1961 Freedom Ride

Harvard student Pete Davis, founder of OurCommonPlace and participant in the 50th anniversary celebration of the 1961 Freedom Ride last summer with 39 other activists, gave a terrific speech at the Cambridge MLK Jr. Day Celebration in Cambridge, MA on January 16, 2012.  With Pete’s permission, here are his remarks, and audio available here [he's a great speaker]:

Hello, everyone — it is an honor to be here at St. Peter’s Episcopal Church on my favorite holiday of the year, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. I’m happy that MLK day is the first holiday of the year, because you start the New Year with all these personal New Year’s resolutions, and you say, “I’m going to cut back on the sweets”, “I’m going to make time to go running everyday” and then right about around this weekend, two weeks into the year, you’ve given up on all them… and you’re feeling down and don’t know what to do. And then Martin Luther King, Jr. Day comes along and reminds you that you can start your New Year off with not just personal resolutions but community and citizen resolutions — like “I’m going to cut back on my pre-judgment of others” ,“I’m going to make time to go help out and speak out and act out more around school or church or my local community every day” — and those are resolutions that are harder in practice, but easier to fight for, because you’re not just fighting for yourself. 

But I’m getting ahead of myself — my name is Pete Davis and I am a student down the road at Harvard, and I am here today because I had the great pleasure of being part of a recreation of an important Civil Rights project when this past summer I rode with 39 other students, a team of PBS cameras and a handful of Civil Rights Movement heroes in a recreation of the 1961 Freedom Ride. And I’d like to take part of my time here to look backward and tell a brief, yet harrowing, story about what one Civil Rights project accomplished in the 1960s, and then take the other part of my time here to look forward and share what one young, wide-eyed college kid from a small town in Virginia thinks about what we might just be able to accomplish in the 2010s.

In 1961, a group of young people led by Congress of Racial Equality Director James Farmer wanted to test if a Supreme Court decision integrating interstate bus travel was being implemented on the ground. So, 13 riders — six white, seven black, including one future Congressman John Lewis — set out on Greyhound and Trailways buses down South. When they got to Atlanta, they had a brief reception hosted by the big man, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. himself. They wanted him to come on the ride as well, but he pulled a few of their leaders aside and said, “I’m not going to get on the buses with you, and if I were you, I probably wouldn’t go into Alabama…The Alabama Klan is preparing quite a welcome.” And, like good young people, they didn’t listen to him and kept going on to Alabama. And like wise, older people, King was right. The riders were met with Klan violence, they were firebombed and some were even beaten with lead pipes. But they made it all the way down to Birmingham, Alabama. 

The Kennedy administration got word of this, and Bobby Kennedy called for a “cooling down” period after this first round of Freedom Riders got home. But, a young woman from Nashville by the name of Diane Nash would have none of it, and she organized a set of Tennessee students to leave school – during their final exams – and become a new set of riders to bus down to Birmingham. One night, after brutal beatings in Montgomery, these new Freedom Riders packed into Reverend Ralph Abernathy’s First Baptist Church and heard James Farmer, the great Fred Shuttlesworth (who passed away last year), and Dr. King, give rousing speeches as a mob gathered outside and threatened to attack the attendees. Dr. King had to get on the phone with the Kennedy administration to get the National Guard there for protection. These Freedom Riders were creating quite the ruckus.

They boarded a bus to Jackson, Mississippi and were promptly arrested and sent to the infamous Parchman Prison. The Mississippi Governor thought he had squashed ‘em — they’re now just stuck in Parchman Prison…what are they gonna do? Well, as one historian put it, they responded, “Fine, we’ll go to Parchman, and we’ll fill Parchman up, and we’ll have Parchman be the next site of the Civil Rights Movement.” And it became so. Hundreds of people across the country boarded buses, and headed to Jackson. They filled up the prison, and kept their morale by singing to their jailers, “Buses are a comin’ oh yeah, Buses are a comin’ oh yeah, Better get you ready oh yeah.” They took 300 riders of different races, religions, different regions, different political philosophies…and turned Parchman into a University of Non-Violence…a place to become more committed, more tough…and as one guy put it, to become “the shock-troops of the movement.” On September 22, the Interstate Commerce Commission issued its order: the “whites only” signs came down at bus and rail stations across the South. Two years later, President Kennedy — who had wanted to ignore civil rights and focus on foreign policy for his Presidency, who only had to start paying attention because, “those darn agitators” (as the Riders were called), had caused a ruckus — gave a speech in June 1963, calling on Congress to pass legislation to end Jim Crow altogether. The Freedom Riders — after arrests, beatings, and warnings to slow down by not only the Administration but also Civil Rights Movement leaders, themselves — had won.

And it was 50 years later that I and other college students had the great blessing of recreating the ride on our own bus…except, in this time around, the bus had Wi-fi and air conditioning; and lacked the threat of arrests and Klan mobs, fortunately. And I want to spend the rest of my time here talking about what I learned from this experience — one that involved seeing former Jim Crow cities up close and personal, talking with Civil Rights leaders new and old, and, most importantly, getting to know 39 diverse student activists from all across the country.

And I know what you’re expecting: a heartwarming tale from me about how we students — black, white, and brown, 50 years later — held hands in a big circle, sang “We Shall Overcome,” and declared racism over. Though we did hold hands at times, and though we did sing We Shall Overcome so many times that I was considering singing We Shall Overcome-the-singing-of-We Shall Overcome… that’s not the tale I’m going to tell here today. Because we all know that resting too long on our laurels of the victories of yesterday is a recipe for not opening up our eyes to the injustices of today. So, instead here’s Three Lessons from the ride with our sight set on tomorrow.

The first thing I learned on our Ride was that most people in the Civil Rights Movement did not have Civil Rights as their number one cause. Everyone, from Jim Zwerg — a white man who was beaten with a lead pipe in Alabama — to Diane Nash — the lead organizer of the second round of the rides — had an underlying loyalty that was the foundation of all their actions in their surface level causes: a loyalty to Non-Violence. When Zwerg and Nash spoke to us, they hardly focused on racial discrimination — they wanted to spend their time sharing with us their philosophy and lifestyle of non-violence. 

To the Freedom Riders, to Martin Luther King: nonviolent resistance was not the absence of violence– it was the presence of what Nash called Agapic energy, from the Greek term ‘agape’, meaning brotherly, sisterly love or love of mankind. It was a belief that people were never your enemy– unjust political systems, unjust economic systems, unjust attitudes were your enemy. And you can attack those systems, without attacking the people that participated in them. It was a belief that oppression always requires the cooperation of the oppressed, and that it could end if only you respected yourself enough and if only you reflected enough on how you were participating in your own oppression and if only you were brave enough to stop participating, 

They did not see non-violence or agapic energy as a ‘lovey-dovey’ ‘give peace a chance, man’ concept. They would not have liked to be known just as pacifists… they were activists! They would not have described themselves as having no weapons or as not waging war. They saw non-violence as a powerful, strong strategy, a weapon…the only weapon they had in this fight…and an energy that was not born out of thin air…it was based on a serious theory of how to win conflicts, and solve problems for justice… a philosophy that was put best when Dr. King explained that: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” And, indeed, they couldn’t have won if it was a violent conflict — they were churchmen and women up against the state police and governments in the South, with their batons, and guns, and in the case of Sheriff Bull Connor in Alabama, tanks. But what they could do, is contrast their “dignified, disciplined, non-violent actions” against the other side’s grotesque reaction of violence, leaving no way — for the millions who would watch on TV — to confuse their confrontations. 

And when they learned that philosophy — in long training sessions for the Riders, where they practiced being beaten and not responding — and when they committed to it, when they put in the hard work and discipline to live by its principles… it worked. Out of that foundation, came more surface level tactics. Out of those tactics came victories. And if we want to learn from the Civil Rights movement to repeat their success today…if we only looked at those tactics, we might never understand what made the Civil Rights movement so successful — we have to look at their deep commitment and loyalty to foundational principles about how justice is won in history. And that’s the lesson for today’s justice movements: If we don’t have an equally strong commitment to foundational principles in our movements — if we believe we’re only fighting for environmental reform or gay rights or urban renewal… only our specific issues and not, also…, always…, at the same time… re-affirming our commitment to agapic love, to our civic connection our fellow community members — …then we are … like a sail without a mast… just flapping around in the wind…not harnessing energy to move society in any direction. 

So, given that lesson…why don’t we just do what they did? Why don’t we just believe in non-violence and use their tactics…get on buses, start marching, provoke some confrontations with the police? Well, people have tried that. People have taken to the streets, people have had millions at marches in my lifetime. People have occupied public spaces and provoked the police. And yet, we have not had as big a victory for justice in my lifetime as King did in his. And I think that’s because, as I learned in the second big lesson on my trip — a lesson that came to me as I saw the contrast between how the elders on the trip talked about the problems of their day and the students on the trip talked about the problems of ours — the second big lesson is that the problems of today are taking different forms than they did back in the 60’s! 

Back then, we had Jim Crow, explicit racism and segregation by the government. Today, segregation is not by law, but by structural circumstance, as segregation plagues not our drinking fountains nor our diners, but becomes a good way to describe how our justice system and our prisons work, when 1 in 3 black men will go be imprisoned at some point in their life. Back then, explicit racial discrimination in employment was commonplace throughout the South. Today, there’s a whole division of the Justice Department to challenge explicit racism on the job, but, today, black unemployment still stands at more than twice the rate of white unemployment, with almost 1 in 5 black men in June 2011 being without work. Racism burbles up inside of us in unexpected places, as our focus on overcoming racism here at home might sometimes forget that it is also racist to believe that a human life is less worthwhile, more disposable — more collateral and incidental and less sacred — if it’s an Afghani or Pakistani life or an indigenous person’s life.  We have struck a strong blow to the type of racism that allows leaders to make slurs publicly without recourse or state legislatures to write the word “colored” into legislation. But the problems of racial disparity remain, in new forms… that can’t be overcome with the stroke of President’s pen. 

And the same is true for Materialism. In King’s time, the environmental movement was just in its infancy, and the concept of widespread corporate watchdogging was just an idea in Ralph Nader’s head. And today, we do see blowback against the incessant pursuit of material things, as community gardens, farmer’s markets, car sharing, slow food movements, and lifestyles around living on less are cropping up, reminding us that there still is a live belief that people are more important than, as Dr. King put it, “machines and computers, profit motives and property rights.” But, today we face unending advertising on half a dozen types of screens telling us that all our problems will be solved, all our insecurities will be vanquished, and all our deepest wants will be realized…if only we buy one more thing, use one more service. Today, our activists that are fighting to move our nation from, as Dr. King called them to do, a “thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society” are facing a steeper climb, as the monied interests grip ever tighter on the neck of our democratic institutions. 

And the same is true for Militarism. In King’s time, we had tens of thousands of American men and Vietnamese men, women and children killed in a grueling war. Today, we face no draft, and less civilian casualties in our militaristic pursuits overseas. But, today, we have even more trouble breaking the cycle of — what King called — the “madness of militarism” and the “self-defeating effects of physical violence” when wars are felt less back home, because the fighters are drones or soldiers from an economic bracket we never interact with. 

Whereas Jim Crow and Vietnam was a tumor on a part of society, many of the problems of today are more like sicknesses in the bloodstream, unable to be pinpointed. There used to be a Civil Rights song, “O Freedom”, where you’d sing about the specific thing you wanted to overcome… No Segregation, No Segregation, No Segregation over me…or No Bull Connor, No Bull Connor over me. But with problems as complex as today, what can we sing about in our O Freedoms? No more prison-industrial complex, no more prison-industrial complex over me…no more global warming caused by various forms of carbon emissions, no more global warming caused by various forms of carbon emission over me…no more deregulation of the financial industry…over me…you get the point.

In the age of 24 hours news blaring and blog posts and tweets and status updates whizzing around our heads…it gets confusing even knowing what’s happening and feels with these multiple storylines going at once. Our time feels new and it feels dreadfully old. It feels like networked freedom and it feels like the old power structure is still in charge. It feels like a black president but more black people in poverty. It feels like a shiny new iPhone and a hollowed out Detroit. It feels like we don’t know what the problem is and we all know what the problem is. It feels like the solutions were made 15 years ago and are waiting to be implemented and like they’re just 15 years into the future out of our reach.

And for us who want to change the world, who want to walk in King’s footsteps, we sometimes just don’t know where to start:

Whereas our heroes knew their adversaries, ours aren’t in a single form.

Whereas our heroes fought clearer, visual problems, ours are invisible and baked into institutions all around us.

Whereas they had a sense of what solutions looked like, we have trouble having a clue.

In the confusion about the content of the solutions, we latch onto forms of the past – we think to be an activist means to be a marcher, a rallier, a person that needs to use dramatic, direct action.

But what works for civil rights, for women’s rights, for getting troops pulled out of Vietnam is not necessarily going to work to solve global warming, to fix our food system, to raise our neighborhoods out of poverty, or to invigorate our public schools.

What do we act against?
Where do we march?

They had all these signs up throughout our trip that say “Would you get on the bus?” But the question is less, “Would someone today get on the bus?” and more “Which bus should I get on? Darn it…all the buses are telling me they’re the right bus!? IS this bus doing more harm than good? Oh no! This bus isn’t carbon neutral!” 

Oh, the postmodern condition…it’s so hard to find something true to get excited about in such a time. We look back on Dr. King and part of us thinks, “wow that must’ve been hard, he must’ve been one brave genius.” But then another part of us still whisper, “That was easy…Dr. King, get a load of today!”

So what do we do? How do we keep The Freedom Riders and Dr. King’s dream alive? How do we take our agapic love and translate it into action in a world with new, confounding problems? Well, I learned on the ride that we have a choice.

Option 1: Give up. Escape from the confusion of our era into safe places. Some have made that choice: those who choose to be cynical, those who use irony to distance themselves from any conviction, who laugh at those who care too much; those who complain and yearn for nonexistent pasts when ‘everything was better’, who simplify and blame it all on the other; those who keep the wheels turning on the structures that have left us all so distraught so as to see what they can privately squeeze out of it; who ignore the great public problems of our time and reject the great life in favor of the big life; and those who throw up their hands, screaming “There’s no such thing as truth and we don’t now to do…so let’s just watch some cat videos.” There’s a lifetime supply online…that’s a live option.  But, we don’t want to give up.

So there’s Option 2: Hope someone else takes on the great problems of our time and solves them for us. There is a certain quality to us that makes it easier for us to propose problems than to propose solutions. We all get riled up pointin’ to why this is bad, and that’s messed up, and that over there is being done totally backwards…and then we yell it out and hope someone else out there hears us and does something about it.

And my generation is particularly plagued by this quality, and the last few years for many young people, has been a great example of this option. In the Presidential Election in 2008, we young people had finally thought we had found someone who was going to solve all of the public problems we had been worried about throughout our lives. On election night in 2008 — when millions of young people around the country were cheering, singing and rallying together — I had thought that we were celebrating the first shot of a revitalized movement…. a launch party of sorts for the years of collective problem solving work we had in store for us. Barack was kicking down the door to a new era and we — the people! — were going to storm in! 

However, after Inauguration Day 2009, the surge of youth engagement receded. The entire Obama youth movement packed up and went home, believing their work to be done, their mission accomplished. Instead of continuing to actively organize for change, we simply waited, expecting the Presidency that we had brought to the White House to solve everything for us. When it did not work out exactly as planned, the cynicism re-emerged as we were left wondering how we, yet again, found ourselves with most of the same ol’ problems that we had before.

And there lies the problem with Option 2. History — and especially American Civil Rights history — teaches that we should not be surprised at all. Of course it is not the leaders we elect who bring major change to government policy. It is social movements and citizen projects from outside of government that force those leaders to act.

Lincoln penned the Emancipation Proclamation, but abolitionists provided the link. FDR signed off on the New Deal, but for the workers’ movement, it was old news. Maybe Nixon proposed the Environmental Protection Agency ‘cuz he was tree hugger at heart… or maybe he faced the biggest environmental movement in history!

Indeed, as historian Howard Zinn put it, “government, whether in the hands of Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, has failed its responsibilities, until forced to by direct action.” Indeed, it was that 2008 Presidential candidate that we all fell in love with himself who put it best: “You are the ones you have been waiting for…you are the change that we seek.”

The Freedom Riders of 1961 understood that extraordinary ordinary citizens had to hold leaders’ feet to the fire if they wanted to spur those leaders to action. When the Kennedy Administration was asking for a ‘cooling off period’ from direct action by civil rights advocates, activists kept the Rides going, understanding that it was exactly direct citizen action in times of administration uneasiness that could lead to major societal change. Their success in convincing the Kennedy Administration to support bus de-segregation proved their belief true.

Flickr/HongKongHuey

The Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in D.C. is the only memorial that features a statute that is not free standing…rather, Dr. King’s towering figure is emerging out of a large stone of hope. It’s quite appropriate, because even Dr. King is not the be-all-end-all of the Civil Rights movement…his work and leadership only could emerge out of the tireless efforts of the tens of thousands that made up the movement. And that was the final lesson of my trip – that the real movers of American government and society are not the leaders, but rather the groups of unelected, extraordinary ordinary people who decide to commit to public action.

But there still remains the question of “What is to be done?” now…well, there’s a final option: get to work, continue the struggle, know that if we collaborate and focus and work hard, we can figure out what’s going on, identify and articulate problems, and imagine, experiment with and implement solutions.

Back in Dr. King’s day, in the post-World War II era, America was prosperous, and Dr. King’s battle was to include a group of people in that prosperity. He literally spoke in the I Have a Dream speech about a promissory note to African Americans that wasn’t cashed, despite the fact that the “great vaults of opportunity” of the nation had enough funds to cash it. When Civil Rights activists sat in at the lunch counters, they were sincere about it – they really wanted to eat at those lunch counters. It was a great house his generation inherited, and he was fighting to have equal access to all its floors and rooms.

But, today, America isn’t doing so well. The vaults of opportunity are defaulting on their loans. Most families are having a harder time finding the excess income to eat out at a lunch counter. The house my generation inherits has some pipes leaking and broken windows and failed expansion projects.

But the reason I say this is because, with the house in shambles, with the house due in for some remodeling…we have a shot. Every crisis comes with an opportunity. And America is going to be rebuilt, I’m confident of that. The question is, rebuilt by whom, and rebuilt in what spirit? There are people out there, like you in the crowd, who understand Dr. King’s dream, who know agapic love, who can imagine what a world with less racism, militarism and materialism might look like. If people like you are not in on the remodeling of America, our nation is at risk of being rebuilt with the same ol’ built-in problems, the same ol’ built-in injustices. But, if people like you participate in this rebuilding of America, out of the Great Recession of the 2000s, and into the Great Revival of the 2010s – if people like you who understand the Dream put in the hard work to participate vigorously in your neighborhood and churches and schools and campuses and elections and communities small and big…if you craft solutions that make our problems that much more meliorated… if you bend the blueprints a bit more towards justice…if you put in the focus and hard work that is necessary to make anything that matters shake and move…then the dream lives to see another day. 

But only if you choose to participate.

At my Father’s graduation from Antioch College in 1965, a preacher by the name of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. put what I am trying to say best, exclaiming that: “Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers with god.” 

Let’s get to work. 

“148 years ago, in 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery  in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. It was four and a half months after the devastating battle, and it was a foggy, cold morning. Lincoln arrived about 10 a.m. Around noon, the sun came out as the crowds gathered on a hill overlooking the battlefield. 15,000 people.  A military band played, a local preacher offered a long prayer, and the headlining orator, Edward Everett, spoke for more than two hours. Everett described the Battle of Gettysburg in great detail, and he brought the audience to tears more than once. When Everett finished, Lincoln spoke .

The Gettysburg Address ran for just over two minutes, fewer than 300 words.   Only 10 sentences.

Among the first lines are these, familiar to us all:

‘Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

‘Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war….’

And so we are, now, in the late Fall of 2011.    Here,  in Manchester, soldiers may not be killing one another, bullets are not flying, but can any of us doubt that, at least metaphorically,  this country is at war, that armies are arrayed against one another,  that…as President Lincoln put it:  ’we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated,  can long endure.’

‘We are’, as President Lincoln said, ‘met on a a great battle field of that war.’   As we meet today, a war that tests our county is being fought out across this land in its most disheartening, and discouraging form, by our elected reps in Washington, but also here, in Manchester, right now, and in every town and city, in every state in the nation,  as competing sides gird themselves for the coming elections.

As surely as tanks and cannons can destroy a nation, so can a nation  be destroyed from within, by the unwillingness or inability  to resolve structural problems that, left unresolved, will destroy  the economy and the nation with every bit as much destructive power and finality as bombs and bullets.   Obstinance, adherence to the certitude that I am right and you are wrong, the inability of our leaders to resolve differences, to find common ground, can all be fatal.

We don’t have to look any further than the daily news to see the impact on other nations of their failures to change their ways.

Or, to bring it home, today’s lead story: the failure of “the Super Committee.”

That we reach this point at this season, at Thanksgiving and the Holidays, is especially painful.   That I make this the subject of my Thanksgiving Breakfast talk may feel inappropriate, or uncomfortable, or just plain bad manners.

It is uncomfortable.

But to gather at this time, to mark the eve of  Thanksgiving and  not speak of this, not acknowledge it, would be far worse than uncomfortable.

It would be  criminal.

It is not enough for us, as citizens, to just listen to the news,  curse the enemies, wring our hands,  and then retreat to the cocoons of our daily lives.

We need to be heard.  We need to tell those we elect that they must change how they represent us.

What hubris!  What arrogance!  To believe that your side is so right,  that you have all the wisdom.

We say to them: Will you destroy this nation in the name of saving it?

It is not acceptable to lay all the blame and responsibility on the other side.

We must tell our leaders that they must move.

They must find common ground.

This morning is not the time nor the place to work thorough the competing sides, to assign rights and wrongs.

Thanksgiving starkly juxtaposes the threat that this ugly, unyielding, and unnecessary stalemate  poses to all that we have to be thankful for.

We can do it. We can get through this terrible logjam. We can find our way to a better future.

What could be better evidence of the promise of the American people, the innate goodness and willingness to row together , than this extraordinary institution, New Horizons, which brings 1,000 of us together this morning.

Here we are in the state that:

• For the past five years has been rated “the most livable state,”
• For the fourth straight year has been rated the best state in which to raise a child;
• Has the lowest poverty rate in the country;
• Has the least amount of income inequality;
• Has the lowest tax burden; and
• Has the highest average income.

And yet where one out of four Manchester children are growing up in poverty.

Where scores of families are without shelter every night.

And hundreds of our neighbors cannot feed themselves throughout the year.

As a community we have come together to meet these needs: to house, to  feed , to shelter, to care for our neighbors.

This community takes care of one another.  This is no mean feat in these times.  This is a city infused with high social capital — you know I would work this in — high trust in one another, strong norms of reciprocity,  where helping out is the most natural of things.

And thus it has always been in Manchester going back more than a century.  The city has changed, the business base has changed, the countries of origin of the immigrant and refugee groups that have moved through it have changed, but the strong ties of mutual support, the underlying social capital has remained, strong and enduring.

No small feat.

This trust, this social capital, is the core of why this city is special.  It speaks volumes about the city’s capacity to prosper in good times, and to work through the kinds of big ripping changes in the industrial base, as the very economy of this city has morphed.

I end with thanks, and a prayer.

Thanks  for all who step up to help their neighbors, who put aside differences of  politics and religion and race, even differences between Sox fans and this lonely Yankee fan [Feldstein speaking of himself],  to give of themselves for the common weal, who have built this great agency as testimony to what we can be, what we can do.

And the Prayer that we find common ground.

That our leaders  – on all sides – step away from their certitude, look inward to acknowledge the limits of man, to be far more modest about our individual wisdom, to see for what it is the weakness that compels blind adherence to a single point of view, and look outward to acknowledge that the public that elects them is  far more nuanced  – and far more conciliatory -  then the extremes held up by our elected reps, who through their acts and our own have driven our nation to this terrible impasse.

Please please find common  ground.

Abandon your certitude that only you are right, that only you know the answers.  Don’t destroy our nation.  But take us  together to a better place.

We have done it before.

Get us there again.”

(photo by Ned Lyttelton)

Other experimenters have tested community-trustworthiness by dropping “lost wallets” in communities with a small amount of money and an ID card that says “If lost, please return to Mr. XXX  at YYY address.]  By dropping wallets randomly in different communities, they can measure the percentage of wallets returned intact (without the money missing).  It turns out that such empirical measures correlate strongly with the percent of neighborhood residents who report that others can be trusted.  [See also my earlier post on a related topic.]  So, it’s not just that in some communities people are drinking funny water….   One recent researcher (a bit less scientific) dropped those wallets and then videotaped those taking the wallets.

A idea from Mariano Pasik, a community advocate and publicist in Buenos Aires, Argentina is that community members should leave out bicycles and then film to see what percent of them are taken and over how short a period.  One can imagine that if people did this in communities across the world, one could use a mashup to present these data on an empirical measure of trust (although it is not always clear whether the thieves are community residents or outsiders).

TY to PSFK for a heads-up about this.

Connector Project

People frequently ask me of examples of city-wide efforts to build social capital.  The are several examples in Better Together of Tupelo, MS and what Portland did with city boundaries. Beyond this, Seattle had an interesting program called the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods’ Neighborhood Matching Fund (that provided mini-grants for neighborhood improvement efforts where residents provided matching sweat equity), Minneapolis’ Neighborhood Revitalization Program (where city power was devolved to local neighborhoods to set priorities), and the interesting Front Porch Alliance under Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith (which has not been as vigorously advocated in subsequent administrations).

NYC Service

I’m aware of several more contemporary examples:  NYC Service (and the Cities of Service effort to replicate this), Philadelphia’s Connector Program, and Social Capital, Inc.

NYC Service

Inspired by President Obama’s call for a new era of service, Mayor Bloomberg in his January 2009 State of the City address announced that New York City would lead the way in responding.

After consulting with volunteer groups that worked in the arts, with students, and with seniors to learn what was most needed, they launched NYC Service with Diahann Billings-Burford as their inaugural Chief Service Officer.  NYC Service would enable NYC  to do more with less (since economic times were tight) and help harness volunteers in “impact service”.

NYC Service, in its several years, has achieved impressive results.  They have used citizens to vaccinate over half a million individuals against H1N1; engaged over 400,000 students in school-based volunteering; trained over 10,000 people in CPR who then trained additional New Yorkers; and coated two million square feet of rooftop under their “Cool Roofs” program with reflective white material to lower building’s cooling costs in the summer and help alleviate global warming.

They also launched the Civic Corps, a full-time group of AmeriCorps stipended volunteers who work in the Mayor’s Office or with city non-profits to help those non-profits mobilize volunteers.  The Civic Corps in FY11 recruited almost three quarters of a million volunteers, raised $1 million in cash and $6 million in non-cash donations, such as professional services, clothing, food and books.

Over 2,500 volunteer opportunities have been posted to NYC Service (their volunteer clearinghouse website) and they have garnered over 600,000 unique website visitors looking for volunteer opportunities.   Between their website and the Civic Corps, NYC Service has mobilized over a million NYC volunteers.

Although NYC Service does not directly track this, one of the most important outcomes (above and beyond how many success mentors they train or how many square feet of roofs they paint white), is the social capital and civic engagement that NYC Service instills.  Studies have shown that for many governmental objectives (say keeping streets safe or increasing academic performance), a civic engagement strategy (through neighbors knowing each others’ first names or parents being more involved in their kids’ learning) is more efficacious than a top-down government-funded approach.

NYC Service is undoubtedly increasing citizens’ sense of efficacy (that they can and are making a difference on issues like the environment or school readiness or dealing with truancy).  This increased efficacy is likely to cause more New Yorkers to intervene elsewhere (e.g., when someone has fallen on a street or is having a heart attack, or when a neighbor needs assistance).

Implicitly, much of what government does is remediating for gaps in civil society.  For example, social service and safety nets step in where family and neighbors don’t.  Police are necessary where social sanction and control is insufficient to police social norms.  Paid Fire Departments are needed when all-volunteer fire departments can’t fulfill their duties.

The social capital created by NYC Service is likely to have a significant impact, way above and beyond the value of volunteer hours (which are important and sizeable in-and-of themselves).  Greater local participation down the road is likely to lead to: a) better crafted and more responsive local policies; b) better performing and less corrupt government since the civic engagement and transparency will hold government officials accountable; c) greater net ability to change citizen behavior relative to an approach that relies on mandates (which are harder to get enacted and less popular); and d) potentially less of a need for government down the road, if engaged citizens do their jobs effectively.

Replication of NYC Service: NYC Service is already being replicated. Mayor Bloomberg held a competition (funded by Rockefeller) and a selection panel chose 10 cities from the cities that applied in June 2010.  These winners received $200,000 each to cover some of costs of a Chief Service Officer (which they had to hire) and received wraparound technical assistance (with work-planning, and project management).  Rockefeller and Bloomberg Philanthropies  announced a second grant round with 10 winners and awarded them in June 2010.

Bloomberg Philanthropies created a “learning community” around these 20 cities [see Cities of Service] with the goal of cross-fertilizing learning, experience sharing, and developing best practices.  The CSOs came together face-to-face 2-3 times during the first year, engage in bi-weekly group conference calls, and receive individual technical assistance.

Bloomberg Philanthropies created a “Cities of Service Playbook” that specifies a process they recommend for Cities of Service in coming up with a service plan.  CSOs in the first round were hired by May 2010 and these 10 were first convened in June 2010 and provided technical assistance.  The first group developed service plans in Sept. 2010.  The second group developed service plans by March 2011.  [The first group consisted of Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Nashville, Newark, Omaha, Philadelphia, Sacramento, Savannah and Seattle.  The second group consisted of Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Baton Rouge, Chula Vista, Houston, Little Rock, Orlando, Pittsburgh, and Richmond.]

New cities have also agreed to develop high-impact service plans that were not grantees in these two competitive rounds.   Some of the original cities  now have the CSO position supported by their budget or have indicated  they will include the CSO in their budget.

We’ll look forward to hearing more about NYC Service and their replication efforts.

Philadelphia’s Connector Program:

Started by Liz Dow in 2005 as the Connector Project and based on Bowling Alone and Malcolm Gladwell’s work on connectors and the Tipping Point, they are now in their third iteration, and have renamed themselves Creative Connectors. They identify leaders who use arts, culture and design to build community and create economic vitality.  Liz was struck by the observation in Malcolm Gladwell’s “Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg” that “poverty is not deprivation, it is isolation.”

From their three years they have identified 10 traits in connectors (what they call “the Connector Competency Model”) and convened these connectors to connect them with each other.

Liz wrote up her experience in 6 Degrees of Connection and a fuller description of the ten competencies which cutely spell out “CONNECTORS”:

1. C: Community Catalyst
2. O: Other-oriented
3. N: Network Hub
4. N: Navigating Mazes
5. E: Empowering Passion
6. C: Constantly Curious
7. T: Trustworthy
8. O: Optimistic
9. R: Results Achiever
10. S: Self-Starter.

The list of creative connectors was generated by an online survey circulated by partner organizations and through an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer.  While these connectors are important in Philadelphia, 3 out of 4 of the leaders identified had moved to Philadelphia from somewhere else, and they generally work in the non-profit sector.  Creative Connectors also looks for leaders who:

• “are hubs of trust, seen as trustworthy and credible.
• use art and design to mobilize people around an issue.
• foster one-to-one linkages among people they know.
• engage with diverse groups.
• consider the common good as well as personal agendas.
• convey a vision that generates excitement.
• think strategically, act decisively.
• have founded an organization or program.”

Each Connector was profiled and NPR will do a video on each one weekly over the next year.

Philadelphia’s Creative Connectors is being replicated by some other groups including Leadership Louisville.  [And I've learned that a Boston connector network already exists, no relation to the effort in Philadelphia, see comment below about Boston World Partnerships.]

Last week, Leadership Philadelphia convened all of the Connectors since 2005 to thank them for their contribution to the community, to connect them with the newest connectors, to have them brainstorm on an issue raised in Knight’s Soul of the Community report, and to send them out into the community to make a Pay It Forward contribution.  The latter was a gift of $50 cash with the instruction that they give it to someone in Philadelphia who needs it, and to report back to Leadership, stirring up some grassroots goodwill during the holidays.

Leadership Philadelphia has also initiated a This I Believe project, partnering with the local NPR station to have leaders and then other citizens write and then read their belief statements on air.

Read a news report on their most recent meeting of all their Connectors.   The group that launched Creative Connectors, Leadership Philadelphia has a website here.  The Connector Project website available here.

Social Capital, Inc.

Inspired by reading Bowling Alone, David Crowley, whom I regard as an unofficial mayor of social capital, decided to launch Social Capital, Inc.

David was moving to Woburn, MA (his home town) at the same time as he was inspired to see what he could do at a local level to rebuild social capital.  He launched SCI and focused on trying to increase social capital in Woburn.

As David puts it: “The process of reconnecting to his home community after some 12 years of living elsewhere provided tangible examples of barriers to building social capital in today’s society, but also suggested that there were many community assets that could be harnessed through collaborative, community-wide social capital building initiative. The basic idea of developing a local model that could be replicated in order to address the decline of social capital and civic engagement was born.”

SCI Woburn was launched in summer 2002. In 2004, SCI expanded to Dorchester and in 2006-07, SCI began work in Lynn.  They have now expanded to Fall River and Milford.

SCI sees their mission as developing new “social capitalists” and believes it can train young people in the “unique set of skills and attitudes that enables them to collaborate effectively, make connections, bridge differences, and nurture social networks to make a difference. David is an ardent evangelist for social capital.  They are in the process of developing tools for would-be social capitalists and we will let you know when those become available.

In 2010-2011, here are some of SCI’s accomplishments.

• SCI AmeriCorps members recruited over 2,500 community volunteers and a almost 70,000 residents of  Dorchester, Boston, Fall River, Milford, Lynn and Woburn have benefitted from their service. The AmeriCorps members & volunteers served almost 50,000 hours with a market value of $1.25 million (based on Independent Sector’s rates for volunteer service)
• 240 youth and other emerging leaders developed Social Capitalist skills with SCI this year.
• Over 4,015 food & clothing items have been generated by SCI AmeriCorps members and volunteers for people in need during these difficult economic times.
• Over 12,500 individuals use an SCI community portal every month to connect with local civic happenings.

Flickr/martingommel

Thomas Meaney, recently reviewed David Graeber’s DEBT: The First 5,000 Years for the NYT Book Review.  [Graeber helped inspire the Occupy Wallstreet movement.]

Meaney writes:

In 1925 the French anthropologist Marcel Mauss published his classic essay “The Gift,” which argued that contrary to the textbook account of primitive man merrily trading beaver pelts for wampum, no society was ever based on barter. The dominant practice for thousands of years was instead voluntary gift-giving, which created a binding sense of obligation between potentially hostile groups. To give a gift was not an act based on calculation, but on the refusal to calculate. In the societies Mauss studied most closely — the Maori of New Zealand, the Haida of the Pacific Northwest — people rejected the principles of economic self-interest in favor of arrangements where everyone was perpetually indebted to someone else.

Picking up where Mauss left off, Graeber argues that once-prevalent relationships based on an incalculable sense of duty deteriorated as buying and selling became the basis of society and as money, previously a marker of favors owed, became valuable in its own right….

So what, then, is to be done? Graeber finds reasons for hope in some unexpected places: corporations where elite management teams often operate more communistically than communes; in the possibility of a Babylonian-style Jubilee for Third World nations and students saddled with government loans; and from his own study of the Malagasy people of Madagascar, who he claims were adept at evading the snares of consumer debt encouraged by the state. But there is a sizable gulf between Graeber’s anthropological insights and his utopian political prescriptions. “Debt” ends with a paean to the “non-industrious poor.” “Insofar as the time they are taking off from work is being spent . . . enjoying and caring for those they love,” Graeber writes, they are the “pioneers of a new economic order that would not share our current one’s penchant for self-destruction.”

It’s an old dream among anthropologists — one that goes back to Rousseau. In 1968, Graeber’s own teacher, Marshall Sahlins, wrote an essay, “The Original Affluent Society,” which maintained that the hunters and gatherers of the Paleolithic period rejected the “Neolithic Great Leap Forward” because they correctly saw that the advancements it promised in tool-making and agriculture would reduce their leisure time. Graeber approves. He thinks it’s a mistake when unions ask for higher wages when they should go back to picketing for fewer working hours.

Michael from the Front Porch Forum (FPF) in Burlington, VT writes in response to Meaney’s quote that he loves that others in his FPF community in Burlington have undertaken a voluntary life of ‘favor debt’ (owing someone a favor) in place of monetary debt:

“Perpetually indebted to someone else”… this sums up so much of what I love about my community life in Burlington, VT right now….

I was raised to value making my contribution to others while taking great pains to avoid accepting the same from others.  So were lots of folks here.  But that’s a recipe for setting yourself apart, for isolation.  As my family has learned to accept favors from those around us, it’s made our contributions to others that much more meaningful and personal.

Now, through Front Porch Forum, MealTrain, our church, school, neighborhood and other means, we ask and offer favors daily from hundreds of friends, neighbors and acquaintances.  Each request works against isolation and lays down another thread in the web of community that supports our life.  This is a crucial asset… as much as our house, my job, the kids’ college savings.

My brother and his family are planning a holiday visit to see us in Vermont this month.  We could all jam into our house, but I know they would sleep better if we had more space for the two families.  Hotels are expensive and distant… B&Bs too.  So, I put the word out to neighbors and got several offers of empty houses that we could use on our block.  These neighbors are traveling out of state and are glad to share their home while they’re away.  We’ve done this a dozen times over the past few years… offering or asking for empty-house guest lodging.  Make that hundreds of times if we include other favors… meals, rides, tools, advice, kids stuff, labor, baby/pet sitting, on and on.

This is incredibly generous and trusting of all involved… but it’s also keeping each of us “perpetually indebted to our neighbors” in a way that makes our community stronger with each exchange.

It’s a wonderful description of generalized reciprocity of the sort that undergirds social capital as discussed in Bowling Alone.

See somewhat related earlier post “Economists ignore a critical third of economy: the social economy“

Hat tip to Lew Feldstein for spotting the FPF post.

Flickr/EdsonHong

Tina Rosenberg (author of the recently blogged about Join the Club) had two recent opinion pieces in the New York Times in November on how groups play a key role in healthy outcomes.

One “Fixes: For Weight Loss, a Recipe of Teamwork and Trust” (11/15/11) focuses on how patients are much more successful in trying to lose weight when they are in groups.

Another “Fixes: At a Big Church, a Small Group Health Solution”
discusses how Saddleback Church (also featured in Bob Putnam and Lew Feldstein’s Better Together) uses small-groups to encourage more healthy lifestyles of their members.

Tip o’ the hat to Lew Feldstein for these articles.

Flickr/meganskelly

Just finished a very interesting New Yorker article entitled “The Poverty Clinic” by Paul Tough that focuses on Nadine Burke who runs a San Francisco-based low-income health clinic and her conviction, supported by various studies, that youth trauma scars young people’s health for life.

They cite the ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) study of 1998 that showed that adults’ retrospective childhood ACE memories were a strong predictor of all kinds of negative adult health outcomes and this exhibited a dose-response linearity — i.e., exposure to more categories of childhood adversity meant both greater likelihood of negative adolescent outcomes (depression, suicide, binge drinking, etc.) and greater likelihood of poor adult health outcomes.

These ACEs measure youth stress in four areas: 1) physical; 2) sexual; 3) psychological; 4) substance abuse; 5) mental illness; and 6) criminal activity.  Actual list of items appended to this post.

While it is possible that these retrospective memories are flawed (i.e., sick adults are more likely to recall childhood stresses), a basically prospective New Zealand Dunedin study is finding the same thing for early trauma.  And Bruce McEwen (Rockefeller Univ.) and Frances Champagne (Columbia Univ.) have shown that “repeated, full-scale activation of this stress system, especially in early childhood…actually alerts the chemistry of DNA in the brain, through a process called methylation….This process disables these genes [methyl groups], preventing the brain from properly regulating its response to stress.”  Even a decade or more after the stress, these teenagers find it harder to sit still, exhibit higher rates of aggression, show weaker brain function, and can’t as adequately distinguish between real and imaginary threats.

While some doctors are looking at whether drugs (psychopharmacology) could have an impact, social capital can often overcome these stressors.

“Other researchers have produced evidence that they can mend children’s overtaxed stress-response systems by changing the behavior of their parents or caregivers.  A study in Oregon drew this conclusion after assessing a program that encouraged foster parents to be more responsive to the emotional cues of the children in their care.  Another study, in Delaware, tracked a program that promoted secure emotional attachment between children and their foster parents.  In each study, researchers measured, at various points in the day, the children’s level of cortisol, the main stress hormone, and then compared these cortisol patterns with those of a control group of foster kids whose parents weren’t in the program.  In both studies, the children whose foster parents received the intervention subsequently showed cortisol patterns that echoed those of children brought up in stable homes.

“In terms of helping older children and adolescents who have experienced early trauma, the research is less solid.  There is evidence that certain psychological regimens, especially cognitive-behavioral therapy, can reduce anxiety and depression in patients who are suffering from the stress of early trauma.  But, beyond that, little is known…”

Kaiser Permanente started asking about these stressors on intake questionnaires, since the were markers of health problems in the same way as say high cholesterol was.  The article points out that eliminating the negative effects of four ACEs would lower the risk of heart attacks as much as lowering cholesterol below the warning threshold.

With regard to work we are currently doing on a growing social class gap among adolescent youth, it is possible that methylation and ACEs might help explain lingering and persistent growing social class gaps that we see among high schoolers over the last several decades.

Read “The Poverty Clinic” (New Yorker, March 21, 2011)

See earlier post “Doctors Prescribing Social Capital“

See early article on Childhood stressors and adult health: Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, et al JS. The relationship of adult health status to childhood abuse and household dysfunction. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1998;14:245-258.

+++

Specifically ACE questionnaire asks whether:  parent or other adult in household (HH) often or very often swore at you, insulted you or put you down; often or very often acted in way that made you afraid that you would be physically hurt;  often or very often pushed, grabbed, shoved, or slapped you; often or very often hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured; person five+ years older than you ever touched or fondled you in a sexual way; had you touch their body in a sexual way; attempted oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you; actually had oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse with you; whether you lived with anyone who was a problem drinker or alcoholic; lived with anyone who used street drugs; whether anyone in HH was depressed or mentally ill; whether HH member attempted suicide; whether your mother was treated violently ; whether your mother or stepmother was sometimes, often, or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped, or had something thrown at her; whether mother/stepmother was sometimes, often, or very often kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, or hit with something hard; whether mother/stepmother was ever repeatedly hit over at least a few minutes; whether mother/stepmother was ever threatened with, or hurt by, a knife or gun; whether HH member ever went to prison.

Flickr/citychiccountrymouse

The Census through the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is expanding the items that it asks about civic engagement and social capital.

On the November 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS) supplement, BLS will now ask about:

• Voting in local elections (such as mayor or school board)
• Frequency of using the internet to express opinions about political or community issues
• Frequency of communicating with family and friends
• Trust of neighbors
• Confidence in institutions (specifically corporations, the media and public schools)

These metrics will show up in the 2012 Civic Life in America report.

Many other measures of social capital and civic engagement are already being surveyed by BLS on the November supplement (more here), and BLS also asks on their September supplement metrics on volunteering, attendance at public meetings, and whether Americans have worked with neighbors to fix/improve something.  The volunteering measures are reported by CNCS on the Volunteering in America website.

See “Census to collect new social capital measures“

Read earlier post “Advances in social capital measurement“

Synopsis of Big Sort: Bill Bishop claims that we are increasingly self-sorting ourselves into neighborhoods politically and only associating with like-minded political neighbors with all kinds of horrible consequences.   Much of Bishop and Cushing’s evidence about the corrosive effect comes from psycho-sociological experiments like Asch‘s where group pressure causes people to behave immorally (a la Lord of the Flies or the Stanford Prison Experiment), or to censure their own dissonant voice even when they originally believed those views to be  correct. [Note: Fiorina has made quite a name for himself on how the political elites in America have become ever more polarized and the masses have over time sorted themselves out more reliably into political parties but the masses views' have not become any more extreme, so obviously the Big Sort doesn't square with his other research that uses ongoing surveys like the General Social Survey, the American National Election Studies, etc.]  There is a wonderful cartoon that the New York Times did about the Big Sort.

While Bishop and Cushing try to look a wide variety of evidence, among them voting records, patent applications, IRS income data, advertisers’ data, etc., Fiorina asserts that the backbone of Bishop’s evidence compares two closely fought presidential elections — 1976 where a moderate Republican Gerald Ford took on a moderate southern Democrat Jimmy Carter vs. 2004 when a Texas born-again Republican George W. Bush took on a liberal northeastern Democrat John Kerry.   Bishop observes that there was an increase of 22 percentage points in the number of “landslide” counties from 1976-2004 (defined as a county that went for a candidate by more than a 60/40 margin).

Fiorina thinks that this comparison in and of itself is skewed since presidential campaigns are all about personalities and one can’t simply compare one against another and assume that one is witnessing changing behavior of voters.  Furthermore, he thinks because of the contestants in those contests, there are many reasons to expect more landslide results by county in 2004 when voters were faced with a starker choice.

Nonetheless, he and Sam Abrams have searched for a measure that proxies well for voter preference but measures against a more steady yardstick than votes.  They look at partisan political registration by county (which they say predicts voter choice according to other scholarly work).    Comparing counties in 1976 and 2004, even if one dramatically lowers the threshold of “landslide” counties to ones where a simple majority of registered residents are one political party (e.g., Republicans), there has been a drop in such counties from 75% of counties in 1976 to 40% in 2004.  This doesn’t show sorting at all.  For sure, there has been a significant increase over this same time in voters registering as independents, but that itself is an undermining of the “Big Sort” hypothesis, since independents’ vote choice is much more volatile according to Fiorina. Fiorina is doing another project on independents:  they are almost never just weak identifiers with a party, but either break with a party over one significant issue or have a much more esoteric alignment of political values.  He says that looking at independents over time one sees that there may be as low as 35% of Independent voters from one presidential election to the next consistently saying they are Independent, voting Democratic.

Fiorina also says that even if there were a “big sort” going on, and the data found increasing polarization at the neighborhood level (his data show nothing like this happening at the county level), he’s not convinced it would have a big impact on politics for three reasons:

1. Neighborhoods aren’t such an important center, especially in the age of media and blogs and where 2/3 of Americans only know at most 25% of their neighbors’ names.
2. Neighbors don’t talk to each other all that much: a Howard, Gibson and Stolle 2005 CID study found that 55% of Americans never talk about politics with neighbors and Putnam’s Bowling Alone showed how interactions with neighbors has sharply declined over last generation;
3. Politics is simply not that important a topic of discussion or way in which we identify ourselves.  The three most important ways in which people identify themselves are family (51%), occupation (16%) and religion (10%).  Even if you go down to people’s third most important factor, politics only registers 2.7% of people listing that as the third most important factor.

Questions: one person asked Fiorina about the Bischoff-Reardon study showing increased income residential segregation over the last generation (at the census tract level); since income itself predicts being Republican, she wondered how those findings are consistent.  Fiorina hadn’t seen the study so didn’t want to comment.

Another asked how one knows whether Americans really are moderate or like to portray themselves that way. Fiorina said that any survey data is subject to such doubts but that highly volatile results, like the recent contrasting results in Ohio criticizing Obamacare while supporting the rights  of unions, with many voters voting yes on both are consistent these data.  Fiorina also noted that one has to look back to the late 1800s for 4 consecutive elections that show the level of political instability that exists today.  [2004: All Republican control of president and both houses of government; 2006 Republican president, democratic control of both houses of Congress; 2008 democratic control of President and both houses of government; 2010 democratic presidency, republican House and Democratic Senate.]  We’ve had four elections each with a distinctive result, and the next election, if current Intrade predictions pan out could show a 5th result and a flip from 2006, with a democratic President (Obama) re-elected and republican control of both houses of Congress.  See also David Brooks’ interesting related column “The Two Moons.”

Fiorina who is working on Americans Elect, believes that the way this could change is for things to get bad enough that a “younger, saner Ross Perot emerges” as a third party candidate (quoting David Brooks).  While this is not predictable, Fiorina cited Sid Verba who noted that before the Berlin Wall fell, no one saw this coming, and afterwards everyone could identify the reasons why this was inevitable.

He thinks Obama’s most promising re-election strategy is to assert that he’ll be the bulwark against likely control of both houses of Congress by the extremist Tea Party-led Republicans and a bulwark against the political extremism among political elites.

Fiorina believes that although trust of Congress is at all all-time low of 9%, turnout is not down because the political parties are providing a much stronger ground game and a much higher percentage of voters now indicate they’ve been contacted by the political parties.   [It may also be a function that more voters see an increasing difference between the two political parties and the media and others may make stronger appeals that the stakes are ever more consequential.]

Fiorina also commended the recent research by Jim Stimson and Chris Ellis  and a forthcoming book that indicates that most liberals truly are liberals whereas white conservatives are a blend of different things.  26% of conservatives are movement conservatives who really do have conservative values (what Ellis/Stimson call “constrained”); 34% are traditional-symbolic conservatives (like Mike Huckabee), many of whom are recruited through churches but don’t necessarily know the conservative party position or have consistent conservative beliefs (what Ellis/Stimson call “moral” conservatives); slightly less than a third are what Fiorina calls “clueless” conservatives (what Ellis/Stimson call “conflicted” conservatives), many of whom are younger, who actually hold liberal positions but think that the conservative label conveys greater respect (like a military official in uniform); and 10% of conservatives are libertarian (just wanting less government in general, whether it is for making marijuana legal and eliminating an army, or doing away with food stamps).  Fiorina agrees with the book that when one says that 40% of Americans are “conservative” it is misleading since a far smaller percentage of them uphold conservative positions across the board.

See also this earlier post about the “Big Sort.”

Excerpts:

Traditional economics are focused only on “part of the map”; they ignore the 1/3 that economists think are unimportant: “the one that you go home to every night, it’s called home, family, community;…it probably doesn’t do anything important from the point of GDP.  It just raises children, makes neighborhoods safe and vibrant, raises strong families, takes care of the elderly, gets involved in things like elections, tries to make democracy work, tries to make officials accountable, fights for social justice, tries to keep the planet sustainable, but nothing of economic importance you understand …”  (laughter)  “There is a core economy” (family, neighborhood, community, civil society, networks and informal support systems) that is analogous to a computer’s operating system;  many powerful specific programs (like monetary system) don’t work if the core economy goes down.

He notes that new “social enterprise system” is about reviving this social economy.  Traditional entrepreneurship can’t effectively unilaterally deliver health care, education, welfare, community justice, or democracy.  Need to enlist people as “co-producers”.  Need economy that runs both on money and on compassion, since traditional economy values things only that are scarce and love, compassion, grieving, decision-making in small groups, standing up for what is right are universal and hence defined away by the traditional economy as worthless.

We need to revalue compassion, caring, civic engagement. Alvin Toffler explained this point by asking a corporate CEO how effective their best employees would be if they were not toilet-trained.  A critical component is reciprocity and “pay it forward“, which is what lead Cahn to “time dollars” (the currency of time) or his “time dollar youth court“.   We need to look through the lens of possibility: returning prison convicts in DC could guarantee safe passage at any street corner through gang territory.

“Need to ask why are we here and what kind of world do we want to leave behind…Father Fahey said ‘We have no money; all we have is each other’…To me this represents good news; it means we have true abundance.”

[tip o' the hat to Lew Feldstein for alerting me to Cahn's talk.]