LONGMONT, Colo. — I was surprised when Andy Schleck’s back wheel popped up and he jolted to a dead standstill in this morning’s stage of the Tour de France.  I was more surprised when Alberto Contador rode past without hesitation.  I had just said to my kids watching the tour with me, “Watch this, I bet Contador slows to a crawl.”  I was wrong.

My favorite historical moments of the Tour are the occasions when Lance Armstrong waited for Jan Ullrich in 2001after Ullrich strayed from the road into a ditch.  The favor was returned to Armstrong when Ullrich and a group of other riders.  It was a great example of “what goes around comes around.”  I remember these moments more vividly than any of Armstrong’s famous break aways.

I must admit I’ve lost much of my enthusiasm for professional bicycling because of the ongoing scourge of performance enhancing drug use.  But, I still love the spectacle of competition between equally matched contestants.  And, I am drawn to any sport with deeply rooted norms of fair play on the “playing field” (yes, I recognize the contradiction of being turned of by drug use but attracted to sportsmanship in the same sport).  I find the tradition of waiting for a competitor who experiences bad luck compelling because it exists in so few sports.

I tuned in with attention to the Tour for the first time this year to watch Schleck and Contador battle in the Pyrenees.  It was great theater indeed and will keep fans talking for days and for years to come each July.  “Do you remember when Contador attacked after Schleck dropped his chain…”

History will not remember as well the global ethics debate sparked by the Schleck-Contador incident.  But, for social media aficionados it was just as thrilling.  The world joined into a group conversations as compelling as any public forum I’ve witnessed.

The conversation took place in virtual spaces such as Twitter, YouTube and countless blogs.  The Twitter posts came fast and furious just after the incident but continue to trickle in over the course of the entire day.

Many sites such as VeloNews posted survey questions asking whether Contador did the right thing.  The magazine posted the results to Twitter:  “Polls: Spaniards support Contador’s attack (VeloNews.com readers do not) http://bit.ly/ceE9E7.”

Well known members of the bicycling community weighed in such as Taylor Phinney weighed in, their comments Retweeted (RT) by others: “RT @johncr8on Feel bad for Schleck cos of his bad luck.. Feel bad for Contador cos he’s gonna get a lot of sh*t for this!”

Andy Schleck weighed in on Twitter: “I lost yellow today!shit happens but the race is not over yet!!!I be back!”  And, so did Alberto Contador.  Indeed, Contador posted a link to YouTube in which he explains his actions: “Aqui un video sobre lo ocurrido hoy en el TDF http://tinyurl.com/2ubpm7y Here a video about what happened today at TDF.”

Main stream media and the protagonists of this morning’s drama were joined by thousands of people in a multitude of languages.  Yes, it is true that there was much noise on Twitter’s #tdf channel.  But there was thoughtfulness and links to in-depth conversations and historical perspectives, too.  It was a spontaneous conversation that, with the collective action of the “crowd,” became rich and nuanced — as well as shallow, trite and glib.

Some people might consider this type of Twitter watching and blog reading a total waste of time — a distraction from more productive disputes; a productivity killer.  I view it as an example of social media’s potential at its best.  It was a teachable moment joined by the world.

I have been less active on social media the past two or three months.  My choice to participate less is a function, in part, of having a lot on my plate.  I do need to avoid the real distractions accessible in the virtual world so I can meet very real deadlines in my world.

But, today, the events I witnessed on T.V. drew me to the web.  I was curious what people thought.  I’m glad I checked.  Today was another reminder of the potential of social media to bring the world together in meaningful conversations.  Social media is not just a place to connect with old friends.  It’s a place where we can join with others to hash things out.  That’s pretty cool.

*     *     *

John Creighton can be found on Twitter @johncr8on and on Facebook.

The Tea Party Movement is the most recent vehicle people use to express their anger toward government.  The 1992 Ross Perot campaign for President was a vessel for similar discontent nearly twenty years ago.  Concern over surging national debt fuels the Tea Party now and Ross Perot in the early 1990s.

It was twenty years ago that The Harwood Institute released the report Citizens and Politics.  This report was covered by nearly every major news outlet in America.  It was big news in early 1991 that Americans had lost faith in their public institutions.  Then President George H. W. Bush had approval ratings in the high 80s in the wake of the first Gulf War.  Most institutions in the late 1980s were held in relatively high regard.

Anger toward institutions in general and government in particular is old news today.  Voters in their early twenties can’t remember a time when people did trust institutions.  The basis for people’s frustrations over the past twenty years vary only in degree.

I’ve been interviewing people about politics, government and public policy for twenty years.  The themes I hear in my interviews are similar and essentially boil down to this:  Middle class values — working hard and playing by the rules — no longer leads to economic stability.  Families with two incomes struggle to make ends meet.  Families in which a wage-earner is laid off are often pushed over the edge because savings are too meager to weather tough times.  Meantime, government seems to reward people who break the rules (bailouts for Wall Street) and provide assistance to people who don’t make much effort (the undeserving poor).  David Brooks effectively describes these themes in a recent column titled, The Story of an Angry Voter.

People’s frustrations toward public institutions are not just a function of the “Great Recession.”  Nor are they entirely a function of discontent toward the Obama Administration (which seems to be botching management of the BP Oil Spill as badly as the George W. Bush Administration botched management of the Katrina aftermath).  Public discontent toward public institutions was growing even during the go-go 90s when we all believed we were on the path toward riches.

In the late 1990s, fewer than forty percent of people had confidence in public schools, according to Gallup surveys.  Confidence in the medical system hovered at forty percent, too.  Barely one in five people had confidence in the criminal justice system during these good economic times.  Today it’s worse.  Only people who carry guns — the military and police — are held in high regard.

The conventional wisdom is that our public institutions are failing.  Candidates for state and federal legislative bodies actively tap into people’s anger.  The stump speech of many candidates is trash talking all our institutions.  But, I would argue, the anger we feel is misdirected.  And, candidates who tap misdirected anger are opportunists not leaders.

Public institutions — schools and hospitals — are reflections of the communities in which they operate.  It is not the other way around.  It is rare for a public institution to outperform the health of its community.  It is even harder for an institution to outperform its community year after year after year.

Many of our communities are not civically healthy right now.  They lack the civic capacities and civic pride to get things done.  In some cases, people just aren’t involved in their communities.  Robert Putnam has documented the long, steady decline in civic life.

In other cases, partisans have taken over the local public square.  People sort themselves into tribes and fight over petty issues that have more to do with national politics than local needs.  In either case — lack of involvement or partisan divides — little gets done.  The lack of civic capacity shows up in our institutions and fuels people’s discontent.

Even Congress, the most despised of all institutions, is a reflection of our communities.  Our communities have become social enclaves.  We increasingly elect people on the extreme left and right to go to Congress.  These extremists bicker but get little done — or force legislation through that angers half the population.  That starts at the ballot box not Washington, DC.

Indeed, the obsessive anger directed toward President Obama and previously toward Presidents Bush and Clinton are a symptom of a larger problem.  People pay more attention to politics as framed by cable news and talk radio than they pay attention to what is happening in their own backyards.

I’ve witnessed first hand what happens when a community does embrace its civic capacities and when their are bursts of civic pride.  Sometimes, latent civic capacity is roused by a catalytic event.  That’s what happened in my hometown of Atwood, Kansas.

The 1980s were not the best for farm towns like ours.  It was easy to get discouraged.  A local boy, Mike Hayden, was elected Governor of Kansas in 1986.  About that same time, the local high school football team enjoyed its best years in history.  These successes, in part, fired up the community.  The community rallied together to rebuild a lake, upgrade the downtown and reinvest in the hospital.  That civic pride lives on today.    At a time when many small towns are throwing in the towel, Atwood is breaking ground on a new swimming pool for the generations yet to come and continues to support its hospital for the generations that are there now.

I understand people’s frustrations.  It is infuriating to watch cheats on Wall Street get bailed out by government programs while hard working people struggle to make ends meet.  But, we aren’t going to “take back our nation,” as the Tea Party folks like to say, by yelling at President Obama nor more than we could by yelling at President Bush.

We can throw the rascals out but, after we do, we need to ask ourselves how we can rebuild our communities.  How can we heal the divisions that exist at home?

And, we need public leaders who are willing to lead.  We need our officials and candidates to spend less time stoking people’s anger and more time tapping into the latent civic energy that lays dormant in communities across our nation.

Indeed, taking back our nation, like all things worthwhile, begins at home.

“Conveniences is the enemy of meaning.”

That sub headline caught my eye this morning.  It comes from a longer Fast Company article about Memorial Day:  Reinventing Memorial Day: Creating Inconvenience and Relevance.

Providing consumers convenience is what drives much of the private sector.  Business people spend their careers figuring out how to make the consumer experience more convenient.  I enjoy convenience.  For instance, I don’t check bags when I fly.  The process of checking in for a flight is increasingly convenient (except for security).  I rarely stand at a ticket counter or kiosk any more.  I check in on my computer.  Print my own boarding pass.  When I arrive at the airport, I head straight for the gate.  It’s great.

The drive to provide people with convenience spills over into the public sector, too.  For all of my adult life, people have been trying to make voting more convenient.  The idea is that if voter registration and voting itself are more convenient then more people will participate.  More participation is assumed to be a good thing for democracy.

I don’t like convenience when it comes to voting.  My reason?  I’d steal the sub headline  from the Fast Company article.  Convenience is the enemy of meaning.

In Boulder County, Colorado many of our elections are mail in ballot only.  There’s not an Election Day but rather an Election Month.  People vote on their own time schedule in their own home — or perhaps they take their ballot to their favorite coffee shop.

It is no longer necessary to make an effort to vote.  I don’t think that’s a good thing.  An act that requires no effort loses the special quality of intention.  When we had Election Day, people had to make it their intent to participate.  Voting had to be enough of a priority to get up early before work, kids in tow, or stand in long lines after work.

That’s not convenient, for sure.  But, it was a lot more meaningful than sticking a ballot in the mail.  I used to get goose bumps standing in line to vote at my precinct site.  I would think about how lucky we are to have a process like this to elect our leaders.  I would enjoy talking with neighbors I seldom see.

The Election Day goose bumps are gone.  Here’s to a little more inconvenience.

Sean Hannity (Fox News) and Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) could learn a few things from the students at Silver Creek High School in Longmont, Colorado.  The Silver Creek students know how to have “adult” conversations — as compared to the juvenile taunts that pass for “analysis” on cable news channels.

Earlier this week, I sat down to flip channels, unwind after an evening meeting and, I hoped, to get some news about the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  News, unfortunately, was hard to come by.

I clicked to Fox News and found Hannity, starring Sean Hannity.  Ann Coulter was Mr. Hannity’s guest.  The topic was the Arizona immigration law.  I was quickly reminded why I seldom watch cable “news.”  I watched Mr. Hannity and Ms. Coulter for no more than three or four minutes.  In that time, they told viewers:

- President Obama knowingly and purposefully lies about immigration issues.
- The New York Times favors people breaking the law.
- Liberals consider citizens who honor the rule of law to be racist.

Not even southwestern states could escape their glib wrath.  Ms. Coulter described the U.S. Southwest as, “The Sand States.”

I turned to Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.  I was curious if his schtick would be the same as the last time I saw him months ago.  I use to enjoy Mr. Olbermann a great deal when he teamed with Dan Patrick on The Big Show (ESPN SportsCenter).  When I watch Mr. Olbermann on Countdown, as often as not, I’m embarrassed for him and NBC News.

The rebroadcast of MSNBC was preempted by breaking news about the “Times Square Bomber.” So, I checked the internet to see what was new.  I found Countdown is easier to digest on the internet.  It’s easier to filter out Mr. Olbermann’s pompous tirades.

In one internet segment I viewed, Mr. Olbermann mocked Nevada’s Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sue Lowden.  She was very inarticulate recently on health care reform.  Mr. Olbermann used it as an opportunity to imply Ms. Lowden is promoting policies she clearly didn’t intend.  That’s the game.  Imply don’t clarify.

I understand Mr. Hannity and Mr. Olbermann are entertainers and not news people.  I understand the faux outrage they express, their pompous attitude toward all those with whom they disagree and the active promotion of animosity are part of the schtick.  But, I’ve never come to terms with entertainers having such a platform on “news” channels.

All of this is in stark contrast to an experience I had at Silver Creek High School last week.  I was a guest at Mary Ellen Graziani’s College Prep Government Class.  I was there to talk to students about politics and the economy.

I walked in the class feeling a bit pessimistic.  I am frustrated, like many people, by federal and state legislative bodies that seem to have lost the capacity to take meaningful action.  In Colorado, for instance, we face a long term budget crisis.  Yet, for the most part, the state legislature continues to kick the can down the road hoping conditions will change to eliminate the tough issues we ultimately will have to address.

I left Ms. Graziani’s class feeling a renewed sense of hope.  I was energized by my conversation with the students.  If someone just read the transcript of our conversation, they might wonder why.

I asked the group of thirty-two if they thought the United States is on the right track or wrong.  Only a few said right track.  I asked the class of juniors if they trust Congress.  Again, only one or two hands were raised in the air.  I asked if students thought things would be better or worse ten years from now.  A clear majority indicated worse.

It is what the students said, and how they said it, between the occasions I asked for a show of hands, that gives me hope.  For starters, it was refreshing to be with people who are capable of talking about serious issues and being playful at the same time.  Those of us who serve on public boards can have a tendency to take ourselves too seriously.  The students were thoughtful, passionate about their views and yet were ready to laugh and joke — at 7:15 in the morning no less.  There was even an appropriate use of s*** to make a point clear.

I was surprised by the wide range of political views held by the group.  It took a while for them to warm up, perhaps because there was a grey haired stranger in their midst, but once they got going students would follow one another’s comments with, “I completely disagree.”  But, not once, did the students resort to the tactics used by members of Congress and prominent public figures when grandstanding on T.V.

The students never insulted one another.  The accepted tactic among politically engaged adults, all too often, is to attack the person not the point of view.  That’s certainly much easier.  The Silver Creek students weren’t that lazy.  They made good efforts to explain their own point of view.  They acknowledged what their classmates had to say.  When I pushed back, the students didn’t retreat.  It was clear the wheels were turning and students were thinking things through.

The thoughtfulness demonstrated by the students is what lifted my spirits most.  They are willing to wrestle with some of the toughest questions facing any democracy.  Who deserves help?  Under what conditions?  For how long?  Who should pay?  Perhaps this group’s not ready to write public policy but their ideas aren’t knee jerk either.  I sensed a willingness, if given the task, to try to figure out the right thing to do.

As one student said when I asked how we should deal with people’s diverse points of view, “Me and him,” he said pointing to a classmate across the room, “We disagree all the time.  But there’s a camaraderie to talking things through.  It makes you think harder.”

Serious, respectful, passionate, playful, willing to think harder.  It doesn’t get much better than that.  If the adults who parade across news channels on T.V. need new role models…  This would be a good place to start.

*     *     *

John Creighton can be found on Twitter @johncr8on and on Facebook. ]]> http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/setting-a-good-example/feed/ 0 http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/required-civic-virtue/ http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/required-civic-virtue/#comments Mon, 03 May 2010 04:50:08 +0000 John Creighton http://johncr8on.com/?p=587

I have written before that Americans are becoming Accidental Extremists.  Dan Yankelovich, one of the pioneers of public opinion research, discussed the negative consequences of “self-isolating communities” in a speech to the Drucker School of Management.  He said Americans are subjecting themselves to group-think, which erodes America’s historically unique ability to solve problems.  This is, he says, one of the critical symptoms plaguing public life.

Self-isolating communities exist in our great metropolises and our smallest towns.  But, people living in the smallest towns face a unique life challenge that is hard for those from larger communities to appreciate.  It is a challenge that may, in fact, be an antidote to group-think.  What is this challenge?  Small town folks don’t get to pick their friends.

Most people would consider Longmont, Colorado — the community I call home now — small.  Let me define small.  It’s more like Atwood, Kansas — the place where I grew up.  A small town has one school and one church per denomination (with many denominations lacking enough people for a congregation).  Longmont is a community just shy of 90,000 people.  We have three high schools in the city limits and five more in the school district.  There are twenty plus elementary schools and a plethora of private schools.  There are multiple churches for many denominations and countless non-denominational churches tucked in corners of shopping malls in all corners of town.

It changes everything when a town has more than one school, more than one church or more than one of most other things — such as coffee shops, grocery stores and little league baseball teams.  It changes everything because when you only have one of each there is no place to escape.

Your kid have a frustrating set of peers at school?  Better figure out how to make it work.  He or she will be part of the same peer group next year.  Don’t like the bossy clique at church?  Find a way to worship with them.  They’ll still be in the pew in front or pew in back next Sunday.  Crowd at the coffee shop make you chafe?  Find a different time for your coffee break or drink by yourself at home.  This is small town life.

Not so in Lonmgont or other larger towns.  We have options.  It’s easy to switch schools if you don’t like your child’s peers.  It’s easy to change churches and find a new congregation of the same denomination.   There are more coffee shops and little league baseball teams than I can count.

In larger communities people can self-select their friends and peer groups.  You can avoid people you don’t like.  Small town folks (truly small) don’t have that luxury.  In a small town, you the same people are part of every group.  Anonymity or starting fresh is not an option.  Small town folks have to figure out how to get along, move away or become a hermit.  The latter two choices aren’t good options.

It can be very difficult to find peace in a small town where you don’t fit.   Some people suffer greatly because they lack an accepting social group.  That’s a downside of very small town life.

There are many upsides, too.  One of my father’s best friends talked about small town friendships at my father’s funeral.  He said, “You learn to accept people for their whole self because you have no other option.  You accept their politics.  You accept their eccentricities.  You accept them because in a small town you need your friends.”  He continued.  “And, that’s a good thing because most people are good people.”

When there is nowhere to escape, you’re forced to learn the civic virtue of working with others — even those whom you don’t like.  Perhaps this is the essence of community.  Community comes before friendship.  Getting things done together comes before getting along.  The good news is that getting things done often leads to getting along.

It’s good to have choices.  It’s good, if something is not working, to go somewhere different.  It’s horrible to be in a place where you don’t fit.  But, too often, people give up on a place (a school, a church, a coffee shop) without giving it much of a chance.  They encounter turbulence and immediately bail.  Sometimes the grass is greener in the next pasture.  Just as often, it’s not.

My uncle likes to say everyone would benefit from one year of law school but very few benefit from three.  I think something similar can be said about very small town life.  Small town life is not best for everyone but everyone would benefit from, at least a dose, of small town life.

*     *     *

John Creighton can be found on Twitter @johncr8on and on Facebook. ]]> http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/required-civic-virtue/feed/ 4 http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/open-letter-to-cbs-show-families-respect/ http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/open-letter-to-cbs-show-families-respect/#comments Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:58:27 +0000 John Creighton http://johncr8on.com/?p=503

Dear CBS Executives,

I love March Madness on CBS Sports.  My wife and I will be watching your network for hours and hours over the next three-plus weeks.  Our children will be watching, too.

The NCAA tournament is a family affair.  I am fortunate my alma mater, the University of Kansas, has another good team this year.  The schools my wife attended — Kansas State University and the University of Maryland — are competitive this year, too.  Our kids get caught up in the excitement of cheering for their parents’ teams.

I have great confidence your game coverage will be excellent.  We appreciate the efforts the CBS team makes to broadcast as many games as possible.  We like when you cut away to the exciting final moments of a close game (except when that means cutting away from one of our teams — but we understand).

I do have concerns about the commercials you allow to air on your network during the tournament.  In recent years, you, your corporate sponsors and their advertising agencies have shown little or no respect for children and families.  Commercials you allow on your network scream out a clear message: We don’t give a darn about kids.

Last March, for instance, the movie The Haunting in Connecticut was promoted heavily during the frequent game breaks.  The movie trailers broadcast on Saturday and Sunday afternoons included disturbing images of human mutilation.  My children, and all those watching, saw a type of violence no child — no adult — should ever witness.

The visceral fear my children experienced when these images flashed across our screen was palpable.  On more than one occasion, when I was too slow to change the channel or turn off the TV, I had to spend several minutes helping my children make sense of what they had just seen.  I don’t appreciate that.

The Haunting in Connecticut was produced by Buffalo Gal Pictures, for Gold Circle Films.  It was distributed in the United States by Lionsgate.  Executives from these companies — along with executives from your company — decided it is appropriate to subject children to images of human mutilation.

How could you possibly reach such a conclusion?

I am first to argue parents have a responsibility to monitor and filter the media content their children consume.  It’s lazy to place blame on “Hollywood Liberals” when children watch, listen to or access age inappropriate content.  My wife and I have a simple solution when our kids access material we judge unsuitable: Turn off the screen.

I would like to think college basketball is age appropriate content for children.  The games certainly are.  Too many of the commercials aren’t.

You force parents who don’t want to subject their children to terrifying images of violence to sit on the edge of their seat, remote control in hand, ready to darken the screen at a moments notice.  I can only assume those within your company who allow advertisements such as those for The Haunting to broadcast have no children of their own.  No parent I know would ever subject young children — their own or anyone else’s — to this type of content.

I understand your first obligation is to your shareholders.  Your company’s investment to gain the broadcast rights to the NCAA basketball tournament is significant.  You are obliged to show a return on this investment.

But, let’s be clear.  When you rely on images of human mutilation for revenue, you are no different from a pornographer.  Horror films and pornography both tap the most visceral of human emotions to extract dollars from people’s wallets.

I’m not calling for a prohibition on pornography or horror films.  People are free to choose to consume this type of content — or not.  That’s each person’s own business.

I do ask you to consider children and parents who love college basketball.  You allow your network to be a platform for companies peddling unsuitable content during the NCAA tournament.  It may be a profitable practice but it shows absolute disdain for families.

I realize there is little incentive for you to take my concerns seriously.  I, like millions of others, will watch as many tournament games as possible on your network.  I will allow my children to watch, too — regardless of the commercials you allow to broadcast.

I simply ask this: What’s the right thing to do?

*     *     *

John Creighton can be found on Twitter @johncr8on and on Facebook. ]]> http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/open-letter-to-cbs-show-families-respect/feed/ 1 http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/boo-who/ http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/boo-who/#comments Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:25:11 +0000 John Creighton http://johncr8on.com/?p=488

When is it appropriate to boo the President of the United States?

Let me back up and ask when is it appropriate to boo anyone?

The purpose of catcalls such as boos is to convey contempt or disapproval punctuated by an exclamation point.  In other words, when we want to make it unambiguously clear that we don’t like someone or don’t approve of their actions, we boo.

We are most accustomed to this type of heckling at sporting events.  Crowds boo the opposing team or game officials when they disagree with a call — even if the call was accurate — that goes against their team.

We teach our children not to boo at youth sporting events.  We tend to discourage heckling at the high school level, too.  But, fans who pay significant sums of money for event tickets feel little or no compunction about sharing their negative feelings with the world.  Indeed, sporting event jeers are socially acceptable.

Why do we find heckling professional athletes acceptable but not other professionals?  The gallery seldom boos a lawyer making her closing arguments.  Hecklers are not allowed in the operating room when doctors do surgery.  College students may whisper disapproval but rarely yell catcalls at a professor delivering a lecture.

Clearly a sporting event is a different environment than court, surgery or school.  The outcome of a sporting event doesn’t matter in the end because it is just a game.   These venues are one place we can all let our hair down and cheer… or jeer.

I was in Allen Field House in Lawrence, Kansas watching my beloved Jayhawks easily defeat their instate rival Kansas State Wildcats.  It was a night of cheers.  It was senior night.  Fan favorite Sherron Collins was playing his last game in front of the home faithful.

During one of the lengthy television time outs, an MTV-style video featuring Sherron was broadcast on the giant screen hanging above center court.  The video featured pop up trivia about Sherron’s life and interests.  The crowd celebrated each bit of new information.

Midway through the video a pop-up flashed on the screen that read: “Who is the one person Sherron would like to trade places with?”  A picture of President Obama appeared on the screen with the words, “Fellow Chicagoan President Barack Obama.”

The cheers stopped.  The crowd reflexively boo’d the President.  Hisses were audible in my section.  The video moved on to new tidbits and the celebratory mood resumed.

I’m not surprised that President Obama lacks popularity in Kansas — even in a relatively liberal college town.  President Obama’s popularity is flagging everywhere.  I was mildly surprised by the visceral response of emphatic disapproval expressed by a crowd otherwise in an extremely good mood.

The momentary chorus of jeers led me to my question.  When is it okay to boo the President of the United States?  Is it more appropriate at a sporting event — a venue where heckling those you don’t like is considered to be socially acceptable behavior?  Or, does the office of the President deserve respect under any condition?

I live in Boulder County, Colorado.  The residents of southwest Boulder county — Boulder proper — are about as liberal as any group of people in the country.  Few people who call the city of Boulder home hold affection for former President George W. Bush.

I have observed, since the 2000 Election, abhorrent bumper stickers on people’s cars protesting our 43rd President.  I believe in free speech.  I don’t appreciate having to explain to my young children slogans that turn the names of President Bush and Vice President Cheney into crude sexual vulgarities.  Each time I saw those bumper stickers I felt my own visceral reaction: Show the office of President respect; I don’t care how much you despise the current office holder.

Now the political tables are turned.  Republicans are no longer in power.  Democrats are.  The jeering once denounced by supporters of President Bush is being returned in full force directed at President Obama.  One side can’t claim behavioral superiority over the other.  Jeering our elected leaders is now just as socially acceptable as booing officials at a sporting event.

The degree to which we shout each other down is a relatively new development in public life.  There always has been venomous speech in politics.  But, bitter speech tended to be at the margins rather than a staple of conversation.  At least, that’s what I witnessed in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.

Perhaps the shift toward crude speech is correlated to politics becoming more entertainment than substance.  Our political leaders now parade on cable television as if they are panelists on the Jerry Springer Show.  They gather in twos or fours (always important to be balanced) and bicker with each other in ways we would never tolerate at our own dinner tables.  If it is okay for political leaders to trash talk each other why shouldn’t we trash talk them?

Crude speech is not the greatest challenge we face in our society.  But, the tenor of our discourse is both a measure of past success and an indicator of future potential to get things done.  The more we shout each other down the less likely we will agree on plans for action.

There is a need for tough conversations in public life.  It is important to preserve room for people to criticize policies and actions they do not support.  It also is important to preserve respect for the office people hold even when we don’t respect the person who holds the office.  We can start this effort with thoughtful consideration of the question:  When is it appropriate to boo the President of the United States?

*     *     *

John Creighton can be found on Twitter @johncr8on and on Facebook.

Photo Credit: Lucy Boynton (Flickr) ]]> http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/boo-who/feed/ 0 http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/does-sarah-palin-go-too-far/ http://johncr8on.com/dispatches/does-sarah-palin-go-too-far/#comments Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:30:20 +0000 John Creighton http://johncr8on.com/?p=443

Are you old enough to remember the 1988 Presidential Election?  The Democratic Party nominated Senator Lloyd Bentsen for vice-president.  The GOP nominated 41 year-old Dan Quayle for this position.  Senator Quayle’s age was considered a liability.  To compensate, Senator Quayle pointed out often that he was of a similar age as John F. Kennedy when Kennedy became President.

Senator Bentsen capitalized on Senator Quayle’s age and the comparisons to President Kennedy during their vice-presidential debate.  Senator Bentsen’s quip is legendary, “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

Senator Quayle was shocked.  He looked like a deer in headlights.  This type of personal put-down was neither expected nor common.  It was beneath the dignity of a U.S. Senator.  Senator Quayle’s response was appropriate, “That was really uncalled for, Senator.”

Both Senators became best known for this exchange.   Senator Quayle’s stature was forever diminished.  And, so was Senator Bentsen’s.  He became better known for this wisecrack than for nearly fifty years of distinguished public service.

One of my political heroes, Bob Dole, was considered mean spirited by his critics.  He was called a hatchet man when he was a on the GOP ticket for vice-president in 1976.  The basis for this label was due largely to a remark during the 1976 vice-presidential debate, “I figured it up the other day: If we added up the killed and wounded in Democratic wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans — enough to fill the city of Detroit.”

This comment was, like Senator Bentsen’s, over the top.  Senator Dole said later that he regretted making the statement expressing his admiration for Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt.  There is a difference between Senator Dole’s “hatchet” remarks and Senator Bentsen’s quip.  Senator Dole was attacking, clumsily, Democratic policies.  Senator Bentsen was seeking, successfully, to diminish a person.   Senator Dole’s focus on policy and his deep respect for political opponents are why he was able to maintain close personal friendships with Democratic leaders such as George McGovern.

Today, it is standard fare for high level public officials to personally denigrate opposition party leaders.  Sarah Palin is a master.  She’s witty.  She resonates with her audience.  But, her rhetoric and delivery style remind me a lot of junior high school girls.  Her approach is mean spirited.

Governor Palin’s speech to the Tea Party Convention is a good example.  Governor Palin’s speech had meat in it.  She effectively expressed the frustrations felt by many with President Obama’s administration.  But, Governor Palin’s personal digs at President Obama received the most attention – lines such as, “[H]ow is that hopey-changey stuff working out for you?”  And, “[These issues are] a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.”  (The teleprompter remark spurred a facile controversy of its own.  Did Governor Palin hypocritically write notes on the palm of her hand?  Who cares!)

Some people say it’s the media’s fault that Governor Palin’s insults receive more attention than her substantive remarks.  But, Governor Palin is an adept politician/entertainer.  She and her team know what kinds of remarks will get the most media play and applause.  Her Tea Party speech was peppered with catty remarks.  Governor Palin took a similar tact while accepting her nomination for vice-president.  This slap at then-candidate Obama brought down the house: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”

It’s a great line.  It effectively conveyed the doubts many people felt about now President Obama.  But, is this type of petty insult appropriate from someone seeking the second highest office in our country?  I’d like to think those seeking high office would set the standard for conduct not lower the bar.

*     *     *

John Creighton can be found on Twitter @johncr8on and onFacebook.

Photo Credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapitol.Com (Flickr)

The American people have lost confidence in Congress as an institution.  The evidence is clear and overwhelming.

The Gallup organization’s tracking polls show confidence in Congress remains near historic lows.  Only, twelve percent of Americans expressed a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress in 2008.  People’s confidence level remained at an anemic seventeen percent in 2009.   A summer 2009 Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that fifty-seven percent of Americans would vote to replace the entire Congress and start from scratch.

It is little wonder that people feel this way.  We read stories about Senators who sell their health care vote. Big banks receive bailout money to keep them afloat.  Then, these same banks give campaign contributions to members of congress.  Most of the cash going to those who serve on committees who oversee the TARP program. It is very easy to be very cynical.

The recent Supreme Court decision to strike down campaign finance limitations has given rise to a new wave of public concern.  The decision will allow interest groups, unions and corporations to pay for political ads.  Many people feel that this will allow interest groups to buy candidates lock, stock and barrel.  Perhaps it will.

We like to find villains to blame when our institutions don’t work the way we want them to.  Curing our ills is easier if there is a bad guy to hold responsible.  The solution is easier, too.  Find the silver bullet that can pierce the dragon’s heart.

It’s easy to find bad guys when it comes to money in politics.  The actions of Congress suggest time and time again that members care more about special interest groups who donate money than the American people.  It is logical to conclude, then, that the way to make Congress more responsive to their constituents is to cut off their access to special interest money.

This is the thinking behind Fix Congress First! The group’s co-founders – Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig and Democratic campaign consultant Joe Trippi – are calling for an amendment to the Constitution to fund elections through a combination of public funding and small dollar contributions.  Citing corruption of elected officials, paralysis of Congress’ to act in the best interests of the American people and people’s loss of trust, the co-founders argue that changing the money game is the best fix.  They write, “[W]ith special interest funneling millions of dollars into our elections… we can never have confidence [in Congress].

I wish it was that easy.  It would be nice if the source of Congress’ problems lay only in Washington, DC.  But, we need to look closer to home.  The cause of hyper-partisan, special interest driven politics begins in our own backyards.  As much as we might want to believe otherwise, our Congress is a reflection of us.

Bill Bishop documents in his book, The Big Sort, that American communities are increasingly ideologically segregated.  Bishop writes:   “America may be more diverse than ever coast to coast, but the places where we live are becoming increasingly crowded with people who live, think, and vote like we do. This social transformation didn’t happen by accident. We’ve built a country where we can all choose the neighborhood and church and news show — most compatible with our lifestyle and beliefs. Our country has become so polarized, so ideologically inbred, that people don’t know and can’t understand those who live just a few miles away.”

Bishop backs up these assertions with loads of data compiled by demographer Robert Cushing.  Bishop also explores one of the consequences of ideologically monogamous regions and communities:  Fewer competitive elections.  He writes: “Congressional districts have grown largely uncontested.  Even in the middle of an unpopular war, 90 percent of incumbent members of Congress were reelected in 2006, and although the number of competitive races increased, only 66 out of 435 House races were at all close.  By 2004, nearly half the members of Congress came from districts that had unassailable majorities.”

The 2008 elections were not much different.  Ninety-six percent of incumbent House members were reelected.  Only thirteen open seats changed parties. Though it is early, The Cook Political Report predicts only 55 out 435 House races to be close in the upcoming 2010 elections.

Bishop debunks another common villain blamed for non-competitive elections: Redistricting.  He and Cushing did analysis of several post redistricting elections and found no impact on competitiveness.

Money may corrupt elected officials.  Money may be a contributing factor to members’ of Congress seeming disregard for their constituents.  But, money is not the real culprit.

There is no accountability at the ballot box.  Members of Congress are free to cavort with special interests because there is little chance of losing reelection.  All they have to do to win our favor is disparage the ideologues from the “other” party.  It’s a time tested formula for victory.  The candidates and their consultants know that we won’t vote the scoundrels out.  We’ll cheer, “Hear, Hear.”

This is what ideologically monogamous communities and social networks lead to.  Our hatred for the “other” party – or those with different views – is dearer to us than reforming Congress.  We the people who have chosen to live and socialize within enclaves are the real culprits abetting our hyper-partisan, do-nothing Congress.

That’s a tougher villain to hate than special interests.  And, it’s a lot harder to think up a silver bullet to correct this systemic change in our body politic.  How do you pass policy that breaks down the tribes in which we’re all choosing to live?

I don’t question Mr. Lessig’s and Mr. Trippi’s motives to improve Congress as an institution.  I understand the frustration that leads many people to join their movement.  Trying to slay a dragon feels a lot better than doing nothing.

But, like many reform efforts, Fix Congress First doesn’t ask the American people to look in the mirror.  And, like many reform efforts that rally people against a simplistically defined villain, the efforts, even if successful, will likely disappoint because they won’t create the change we want.

Fix Congress First.  I wish it was that easy.

*     *     *

John Creighton be found on Twitter @johncr8on and onFacebook.

Photo Credit: Biggunben (Flickr)

I watched Bobby Knight and Brent Musburger call the Kansas State-Texas basketball game on ESPN Big Monday this week.  Number nine ranked Kansas State upset number one Texas 71-62 – though a home victory by one top ten team over another is hardly an upset.

Kansas State fans began to chant in celebration late in the game as victory became imminent.  Bobby Knight took issue with their chant.  The Kansas State fans were yelling, “Over rated; Over rated,” indicating their feeling that Texas does not deserve to be number one in the nation – and surely they won’t in next week’s polls.  The top spot will belong to the Kentucky Wildcats unless they are upset, too.

Bobby Knight asserted at the time the crowd was yelling “over rated” and again during post game commentary that disparaging chants like the one being called out by Kansas State fans are unseemly.  He indicated his preference for positive feedback rather than negative.  He suggested Kansas State fans should be chanting praise for their team – “Good effort; good effort,” Knight roll played – rather than put down the Texas team.

Viewers might have found Mr. Knight’s suggestion ironic.  Mr. Knight conjures up images of incivility.  Throwing a chair across a basketball court during a game.  Making disparaging remarks about officials.  Castigating members of the media.  Hitting players and students.

I must confess that I have not been a fan of Bobby Knight because of his uncivil behavior.  It’s one thing to be tough.  I can even understand a passionate coach yelling at players and referees.  I get emotional, too.  But, in the past, I often found Mr. Knight’s actions to be over the top.

Still, his comments during and after the game resonated with me.  I agree with Mr. Knight that cheering our own team rather than making disparaging remarks about the opposing team is a more fitting way to celebrate victory.  We teach our children that good sportsmanship means being kind to our opponents.  Yet, when we gather with other adults, we don’t think twice about hurling insults at rivals and officials.  We tolerate this behavior both in sports and politics.

So, here are my questions.  Is someone like Bobby Knight, with his track record, a credible advocate for civil behavior and sportsmanship?  Do his past transgressions disqualify him from speaking out?

It is a challenge for all of us to listen to people who have made mistakes or behaved badly in the past.  We have a tendency to tune out these people or mock them when they make remarks we find ironic at best if not downright hypocritical.

I know that as a public official I sometimes have to make extra effort to listen to certain people.  Their style, logic (or lack thereof) and/or behavior is off-putting.  The danger of not listening is that we might miss important insights or legitimate concerns.  That’s why I’ve tried not to develop a thick skin but rather a porous skin.

Developing a thick skin is easy.  It lets you block out the comments of anyone who you find offensive.  A thick skin leads to a, “Who cares what they say, they’re a jerk,” attitude.  Indeed, ignoring people out of hand is an easy habit to adopt.  Developing a porous skin is more difficult.  You have to keep trying to listen to legitimate points from people who really can be jerks.

Next Monday, I am going to basketball heaven: Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence, Kansas.  My brother-in-law and I are making our annual pilgrimage to watch the Jayhawks take on greatest rival, the Missouri Tigers.

I’m no fan of the Tigers.  We have cheering rules in our house (or at least I do):  Always cheer for Kansas, cheer for the Big 12 team if they’re not playing Kansas, but never cheer for Mizzou.

Bobby Knight will be in Lawrence next Monday, too.  I’ll try to keep in mind his suggestions for a more civilized way to celebrate at games.  And, I’ll keep working on developing a porous skin.

*     *     *

Photo credit: Dearth85 (Flickr)