The Missing Conservatives

[Sandy]

Here's an important question that I know is on many of our minds: Why are so few conservatives involved in NCDD, and in dialogue and deliberation in general? How can we attract more conservatives to this work?

I'm very interested in hearing people's ideas and thoughts on this.

Sandy

Sandy Heierbacher
Convenor, NCDD

[Wally Clausen]

This resonates with recent discussion on the main listserv about convening bush supporters and republicans for dialogue with others about Fahrenheit 911, or otherwise during the political season. But it's broader too. Some musings:

I'd like to hear from people who can offer more nuanced definitions, but my definition of a conservative would have him/her being concerned mainly about preserving traditional, relatively unchanging values. This conservative's orientation would be toward assertive advocacy and, with those who disagree, debate. Why inquire, if I've decided I know the answer? What's to dialogue about? - let's debate!

If I were a conservative and wandered into this e-space, I'd feel the chill of a foreign land or an unfriendly climate. Most of the exchanges have embedded values that would differ from mine. If I were feisty and had time on my hands, I might start battling. But barring a way to intentionally converge on quite specific issues and options, opening the way to a bounded exchange, I'd say "I'm outta here." And they probably do.

But then we have the chaps who Jim Lehrer talks with most nights. Those are certainly thoughtful, balanced conversations. Suspect that is partly preselection of quite thoughtful, mature people, and mostly the presence of Lehrer as moderator. Quite different from an open-ended, unmoderated forum.

This is not usually very relevant to me as a practitioner. Either I'm involved with a conversation that is mostly in liberal territory, or the format is relatively a-political and my main concern is to temper extremes on both ends of the spectrum through norms and groundrules.
_________________
Wally Clausen
Clausen Associates -- Consultant
Partners of the Americas -- Volunteer
781-894-0793 Phone/Fax

[Sandy]

I just got this announcement today from the Public Square (www.thepublicsquare.org), a Chicago organization that has been running some innovative dialogue programs. I was struck by the way they framed this dialogue about the Patriot Act ("the evolution of civil liberties," "important but sticky territory," etc.). I imagine that conservatives would not be afraid to attend this dialogue, and I wonder if part of the problem is that our skills at framing things even-handedly often fall short because of our own personal views and values.

Sandy
NCDD Convenor


Here's the announcement:

The Patriot Act provides a number of important programming guidelines for organizations concerned with public policy issues. However, many institutions fear that their operations might put their federal and other government funding in jeopardy. Some go so far as to censor themselves out of fear that might or might not be founded. Is this fear real? Does the Patriot Act erode individual and organizational free speech? What are the benefits and pitfalls of working in such important but sticky territory?

Join The Public Square Saturday to discuss the evolution of civil liberties under the Patriot Act.

This event is free. Reservations are recommended, but not required. If you would like more information, contact The Public Square at or 312.993.0682.

This program is made possible in part by a grant from the Illinois Humanities Council, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the General Assembly.

[mattleighninger]

I realize that there aren't many conservatives among the set of people who consider themselves national advocates and experts on dialogue and deliberation. But let's face it, we could probably all fit in a large-sized phone booth, and we are pretty homogeneous in all kinds of ways (not just ideologically).

It also seems like some of the national advocates are interested in D&D mainly because they think that, if citizens simply talked more and learned more about public issues, they would become more 'enlightened' and more likely to adopt left-leaning views. I think this bias comes across when they try to promote D&D. (It also makes me wish that all of us who advocate D&D nationally had the opportunity to organize one little neighborhood-level D&D program - you learn pretty quickly that you can't keep this kind of bias if you want to recruit a broad range of participants.)

What do we know about the ideological affiliations of the people who actually participate in D&D projects at the community level? My sense of it is that this set of people is much more ideologically diverse than we think. (I worked with a suburb of Rochester a couple of years ago where every single man, woman, and dog seemed to be a card-carrying Republican. They approached D&D with all the same questions, reservations, and - ultimately - enthusiasm as the residents of every other community I've been to.)

I'm sure some of you out there must have done some actual research on this - I'm just relying on anecdotal experiences. What can you tell us about the ideological diversity of D&D participants? (Of course, if you have anecdotal info to share, that'd be good too.)
_________________
Matt Leighninger
Democracy Workshop
Senior Associate, Study Circles Resource Center
2 Beulah Avenue
Hamilton, ON L8P 4G9
Canada
905-972-0550

[chris lang]

Here's an interesting perspective I have run accross which may account for some people who do not value the dialogue. It turns out that some people try to resolve disputes by praying about the dispute. The basic idea is that people do not really understand the world and will not really listen to each other--only God can show anyone the truth, so dialogue is pretty much useless.

The only answer I can give to this problem is interfaith dialogue (see the session from NCDD). Note that this kind of dialogue brings in a different crowd because the published purpose of the event is to share different religious perspectives, rather than to have dialogue. Telling someone we need them to represent the conservative perspective might not be as persuasive as asking them to represent their religious perspective.