Bookmark this page on your mobile

QR Code image

What is this?

Toledo Legal News - Editorial List Table

 

How politics have changed

 

I became active in politics in the late 1950s, got elected to Congress in 1964, and have remained engaged in one way or another every year since then. I’ve had a ringside seat for a long time. So I suppose I should not be surprised that I get asked a lot these days how American politics have changed over the last six decades.

A few things stand out. When I first arrived in Congress, Americans had faith in the institutions of government. President Lyndon Johnson had actually run on a platform that we could successfully wage a war on poverty — and been elected. It seems inconceivable today that a politician of prominence would be so bold and so naïve as to propose such a thing, let alone believe that we could do it.

Today, Americans have little confidence in government’s ability to deliver. And with reason: Congress can’t even pass a budget on time, and even the most routine matters get bottled up. A war successfully waged on anything domestic seems beyond its grasp.

We can argue about when this shift began — was it catalyzed or merely summarized by President Ronald Reagan when he famously said that government is the problem, not the solution? Regardless, the days of LBJ-style confidence are long gone.

The second big difference is the extreme political intensity we see all around us. Almost every facet of politics is more complicated and pursued more vigorously, with a harder edge to it, than when I began.

Voters are more demanding and want instant results. Consultants are everywhere you turn. Lobbyists have multiplied and become immeasurably sophisticated and effective at finding ways to get what they want. Interest groups have exploded in number and competency. The media has become more aggressive. And money, of course, has become an avalanche.

Politics has shifted from low-intensity conflict to big business — and very serious business, at that.

With all this, of course, the sharp polarization that marks our politics today has flourished. We’ve always had partisanship, but today it penetrates everything: the electorate, the political parties, legislatures, Congress, and the White House.

Which has led to one of the greater ironies of this era. On the one hand, the political world is flooded with information — it used to be that one of the chief tasks of a politician and policy-maker was to gather information; today your problem is sorting through it. On the other hand, in this atmosphere deliberations are often based less on facts, experts and evidence than on partisan beliefs. In a sea of information, we’re drowning in misinformation.

Finally, the audience for politics has changed. When you spoke to the Rotary Club in southern Indiana in the 1960s, you were speaking to Rotary members in southern Indiana. Today, you could very well be speaking to the world. Whatever you say can become available everywhere in a matter of hours, if not minutes. Newsworthy events and statements that once took days to stoke a reaction today get an instantaneous — and often hot-blooded — response.

This has all made the work of politics and governing much more difficult. Organizations intensively scrutinize every tiny step, and can gin up a massive response at a moment’s notice. The basic building blocks of politics — gathering facts, deliberating on next steps, finding common ground — have become charged in their own right, subject to partisan attack. Bridging our divisions over health care, taxation, immigration, the debt and deficits, and U.S. intervention abroad seems ever more elusive. Plain and simple, it’s become harder to make the country work.

When I began in politics, elected officials felt a responsibility to find their way through difficult problems together. They believed that compromise and negotiation were core political values, intrinsic to our democracy and crucial to making it work for everyone. There are still plenty of politicians who believe this — but also plenty who do not, who have shown they can thrive in a political environment that stacks the deck against the shared work of finding common ground.

We’ve come a long way as a country over the last six decades. But when it comes to politics as a democratic endeavor to address the nation’s challenges? We’ve lost ground.

Lee Hamilton is a Senior Advisor for the Indiana University Center on Representative Government; a Distinguished Scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies; and a Professor of Practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Lee Hamilton, Center on Representative Government

In the religious liberty world, dialogue is not fluffy — it is essential

 

Religious freedom in today’s world is synonymous with controversy. Debates rage around the country on issues that touch our deepest beliefs: abortion, adoption, vaccinations, war memorials, equity and identity.

Families and communities are torn apart waiting for courts to sort out the fine and complicated lines between basic human rights and religious liberty. After waiting months if not years for court decisions, communities discover that legal rulings don’t have the power to heal fractured communities.

This part of our American story is as old and real as when the first settlers arrived on our shores, but the intensity today feels somehow different. Surely by 2019 we Americans have learned to live together despite our deepest differences!

The stark reality is that, no, we haven’t. According to several watchdog organizations and the FBI, religious intolerance and religion-based hate crimes are on the rise; bullying in schools continues to threaten the well-being of our children.

Religious leaders and educators share similar stories — we just aren’t equipped to deal with the controversy and division we are experiencing in our classrooms and communities. There is an urgency to do something, coupled with a sense of exhaustion that all we have been doing is simply not working.

Complex issues call for complex solutions. Civil dialogue is not the solution, but it needs to be an integral part.

Over the last 10 years, organizations have emerged to provide resources, training and opportunities for dialogue: Living Room Conversations, Difficult Dialogues National Resource Center, National Institute for Civil Discourse, Generation Global and the Religious Freedom Center are just a few committed to restoring civility and creating intentional spaces for difficult conversations while promoting pluralism and understanding across differences.

It is easy to dismiss the value of this work. Someone once described such efforts to me as fluffy. Make no mistake — there is nothing fluffy about dialogue or understanding our differences. Such work takes commitment, constant practice and the courage to stay engaged when things get heated.

Any person can engage in informal dialogue by learning the basic skills and finding opportunities to practice them at home, at work, with friends, neighbors and family. Formal dialogue is usually a series of dialogue sessions led by a trained teacher.

I’ve met a lot of people who don’t really understand the purpose of dialogue. At the most basic level, it means to seek understanding through words. The purpose of engagement is to learn as much as you can about each other — to share stories, beliefs and perspectives about an issue. It is a space where you can explore an issue from many different sides, so you come to understand the meaning and significance of that issue to each person in the discussion. Dialogue is a place for curiosity — a place where you can ask questions about and explore a perspective with which you completely disagree. It is a space where you can disagree and yet stay engaged.

Dialogue is not debate, deliberation, mediation, conflict resolution or problem solving. Its value often is overlooked in favor of rushing to solve a problem or dismissed because people don’t wish to engage with different beliefs, values or perspectives.

As a dialogue practitioner, I’ve had opportunity to train thousands of educators, religious and civic leaders. As the religious liberty debates rage around us, as we watch our schools, communities and places of worship become places of controversy and division, as we find ourselves caught in situations that challenge our deepest beliefs, I can attest that dialogue works. I’ve seen it transform classrooms and community groups.

I’ve seen educators, community and religious leaders become more confident in helping their students, congregations and communities navigate difficult issues. I’ve heard young people find their voices and become more confident talking about what is meaningful and significant in their lives. I’ve seen prejudice challenged, pain shared and unlikely friendships forged.

We should give it a try.

Kristen Farrington is the executive director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Freedom Forum Institute

Kristen Farrington, Freedom Forum Institute

Letters will appear in both the paper and the web site.

	Toledo Legal News
	247 Gradolph St.
	Toledo, OH  43612
	U.S.A.
	Work: 419-470-8600
	Fax: 419-470-8602
	email: 
	Web:www.toledolegalnews.com

Mailing Address

	P.O.Box 6816
	Toledo, OH  43612
	U.S.A.

or emailed to tlnmain@sbcglobal.net

Toledo Legal News reserves the right to publish, edit for accuracy, brevity or clarity.