Coffee Party World Cafe #3: Declaration of Principles

Attachment	Size
ReportonCoffeePartyWorldCafe3--DeclarationofPrinciples_ver3.doc	59.5 KB

Thu, 05/27/2010 - 18:33 — Ray Hudkins

Questions for Declaration of Principles Forum

First, we should consider what differentiates the Coffee Party from other non-partisan groups like Common Cause, League Of Women Voters, Private Citizen and many more. In some cases I think the answer is obvious. Common Cause seems to be doing the things we are attempting to do. If I understand critical thinking, we need to be able to answer this question or we can't come up with principles that will resonate in the general public domain.

Second, the name Coffee Party has been debated and criticized because it implies that we will offer candidates for office. Our local LWV says they won't work with us because our name implies what i just stated. Not good! Even though I'm committed to doing everything I can, I question how successful we can be in using our voting power if there are no candidates that embrace our points of view. Why can't we be a non-partisan advocacy organization that feeds a second arm of the CP that seeks out candidates to support or finding none, fielding our own candidates. Please don't get me wrong on this. I'm just providing thoughts to ask people to think, not just accept what is current thinking.

Login or register to post comments

Thu, 05/27/2010 - 19:37 — Bruce Schuman

"Voice of the People" ??

Just wanted to say hello, and express thanks for getting this together. Just to float this thought -- it has felt to me -- that maybe a kind of "citizens lobby" could emerge, coordinated through internet technology -- a force intended to "influence politics" -- rather than actually engage in the existing political system. The cover story on Time Magazine last week -- was about Facebook hitting 500 million users -- which would make them the third-largest NATION in the world. We have barely begun to understand the political implications of this explosive growth.

So -- a huge well-coordinated "voice of the people" is the kind of model that excites me, I think. The issue is -- "the people don't speak with one voice" -- and to add Winston Churchill's famous quote -- "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". So -- not only do we have to "the bring the people together" -- we have to bring wisdom and collective intelligence together. An impossible and perhaps crazy task? Or something being compelled in the zeitgeist?

My feeling is -- the CP is responding to something primal and deep -- something widely felt, and not yet clear articulated. Maybe CP and this group is trying to find ways to articulate the way forward.

Login or register to post comments

Fri, 05/28/2010 - 00:27 — Anonymous

Comments from our group

Thank you very much for hosting the call again, Ben. It was a fantastic discussion, I thought. I got a lot out of it.
In our last group, we had Dave, Peg, Ray, and Anand (at least part of the time, anyway).
We came up with the following list of principles:
- Fact based discourse and solutions
- Including and honoring diverse viewpoints and finding commonality/being respectful of differing viewpoints and inclusive of everyone
- engaging citizens in civil discourse
- standards for behavior that include integrity and honesty
- creating a space where people can dig down deep
- remaining self-supporting through member contributions only
In that group and the others I was in, there were a few topics of discussion. Again, fact-based, solution-oriented discussion was emphasized repeatedly – as it was in the last conference call.
Also discussed in all groups at length was the difficulty in reaching out to some who might be more conservative and being heard. Several people spoke of trying to talk with family members or friends and meeting resistance. On the other hand, we had a member in the last group, Ray, who was a Republican himself and leader of a Coffee Party group in Pensacola and he had some really practical information about talking to people who might have differing viewpoints and finding common ground. Peg noted that there are some hot button issues and that, at least initially, it would be better to stay away from such topics and maybe focus on some issues pretty much everyone might be able to agree upon (the need to address corporate influence, perhaps through election reform was my idea [which I claim because Dave felt that may have been vetted already through the CPM with little interest, but Ray said his group had never been asked so there was some disagreement on it], or bank reform [I don't think anyone disagreed with that one], and I may have missed some other possibilities here as I was also talking at this point). Dave and Ray spoke to the suggestion to present thoroughly researched fact-based stances on topics to be discussed.
As the disconnect between right and left was brought up, Peg mentioned a quote by Dr. Phil, “So how’s that working for you?” She pointed out that whatever was going on up to now, not much difference had been made in changing the status quo. She felt the public face of the tea party might be angry, but underneath it really might be apathy. She thought that if people felt empowered to try something different, perhaps by addressing that the roadblock was getting us nowhere, that might help [my interpretation on some of this – hope I caught it right, not sure].
There was another suggestion that Coffee Party members instigate a conversation with close friends or family members who were more right-leaning to ask them specifically what they wanted to see happen – what they might be interested in getting involved in or what might interest them in participating with the Coffee Party on one or more specific issues with the idea that if we could pull together a significant portion of the country from both right and left to address an issues, it would be pretty hard to resist us and some real change might be accomplished.
There was discussion sparked mainly by Dave about the need for the principles to bring the moderate but silent majority out of the woodwork and give them a voice and a platform and forum where we could trade ideas about the best common solution for an issue to serve all parties and for the overall good of the country. Dave noted that if we could influence even 15 percent of the voting population, we could take those numbers to a legislator and have some influence.
We also talked about a couple of subjects mentioned in a previous group about how to ensure that everyone would know their vote had counted and been securely tallied and the need for the Coffee Party to remain autonomous – funded by its members only and not by lobbies or other organizations. Anand asked if there should be a limit on what amount of money could be accepted from any one member. There was no clear answer on that but it sounded to me more like yes, there should be a limit or it should somehow be clear that there were no strings attached or the donation amounts should be anonymous.
Please let me know what I missed.
Regards,
Shannon

Login or register to post comments

Fri, 05/28/2010 - 07:19 — Administrator

Another set of "scribe's" notes

These are in raw form--thanks for such detailed "output dump." Great stuff! I will compile this and other info into a report tomorrow.

Ben

___________________________________________

1. What is a declaration of principles, why do you care?

Solid foundation, fundamental beliefs, best practices, must come back to the tried and true that works
Based on principles that are correct
Principle based, foundation, influence, work together, critical thinking, what do we stand for, belief in values, fundamental truths, what practices we espouse

1. It is an anchor that we apply to all actions at each chapter level and it defines the character of the movement
2. It guides our critical thinking for our actions at each chapter level

Problem in American politics, how do we fix that?

2. What subjects do you feel it would be important for the declaration of principles to address?

1. Label of coffee party vs. tea party vs. shared principles
2. Finding commonalities with diverse viewpoints
3. Citizen engagement, bring more citizens into public matters; informed engagement, not sound bites, civic/issue literacy, teaching each other
4. Nonpartisan
5. Not a bunch of liberals, don’t let media coopt into the opposite of the tea party
6. Take back gov’t, our gov’t, not special int., big business, etc.
7. Outreach, education: critical thinking, civics
8. Civility pledge, mission statement
9. Polite civil conduct
10. Respect and honor of diverse viewpoints
11. Each group will attempt to have diverse viewpoints within the group

3. What specific principles do you think would add most value?

Process of making decisions
Who speaks for the coffee party, individual vs. collective
Behavior
*Move beyond talk
Maintain a big tent
Communication-true dialogue, different views, understanding
Role of Government-
Information-accuracy, factual, research
Advocacy-what principals that guide political position? Consistent with nonpartisan education principle, not solutions, encourage politicians to address complexities with their constituencies

Dialogue /action –how we engage the problem-fact check, reflect, engage, and not come up with solutions, possibly activists on our own but not activists as a group.
Space and time to engage the problems we face with dialogue, not sound bites, to arrive at a place where we would not have arrived at alone, not to be an activist group as then it would become partisan.
Deciding on actions to take: Can be voter registration, community critical thinking education, community civic education, and community candidate’s forums
Although the above was the big concept our group agreed on, we also liked the following four “buckets” identified during our brainstorming/reviewing from previous groups. I didn’t mention them during the call as we were directed to limit to one item due to time:
Communication-true dialogue, different views, understanding
Role of Government-
Information-accuracy, factual, research
Advocacy-what principals that guide political position? Consistent with nonpartisan education principle, not solutions, encourage politicians to address complexities with their constituencies

Login or register to post comments

Fri, 05/28/2010 - 07:23 — Administrator

Ben's "scribe's" notes from final breakout

Well so far Shannon and Michelle have put me to shame! Here's what I have from our final 15 minute "harvest:"

Be an advocate for/set standards for civil discussion. Create an environment that is…
o Engaging
o Comfortable
o Enticing
o Respectful of different perspectives
o Safe
o People want to go and talk about issue
o Holding judgments aside
o Rise above ideology
o Put yourself in someone else’s shoes
o EMPATHY
o Open mindedness

Create a Common Vision
o Reconcile unity and diverse discourse
o Everyone speaks their own mind
o Only the consensus of the movement can speak for the movement
o Act in ways

Common Voice/Common Ground as another subject to be addressed.

Login or register to post comments

Thu, 06/03/2010 - 10:32 — Anonymous

Email from Debra Lambo

Regarding last Thursday's Cafe meeting, and in particular Michelle Coyle's notes which quoted my contribution to the small group.

My understanding of the purpose of the mission of the Coffee Party is to encourage Civil discourse, how we engage the issues and problems we face as a country. As has been noted, it seems that most people who are involved in the Coffee Party have a liberal leaning, my concern is that once we start advocating this will take away from the main message, which again is how we engage in discussing the problem.

The beauty and benefit of dialogue is that it can be used to arrive at a place that we could not on our own. If you view it as a creative process, we need the thinking of each person to get there, this means that when you agree to enter into dialogue you are willing to hold your opinions, not have them hold you. Dialogue asks us to question our assumptions of how the world works, to suspend judgement of others. You enter into dialogue not with the intention of changing anyone's mind but are open to the possibility that you may change yours. Dialogue holds the potential to bring us to a place or a position that we could not get to on our own, we need the group. Isn't this what we need during these times, when the experts are floundering?

In a NY Times article about the 2008 crash, David Leonhardt wrote, (NY Times Jan. 6, 2010) that Bernake and Greenspan fell victim to the same weakness that of the engineers of the Challenger space shuttle and the planners of the Vietnam war, they didn't questions their own assumptions. In another NY times article, March 4, 2010, writer Thom Shanker writes Adm. Mike Mullen is reinterpreting the so-called Powell Doctrine, in a speech at Kansas State Univ. he stated stated that "military leaders should encourage and embrace discussion, debate and even disagreement 'that inevitably plays out between policy making and strategy execution.' . . He noted that 'such interplay is healthy for the Republic and essential for ultimate success. Shanker writes, Adm. Mullen said that 'policy and strategy should constantly struggle with one another' . . . military leaders and their civilian bosses must engage in a continuous, honest dialogue so that both can adapt to shifting security challenges."

And,
In her commencement speech two days ago Shirley Tilghman, Presidient of Princeton University, urged graduates to seek common ground, Town Topics, June 2, 2010, in discussion and debate in our increasingly polarized world, "discussion and debate - those critical ingredients for creating fertile ground for change have become sharper and far more likely to result in impasse than in consensus." I would add, more that consensus but to a place that we could not have imagined before we started the discussion .

Each of these examples points to the need for a new kind of conversation, whether within the individual, socially or within our institutions. How do we make this the next "self-help" movement. Can we justify 'just talk" as a means for change. The womens and civil rights movements did not happen because of a change in legislation, it first happened in people's consciousness, some of us even participated in consciousness raising groups, the laws followed.

In Sunday's NYTimes Week In Review section the article "Our Fix-It Faith" writes the American belief that technology can solve any problem are now learning that perhaps this may not be true. The challenges we face around living in a complex technical society are great, no one person has the answer, no leader can make it all okay for us, we must each of us begin to think about how we can respond to these challenges. It requires a certain kind of mind, a mind that knows that the past can't take us into the future, our ideas about how the world works may no longer be useful, calling our assumptions into question, acknowledging complexity and unpredictability, how can we help to bring this mind about? When we are able to hold our opinions out in front of us, are less sure, we may be less inclined to scream and shout and live with humility about what we know.

For the last almost twenty years I have been thinking about this, and believe the time is now to act. What does that mean for me? I have some ideas but at this point they are like a puzzle that has not been put together. Dr. Tilghman said on Tuesday, "As anyone who has tried to change the world eventually learns, imagination is easy; doing is hard." It is the hard work that I face and I know that I can't do it alone. If anyone would like to discuss what I have in mind please e-mail me.

Debra Lambo
Princeton, NJ
Deblam52@aol.com

Login or register to post comments

Thu, 06/03/2010 - 11:50 — Anonymous

Putting the pieces together

Good morning, Debra --

Maybe it's just in the air -- but I'm feeling something very similar.

For me -- there is this sense that we do know far more about what would be wise -- than we have yet been able to pull together into a workable activist framework. We can be well-educated on these subjects, we can be well-intended and high-minded -- but we also need a way forward, something that works, a way to combine all these sources of insight into something feasible -- and you are so right. The task is too big, it's too complicated. We can't do it alone -- we need each other. Let's explore what we could do. I want to hear your ideas.

- Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara
bruceschuman@cox.net

PS -- somebody sent me this statement on principle of dialogue this morning...

Skills for High-Quality Dialogue

Expressing opinions honestly in response to what others have said.
- Participants acknowledge that they are expressing their own opinion, rather than expressing an opinion that is true for everyone.
- Participants are able to relate a feeling or story to what has been said.
- Participants express their opinions in a positive and constructive way.
Listening attentively to what others have said and responding empathetically.
- Participants state in their own words the point of view of those who have a different opinion.
- Participants ask questions to get clarity about another point of view.
- Participants make statements that recognize how other people feel.
Responding in ways that show an effort to understand others.
- Participants respond to the insights of others with questions, agreements or respectful disagreement.
- Participants do not try to convince others to change their point of view.
Responding in ways that show openness and a willingness to learn.
- Participants identify and recognize their own assumptions.
- Participants acknowledge any changes in their own points of view.
- Participants state what they have learned from others.

Login or register to post comments

Thu, 06/03/2010 - 12:32 — Administrator

Reply to Debra Lambo from Judy Whipple

Debra is a deep and careful thinker, and that was clear in the conference call as well. I agree with her articulate discussion of civil discourse and how it should be done. But I believe her understanding that "the purpose of the mission of the Coffee Party is to encourage civil discourse" is incomplete.

Civility is absolutely a core CP value, which should (I think) infuse everything CP does. But, having read and re-read the basic CP documents, and Annabel's elaborations on them, my conclusion is that CP's core purpose is something larger – to work toward a healthy democracy in America (seen as necessary to adequately address the challenges the country faces). And I would like to see the Declaration of Principles include a positive vision of what a healthy democracy looks like, so that CP isn't just negatively focused, can understand itself as working positively toward something.

In that context, I see several major goals and strategies toward achieving that purpose, among them civil discourse, fact-based deliberation, an engaged citizenry, government based on cooperation, removing impediments (like money) to government as the expression of our collective will, etc.. These are all key components, but I see them as goals serving the purpose, not the purpose itself.

Apropos of "fact-based deliberation," Debra made a compelling comment (in an earlier email to some of us) about a different conversation she would like to have, and I would welcome her elaborating on it, so I hope she doesn't mind my sharing (emphasis is mine):

"I have been thinking about establishing a template for conversations, along with principles or guidelines for the process, that would be for the purpose of moving participants out of their established frame of mind. What I have found is that facts don't change minds, even with the facts we tend to hold onto what we already believe, it's difficult to change minds with facts. So where does that leave us? Is anyone interested in having this conversation?"

Anyway, my two cents.

Regards,

Judy Whipple

Login or register to post comments

Thu, 06/03/2010 - 15:32 — Administrator

Nina Hajda's reply to Debra and Judy

Thought I would repost this email as well. Thanks for the input, everyone!

Ben
__________________________________________________________________

Hello Everybody,

Well written and thoughtful comments that I agree with. My favorite management acronym is KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid. When I tutored college students, I got down to the very basics and found simplistic way of explaining the subject, so it would be common sense to the student. I applied the same approach to business and now to the Coffee Party Movement.

We want to be a big tent organization and appeal to everybody, across the political spectrum. The reality is that the CPM has attracted moderates and liberals. We can not force conservatives to join the movement. What we can do is to invite them, as guests, to speak to us. People are flattered when you tell them that you want them to speak and that you want to hear/ listen to what they have to say.

I emailed our local Tea Party (which is not well organized and I probably will not hear back) and the local Republican Party. I got a nice email back from the Republicans, asking to me to call, so that we can dialog. I will be calling him later today or tomorrow. Keep your fingers crossed for me!!

June 23rd, my local CPM group is hosting the Kansas President of the AARP, who will talking about Health Care Reform. I am inviting people from across the political spectrum, so that there can be a healthy dialog. See what I am doing? I trying to include everybody in the discussion, with out asking them to be a part of the CPM. I will let you know how it works out. I am also contacting local hospitals, since they are stakeholders in Health Care Reform. Too early to know who will be showing up. A couple of local big name Dems will be there, but that is all I know for now.

One of my local members told me that it takes alot of chutzpah to do what I am doing. After almost 18 years of living on the Jersey Shore, I tell people I have "Jersey chutzpah". I have the Kansas friendliness and politeness (except when I am Jersey-mad) that allows me to get away with it in Kansas.

Debra, with out meaning to, you touched my heart when you mentioned a speech at Kansas State University. That would have been a Landon Lecture and my father, who has passed away, was in charge of those in the 60s, 70s and part of the 80s. It made me think of my dad and cry.

If anybody wants to talk, my phone number is 913-952-4067. Will see how the reach-out to the Republicans goes. My local leader in Topeka has chutzpah and is helping me with the June 23rd meeting. He's an incredible individual.

Good Luck to All,

Nina E. Hajda
Kansas Point Person

Login or register to post comments

Fri, 06/04/2010 - 09:23 — Administrator

Ray Hudkins replies to Debra

Debra,

Thanks so much for the explanation of the comments made in the World Cafe session last week. I joined the Coffee Party because I was fed up with the way Democrats and Republicans conducted themselves in session, responding to media questions, and participating in poorly constructed panel discussions with talking heads. I agree with you that we need to change the tone and focus of our conversations to arrive at conclusions no one person could have achieved without the shared wisdom of a mature group engaging in civil discourse. Too often, we assume the solution to our ills and then work to defeat other well reasoned ideas. We are seeing a classic case of that in the way both Republicans and Democrats have acted in debates on Healthcare and Financial Regulatory Reform.

The Coffee Party has a golden opportunity to achieve something no other non-partisan public interest group has accomplished; government reform and return of power to the people instead of special interests if we can come together, check our ego's at the door along with our prior party affiliations. I believe in healthy debate of issues based on fact, logic, and involvement of small groups of people duplicated across the country in a common purpose.

What I also believe in is citizen action to advocate a cause when all have spoken and we, collectively have reached agreement on proactive solutions to problems or suggested reforms in government. By my definition, advocacy does not mean taking sides, it means seeking a common approach that our elected officials will agree with because we took the time to develop our ideas into actionable terms that can be used to shape and change the direction Congress is taking.

Bottom line I see effective advocacy as a nature result of civil discourse and meaningful debate about real problems and real solutions

Thanks,

Ray Hudkins
Pensacola FL Coffee Party Coordinator
rhud66@gmail.com
.

Login or register to post comments

Fri, 06/04/2010 - 16:58 — Anonymous

Re: Debra's comment (and Judy's response)

Perhaps this might help advance the discourse-advocacy conversation: what do we envision ourselves, as a movement, advocating FOR? If, after much dialogue, the Coffee Party takes stands on such items as cooperation-based government, greater transparency in federal bureaucracy, the mitigation of corporate influence--what I'd call the infrastructure of our public life--that would strike me as a natural outgrowth of our mission. If, however, we envision ourselves advocating on the issues of the day (e.g., healthcare reform, immigration, gay marriage), it will become far more difficult to maintain our public positioning as an organization dedicated to discourse. Eventually, I think, given the preponderance of progressives in the movement, Jane Q. Public will find it all too easy to think of us as "just another liberal special interest."

As for Debra's thoughtful comment about moving people from their frames of mind: I've been writing for some time about the need for inner transformation--an intentional broadening of one's own personal perspective--as a process that can open us to approach our adversaries in the spirit of dialogue. So many people are not even close to a place where they could talk to the "other side" without having their blood boil and their defenses up; a process of self-improvement can alleviate that. If anyone thinks this is a valuable piece of the puzzle, I'd be happy to talk about it in more detail.

It's delightful to deliberate with people who think on such a high level. Thank you for the opportunity to join in.

John Backman
The Dialogue Venture
www.dialogueventure.com

Login or register to post comments

Fri, 06/04/2010 - 17:34 — Ray Hudkins

Just Give Me the Facts, Ma'am: I'm OK. Are You OK

Judy, your post triggered two thoughts. First, I must confess that I was educated as an engineer (I know that is a great handicap) but facts + logic are what convince me to modify my view of things. Our dialogue will inevitably generate seeming facts that may contradict. Adding logic and more discussion should expose the facts that are really opinions based on facts. Reasonable, intelligent people can sort that out. Your statement about a conversation template reminded me of the book: "I'm OK. You're OK that dealt in a simple form the interaction of Parent - Adult - Child conversations. Maybe the Adult - Adult conversation model could be a part of the template as well.

One word I would add to the discussion that needs to be considered is "compromise". We live in a very complex world with so many interconnections socially, economically, and politically tht is is very, very hard to achieve agreement. At our very first chapter meeting I explained the true meaning of consensus to the group and told them we would discuss it at the next meeting. I was stunned to find out that they wanted to make important decisions by consensus. We have yet to test that view, but I'm looking forward to it. Unfortunatley, we can't practice true consensus anywhere above a chapter level and maybe not there either. Our DOP discussion should wrestle with one more word that may help state what we stand for.

Ray
Pensacola

Login or register to post comments

Mon, 06/07/2010 - 10:44 — Administrator

Debra responds to Judy, Michele and Shannon

Since these emails are posted to all the participants on the world cafe call, I am continuing to repost them here for a wider potential audience. This is a 6/6 reply from Debra. Great stuff, everyone! Ben

__________________________________________________________________

I'd like to thank those of you who have commented on my feedback to the small group at last week's World Cafe gathering. Reading your comments helps me to clarify and expand my own thoughts. I don't know how deep a thinker I am, it's just that I have been thinking about this for a long time and to have an opportunity to share with others is immensely gratifying.

Judy reminded us that the core purpose of the CP is to work toward a health democracy. She states that she would like to see CP Declaration of Principles include a positive vision of what a health democracy looks like and sees several major goals and strategies that can help achieve that purpose, i.e. a healthy democracy. The strategies she lists are: civil discourse, fact based deliberation, an engaged citizenry, government based on cooperation . . . These are the goals that will serve the purpose of creating a healthy democracy.

I repeat this because it helps me to be sure that I understand her point and would like to respond to this as well as to an earlier comment that I made about fact based deliberation and my desire for a different "conversation."

How do I begin, I too would like to use civil discourse in order to create a health democracy but more than civility I would like to push further and ask for "reflective democracy" in our deliberations. Reflective in the sense that we are able to call into question our assumptions about how things are and how we think they should be. That would be for both "right" and "left." Zymunt Bauman, a sociologist from Leeds Unvierstiy, asks "If freedom has been won, how does it come about that the human ability to imagine a better world and do something about it was not among the trophies of victory?" (In Search of Politics) Democracy means to me, empowerment, empowerment to use my freedom to step out of the narrative that I was born into and to create a new one for myself. Is it time for us to create a new story about ourselves? A story that moves us from being consumers to citizens? Are you living the American Dream? If yes, how do you define it? If not, why not? There are currently a number of issues at stake, choice, immigration, taxation, corporate influence in politics, environmental degradation, do we really think that anyone of us has the answers? Even the so called experts are at a loss on a number of issues, the gulf spill, recent financial crash, Irag war, war on terrorism. How do we use our freedom to respond to any of the above issues and questions?

I certainly don't have the answers, but when I read about the CP and heard Annabel speak I thought this is just what we need, people coming together, willing to take on the role of constituents in order to face the problems of this country. In our world of nichification, how does the CP avoid that, the concern that I expressed in our telephone conference is if the CP becomes an advocacy group it is just that another liberal group making its case. This is tricky, we all want to make an impact but I think that can happen not just through our actions but in how we inhabit the world, each of us.

Can we create-raise awareness-consciousness around the problem that we all share, the difficulty of stepping outside our own perspective and that each of us is caught in our own assumptions, not intentionally of course, but just by our limitations of our humanity which is why we need each other, just like I needed you in order to write this e-mail! Can we transcend our either/or thinking; black/white; liberal/conservative .. How can we have relationships that allow this to happen so that we are better able to know the complexity of the world in order to better respond to it. For too long we have been passive consumers in a market driven society, serving our own individual needs and desires. Perhaps the time to question the dominant world view/narrative, maybe just the idea of calling it into question is a beginning, perhaps questioning our own assumptions is a place to begin, maybe there is not reified democracy but something we are reinventing as we go, responding to the world we live in and not just a good idea. Perhaps the place to start is by questioning our firmly held views, a liberation that begins with the self.

Again, I thank you for this opportunity to share some of my thoughts and hope that we can continue,

Debra Lambo

Login or register to post comments

Mon, 06/07/2010 - 10:46 — Administrator

Shannon replies to Debra's 6/6 Comments

Wow, Debra – I don’t know what to say except that I totally agree with what you’re saying. I think you’re right. I love your reasoning and it was a pleasure to read this. My only hitch, and I hope this will come out okay (as in not cynical – because that’s not my way), is that I don’t believe our current society in general is given to self-reflection or contemplation. In fact, I think its mechanisms are strongly geared to resist any such effort. So, if that’s the case, how are we to get from where we are now to “there,” because I do feel that current conditions warrant some urgency.

Here’s my perception: I see us in the CP as facilitators and instigators of conversations and often as organizers of any actions that could result from them.

My thinking is that if we can find any topics that we (societally, not the CP), whatever our leaning, could agree on – I have things like undue corporate influence on government in mind – we could find a way to talk and work together and present a united front on that one issue. Then, we might find another issue, and another, with the idea that we don’t have to agree on everything – or even what we consider very important things, but still, we can at least work together to solve those things we can agree upon and get something done for all our betterment. My belief is that with any successes at all, we would move closer and closer to what you’re talking about.
This is what I’m doing so far in that effort: I am affiliated with a religious organization, the Unitarian Universalists, in my area. We began a social justice committee, which I joined from its inception a couple of weeks ago. At our first meeting, I talked about CP and its principles, and I talked about the larger community and the possibility of engaging with that community to bring about change. It so happens that we have an interfaith group that includes quite a number of religious orgs working together to address a set of local social issues we can agree upon each year and we have a national group involved in legislative/social issues. I think the information about the CP and my ideas about it were very well received. I’m also talking with several other groups I’m involved in – my local organic co-op, OFA, some green groups, my family – about the CP, about my hope that we could work together to bring about change on even just one issue, about my belief that if we could get enough people behind a single issue, we could really make a difference for ourselves. I listened carefully to what Nina did by calling the Republican party in her area. I’m eagerly awaiting the details. That’s on my agenda for something to try next.

I’ve only just started and I feel like it’s having an effect. I announced a community action meeting of OFA that was nearby right after our UU social justice meeting this Saturday. Four members of UU came to that meeting because of my announcement. At that meeting, also, I mentioned the CP and its core principle of civil discourse. At our service this Sunday, our pastor mentioned the CP and civility, as well as our discussion at the social justice meeting. None of my fellow UUs had heard of the CP before I brought it up.

I’m trying to start the conversation all around me. I’m trying to bring about these discussions in an inoffensive, sort of indirect, way. I talk about myself and what I’m concerned about for my kids and all of us, really – but specifically on subjects that I don’t think will be polarizing – and maybe, if the conversation allows it, what I think might change things. I’m presenting it as “What if we could work together on something? What if we could find something we could agree on and work toward it together?” And I listen, because I feel that it doesn’t matter so much what issue we agree on – if we can accomplish anything as a united group, it will benefit us all and we’ll be able to continue to work from there. Needless to say, I figure it will help with community building, too. Hopefully, anyway. Any thoughts?

Thank you all for giving me so much to think about.

Shannon

Login or register to post comments

Mon, 06/07/2010 - 11:25 — Administrator

Continuing the Conversation

I'm really enjoying this discussion thread. Thanks to everyone for putting so much time and thought into continuing the conversation. I'd like to test out some of what we're saying here and in conversations throughout the Coffee Party by hosting another call where we bring together a more diverse set of voices and explore the possibility of finding common ground on the terrain of money in politics. I think we are finding some consensus among ourselves at an abstract level, but the question is whether that can translate well into the real world. Please email me if you are interested in participating or helping to host/organize the call.

Shannon, I applaud your efforts with OFA and the UU community. But as a fellow UU, I know that I generally feel like I'm preaching to the liberal choir when I talk to my congregation. The interfaith dialogue sounds like a bit more of a stretch (in a good way!). And yes, I too am waiting with bated breath for Nina Hajda's report out of Kansas on her "transpartisan" efforts.

By the way, this statement by Shannon is pretty much an exact expression of wishes for the CPM:

My thinking is that if we can find any topics that we (societally, not the CP), whatever our leaning, could agree on – I have things like undue corporate influence on government in mind – we could find a way to talk and work together and present a united front on that one issue. Then, we might find another issue, and another, with the idea that we don’t have to agree on everything – or even what we consider very important things, but still, we can at least work together to solve those things we can agree upon and get something done for all our betterment.

On a related note, has anyone looked at the CPM Facebook page lately? The discussion threads there are a fascinating laboratory for what we are discussing, and demonstrate the challenges involved.

Regards,
Ben

Login or register to post comments

Tue, 06/08/2010 - 08:40 — Anonymous

Debra to Ray...

A few technical difficulties, so I'm still copying emails over to the blog. I think it's good to try to keep everything together like this though...
Ben

______________________________________________________________

Ray,

the problem I have with consensus is that solutions and ideas are compromised and could lead to no one being really happy with the results. When we are able to enter into a dialogue there is the potential for the group to arrive at a place that each member could not have done alone. The beauty of dialogue as I said before is that it allows for the new.

Perhaps I don't understand consensus, it would be helpful if you could explain it as you understand it.

Debra
6/7 (via email to Ben)

Login or register to post comments

Tue, 06/08/2010 - 10:43 — Ray Hudkins

Response to Debra's Question on Consensus

We may be talking process from different backgrounds and understanding of results. My definition of consensus is that nearly everyone agrees with a proposed solution that is arrived at by lots of discussion and ideas in an open environment like we all want and hopefully are achieving in our Coffee Party chapter discussions. Consensus must be achieved by embracing the new, thinking out of the box, etc. as well as seeking agreement on traditional critical thinking that is fact based, and non-partisan. Every person's ideas are processed completely in the discussion; no one is left out if the discussion leader does a proper job and is helped by the team members as well. It is a colloborative environment. Those people that don't totally agree with a solution are asked if they can live with it and allow it to move forward to action. If they can, consensus is reached. Is it compromise. Yes. When the CP deals with issues of the day (Campaign Finance Reform, Getting Money Out of Politics, immigration, etc) we will never achieve true consensus. It is too hard and too time consuming. It would be a beautiful thing if we could achieve true consensus but ego's, background, rigid ideas, personal agenda's, etc. will get in the way. I like the idea of a super majority as a compromise between 100% consensus and a simple majority of 51%. To get a constitutional amendment passed 75% of the states must ratify; why not use a number close to that as our goal. I would love to discuss further; maybe we could chat via phone if you would find it beneficial. We could share our conversation on this website or ask others to join in a conference call. My number is 850-346-5199.