Here's my question - what should I add or change on my list of topics to share with the Wisconsin League of Women Voters related to my talk on the topic of strategies or activities to combat political polarization? Here is what I have so far: (You are welcome to use this, but please don't share it until after June 2nd.)
What the League of Women Voters in Wisconsin (Or Anywhere) Could Do to Diminish Excessive Political Polarization
1. Establish a committee dedicated to focus attention on ending political polarization – a committee with ongoing environmental scanning of organizations committed to dialogue and deliberation, citizen engagement and education. Organizations like the National Consortium for Dialogue and Deliberation, National Issues Forums, America Speaks, Everyday Democracy, Public Agenda Foundation, National Institute for Civil Discourse etc.
2. Prepare a list of questions for citizens to ask all persons running for public office regarding their strategies to counteract polarization.
3. Organize a media blitz focused on particular actions/strategies that citizens and organizations can perform to decrease polarization – newspapers, radio, television, social media (blogs, vlogs, e.g.). Call upon media leaders to develop regular features on people and programs where civility is central to democracy working well.
4. Develop a taskforce composed of individuals who are most recognized for achieving civil conversations (social workers, church leaders, educational leaders, conflict resolvers, mediators, law enforcement personnel, human rights activists, ethicists, sports figures, entertainers, political statespeople, etc.) to form an “advocacy for democracy” campaign.
5. Award annually political civility or political harmony awards.
6. Engage the humanities and arts communities in creating works and productions that illuminate civility and compromise (music, plays, art, poetry, essays, books, etc.)
7. Draw upon the higher education community of Wisconsin for a Statewide Adult/Continuing Education program (be sure to involve Cooperative Extension) regarding the psychological and sociological causes and outcomes of polarization (for example, data regarding loneliness, isolation, anxiety, insecurity, exclusion, underlying fears, hostility, and distrust between groups.) Highlight statewide and county data that shows the relationship of mental and physical health to political polarization (social determinants of health data). A good starting point would be the recently released county health reports prepared by the University of Wisconsin in cooperation with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. (County Health Rankings and Road Maps). Dr. Roger Bernier, formerly with the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, would be another valuable resource on the topic of the relationship of civic engagement to good health.
8. Plan a statewide conversation on the topic of “compromise.” See Robert M. Gates Speech (Former Secretary of Defense), September 22nd, 2011, at the National Constitution Center in DC, “Willingness to Compromise Will Determine U.S. Future.” Excerpts from his speech: Indeed, "compromise" has become a dirty word--too often synonymous with a lack of principles or "selling out." Yet, our entire system of government has depended upon compromise. The Constitution itself is a bundle of compromises. Critical ideas and progress in our history often have come from thinkers and ideologues on both the left and the right. But, for the most part, the laws and policies that ultimately implement the best of those ideas have come from the vital political center, and usually as the result of compromise.
Their willingness to do so will determine this country's future prospects as a great power and as a republic, because the warning given a long time ago by Benjamin Franklin--that great Pennsylvanian--still applies: "Either we hang together or we will surely all hang separately."
9. In collaboration with the higher education system of Wisconsin, dedicate some time to investigating the topic of “increasing anti-intellectualism” in society.
10. Use the concept of American exceptionalism to engage citizens to formulate a plan for how they would envision Wisconsin’s exceptionalism in the next decade.
11. Explore with the K-12 community the specific ways in which they see compromise and critical thinking skills being expressed in the curricula.
12. Using centers and institutes like the Wisconsin Institute for Public Policy and Service to expand the citizens’ exposure to public naming and framing of policy issues in the development of materials for deliberation. Demonstrate how “controversial issues” like climate change, healthcare reform, social security, the debt crisis, immigration, etc., can be developed for a healthy and constructive examination by the public. Perhaps the Wisconsin Institute might lead an effort to frame an issue guide on political polarization? Or frame an issue on other that might diminish polarization such as changing Congressional rules on filibustering, campaign finance reform, etc.
13. Hold a League Workshop to think about how what is known about political polarization might be used to reignite political engagement, to reenergize the citizenry. [This article uses data from the American National Election Studies and national exit polls to test Fiorina's assertion that ideological polarization in the American public is a myth. Fiorina argues that twenty-first-century Americans, like the midtwentieth-century Americans described by Converse, "are not very well-informed about politics, do not hold many of their views very strongly, and are not ideological" (2006, 19). However, our evidence indicates that since the 1970s, ideological polarization has increased dramatically among the mass public in the United States as well as among political elites. There are now large differences in outlook between Democrats and Republicans, between red state voters and blue state voters, and between religious voters and secular voters. These divisions are not confined to a small minority of activists. They involve a large segment of the public and the deepest divisions are found among the most interested, informed, and active citizens. Moreover, contrary to Fiorina's suggestion that polarization turns off voters and depresses turnout, our evidence indicates that polarization energizes the electorate and stimulates political participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Is Polarization a Myth? Alan Abramowitz and Kyle Saunders,Journal of Politics, April 2008, Vol 70, Issue 2, p. 542-555.]
14. Ask local libraries/museums to prepare an exhibit of political cartoons that portray polarization, and use these cartoons as a springboard for a community conversation about the meaning and effects of polarization in our communities, State, and Nation.
15. With the help of Everyday Democracy (Study Circles) ask them to identify in Wisconsin and nearby States particular projects where people have worked together on civic projects that made a difference in the life, liberty and happiness of the citizens.
16. Perform an Environmental Scanning of the YouTube Videos on Political Polarization and use the best to generate conversations about why polarization matters and how these video messages can guide us to ways to achieve a better functioning democracy. Examples, Between an Elephant, a Donkey, and a Hard Place”, Voting Trends: Polarized is Popular
17. Work with research faculty/political science faculty in preparing a “Political Polarization” Survey citizens could use to rate candidates or incumbents on such a measure. This could be a simultaneously a citizen education tool that would contribute to a citizen’s understanding of concepts like compromise and polarization.
18. Encourage book clubs with the assistance of librarians to develop a reading series of works that demonstrate the constructive outcomes of compromise.
19. Utilize the resources of the National Institute for Civil Discourse at the University of Arizona -Established in February 2011 at The University of Arizona, the National Institute for Civil Discourse is a nonpartisan center for advocacy, research, and policy regarding civil discourse consistent with First Amendment principles. (http://nicd.arizona.edu) Grant Awards
Norma Mendoza-Denton
Department of Communication, The University of Arizona
This research focuses on conflict talk in Town Hall Meetings (THMs), examining ways in which representatives handle disagreements with constituents. I propose to conduct a case study-centered linguistic anthropological analysis of a small corpus of four different instances of naturally-occurring conflict-talk: two from Tucson, Arizona during THMs in 2000-2001 by then congressman Jim Kolbe, the predecessor to current Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ seat; one from a THM held in 2001 by Rudolph Giuliani, then-mayor of New York City, with transportation workers; and finally a THM held by Congresswoman Giffords in Southern Arizona in 2009. I note the interactional dynamics of disagreements as issued by constituents and pay close attention to the tactics used by politicians in handling confrontation. Interactional management includes not only the issuing of speech routines such as admonishments to "calm down," (paradoxically further inflaming recipients) but also other features such as gaze withdrawal and gestural ambiguity. A fuller understanding of the microdynamics of conflict in THMs will provide us with a baseline against which to understand face-to-face deliberation. This issue is of theoretical interest to students of deliberative processes, while the public policy implications include the identification of aberrant interactional patterns and the training of public figures in handling conflict.
Kate Kenski, Kevin Coe, and Steve Rains
Department of Communication, The University of Arizona
Civility is a vital part of any functioning democracy wherein citizens are expected to deliberate about their electoral choices. Although researchers have studied incivility among political elites, very little research has focused on the extent to which civility and incivility are embodied in citizens’ conversations about politics. Building upon the strengths of the communication discipline, which is focused on the study of messages, and on our particular strengths as political and technology researchers, the proposed study will develop content analytic measures of civility, use these measures to track levels of civility in online discussions, and identify dimensions of news and technology that influence these patterns. Our focus will be on the Arizona Daily Star forums attached to news articles, a first step in a broader program designed to understand the extent to which civility and incivility appear in public discourse about political life. The results of this project will be used to develop a proposal for extramural funding from the Political Science Division of the National Science Foundation (PD 98-1371).
The National Institute for Civil Discourse is currently funding four University of Arizona researchers working on two independent projects aimed at investigating civility in the public domain.The awardees are: "Patterns and Determinants of Civility in Online Discussions" led by UA communication faculty members Kate Kenski, Kevin Coe and Steve Rains; and "Citizen Rage: Representative-Constituent Face Threatening Interactions in Town Hall Meetings" by UA linguistic anthropologist Norma Mendoza-Denton.
20. Iowa Conference- Public Policy Center, University of Iowa-
http://ppc.uiowa.edu/pages.php?id=278 (audio and video from the
sessions) Conflict and Civility in Political Discourse. Where is the Line?
This is a test only a test
ReplyDelete