• Putting the “Civil” Back in Civil Society

    I went on The Takeaway this morning to talk about a new move to get anger under control in politics.

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

    Recently , a group called Former Members of Congress for Common Ground (politely) laid down a gauntlet. Their petition to current candidates embraces the concept of partisanship, but then adds:

    The divisive and mean-spirited way debate often occurs inside Congress is encouraged and repeated outside: on cable news shows, in blogs and in rallies. Members who far exceed the bounds of normal and respectful discourse are not viewed with shame but are lionized, treated as celebrities, rewarded with cable television appearances, and enlisted as magnets for campaign fund-raisers.

    The 130 signers, all former members of Congress, then ask office-seekers “to conduct campaigns for Congress with decency and respect toward opponents, to be truthful… [and] to refrain from personal attack…”

    That serves notice to political insiders. But what about to citizens? While the midterm elections will, one way or the other, reset the balance of power on Capitol Hill, they won’t insure that people on the ground engage in serious but civil debates. Ultimately, it’s up to us to ask that we do better, act more generously, and live more comfortably with the intense debates that come in a time of big decisions.

  • Politics and Population Density: Not Quite Arizona

    Our team returned this weekend to New York (left) , a city with, to say the least, a high population density. Similar sky, but not quite Arizona (right).

    One of the more thoughtful articles I’ve read recently about America’s differences in attitude and governance touched on population density as a key determinant of attitudes toward Federal powers. Kathleen Parker (now known to many as Eliot Spitzer’s co-host on CNN), wrote:

    As Barack Obama told us at the Democratic convention in 2004, we are not a red and blue nation, etc., etc., etc. True enough, but we are a high-density/low-density nation.

    She continues:

    As a smallish-town girl come to the humongous city, I am all too aware of the appeal and horror of centralized government. Simply put, the more people cram themselves into small spaces, the more government will be involved in their lives….

    If you live in a large urban area, chances are you are accustomed to lots of rules and regs. But to the newcomer, fresh from living largely independently by her own wits, the oppression of bureaucratic order is a fresh sort of hell.That sounds good on the surface, but as we found out in Arizona, there is a river of Federal money flowing into the state, mainly for military and law-enforcement. And with that, particularly with border enforcement, comes a constant insertion of Federal powers into peoples’ daily lives. Be prepared to stop, pull over, and show ID at all times. (We were.) Whether that is good or bad is precisely the crux of the debate over Arizona’s controversial immigration law S.B. 1070 and other laws or bills.

    I would love to know your thoughts on how you perceive the Federal government’s influence in your specific community. How does law enforcement affect you, your family, and neighbors?

    For bonus points, I’m intrigued by this demographic trend, which Fox calls “reverse white flight”… more of the Paris model of city v. suburb perhaps? Our first radio special, airing October 21, will definitely touch on this and gentrification.