Beyond the adversarial to a “politics of solutions”

Note: This post is a column I wrote for my community newspaper in March 2006 in anticipation of the midterm elections. I had recently read Jim Wallis’ book, God’s Politics, and I was inspired to try to elevate the level of political discourse – at least locally. I’ve been reminded of Wallis’ good counsel lately by the personal attacks on Hillary Clinton during and since the Philadelphia debate. Her opponents have attempted to justify their assault on Clinton because she’s the frontrunner. Is this the American way - if you pull ahead in a contest, your opponents have permission to rip you to shreds?


Human beings ideally progress from the age of innocence through experience and finally to wisdom. We don’t usually proceed neatly from one stage to the next. Typically we revisit the earlier stages from time to time. And hopefully, as we mature, we most often choose the way of wisdom.

Politics is one area where we easily regress to earlier stages, especially in the heat of a campaign.

I’ve been thinking about these things since Minnesotans launched the midterm elections on a cold wet evening earlier this month. After our precinct caucus adjourned, a neighbor and I were looking ahead.

We talked for a few minutes about the challenge of expressing our political opinions without attacking those who disagree with us.

I failed to mention that I grew up in a household where a political discussion could become an all out brawl. Or that I still enjoy an occasional no-holds-barred debate with one or two of my relatives.

Matter of fact, my early childhood training sometimes spills over into the public arena. In those instances, no problems are solved, and my opponents and I become even further alienated. Those reasons alone are good enough to stay within the bounds of civil discourse.

But I’ve also been inspired by Jim Wallis’ book, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. Wallis is a genius at finding common ground in the most polarized hot-button situations. “Our political leaders must learn the wisdom that the way to reach common ground is to move to higher ground,” he contends. “And we citizens should start by showing the way.”

Wallis encourages Americans to move beyond the adversarial politics of liberal and conservative to a “politics of solutions.”

His analysis of Washington’s approach to problems also applies to state and local government: “Right now Washington responds to a problem or crisis in two ways. First politicians try to make us afraid of the problem, and second, they look for someone to blame for it. Then they watch to see whose political spin succeeded, either in the next poll or the next election. But they seldom get around to actually solving the problem.”

Wallis says the media would rather “pitch a fight between polarized views instead of convening a public discussion to find serious answers.”

Whatever the forum, these guidelines for civil discourse encourage such discussions.

{Maybe we should give each presidential candidate and the moderators a copy of these simple guidelines ahead of each debate}

· Recognize a person’s right to advocate ideas different from your own.
· Discuss policies, politics, issues and ideas, not people.
· Disagree without being disagreeable.
· Use civil and helpful, not hurtful language.
· Respectfully respond to different points of view.
· When unsure of what another means, ask for clarification.

· Realize people may not understand what you have to say. Be patient and explain yourself again if others misinterpret your meaning.

· Recognize that sometimes people can and must agree to disagree.

· If you are not sure what you are about to say is civil, find another way to say it or let it go.

· Reliance on labels for groups of people {illegal immigrants?} is often the first step toward the negative. Whenever possible, avoid them. They rarely add to the quality of any discussion.

Regardless of the issues, the tools of civil discourse can help us reach common ground. Not only will we be more likely to find real solutions to our problems, but as Jim Wallis suggests, we’ll be out in front, showing our leaders the way.

A Public Wiser than the Punditry

A week after the Philadelphia debate (watch debate on YouTube from this site) and the media’s hysterical attempts to justify the unrelenting assault endured by Hillary Clinton have somewhat abated.

In the meantime, I’ve cringed at such uninformed remarks by supposedly respected commentators as “Feminist means anti-male.” Since when? Just to set the record straight, the feminist movement has always been about fair and equitable treatment for women, including such mundane issues as equal pay for equal work.

Next on my list have been the pseudo-psychologists throwing around the phrase, “playing victim.” That’s long been a favorite response of conservatives to anyone who dares to complain about blatant discrimination, obvious abusive treatment, or even hate crimes. I fear that Clinton’s critics on both the extreme left and right are now finding the phrase useful.

Incidentally, a friend of mine noted yesterday that of the candidates pressing Clinton about her position on the immigration issue during the debate, not one had the courage to reveal where he stood.

All is not lost, however. Recent polls show the public is a lot wiser than the overeager pundits who predicted that Clinton’s responses during and after the debate jeopardized her frontrunner status.

Data from the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that on the two nights following the debate (Wednesday and Thursday) Clinton held a 45% to 18% lead over Barack Obama. For Clinton, that’s an improvement from Monday and Tuesday nights when her lead over Obama had been 40% to 24%.

And according to staff writers John Cohen and Dan Balz, the latest Washington Post-ABC poll shows Clinton leads the race for the Democratic nomination with 49 percent, followed by Obama at 26 percent. Edwards has 12 percent.”

Cohen and Balz indicate that Clinton's national front-runner status is built on her advantages on several key attributes, all of which may yield dividends in the state-by-state contests. They explain:

Three-quarters of Democrats view Clinton favorably, which is somewhat higher than the results for Obama (67 percent) or Edwards (62 percent). More than twice as many have a "strongly" positive impression of Clinton as have that view of
Edwards. And most of those who would back Clinton in their state's primary or caucus, "strongly" support her.

A majority of Democrats see Clinton as the strongest leader of the three top candidates, and she has the edge over Obama and Edwards as being best on the issues and the closest representative of the party's core values. Notably, given
the increasingly sharp debate among the candidates over foreign policy, Clinton is seen as the best able to handle the situations in Iraq and involving Iran, by margins of better than 2 to 1.

Despite their personal attacks in Philadelphia on Clinton’s character, the poll shows she leads Obama by five points and Edwards by 16 points as the Democratic party’s most honest and trustworthy candidate.

Finally, Cohen and Balz report:

A large and growing lead on "electability" also propels Clinton's candidacy. More than six in 10 Democrats now see her as the candidate who has the best shot at winning next November -- up 19 points from June.

Ganging up on Clinton in Philadelphia

I missed the Democratic candidates’ debate in Philadelphia last night, but most media accounts seemed to agree on the following points:

Questions from NBC’s Tim Russert and Brian Williams were intentionally designed to put the focus on Clinton.

The male candidates all rose to the occasion and attacked Clinton.

Clinton stood her ground.