So What? A presentation of conclusions and recommendations to our Bubble.

On March 4th Dave and I made a presentation to a group as part of a lecture series in Redwood City.  We were asked to present some of our conclusions from our Listening Tour Project.  Below is the text from our presentation:

[What we did/intro:]

 

Peter: Thank you for being here this evening. And thank you Cal, Liz, Allison and Ron for putting on these Speaker Series events. We have in store for you what we hope will be an interesting, thought provoking and maybe a little bit entertaining presentation.

 David: the flow of our remarks will be:

1. to briefly remind you of the context of our listening tour - the what and the why.
2. To share several themes and the answers to several questions we set out to answer
3. Wrap up with the “so what” which takes the form of what can each of us do to make a difference in our divided country...how can we get out of our bubbles, help move things positively forward.

Peter: What we did:

• You may have noticed the slides cycling on the screen.
• These are some photos from the listening tour Dave and I took to Wisconsin over three weeks in October last year.
• We drove Dave and Leslie’s lovely RoadTrek RV to Wisconsin - first night in Wyoming. Second night in Madison. And at the end a similar sprint home after an overnight at Carleton College in Northfield, MN where Abby is a student.
• In Wisconsin we visited five parts of the state -- up north, Madison (home of the Flagship University and Capital), Milwaukee, Rock County a region south of Madison where Janesville is located, and the Racine/Kenosha area in the south east corner of the state just north of Chicago.
• In total we conducted 31 in-depth interviews -- each taking 60 - 120 minutes. Most of them we prearranged through connections of many sorts -- characters in books we had read, friends, friends of friends, etc. We also had some spontaneous conversations.
• Each night we spent in our RV -- staying at RV parks of one flavor or another -- from gorgeous parks on Lake Michigan to Elks Club parking lots to Flying J truck stops.
• We recorded each conversation. And we wrote them up and added them to a blog we kept on-line that recorded the project from conception through to today.
• We’re in touch with the people we met, with some more than others. All of the conversations were very civil and informative.
• Here is a copy of the printed out blog -- about 250 pages.

David: Why we did it, why Racine, our Preparation:

• About a year ago there was a spontaneous decision made by a whole bunch of people, including Joe Simitian locally and others we reference to try to figure out “WHAT HAPPENED?” and go to places that voted for Trump to talk with people.
• We did that too. JoAnn McMahon’ living room and Deb Pritchard started it off for us.
• Could have gone almost anywhere in U.S. Hold up map.
• Peter suggested 3 places; Spartanburg S. Carolina, Columbus, Indiana and Racine Wisconsin; he was familiar with all. I researched; all voted for Trump. All had relatively high poverty rates, all SHOULD HAVE been blue-collar “traditional” Democratic!
• I vetoed Spartanburg because I thought that race would be about all that we could see. Peter vetoed Columbus because he just knew too many people there. We would wind up only talking to his friends (this is hard to get away from....) That left Racine.
• As soon as we decided things started popping up.
• Foxconn (mfr. Iphones in China etc.) decided to build big plant with huge corporate welfare subsidy from the state, in Racine.
• We learned that Ana Dyer’s uncle was a recently retired Evangelical Pastor who built the largest Evangelical church in Racine and was, of course a Social Conservative. I called him and found him warm and enthusiastic about the project. He helped us a lot.
• We learned about Janesville and the shut down of a huge GM plant in Paul Ryan’s hometown.  
• We learned about the book Evicted, about poverty in Milwaukee; a book so significant that it made both Bill Gates and Barack Obama’s reading list for 2017. We think that we read it first!
• We read a LOT of books.

Peter:

For those of you who have not read the blog from cover to cover (and don’t worry, I think I can count the number who have on one hand)... or didn’t come to our UUFRC sharing, we’ll each share one of the highlights from our experience and the interviews:

David, you go first:

David:We spent a lot of time before we left trying to figure out what questions to ask and in what order. After we got there the questions just seemed to fit an organic pattern, asking about their history and background; both to gain perspective and trust and our consistent final question. Peter often referred to it as the “Bonus Round.” It was: “If you had a magic wand and could make one change, just one thing, what would it be:” The answers covered several areas but one thing really stood out. EVERYONE was thoughtful and reflective. Only a couple of people answered right away. I was really taken by the amount of effort people put into getting their answer right. It built my respect for our interviewees.

Peter: 

I was expecting us to find strong, offensive opinions -- the angry white male, Trump voter, NRA lover. With only two exceptions we found people who, despite their specific views, were wishing for reasonableness. In a variety of ways they expressed frustration with Madison and Washington. How the two sides wouldn’t listen to each other and reach “common sense” legislation. Republicans expressed frustration with Paul Ryan, Democrats conceded that it was time for a reset in Wisconsin. The two exceptions were deeply engaged in Republican politics --

 

Mary Felzkowski a state assemblywoman with hardline, bulldog, it's always the democrats fault

 

Fritz Rench One of the founding fathers and long time board member of the Heritage Foundation who patiently explained to us about Trump’s integrity and why he remains “cautiously optimistic.”

 

I drew the conclusion from this is the Americans (including Fritz) we spoke with:

1. Are genuinely frustrated with the political gridlock.
2. And Don’t trust winner-take-all politics.

But enough of these summary comments. We can come back to specific interviews in the questions later if you’d like. In the meantime, let’s get on with the fresh material. Dave? Why Trump?

[Why Trump?]

David:  

There we were, after our intense “Evangelical Tuesday” (8 hours straight through with multiple Evangelicals, including time while riding in the car and through lunch) and a restful night at Mike’s house in Madison, driving northwest in Wisconsin, heading toward a meeting and overnight with Abby Hartzell at Carleton College in Minnesota. It was a beautiful day, sunny and warm. The scenery was peaceful; open fields, farms, and wooded areas, so we got to talking. I mentioned to Peter that one of our reasons for the trip was that Trump took Wisconsin, to the surprise of Democrats nationwide, and that we wanted to figure out “why.” I asked Peter if he had reached any conclusions.

  

Peter:  

Dave, you’ll recall I wasn’t ready at that moment to say, instead I walked back to retrieve a coke from the refrigerator as you drove. But I’ve been thinking about it since. You know, Barack Obama took Wisconsin and so did Donald Trump. When it comes to appealing to voters they had a lot in common.

  

David:  You gotta be kidding.

Peter:  FIRST: They both sold the idea of CHANGE. Each of them wanted people to choose something different than what was happening already. They went about it differently, but the appeal to something that could represent a change for people unhappy with the status quo, is a strong appeal.

SECOND: They both were CHARISMATIC.  

David:  Really?

Peter:  Yes. Obama represented and campaigned for HOPE. Trump appealed to FEAR, but both of these emotions are gut level things. They are both feelings and not ideas. Both emotions can work up a crowd and it is easy to agree when you are in a group of several hundred all saying the same thing, or watching a group of several hundred on TV all saying the same thing. Crowds react to feelings and both of the candidates had the charisma to motivate crowds.

Probably the most important: THIRD: They both SHOWED UP.

In 2008, even though Wisconsin was considered to be “safe” for democrats and Obama ultimately won by 13.2%, Obama visited Wisconsin 7 times during the general election, on top of many more appearances during the primaries. (Wikipedia)  

 

In 2016 Trump had 5 rallies in Wisconsin during the general election, in addition to 10 during the primaries. Trump’s win in Wisconsin was considered to be a surprise by the pundits as he won by 1%. No poll ever showed Trump ahead and the average was that Clinton would win by 6.5%. (Various web sources)

 

Trump SAID that he cared about Wisconsinites and Showing Up made what he said more credible.

 

SO, David, how did Hillary compare on those three points: Change, Charisma, and showing up?

David:  

 

Well. Um. Not too well. Peter, you know that we talked with a lot of people who voted for Hillary and they still couldn’t stand Trump, but I guess I have to answer your question….. What were those again?

  

Peter:  Change, Charisma and Showing Up.  

David:  

 

Of course she didn’t represent Change. Obama did very well. Any claim she might make of Change-from-Obama would have been turning her back on not only her base, but the Hope that Obama represented. She was boxed in!

 

Remember, Peter, that Hillary was under constant attack since well before this campaign. She has long been defined by others as non-charismatic and her quote about “The Deplorables” was blasted over and over again. Add to that the fact that Wisconsin is a flyover state AND that Hillary was painted as the representative of “Inside the Beltway” and the “Coastal Elites.” So, I guess, she had a Charisma deficiency.

 

AND she never made a single campaign appearance in Wisconsin. While the intellectual choice was for Hillary, not showing up caused Wisconsinites to feel ignored so the enthusiasm for her couldn’t be built enough to win. In fact that was the thrust of several of the day-after headlines in the state. “Hillary ignores Wisconsin, Trump wins.”

[Is Listening the Answer?]

Peter:

 

So we’re in agreement? Great. We know why Trump won and Hillary lost Wisconsin.

 

I’m ready to move on from the ancient history of the 2016 election to a more timeless subject - Listening.

 

We set out on our listening tour with a hypothesis that by listening deeply and without a filter to others Americans outside of our bubble we’d benefit...and so might America. Remember, we did this because Arlie Hochschild suggested it at the end of her book, Strangers in their Own Land.

 

I’ve been thinking about the question: Is Listening The Answer? And concluded that the answer is “yes.”

David: (sarcastic?) Oh, this should be interesting…. Maybe you should start by defining what you mean by “listening”

Peter:

Okay: what is listening, and what is it not?

• Focused, preferably face-to-face
• Uninterrupted, one-on-one, two-on-two
• Open ended questions, not leading, for example the famous: “help me understand”
• Listening is not a debate
• Start and end strong - friendly,

(turn to David) You with me?

David: So far…

Peter:

For the listener, the act of listening is very rewarding in several ways:

• To sympathize/empathize -- humanize...spiritual practice...connection
• Better understand how people develop views and beliefs -- realize that beliefs are a mosaic
• Understanding the anatomy of someone’s beliefs and opinions helps us better counter them, creatively address them, possibly find some middle ground.
• Reflect, consider our own beliefs

Each of these four things happened to me through our interviews. But probably the most powerful effect of our listening was the building of trust between our interviewees and us. I’m reminded of the the term coined by Steven Covey: “Change happens at the speed of trust.”

 

In my opinion Covey really had a lot of things right in his work on listening (remember: two ears, one mouth?) and this quote says so much about the need to slow down and consciously build trust as a prerequisite to any effort to effect change -- in others or oneself.

  

David:

That’s interesting, Peter. I’ve also been thinking about this question: Is listening the answer? And I’ve concluded the answer is “NO.”

One way listening is false

• The speaker feels good, heard, thinks the listener “get’s it.”
• The listener has maybe derived the benefits you list out, Peter, but if it is not a conversation, it is going nowhere. In our case the speakers never listened back. I don’t think they grew one iota.
• Furthermore, by repeating their story and enumerating their beliefs if anything they hardened, not loosened.

No one we spoke to asked questions about us. No one asked our opinions. No one even asked about our family, etc. If anything we were treated like reporters -- treated nicely, with respect, with friendship… but as transactional reporters

Peter: Fair enough, Dave.  

• Can we agree, however, that nothing will get better for anyone, the listener or the speaker without starting with some careful listening?
• But you are right, one-way listening is just the beginning. And to get to two way listening is a bigger project -- for people of polar opinion it probably requires a third party facilitator or agreed process.
• Nonetheless, careful listening -- especially to each others humanizing, personal stories -- is arguably the only way to build trust and understanding...not necessarily agreement...but connection.
• Then the real work can begin. You were the one who quoted George Mitchell during his Ireland peace talks saying:

“We just kept talking and eventually trust broke out.”

One of the results of our Listening Tour work is we’ve come across a “listening cottage industry” which includes a number of projects and initiatives which I’d say fall into two rough categories: Listening projects and Bridging Projects.

Listening Projects:

Locally: Mark Zuckerberg, Sophia Pink at Stanford, Pop the Bubble Tour (Kern Beare), Joe Simitian, Vicki Veenker, Jen Myhre

Nationally: Huffington Post, Walking to Listen (Andrew Forsthoefel), Living Room Conversations

Bridging Work:

These efforts bring together opposing viewpoints to work to find common ground. They use a very deliberate, structured dialog to try to tackle intractable, often political issues:
 
Convergence, health care, economic mobility, education, are just three...the process can take years to arrive at outcomes, but the results are powerful when two opposing groups stand together to endorse the end result.
 
Libby and Len Traubman’s local Jewish-Palestinian Dialog work has been going on locally and globally for years.
 
[Will it get any better, soon?]

 

David:

 

So, Peter, let’s shift to today. Over a year into Trump’s presidency, decades into the steady sorting of America and acrimony on Capitol Hill…

How is all of that working out for you? I mean, have we hit bottom? Is this as bad as it gets?

 

 

Peter: Regrettably, No. And I’ll tell you why

The trends that have led us to this point in history are complex and layered on top of each other. Let me list four of them:

 

1. The “Sorting of America” phenomenon. This has been well documented in a bunch of books and articles: Coming Apart, Charles Murray’s work, Our Kids, Robert Putnam, a book by Bill Bishop called The Big Sort, American Nations by Colin Woodard. Over the past couple of generations Americans have become more and more likely to spend most of their lives isolated in their tribe:

• Where we live, school, work: Coast/Center, Urban/Rural,
• Media...where we get information
• Wealth disparity - a phenomenon well documented in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century

2. The technology disruption is a second factor which is up ending how we communicate, get our news, feel entitled and victimized...all at lightning speed. News media has been decimated economically and in response has become narrow and shallow. Facebook “news” is susceptible to manipulation. All our web information is personalized -- which allows it to play on our fears and insecurities and misguided hopes and wishes. All of this is before the advance of Artificial Intelligence which will continue to up end work and education.

 

Globalization The flow of people across borders caused by religious, political, economic, climate stresses -- and the aggravating stresses on the countries/ communities where they land.

Racism is still endemic and has a huge impact on our society.

These four factors have led to stresses on our American political systems

1. Gerrymandering (self selected as well as manipulated)...rewarding strict party-line voting
2. Ease of avoiding people with different opinions and beliefs...as citizens AND our elected politicians...not reward for listening and reaching sensible compromise
3. Leveraged by media, propaganda, 24 hour news cycle
4. Not to mention...Wealth in politics

One take away: the problem does not begin in Washington, it begins deeper in our society.

 

And the bad news: None of this is going away anytime soon.

[Is there reason to hope?]

David:
Wow, that is depressing. I see things a little differently. There is clearly lots of reason to hope that things will, or are already...getting better.

• American Spirit: We are an optimistic people. Every fiber of our national heritage tells us that we can and will make things better. We CAN take care of each other. We CAN fix things that are wrong. This optimism in itself solves nothing, but it CAN open the door.
• We have common experiences; both positive and negative. Because we have experiences in common we can seek and build upon common ground. We found lots of common ground in Wisconsin.
• A great leader can bring us together, at least more together than we are now. I think of Pope Francis in this way. A great leader can say what needs to be said, and be heard.
• We can respond to common threats together. Like it or not, Climate Change is an existential threat to the survival of humans on the Earth. If we can direct our efforts toward working together to survive we can temporarily put aside petty differences.
• When governments fail others step in, even giant corporations can act for the survival of those consumers upon whom they depend for their own success. Right now Unilever, not a corporation I would have chosen for any citizenship award, is demanding that Facebook, Google and others clean up their news feeds under threat of withdrawing advertising. While if the people through government had taken the lead it would be better, this may help.

[Prescription - Call to Action]

 

Peter:
Dave, it’s show time. When we signed up for this talk we promised Liz we’d have some answers. For a year now we’ve been striving to derive some answers from our Listening Tour Project. I’m afraid the time has come to put it on the line.

David:
Okay, I’ve been waiting to hear what you have to say.

Peter:

Well, I’ll start by saying that I agree with your list of reasons for hope. The other reason I see for hope are the people around us in this room tonight, those in our church community, on the Peninsula, our kids and someday their kids. But this is not a time for passivity, for hand wringing. We have to see this as a time for activism. 

 

(Looks at David) So let’s lay out our three-point prescription to the people sharing our bubble with us.

  

David:  
Point 1: Mindset adjustment: Push the mute button, turn down the volume on Trump and the antics of DC.

• Fear/ hysteria are a tool of manipulation, don’t be manipulated
• Trust in the institutions of our democracy -- be critical but …
• Believe in the reasonableness, common ground of our fellow Americans...we’ve met a bunch of them in Wisconsin

 NO solution ever came out of fear.

 

Peter:  

Point 2: Gain the power of understanding This is the work (we see now) of our Listening Tour Project. Actively reach out to better understand other points of view

• Be curious… ask open ended questions. Ask questions of yourself.
• Travel in the US -- deeply. Each trip must include deep listening of locals who think/ believe differently. This will bring empathy and better understanding.
• Refrain from blame. Articulate - state back to them what you have heard. Ask follow-up questions.
• Seek out new/ varied sources of news and information:
• >>allsides.com
• >>Other considered news sources
• Push back on your tribe when they overreach

Point 3: Describe a more perfect union.

Get out your pen, quill or laptop and write it down. Remember when we wrote letters? Well in those days we were forced to clearly articulate to another our point of view, our sentiment, our ambition. Here is your chance -- but now for our United States.

 

Read what you’ve written with the eyes of someone who sees things differently from you...and will have reasonable rebuttals or skepticism coming from their experience and beliefs.

 

Consider this assignment part of your patriotic duty as an American: Barack Obama asked us from the bridge at Selma, “What greater form of patriotism is there than the belief that America is not yet finished?” Well here is your chance to write out the next chapter.

 

Here is your specific prompt:

What (specifically) is your prescription for a more perfect Union?

Consider our collective challenges -

• our expectation of fairness of opportunity,
• the power of the free markets, enterprise, innovation and technology,
• the nature of humans to protect their tribe,
• the corrosive impact of fear,
• the power of religious beliefs and
• science’s rapid unpacking of what were once mysteries

Consider NOT was sorts and divides us but our substantial shared history, aspirations, values, ethics and pride.

On our Listening Tour, Dave and I spoke with a couple, Jeff and Jeannie who, when we presented them with our question: “What is the path forward?” reflected and answered, “We Americans need a new narrative that resonates and leads us positively forward.” Jeannie is an actor and reflected on the power of theater or movies or books or visual art. This is your chance to articulate that narrative.

 

As you write, remember the aspiration of the inspiring words in the Preamble to our Constitution….

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

 

....do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let’s all use these three assignments:

• Mindset adjustment
• Gain the Power of Understanding
• Write down your new narrative for a more perfect union

 and get back to the work of making our better world, come true.

David: There you have it.  We’ve left plenty of time for rebuttals, reflections, questions?