We really do need to talk!

Folks who attended our first meeting came with a lot of "steam in our engines" that we each needed to let out.  

Those who returned for the second meeting still had plenty of steam, but the newcomers were the ones most in need of having their say.

This makes sense.  When someone chooses to attend they're motivated by a need to do something about the "dis-ease" they've been feeling.  

Have you noticed that quite a few of us brought examples of the what's gone wrong in our culture, as well as resources for getting it right?

We do well to give that energy a chance for expression.

Naturally, this takes up meeting time, and it doesn't scale.  The more people we have, the more time it will take.  Giving every heart a chance to unburden can eclipse the other work we've come to do, if we do it one by one.

And yet -- Doh! -- we are about Civil Dialogue, right?

If we are to grow, we'll need harness this urge by giving it a forum in small groups for some part or parts of each gathering.

I envision two or three small group sessions per meeting, with groups of three to five participants:

• The first one is a "Howdi."  We break into threes, introduce ourselves to each other, and say what brought us to the meeting. Five minutes?

• We may want a second small group break-out to discuss a current issue, or to seek input about personal exchanges we've had in the last month that we feel we could have done better.

• And when we take up a main topic, we'll want to give participants a chance to talk it over.  The larger we are, the more it makes sense to use a small group for that purpose too.

All this energy shows up to do something, so let's put it to work in real dialogue!

Your thoughts?

-David

Our second meeting of the Guild for Civil Politics took place on Sunday, 3/19/17, with 11 participants, 6 of them first-timers.

Doors opened at 3:30PM.  A few of us gathered to share a little conversation with light fare and drink.

The meeting started at 4PM.  After sharing our names, we reviewed our work from the previous month, and agreed on the proposed agenda for the meeting.

David (that's me!) read from Sebastian Junger's 2016 book, Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging.  The author tells the story of a conflict over ownership of a plastic viking helmet which he witnessed at a bar in San Fermin during the running of the bulls.  With an act of creativity the hat was transformed into a goblet, filled with red wine and shared as an act of reconciliation.  Soon the hat was forgotten, and the opponents had become friends.  The story illustrates the potential of transcending conflict by affirming communal values.  As we contemplate our "rules of the road" I hope we can make room for this transcending, transformative potential.

We decided to relegate the review of rules to a subcommittee, who will return next month with a proposed set.

In the meantime, David (that's me!) shared these hoped-for values-for-the-road, some of which are necessary to Paradise Community Guilds:

• Civil = Mutually constructive. Expect differences, share your view, be positive.

• Dialogue = Open to something new. You might change your mind.

• Ideas are not people + People are not ideas. (Bad ideas ≠ Bad people.)

• Paradise Community Guilds is non-partisan / non-denominational

• Focus on the issues rather than the parties, politicians or candidates.

Some complained that they hadn't received notice for the meeting.  An email notice was sent out on 3/12, and again on 3/19.  Also, there is a new web page and blog for the Guild for Civil Dialogue that advertised the meeting.  Nonetheless, these are new efforts and can be improved.  An email signup list was circulated and we'll make sure all attendees addresses are included in future email outreach.

Participants expressed a strong desire to grow this Guild and to maximize its influence; and they were concerned that our marketing efforts were falling short of the aim.  Others mentioned the support of the Paradise Chamber of Commerce in promoting our meetings, and the recent Chico ER editorial that praised our effort.

Future efforts will include posting in other online calendars, Eventbrite, as well as occasional press releases and broad emails to our Friends of the Guild list.

Pivoting to our main topic, we first watched a two minute Data Download segment from the 3/19/17 broadcast of NBC's Meet The Press, titled "Is Big Data Destroying The U.S. Political System?"  Chuck Todd showed a correlation that explains how the rise of demographic/psychographic modeling in the early 2000's has helped campaign and issue marketers mobilize voters in the middle of our politics to the left and right since then, hollowing out the middle.  We recognize that the messaging we get from those who use these techniques is slanted.  We must search out the facts for ourselves.

Susan Dobra then led us through a discussion on how to find and agree upon the facts, supported by a handout with a variety of helpful sources (which should appear below this post).

Of particular note was this guidance from Ask Leo! (Leo Notenboom):

First: Understand the problem.

Second: Be skeptical.  Always.

Third: Do the work (research).

Fourth: Build a network of more trusted (info) sources.

We recognized the work necessary to get to the facts in our ever-spun media culture.  We then went around the room and each named our usual sources of info, listed with a few comments below:

Politifact.com • FactCheck.org • Democracy Now! (on KZFR) • Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) • Newspapers (generally speaking), both conservative and liberal columnists • Bill Maher (HBO) • Talking to people • Late night show monologues (that was a joke, sorta) • KZFR's Chris Nelson and Sue Hildebrand • NPR • Free Speech TV with Tom Hartman • Huffington Post • Local news • Friends on the internet • Lost faith in mainstream media • Mother Jones Magazine • New York Times • Washington Post • Eugene Robinson (WP) • Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC) • TheSixtyFive.org • The New Yorker Magazine • The Atlantic Monthly • Harper's Magazine • John Oliver (HBO) • The Bible / God • The more authoritative, the more dangerous • Thoreau said today's Bible is the newspaper • Politics is about rulers • Columbia Journalism Review (CJR.org) • Center for Public Integrity • Breitbart.com • DailyDrudge.com • TheBlaze.com • Mediaite.com • DailyCaller.com • TheDailyBeast.com • Buzzfeed.com • Fox News • PBS News Hour • Hardball with Chris Matthews (MSNBC) • All In With Chris Hayes (MSNBC) • Facebook • TheIntercept.com • Paradise Post • Chico Enterprise-Record

We recognized the challenge this plurality of information sources poses to agreeing on the facts.

We wrapped up a little after 6PM with an agreement that at our next meeting we will review the subcommittee's proposed "rules-of-the-road," and chose as our next topic, "Getting past disagreement to understanding."

​--David

At last night's meeting of the new Guild for Civil Dialogue (our second), a participant said she read about us in a Chico Enterprise-Record editorial.

Thank you, Chico ER, for the work you do in helping us "Be the community you want to live in!"

The article is reproduced below.

-David

----------------

Editorial: Can the ‘me’ be quiet so the ‘we’ is heard?
3/14/17, Chico Enterprise-Record

Books on humility. Role playing that emphasizes cooperation and finding common ground. University courses on improving civility and understanding.

These are the new building blocks of community. In the wake of the most vicious presidential election in recent history, people are aghast at the demise of civility and orderly disagreement.

But the descent started long before the election. It seems it’s how this country operates now.

Programs try to refresh the Golden Rule and emphasize that disagreement doesn’t boil down to “I’m right, you’re wrong.”

Communities are trying to salvage what’s left of old-fashioned values. They hope to set new standards, or rather go back to old standards that respected all sides.

Plenty of theories exist on why we abandoned courtesy and social responsibility. What launched it isn’t as important as how can it be slowed or even reversed. The pillars of ethics that guided our forefathers, from church to school to parents, don’t have the same roles as they did.

We see bad behavior everywhere.

It’s behind road rage. It’s responsible for booing, shout downs and aggression.

Blending in with the crowd, even if it’s a bad one, seems to work for many.

An organization in Paradise — Paradise Community Guilds — is facing the wave and hoping others will join in the resistance.

A meeting is planned at 4 p.m. Sunday at Norton Buffalo Hall, 5704 Chapel Dr. to talk about conducting life in a more civilized manner.

We’re pretty sure that thousands of meetings and conversations like this are happening throughout the country, but solutions seem to evade us.

Maybe it’s keeping the reminder of politeness in the forefront of our thinking.

Maybe it’s making note of poor behavior and avoiding it or using it as an example for our children.

How can we rein in that ego?

What will be the turning point to revive those old standards may be the expansion of organizations like the Paradise one.

We know churches, schools and parents are trying to make their own impact on reversing the course.

​We applaud these conversations, classes and dialogue because this country’s future rests on our ability to get along.

Guild for Civil Dialogue will meet today (Sunday) from 4PM - 6PM at Norton Buffalo Hall.  Doors open at 3:30PM.

Please join us!  And if you do, bring a little light fare to share beforehand and at the break.

And remember -- we want a rich conversation.  Try to bring someone with you who may disagree with your perspective on the issues!

Proposed agenda:
 
3:30 Meet and Greet
 
4:00 Welcome | Review | Agree on agenda
 
4:05 Reading - “Plastic Viking Helmet” from Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging by Sebastian Junger (2016).
 
4:10 Rules of the Road
 
4:40 Two-minute video: "Is Big Data Destroying the U.S. Political System?" NBC's Meet The Press

4:45 Topic - What constitutes reliable information?
 
5:10 Break
 
5:20 Return to topic
 
5:50 Review and choose next topic
 
6:00 Adjourn
 
How does this sound?

--David

Our Sunday, 2/19/17 4-6PM exploratory conversation about whether and how to establish a Guild for Civil Politics produced a consensus of interest.

Doors were opened at 3:30PM, and 15 people gathered at Norton Buffalo Hall.  Some brought wine and a little food -- a nice addition.   We dove in at 4PM.

We each shared how we felt about our politics-dominated cultural climate in light of the recent polarizing elections.  Most were alarmed, saddened or depressed by the extremely negative interactions they've had with family, friends and neighbors.  A few saw the upside -- there's a lot of interest in changing the status quo in politics.

I showed Chuck Todd's Data Download segment from Sunday morning's Meet the Press on NBC, which provided a good snapshot of the mood of the country.  Our group was pretty well represented in the report.

The concern is, how do we function as a community when we are so polarized?

We took 20 minutes to view a TEDNYC interview with Jonathan Haidt, an NYU Stern professor and author of the 2011 New York Times Bestseller, The Righteous MInd: Why Good People Disagree On Politics And Religion.  

• Haidt begins by saying that there is more afoot now than just the left-right divide, and it is apocalyptic in nature.  
• According to Pew research, we don't just dislike the other side, now we strongly dislike them and see them as a threat to the nation.  We've crossed over into disgust -- and it's hard to come back from that.  
• A moral psychologist, Haidt teased out the various reasons for this development, including the insight that each side lives within its own moral matrix, and each side is right, seeing a different set of facts, seeing different threats to the country, and neither side is capable of seeing them all.
• While race, gender, LGBT issues etc. has dominated our politics of the last 50 years, and we still have those issues.  But Haidt believes our Left-Right divide is now an existential threat, and will be our biggest challenge for the next 50 years.  We're at a turning point.
• What's needed is a new kind of empathy, where it's hard to do -- to drop our fear, reframe things, stop seeing  "the other" as our enemy.  He mentions Buddha, Jesus and Marcus Aurelias as good sources of advice.
• Haidt advocates reading Dale Carnegie's How To Win Friends And Influence People and then making an effort to sit down and talk with someone on the other side.
• Start by acknowledging what someone is right about, or what you appreciate about them.  It works like magic.

Following the video we took time to share a little more deeply about ourselves and what we may be looking for in a group dedicated to substantive dialogue with people who don't share our point of view.  

After a short break we resumed the conversation, then watched a video from A2Ethics (Ann Arbor, MI) on their annual Big Ethical Question Slam, an annual event that brings community groups together at a local pub for an ethics competition.  The value of the event is in seeing our friends and neighbors form ethical opinions in real time in order to defend them.  It's insightful.  We discussed the potential of doing something similar in the fall.

A concern was raised that "Civil Politics" may be a turn-off to potential participants.  We settled instead on "Guild for Civil Dialogue" for now.  

​This blog and page are the result of our efforts so far.


Next Meeting

We agreed to meet again on Sunday, March 19, 4-6PM to take up a task, a topic, and a challenge.

Our task is to adopt "rules for the road."  We agreed not to reinvent the wheel, and everyone was encouraged to research what basic agreements others use for similar projects and bring them to the meeting.  We intend a speedy adoption so that we can focus on our topic as soon as possible.  

Colleen mentioned the Rules of the Road used by Daily Kos as a potential model.

​Lisa has since found three sources she liked:

• 5 Keys to Civil Political Discussions & Debates With Friends & Family
• Five Rules for Conducting Rancor-Free Political Conversations
• Ground Rules for Civil Discussion​

Our topic will be "What constitutes reliable information?"  It's tough to hold a substantive conversation when our news media has broken into a thousand partisan pieces, and most of us choose to listen only to those sources which confirm our bias.  How do we separate fact from fiction?  And how do we do that in a dialogue with someone who disagrees with us?

Challenge: We've started with plenty of progressives/liberals, and we need more conservatives for our dialogue to be rich.  We each agreed to accept the challenge to bring a conservative to the next meeting.

See you next time!

​--David