; and (2) The electoral technology that is used to achieve that mission: IDs, registration, voting, ballots, counting, election commissions, etc.

We can have a political debate over what the mission of elections should be, over who should be able to vote. For example, I believe every adult citizen should be able to vote. Someone else might believe that the imprisoned shouldn’t be able to vote. Someone else might believe that permanent resident non-citizens should be able to vote. This is a political debate.

But, all this voting rights back and forth — voter ID, same-day registration — is actually discussions about the technology we should use to achieve the mission of voting. It’s masquerading as a political debate, but its actually just those interested in limiting voting using ambiguity around the technological mechanisms of voting to limit voting. It would be the equivalent of a town voting to design a building a certain way and then someone from the losing vote side using ambiguity of brick masonry practices or blueprinting technology to achieve their original intention.

The technology challenge of elections is hard, but simple:

  1. Your technology system needs to transmit choices from people across a geographic area to a centralized counting mechanism and then publish those results.
  2. Your technology system needs to make sure that those who are issuing their choices meet certain criteria (above 18, American citizen, from the proper district).
  3. Your technology system needs to make sure that its counting’s integrity cannot be compromised in an environment where people will have a deep interest in compromising it.
  4. Your technology system needs to be able to be audited to verify 2 & 3.

This is do-able: Banks protect money in an environment where people want to steal money, the government processes tax information from across the country to a centralized source, etc. But this is a technology challenge that engineers should work on, not politicians. Like with all other technology challenges the state faces (the Pentagon building a tank, the IRS running a website) the officials should set a mission, hire people (like engineers) to achieve that mission and then verify if the results achieve that mission. They shouldn’t use the middle engineering process of developing an adequate technology as a political tool to achieve their own private mission counter to the agreed-upon mission.

***

So, what?

Given these beliefs above, you can think bigger about Voting Rights than the small ball that those at Selma50 were speaking to.

We have had the political debate about elections and decided: most every adult citizen should play a role in our formal democracy, having their preferences counted in our elections regardless the color of their skin, their gender, and their income.

Given this political conclusion we should have election technology that lives up to this mission. If we believe everyone should play a role in elections, our electoral technology should work to ensure that. We should see low voter turnout as a technology problem, not as an apathy problem. We should say: “If the government can get every male over 18 to register for selective service; if it can track all our phones and emails; if it can collect taxes from us every year…then it can get our voting preferences every two years.”

Let’s use the 50th Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act to start a VOTING APOLLO PROGRAM that aims to achieve 99% voter participation by the 2020 election.

The government wasted almost $5 billion on a failed replacement of Marine 1 Helicopters for the White House. What if we spent $5 billion on election technology that achieved the following:

  1. Complete integrity: (A) Ensures each voter fits requirements of voting (18, American citizen, proper location); (B) Ensures counting’s integrity is not compromised; (C) Ensures counting is auditable by everyone.
  2. Easy participation: (A) You can vote online anytime 6 weeks leading up to an election; (B) You can vote offline in various places (post-offices, McDonalds, schools, etc.) anytime 6 weeks leading up to an election.
  3. Constant reminders: (A) You are emailed constant reminders to vote with direct links to webpages where you can vote; (B) You are snail-mailed constant reminders to vote with direct return envelopes to vote; (C) You are reminded in public to vote and provided with public kiosks to vote right there.

In short, a Voting Apollo Program would achieve full voter participation and integrity protections through election technology fit for the internet age.

Yes, there are thousands of technological details of achieving this mission that are going to be hard. But, there were also a lot of technological details of achieving the mission of inventing the internet and going to the moon. This is beyond achievable by our country.

Full voter participation through serious investment in the technology of voting expansion can be our Edmund Pettus Bridge. Let’s not play small-ball on the sidelines of full voter participation. Let’s cross the bridge.

The Millennial Prison Reform Network

This week, we at StrongReturns.org launched the Millennial Prison Reform Network.

The MPRN aims to serve as a catch-all network for students, faculty, administrators, advocacy organization members, and prison system entities interested in Millennial-driven prison reform to connect and share with each other.

10462540_361903423979213_3419448200980252347_nThe Network consists of:

  1. A wiki database at StrongReturns.org/wiki which has a searchable, browsable, networked profile for every member.
  2. A series of email lists for members to connect with each other: for example, a college student-specific list, a faculty-specific list, a Texas-specific list, etc.

If you are interested in Millennial-driven prison reform, we hope you can join the network.  To officially sign up, fill out an MPRN sign up form as one of the following links:

Signing up will create a profile of you on the network’s wiki database as well as route you to the right email list. Let’s not reinvent the wheel on each campus! Instead, let’s link up, share, and support each other! For more information, visit our network page.


On a meta-note, I do think there is need to create a generic open-source technology for this type of connection: between nation-wide communities of people working on similar issues.  We are trying to piece together the need for flow (the email lists) and stock profiles (the wiki) with this here, but an integrated technology is needed.  Hopefully the Laboratory for Civic Technology will be able to build this in the coming years.

Harvard Thinks Big 5 & 6

Harvard Thinks Big, the Harvard event we founded that brings together all-star professors for one night to share their big ideas, has reached its sixth year. The Crimson had a good rundown.  Open Culture had a piece on Harvard Thinks Big 5 with each video from the event.  Here’s the Harvard Thinks Big youtube playlist:

Plus, here’s the link if you’re interested in following Harvard Thinks Big on iTunes.