Reaching out across the divide in today's polarized America would in itself be a powerful and healing gesture.
We all have our own views about the direction the country is heading. But unless we must refrain from designing the process to favor any point of view, or agenda, the exercise will lose the potential power that comes from the process being transparently fair to all. We should be willing to take our chances about whether our point of view will thrive or perish in a fair process.
For many of us, the experience of recent years has shaken our faith in the American people. But the evidence of recent polls suggests that many of our countrymen may be awakening from their trance. In addition, it is inevitable that those who volunteer their energies to participate in this process will be those with high motivation and a belief in grassroots democracy. While that will likely include people from various political stripes, if something positive cannot come out of that segment of the American public, we probably all should throw in the towel.
To prevent the process from being hijacked by organized interests I would propose that all participants sign a pledge that they are not being paid -or given any other consideration""for their participation. Other than that proviso, any American citizens 18 years or older who wants to participate in the process, and who agrees to abide by its procedures, would be admitted.
So the invitation would go out to America -perhaps to attend any of various "People's Non-Constitutional Conventions" around the country. Each gathering would follow processes laid out in advance""perhaps including things like brainstorming, hearing speakers or presenters of other kinds, voting. On the basis of general and neutral criteria (also laid out in advance), each gathering would decide on what to send on to the next stage of the process""which ideas, proposals, presenters, delegates.
I would suggest that the process be designed so that the majority is able to say what it wants to say, but also so that any sufficiently large minority would also get its own smaller voice. My thought is two-fold: 1) that the outcome of this process should be powerful and not bland, the way a consensual "lowest common denominator" statement would be; and 2) that the voice of the minority also be treated with respect, and given the means to express itself even through to the final product.
At each successive stage, there would be a greatly narrowed range of participants, selected by the preceding stage. In the final stage -perhaps it would be the third-- the process should have narrowed down to a manageable number of participants and creative products (ideas, etc.) chosen along the way. The size of this final gathering might be two or three dozen people with various gifts and points of view""something of the order of magnitude of the group that convened in Philadelphia in 1776.
Their task would be to create the final product. This final product would have as its stated purpose to communicate as clearly and powerfully to the American nation as possible the vision -emerging out of this process""of where this country should (and perhaps should not) be heading. From the first conventions to the final product, I'm imagining, might be something in the order of nine months""a good gestation period.
The final product might take any of a number of forms. The form that I'm envisioning would be something like a two-hour nationally broadcast television program, perhaps called something like "The American People Speak on the Direction of the Nation." But perhaps the Non-Constitutional Conveners would come up with a better idea.
The idea of a nationally broadcast TV show is predicated on the process having generated enough favorable publicity and raised enough funding that the networks would find accommodating the request for time less trouble than denying it. Publicity and fundraising would be essential components of the process from the beginning.
To succeed in these ways, it would be essential to maintain the credibility of the claim to be the Voice of the American People would be essential.
That's why the process should look fair, from the outset, to people from any point of view. The process should be transparent, laid out in advance for all to see. It could contain also -like our Constitution""the means for participants to make alterations, on the basis of their experience and emerging wisdom. But no changes should be allowed that would violate the basic values of fairness and integrity.
The process should be as open to the Christian Right as to MoveOn. The designers, therefore, should not be in the business of narrowing the issues to be addressed; nor should the process be captive of any political party or interest group. Although worthwhile conferences of those types can be conceived, they would be fundamentally different in ways that would forfeit something vital.
That vital thing is the potential power and impact of a process that simply tries to give the American people a voice to express the popular vision -latent in those poll numbers""regarding the direction the country is heading.
Handing Off the Ball
Admittedly, the foregoing is vague about the process itself. It talks of criteria and goals, but not of methods.
We all have our own views about the direction the country is heading. But unless we must refrain from designing the process to favor any point of view, or agenda, the exercise will lose the potential power that comes from the process being transparently fair to all. We should be willing to take our chances about whether our point of view will thrive or perish in a fair process.
For many of us, the experience of recent years has shaken our faith in the American people. But the evidence of recent polls suggests that many of our countrymen may be awakening from their trance. In addition, it is inevitable that those who volunteer their energies to participate in this process will be those with high motivation and a belief in grassroots democracy. While that will likely include people from various political stripes, if something positive cannot come out of that segment of the American public, we probably all should throw in the towel.
To prevent the process from being hijacked by organized interests I would propose that all participants sign a pledge that they are not being paid -or given any other consideration""for their participation. Other than that proviso, any American citizens 18 years or older who wants to participate in the process, and who agrees to abide by its procedures, would be admitted.
I would suggest that the process be designed so that the majority is able to say what it wants to say, but also so that any sufficiently large minority would also get its own smaller voice. My thought is two-fold: 1) that the outcome of this process should be powerful and not bland, the way a consensual "lowest common denominator" statement would be; and 2) that the voice of the minority also be treated with respect, and given the means to express itself even through to the final product.
At each successive stage, there would be a greatly narrowed range of participants, selected by the preceding stage. In the final stage -perhaps it would be the third-- the process should have narrowed down to a manageable number of participants and creative products (ideas, etc.) chosen along the way. The size of this final gathering might be two or three dozen people with various gifts and points of view""something of the order of magnitude of the group that convened in Philadelphia in 1776.
Their task would be to create the final product. This final product would have as its stated purpose to communicate as clearly and powerfully to the American nation as possible the vision -emerging out of this process""of where this country should (and perhaps should not) be heading. From the first conventions to the final product, I'm imagining, might be something in the order of nine months""a good gestation period.
The final product might take any of a number of forms. The form that I'm envisioning would be something like a two-hour nationally broadcast television program, perhaps called something like "The American People Speak on the Direction of the Nation." But perhaps the Non-Constitutional Conveners would come up with a better idea.
The idea of a nationally broadcast TV show is predicated on the process having generated enough favorable publicity and raised enough funding that the networks would find accommodating the request for time less trouble than denying it. Publicity and fundraising would be essential components of the process from the beginning.
To succeed in these ways, it would be essential to maintain the credibility of the claim to be the Voice of the American People would be essential.
That's why the process should look fair, from the outset, to people from any point of view. The process should be transparent, laid out in advance for all to see. It could contain also -like our Constitution""the means for participants to make alterations, on the basis of their experience and emerging wisdom. But no changes should be allowed that would violate the basic values of fairness and integrity.
The process should be as open to the Christian Right as to MoveOn. The designers, therefore, should not be in the business of narrowing the issues to be addressed; nor should the process be captive of any political party or interest group. Although worthwhile conferences of those types can be conceived, they would be fundamentally different in ways that would forfeit something vital.
That vital thing is the potential power and impact of a process that simply tries to give the American people a voice to express the popular vision -latent in those poll numbers""regarding the direction the country is heading.
Handing Off the Ball
Admittedly, the foregoing is vague about the process itself. It talks of criteria and goals, but not of methods.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
