Yesterday Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, in response to a question at a congressional hearing, suggested that Toyota owners ought to avoid driving their cars.
 MotorShow 2007: Toyota Rav4 by Flickr user Gaspa Specifically, he said: “My advice is, if anybody owns one of these vehicles, stop driving it, take it to the Toyota dealer because they believe they have the fix for it.”
The result was widespread pandemonium and criticism across the Internet. In a hyper-connected age, the episode raises some good points.
(Note that I am not talking about the new issue regarding the Prius braking system; this particular episode revolved around the accelerator issues for other vehicles.)
Certainly, it’s reasonable advice to tell someone to quit driving their car, too, but did the head of transportation for the nation have to say that? Toyota has a valid argument that this unfairly kicks them while they are already down. Why not, they might respond, just tell folks to go to the dealer, and omit the whole get-it-off-the-road part? In fact, they responded Toyota responded with a straightforward “they are too safe.”
And, LaHood quickly retracted his statement and said it was an “obvious misstatement.” But I think he may be overreacting to his initial overreaction. LaHood faced an honest dilemma: what to say? There is no perfect answer. My colleague Rush Kidder would point out that he faced a right-vs.right ethical dilemma.
On the one hand, LaHood needs to take a measured stance, not provoke pandemonium, and weigh his words carefully. But, on the other hand, as the chief transportation safety officer of the country, LaHood has an equally strong obligation to place safety first and if that means a company is upset then so be it.
The fact that one clause in one sentence bounced around the Internet so quickly adds intensity to the fundamental dilemma that any leader faces when faced with the need to advise citizens on what to do in difficult times.
The Dilemma Of Evaluation
On a smaller scale, yet no less intense sometimes, foundation and nonprofit leaders face similar dilemmas. We live and work in a world where evaluation and impact measurements are the rage. Grant seekers are under pressure to show potential funders that their programs actually do what is hoped and that they have a decent bang for the buck.
Funders, at the same time, are under pressure from their boards and from economic forces to ensure that they are spending their money wisely.
What this means is that the independent sector has become evaluation-happy. And, this places philanthropic leaders at a crossroads. They are learning a great deal about what works — and what does not work. The question is: What to do with negative reports?
On the one hand, it’s important to share information about effectiveness so that people don’t waste their time and money. And, certainly in the case of absolute failures that’s a no-brainer. But most evaluations are more nuanced and it is not entirely clear if an initiative absolutely failed or whether it just didn’t work as well as it could have.
Given that, and on the other hand, what right does a foundation leader have to spread around such ambiguous information, when such evaluations might dissuade other funders from donating and so hurt the organization in question? So there is a strong moral argument behind not sharing evaluation information. But this leaves possibly ineffective initiatives potentially running indefinitely. Because new funders need to start at square one with their own studies.
Resistance to evaluation is as natural an urge as any — who wants to examine their own possible failures? But there is also the broader question about what use is made of evaluation data. There is no simple answer to this, and I am not about to offer one here.
I will suggest that one thing that is needed is for individual leaders to be more willing to face their own fears. It is not a calamity if a charitable effort is not very effective.
Once, some time ago, I was asked to perform a self-evaluation on a fairly large initiative. The results of the study would, in part, determine if our grant would be renewed. It turned out that the evidence suggested our hard work was tilting against too strong a headwind. It’s effectiveness was questionable, especially on the expansive level we were considering.
My report was met with consternation from my organization as well as from our funder. It threw a monkey wrench into things. We recalibrated and ended up doing something different (and arguably more effective, though that too had ambiguous results). Not the end of the world. But — in the moment — all of us involved had a great deal of fear. Our reputations, our livelihoods, our organizations were at stake.
Still, expressing honesty takes a culture that supports it. While easily said, this can be a hard thing in practice.
My latest article on my blog at the Washington Times Communities, Public Square Today, is now live:
Obama Administration Falls Short On Civic Participation
On the morning of President Obama’s first State of the Union address, I published a rather dispirited prediction for the talk. One commenter asked me:
I am very downhearted at how casually people dismiss the possibility of our government doing much good. I definitely agree that the structures don’t feel like they are working.
I am cautiously reassured at how many of these points the president touched on. Not to exaggerate the point, but it almost felt like a speech that was consciously designed not to be the kind that inspires the skepticism you express here.
Any second thoughts?
Now that the dust is settling, I thought it might be worthwhile to look less at the state of the Union address itself, but at the state of the administration. As most readers know, my main focus is on civic participation and I look at government through that lens. In other words, one of the major problems I see in politics in America is that most people see no place for themselves in it. Under these conditions, government and politics is not about how we solve our problems together; it is how they provide us the services we need.
 From The White House This is anathema to the fundamental notion of self-governance.
One reason candidate Obama gave such hope to many is that they sensed in his rhetoric and biography that his bias is towards collaboration and participation when it comes community problem solving.
Indeed, on his first full day in office, President Obama famously signed a striking executive order on openness and transparency in government. In this message, he says that government “should be transparent, . . . participatory, [and] . . . collaborative.”
What Progress On Participation?
So far, however, it appears that the vastly greater share of energy has been spent on the “transparency” piece. This has been well-spent energy (although there’s a far piece to go in implementing the Obama transparency mandates).
But there are two other legs of the stool — participation and collaboration — where progress is lacking. An example of this is health care reform. This would have been a terrific area to actively, and authentically, reach out to people from all walks of life and craft what the proposals ought to look like. Instead, the political class developed its proposals and sold them to the public using fake town halls.
My friend Peter Levine has written a very thoughtful critique on the administration’s progress in the areas of participation and collaboration. He says, in part:
The agenda so far has been strong on service and transparency, but almost entirely missing participation or collaboration–equal pillars in the original executive order. Service does not necessarily build civic skills or address fundamental problems; besides, even an expanded AmeriCorps offers no role to most people. “Transparency” means feeding information to organized interest groups, reporters, and a few independent citizens who have deep interests and skills in particular areas.
These forms of civic engagement are not nearly “edgy” enough; there is no fight in them. People are angry, in America–from the Tea Partiers to MoveOn. When citizens try to solve serious social problems, they identify enemies. They do not just hold hands and serve together; they strike back at those whom they perceive as threats. If “active citizenship” reduces to non-controversial “service,” it will completely lose touch with the legitimate anger of the American people.
I agree with Peter’s critique, which is far better supported than this brief excerpt can do justice to. (So read it.)
Where Does Participation Go?
One critique of the civic participation movement is that it is all about talk and no action. This is a valid concern. Conversations on the community level can’t go nowhere; they need to connect to real changes.
Another friend of mine, Lars Hasselblad Torres, has put it this way, in a comment on Peter Levine’s piece: “We need to push through the veneer of ‘discussion’ as a good and reasonable outcome to policy implementation.” He’s right. He goes on:
I’d also like to see work up front, setting the policy agenda. The State of the Union is one such focusing opportunity. Instead of lecturing (possibly humiliating, alienating) Republicans, how about building truly post-partisan mechanisms?
At the same time, I applaud the work happening in the Office of Science and Technology Policy to engage the public participation community in framing up priorities for agency reform. Its a great start; now we need teeth.
So far, I agree: the focus has been on data and on internet-based outreach. This is insufficient, as both are far too subject to intermediaries and manipulation. Direct participation that takes the conversation into communities, states and regions is needed.
I agree with Lars, too. And this, in the end, is my critique of the State Of The Union address. The language has shifted from “we” to “me.” No longer are ordinary people being called on to work together — instead, the solutions come from moves made by the administration or by Congress.
The State Of The Union Falls Short
While there were excellent moments of humility in the address, and a laudable restraint when it comes to trotting out Main Street people as emblems of various things, the focus was all on government as doing things for the American people.
This is fine on one level. However, Obama has expressly portrayed himself as a different kind of political leader. Many of the markers that have led us to believe that this is the case, appear to have fallen by the wayside.
In a May 2007 speech, according to Peter, Obama said:
“[W]hen politics gets local, when the person talking to you is your neighbor standing on your front porch, things change.” In that speech, he called for dialogues in every community on Iraq, health care, and climate change.
The call for neighbor to talk to neighbor about important issues of the day appears to be withering under the heat of actual governance.
Instead, we hear this, on jobs:
Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps [a jobs bill]. As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. They will. People are out of work. They’re hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.
On financial reform:
Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We’ve got to get it right.
On climate change legislation:
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. And this year I’m eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate.
On education:
When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That’s why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families.
On health care reform:
[T]this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, ”What’s in it for me?” . . .
[A]s temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we’ve proposed. There’s a reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I’m eager to see it.
Here’s what I ask Congress, though: Don’t walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done.
(The bold is added by me for emphasis.)
On all these issues, the picture painted is of a political class doing things for Americans. Obama faults himself for not “explaining” health care properly. But mostly, he calls on Congress to act in the ways he wants them to. (And harshly at that.)
Republicans complain that they are not treated as colleagues by the majority Democrats. They’re right. Meanwhile, Democrats say the Republicans have just become the party of “no.” They’re right too. Obama, for his part, chides Congress for arguing too much.
Ordinary people are left out of this troika. They have no role. This is my chief disappointment with the last year. I see little concrete action taken to invite ordinary people back into politics in any meaningful way.
 Photo By Marc Johnson I’m in the middle of a four-day bipartisan candidate training program that is put on by the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia. As far as I know, this program is unique. It is relentlessly bipartisan, for one thing. More important, though, is that it is entirely ethics-based. I was one of the people who helped design the program in the late 1990’s (when I worked at The Institute for Global Ethics) and I have been involved ever since.
The concept is simple: We take the very best political professionals in Virginia and ask them to come to the program and address their specialty. Over the course of four days, candidates learn everything from how to develop a campaign plan to fundraising, polling, direct mail, crisis communications, how to deal with media, image, and more.
But the difference is that we wrap this in a strong emphasis on ethics. The program begins with a half-day session on campaign ethics (which I lead), and then after every few sessions, we bring the candidates together in small groups to debrief what they have been hearing. It’s been my experience that many first-time candidates become increasingly anxious about just what it takes to run a winning campaign. Being able to air potential dilemmas and think them through in a retreat atmosphere is invaluable and allows them to make better decisions later.
This work really allows me to bring together everything that I learned while working in government and politics, then at the Institute for Global Ethics, and later at The Harwood Institute For Public Innovation. It’s all about how to win, but win while running a race you can be proud of.
And, just in case you might be thinking that this is some nice foundation-funded program that teaches candidates how to be nice losers, nothing could be further from the truth. Candidates apply to be a part of it and pay to be there. Over the years, 300 candidates have gone through the program. 100 are currently in office. I’ll take those odds.
I am grateful for my friends at the Sorensen Institute who continue mounting this program for allowing me to be a part of it.
 "Alarm Clock 3" by Flickr user alancleaver_2000 According to Doug Ward’s excellent OpenGovBlog, the first deadline under President Obama’s “Open Government Directive” has come and gone with 26 agencies failing to meet the Directive’s requirements. Here’s what Obama is requiring: “Within 45 days, each agency shall identify and publish online in an open format at least three high-value data sets and register those data sets via Data.gov. These must be data sets not previously available online or in a downloadable format.” The deadline was January 22.
What’s more, in many cases what counts as “meeting the requirements” is just lame. One agency took data that had been available in PDF form and posting it as an Excel spreadsheet with headers. Another agency reposted data that had been available since 2004, just labeling it with a more specific timeframe.
The Sunlight Foundation, which focuses on this issue relentlessly (and well), has written a piece recapping what they are seeing so far as they sift through the data. Their take:
As a first step toward making agency data available in more accessible formats for sophisticated users, the open government directive is so far somewhat successful–plenty of data sets that had been available only as PDFs, or had to be pulled down by scraping Web sites, are now there for the taking (we’ll have better counts of this later in the week). But new data sets are not predominant: the major agencies covered by the directive released 58 data sets, of which, by our count, 16 were previously unavailable in some format online.
That sounds like progress, I suppose . . . but a long way to go before we have real “transparency.”
My latest article on my blog at the Washington Times Communities, Public Square Today, is now live:
State Of The Union: In Name Only
Tonight, Barack Obama delivers his very first State Of The Union message to Congress. As is the custom with newly-inaugurated presidents, President Obama did speak to Congress last year, but that is not considered an official “State Of The Union.” The Constitution requires the President to make a report on how things are going “from time to time.”
 Chart by Brad Rourke (click for full size) As I thought about it, I found myself wishing that President Obama might take the tack Jimmy Carter took in in his last days in office in 1981 and mail it in — literally. It was a written report that year. In fact, while our first two presidents gave speeches, for a hundred years beginning with Thomas Jefferson the State Of The Union was a written report ranging from about 2,000 to about 24,000 words (Lincoln’s averaged 6,800 words). Woodrow Wilson ended that practice and ushered in the modern era of giving speeches.
I still think the first State Of The Union was probably the best. We don’t know how long it lasted, but we know that it was the shortest State Of The Union on record: George Washington’s first such address was just 1,089 words. I’ve written memos longer!
As I reflected on the fact that a speech would be inevitable, I then found myself hoping President Obama might take a page from Richard Nixon’s playbook and give a very short speech. Nixon gave a speech of just 28:30 in 1972. (The next year he sent a written report.)
But in the television era, we are by and large stuck with speeches that average about 48 minutes — long enough to take up an hour programming block, but short enough to allow time for pundit reactions. President Obama’s speech last year was right on the money in that respect, at 51:44.
For a political junkie, I have always felt guilty around State Of The Union time. I feel alienated from my fellow politics-watchers. Because I dread these speeches. It seems too short to say anything of value, too long to inspire, too worked-over to offer me anything new.
The state of the union is strong, I will hear. There will be shout-outs to “ordinary” people in the audience — a practice that has long since jumped the shark. There may even be a new initiative or two announced — perhaps a surprise.
But I know what the state of the union is, as does everyone from Skid Row to Main Street to Wall Street. Things are tough. There is little will from Washington to make the changes that we need. Political leaders are out of touch with the concerns of Americans.
A good friend told me earlier that he was despairing that our political institutions could do anything anymore. This is the true state of the union: It sometimes feels a union in name only.
Yes, there are glimmers of hope. Each time I dare, though, my hopes are dashed. It’s not that my favored policies aren’t getting enacted, or that people I disagree with are in power. That’s just window dressing.
It’s that the structures aren’t working. We used to look to politics as the forum in which we solve the problems that arise when people live together and try to self-govern. Now we view politics as the problem and we try as best we can to live a life where we never encounter people unlike us.
Maybe I will hear something from this year’s address that lifts me.
But more likely, I will get over my funk. I will pull up my socks and get on with life, doing the work that must be done in our community irrespective of what messages drip down from the District of Columbia. That, after all, is the story of America.
In the end, when pushed up against the wall, we get to work. But just now, before the dawn, it’s quite dark.
My latest article on my blog at the Washington Times Communities, Public Square Today, is now live:
Donate Services To A Candidate?
A good friend asks:
In your experience, are most services used by local candidates donated? A candidate for the . . . State House, whose staffer attended my recent social networking class, asked me today if I could provide free services. . . . I know that this candidate is getting some services for free. For example, a large and expensive web design company is donating her website. I would like to see this [person] elected, but I’m not in the position to spend a lot of time on a volunteer job. Reduced cost, yes, but free, no. I know I could make a case that my services are necessary to her and worth the money, but there is no use making the point if campaigns for State Houses are normally run completely by donations and volunteers. Any thoughts about this?
This is the dance that all campaigns (even national ones) play. Political campaigns are inherently time-limited and relentlessly focused on one thing: winning. Any money spent that does not have a clear and direct impact on votes is avoided at all costs.
 "Donations" by Flickr user freakapotimus So, campaigns know they need to pay for media time, there is no way around that. They know they need to pay for mailings. Everything else is fair game — staff time, phones, office space, Website (as you note), and social networking consulting services.
However, just because the campaign would like services donated does not mean that you have to provide them gratis. It is up to each individual person. Any free consulting work is a contribution in kind to the campaign (and would need to be valued and reported as such). So, not only is the campaign asking you to work for free, but they are also asking you for a donation.
And so, what is “normal” is not the issue here. The issue is: Do you want to make this campaign contribution?
People make campaign contributions for a lot of reasons. Some do it because they really want a person elected. Others do it because they want to be noticed later, if that person is elected. Some do it to feel closer to power. And, some companies donate their goods or services in part to market them to others, or in hopes that they will be retained on an official basis once the candidate wins.
Whatever your own decision, just make sure you follow all the relevant campaign finance rules for your state.
 "Dance Hall 2" by Flickr kevindooley This guest article is by my friend Eric Siegel:
One of the ironies of the current transition in community and network building is that we seem to have forgotten or ignored the previous transition. The “institution-centric” mode of civic engagement (to use Brad’s phrase) is a relatively recent invention, at least in America. (For a variety of historical reasons, an argument can be made that the institution-centric model has been around somewhat longer in Europe and elsewhere.) In our not-too-distant past, community engagement was much more along the “citizen-centric” model that seems to be emerging, albeit with some important catalyzing functions played by significant social and political institutions.
Here’s a prime example. I teach American Government at the Community College of Rhode Island. I talk in my classes about the decline of political parties in our system. Part of this decline is due to the reduction or elimination of the role that political parties once played in helping connect people to their communities and to each other. A hundred years ago, local political party organizations published newspapers, held dances, sponsored amateur sports teams, arranged for social services. One of the most important functions they served was to help integrate recent immigrants into existing immigrant/expatriate communities. (Anyone who has seen the film “Gangs of New York” will have some idea of what I’m talking about.)
Lots of other public and quasi-public institutions served similar functions. They brought people together so that they could pursue their interests better — not to serve the needs of the organization per se (although they did do that), but to help people serve their own needs. Parties recruited volunteers for campaigns, mobilized voters for elections, and developed partisan loyalty. But they also helped people, especially vulnerable, isolated individuals and nuclear family groups, establish roots and connections that they needed to survive, and that enabled communities to flourish.
Over the last century, these kinds of institutions made a transition from fulfilling a social networking function (in addition to their other roles) to being merely service providers. Now we are beginning to (re)discover the importance of the social networking aspect to the viability of our communities, and discovering that the institutions that used to help do that for us (or should I say with us?) no longer do.
Beginning at the turn of the last century, the political party system began to be remade. The passage of anti-patronage laws in civil service hiring undercut the ability of political organizations to cement people’s loyalty through the distribution of public-sector jobs. Over the course of the 20th century, campaign finance reforms made individual candidates more responsible for their own campaign development, further reducing the need for strong party loyalty ties. Today, the relation between political parties and voters is basically a customer-brand relationship; we’re important to them for our numbers, and they provide us with a choice of elected representatives. But there’s no other real mechanism (or reason) for fostering those deeper ties, for making interpersonal connections, and for developing community bonds. The institutions that once helped us build networks now only want clients.
Eric Siegel is a lecturer in Political Science at the Community College of Rhode Island, and co-Chair of the Green Party of Rhode Island. And a big Martin Scorsese fan.
8 Years ago this morning I recall I was at LAX, on my way home to Maine. Our flight was being held, no one on the plane knew why. Shortly it became clear that something terrible had happened. Air traffic was grounded for the ensuing week. So many were far more deeply affected than I was. Friends of mine lost loved ones, and they remember this day with emotions ranging from bitterness to hope. But this time has meaning to me, as well, because of my experiences while waiting in LA for a chance to get back home.
 "Westin Bonaventure Hotel" by Flickr user AndrewGorden My Los Angeles hotel had been near the airport, but I moved downtown, as I reasoned that LAX might be a follow-up target. Many people were making similar calculations and changing plans. The Westin Bonaventure Hotel became a little outpost for a few days, as those of us who were stranded wandered the many lobbies, collecting around the televisions that had been set up strategically.
I worked for an organization with a weekly online newsletter. They asked me to talk to people to see how they were reacting, and I filed a report the next week.
Here’s an excerpt:
There was foreboding this week in Los Angeles. Three of the four hijacked planes were bound for Los Angeles International Airport. While that fact appeared to have nothing to do with Los Angeles specifically, there was almost a sense of guilt pervading the town. . . . It was hard not to find someone personally affected by the terrorist acts in some way. Yet the responses I heard were measured and thoughtful. In a town so intensely focused on presentation and image, where even the bail bondsmen have a keen marketing savvy (billboard downtown: “Bad Boy Bail Bonds: Because your mama wants you home”), even the anger had a quiet deliberation to it. . . .
I can remember once, shortly after the Persian Gulf War, I was listening to a talk radio station in Los Angeles, where I used to live. I was almost blown out of my seat by the extreme, angry words of one of the callers, who railed at the racial inferiority of Arabs, sprinkling his invective with creative epithets. The host let him go on at length. I lost my stamina before he did, switching stations. The intensity of the tirade had shaken me, and I feared for the state of the world — mostly because the host and nearly every caller were in complete agreement. I saw visions of government internment camps.
Some see that the role of government is to help us to be more than vigilantes. At a time when revenge can be foremost in the minds of citizens, some see a need for moral leadership from elected officials — to remind us of the values we share as humans, to remind us to avoid blanket condemnations and faith-based profiling. . . . Certainly justice will need to be done, and those responsible for the attack on the United States will need to be punished. But we will also need to take care to remember that the perpetrators are responsible for these acts because they are terrorists, not because they believe in the prophet Mohammed. Thankfully, in the midst of anger and the lust for revenge, there are those who seek understanding and balance.
Thank you to The Institute For Global Ethics, in 2001, for giving me the space to write this piece, which you can read in full here.
Just to be clear: I regard it as a glorious thing that the president plans to address students in schools directly. The controversy that has brewed over whether this is indoctrination seems ill-founded. President Obama is not trying to control the thoughts of our young ones. He’s using the bully pulpit to urge them to take their education seriously, and to stay in school. More presidents should take such steps.
However, a closer look at the hue and cry over the speech is in order. While it may be that the underlying driver for the folks who have called for a national keep-you-child-home-from-school day could be dislike of President Obama specifically, the initial flap was over lesson plans that the Department of Education distributed along with its announcement of the talk.
The pushback was so intense that new lesson plans were developed that were designed to settle any fears that teachers would use the classroom time to promote President Obama specifically (as opposed to the office of the President of the United States generally).
 "New Classroom" by Flickr user Editor B Curious, I took a look at the lesson plans (pdf). To be honest, I can see the critics’ point, even with the new version, which includes questions such as “Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us?” The document overall reads as if it were written from a standpoint of adulation of this specific president — one is hard pressed to imagine a similar document being written if it were George W. Bush making the same address, or, for that matter, Bill Clinton.
I can overlook that, however, even while I understand the misgivings some people may have.
A Missed Civic Opportunity
What has the civic side of me hopping mad, however, is what a missed opportunity this is. The Department of Education, in creating a lesson plan that encourages students to think of “What is the president trying to tell me?” and “What is the president asking me to do?” is squandering the chance to create a collective moment in which students are asked to think civically and not personally.
Here are some questions I would rather our nation’s students consider, on the occasion of a presidential address to the classrooms of America:
- In what ways is education important? Is it important for everybody or just for some people?
- How are we doing throughout our community when it comes to young people and education?
- How can we work together so everyone has the best chance to learn as much as they can? What would it take to do that?
- What are some of the things a president could do to help everyone learn? What are some of the things we can do together? How about in families?
For most students across the nation, this will be a shared experience — something they all do at the same time. Why not take this time to focus on our obligations and bonds with one another, rather than inwardly on what I am supposed to do to maximize my success?
I love the first day of the month. There are two things I do on the morning of every first day. First, I say “Rabbit, Rabbit.” That’s a tradition that I learned sometime back in the eighties: if, on the first day of the month, the first words out of your mouth are “Rabbit, Rabbit,” you will have good luck all month. Second, there’s this month-ahead horoscope I like to read.
 "Anyone want to play duck, duck, goose?" by Flickr user terren in Virginia Together, these two little habits make me look forward to the first day of the month for a number of days leading up to it. I know they are superstitions, and I don’t really believe in either “luck” or the stars guiding (or determining) my fate. But I still read the horoscope and say the words. It’s fun.
So, today, I am thinking about irrationality.
In many of the difficult problems of public life, there is an important form of irrationality: the belief that major trade offs can be avoided. Most major public debates going on now hinge on this. For instance, here are two trade offs that are currently being avoided:
- There will not be universal health care without some form of explicit rationing of care.
- There will not be meaningful reduction in greenhouse emissions without drastic changes in how business (manufacturing and goods transport) gets done.
For people who are in favor of the policies, these trade offs need to be addressed and embraced. Otherwise one is engaging in magical thinking — that we can have some change without paying for it.
What other trade offs are we trying to duck in public life?
|
|
Recent Comments