Yearning For Democracy
Americans care deeply about public life and civic culture
-
they just need to be invited into the conversation
by Bill Moyers
One of the articles in Reclaiming Politics (IC#30) Fall/Winter 1991, Page 14
Copyright (c)1991, 1996 by Context Institute
| To order this issue ...
"The largest party in America today," says Bill Moyers,
"is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. It is the party of the
wounded." Moyers is perhaps our most highly acclaimed journalist, responsible
- through series such as "A World of Ideas" and the phenomenally
popular interviews with the late Joseph Campbell - for catalyzing a significant
part of contemporary American conversation. He recently delivered the keynote
address to the Democratic Issues Conference of the National Legislative
Education Foundation, a gathering of Democratic leaders in the US Senate
and House of Representatives, from which the following is excerpted. The
complete text originally appeared in Connections, May 1991 issue
($24/year from PO Box 368, Slingerlands, NY 12159-0368).
What a relief to know that someone like Moyers can stand before such
an august body and say this: "Fearful and alone, we seek refuge in
the uncomfortable lie rather than face the uncomfortable truth. The lie
is John Wayne. The truth is Woody Allen."
We live in a very collective, very organized society in which we are
all connected, in which the welfare and safety of each one of us is dependent
on the health and welfare of a cooperative and collective enterprise. Government
has become bigger and more centralized, not because we have become careless
of our freedoms or morally lazy in our commitment to individual values,
but because the important tasks that need to be done in our nation today
are beyond the reach of single men and women. Making our society work -
the flourishing of civilization - is everyone's business. It's what we
do. Our individual freedom depends upon our participating membership in
democracy.
Yet if you travel the country today, as I do, you hear in person what
the pollsters reduce to percentages. People believe their government and
its policy makers have failed them - that the system no longer produces
solutions to the problems that face us. They are talking about the fact
that schools are not adequately educating their children, that the environment
is going unprotected, that year after year the federal deficit grows, that
the cost of health care endangers their economic security, that unmanageable
economic development threatens the quality of life of their communities.
These are the familiar complaints of a restless electorate. But beneath
the general buzz, you can, by listening intently, hear something else. You
can hear people say that it's not just new legislation or more programs
that will make the difference. What they want is to be invited into the
conversation of democracy.
Partly this aspiration comes from watching a series of astonishing democratic
movements topple dictatorships from Latin America to Europe, movements fired
by a vision of citizens as actors in the drama of history. In contrast,
what we get here in America is the continuing monopoly of experts and insiders
- professional communicators in advertising, public relations, lobbying
and the media - packaging and promoting ideas in an effort to engineer the
consent of the governed. In this model, the experts operate on the premise
that they alone possess the necessary knowledge to shape the policies on
which they seek consensus. They assume that the public, in its ignorance
of the issues, has little of value to contribute to formulating policies;
that people then need to be educated so they can better understand and support
the experts' conclusions.
Suppose we did it differently. Suppose we acted as if the public was
no fiction and actually we treated democracy as a two-way conversation.
Once upon a time, this was the case. Towns were small, and taverns, inns,
coffee houses, street corners, and the public greens - the Commons - were
places where people gathered to discuss the news and issues of the day.
Out of such exchanges, we're told by James Carey, came "much of the
commonplace community development which preceded the Revolution and later
proved to be essential to the governance of the city." These places
provided the underlying social fabric of the town and when the Revolution
began, "made it possible to quickly gather militia companies, to form
effective committees of correspondence, and to organize town meetings."
Suppose we tried to involve the public all over again - from the ground
up - in a frank dialogue? The truth is, as the Kettering Foundation report
says, Americans want to play a constructive role. They want places
where they can learn and talk about issues facing them and their country.
They want policy makers, the media, and others to hear what they have to
say, and they need to know that if they participate, there is at least the
possibility that they will be able to help create change. [See "Citizens
and Politics" on page 23.]
What is needed, then, is a new political compact - to reconnect the citizens
and politics, government and the people.
As I listen to America, I find that beneath this troubled view of politics
is an America that cares deeply about public life and our civic culture.
There is a great reservoir of creativity, common sense, and energy in the
country. Let me give you a few examples of this yearning.
During the Bicentennial of the Constitution in 1987, my associates and
I produced a PBS series about the significance of the Constitution in contemporary
life. Several members of the Supreme Court participated, and our documentaries
also included legal scholars, historians, philosophers, and "ordinary"
citizens who had exercised their First Amendment rights. Among the thousands
of letters we received when the series ended was one from a housewife in
a Western state:
I have never written a letter like this before. I am a full-time wife
and mother of four children under seven years and I am entirely busy with
the ordinary things of family life. However, I want to thank you very much
for "In Search of the Constitution." As a result of this series,
I am awakened to a deep appreciation of many ideals vital to our democracy.
I am much moved by the experience of listening at the feet of thoughtful
citizens, justices, and philosophers of substance. All these are people
with whom I will never converse on my own, and I am grateful to you for
having brought these conversations within my sphere. I am aware that I
lack eloquence to express the measure of my heart's gratitude. I can say,
however, that these programs are a landmark among my life's experiences.
Among all the things I must teach my children, a healthy interest in understanding
the Constitution now ranks very prominently. Thank you.
Thousands of letters also poured in following another series based on
Mortimer Adler's book Six Great Ideas. In devoting an hour to each
of the ideas Adler had examined - liberty, justice, equality, truth, beauty,
and goodness - we filmed a spirited debate between the opinionated philosopher
and several educators, business executives, writers, lawyers, poets, and
jurists. Of the letters provoked by the series, here is my favorite:
Dear Dr. Adler: I am writing on behalf of a group of construction workers
(mostly, believe it or not, plumbers!) who have finally found a teacher
worth listening to. While we cannot all agree whether or not we would hire
you as an apprentice, we can all agree that we would love to listen to
you during our lunch breaks. I am sure that it is just due to our well-known
ignorance as tradesmen that not a single one of us had ever heard of you
until one Sunday afternoon when we were watching public television and
Bill Moyers came on with SIX GREAT IDEAS. We listened intensely and soon
became addicted and have been ever since. We never knew a world of ideas
existed. The study of ideas has completely turned around our impression
of education. We only wish we had not wasted 25-35 years in the process.
But we do have you to thank for the next 35-40 years that we have before
us to study and implement the great ideas into our lives and into the lives
of our communities. We have grown to love the ideas behind our country's
composition, and since reading and discussing numerous of your books, we
have all become devout Constitutionalists. We thank you and we applaud
you. We are certain that the praise of a few plumbers could hardly compare
with the notoriety that you deserve from distinguished colleagues but we
salute you just the same. One last thought - we may be plumbers during
the day, but at lunch time and at night and on the weekends, we are Philosophers
at Large. God bless you!
A final example: In 1980, PBS commissioned a series about the political
campaigns. My colleagues and I set out to cover the election with respect
for the whole motion of the race and not just the impassioned moments of
conflict and controversy. Among the outpouring of letters generated by the
series was this one from a man in Colorado:
Your series accomplished the impossible. As a sixties college graduate,
disillusioned Vietnam combat veteran, embittered anti-war author, and indifferent
citizen, I never though I'd see the day when I'd register to vote, much
less enter a voting chamber. But yesterday I registered and November 4,
I'll vote. The series spurred me to again participate in our democracy.
Thanks. It's good to be back.
What these letters suggest is that people want to signify morally and
they want their country to signify morally, too. Vaclav Havel talks about
this when he says there is a need "to inject ideas of spirituality,
mutual understanding, and mutual tolerance into the affairs of state."
Such ideas exposed the hollowness of Marxist shibboleths and forged the
resistance to one-party domination. They kept alive the notion of a participatory
public, of people accountable for their own destiny.
In our own country, I find that three of the most important stories of
our time are emerging in the intersection between the secular and the spiritual,
between God and politics.
One is the attempt to find a new vision for America which has the authority
and power of a religious vision but which is inclusive, not sectarian. Something
is emerging that is not yet articulated in public policy. It is hinted at
in the ecological vision which people talked about once they had seen the
Earth from outer space. But the ecological impulse has not moved yet from
piety to public policy. At its best, religion's great accomplishment has
been to create social bonds based on love and justice and mutual respect
rather than necessity and law. In a society pluralistic and secular, what
gives us now that energizing and organizing vision?
The second story is the groping to rewrite our own history so that we
can tell the truth about America and still be proud of the country. Somewhere
between the righteous right and the critical left is a real country people
can recognize and attempt to improve but which, nonetheless, can provide
the healthy ground for being honest with ourselves.
Also emerging is the question: How can we be properly enthusiastic -
that is, "filled with God" - without denying mind or matter? What
does it mean to be inspired? There is a hunger for a vision; otherwise
Jim and Tammy Baker would not have been so successful, and the revelations
about John F. Kennedy would have destroyed the hold his memory has over
people, and we would not invest so much transcendental significance in a
triumph of overwhelming technology and unchallenged power over a country
no bigger than Texas and with roughly the same number of people, ruled by
a paranoid psychopath who proved to be a coward.
In other words, how is our pride to be justly sustained and our hunger
suitably filled?
The answer, I suggest, exists within our tradition - if only we can recover
it and apply it to our times.
A journalist, I've often said, is a professional beachcomber on the shores
of other people's wisdom. I want to share with you an insight I owe to a
young writer named Michael Ventura, who lives in California:
The dream we must now seek to realize, the new human project, is not
"security," which is impossible to achieve on the planet Earth
in the latter half of the 20th century. It is not "happiness,"
by which we generally mean nothing but giddy forgetfulness about the danger
of all our lives together. It is not "self-realization," by which
people usually mean a separate peace. There is no separate peace ... The
real project is to realize that technology has married us all to each other...that
until we are more courageous about this new marriage - ourselves all intertwined
- there will be no peace and the destination of any of us will be unknown...
Men and women, black, brown, yellow, white, young and old... we must go
wherever it is we are going together. There is no such thing as being alone.
If we are the only one in the room, it is still a crowded room. But we
are all together on this planet, you, me, us: inner, outer, together, and
we're called to affirm our marriage vows. Our project is to learn how to
consummate, how to sustain, how to enjoy this most human marriage - all
parts, all of us.
The party that translates this vision into politics will become the party
of the 21st century.
Citizens And Politics:
The Kettering Report
In 1990 and 1991 the Harwood Group, a small public issues research firm,
convened ten focus groups scattered widely around the US. They then asked
each group's very diverse participants what they thought about politics.
Unlike conventional polling, a focus group study allows participants to
talk with each other about the questions, discuss their views, and describe
what they think and feel in their own words.
The results of this particular study - sponsored by the non-profit Kettering
Foundation and released under the title "Citizens and Politics: A View
from Main Street America" - sent shock waves from the media to the
White House. In short, the Harwood Group reported that Americans were not
at all apathetic about politics and public life. They were simply disgusted.
At issue was conventional political wisdom - e.g., that people don't
care to think about complex policy issues, or that they will pay attention
to news only when it's delivered in quick sound-bites. In practically every
case, citizens turned the cynicism of conventional "wisdom" on
its head.
Is the concept of civic duty dead? Are people no longer willing to dig
into the issues, debate them, make some hard decisions? Would they just
prefer that their elected representatives do the job they were elected to
do (in the course of an entertainingly vitriolic campaign) and leave people
to consume in peace? The answer from study participants was a resounding
"No!"
Citizens, by and large, believe there has been "a hostile takeover
of politics by special interests and lobbyists (along with negative campaigns
and the media)." They care about politics, but they no longer believe
they can have a meaningful impact on the political scene. They look upon
the avenues for input available to them as "window dressings,"
not serious attempts to hear what they have to say.
Perhaps the study's most encouraging finding is that Americans are not
inactive in public life; they have just shifted their activism to areas
where they believe they can make a difference, especially at the community
level. They're joining neighborhood associations, getting involved in schools,
arguing over local government issues. However, they refuse to associate
this activity - or themselves - with politics, which they view as
a corrupt system spiraling out of control.
Americans want to have "a real voice in politics," concludes
the Kettering Report. "The challenge before us today is to reconnect
citizens and politics - to find a place for citizens in the political process."
The message to professional politicos, power brokers and spin doctors from
Main Street Americans is loud and clear: "Move over."
- Alan AtKisson
For a free copy of "Citizens and Politics," contact the
Kettering Foundation at 200 Commons Road, Dayton, OH 45459, Tel. 800/221-3657.
Please support
this web site ... and thanks if you already are!
All contents copyright (c)1991,
1996 by Context Institute
Please send comments to webmaster
Last Updated 29 June 2000.
URL: http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC30/Moyers.htm
Home | Search
| Index of Issues | Table
of Contents
|