THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, August 18, 1996 TAG: 9608160708
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY TONY WHARTON, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: 129 lines
The politicians and the party faithful are squeezing by the thousands into packed convention halls in San Diego and Chicago this month. They're busy figuring out how Americans can be divided into manageable chunks that will either be delivered to the polls or kept home.
The language is already spinning into rhetoric about abortion, taxes, welfare and family values. The ads are hatching.
But there is another convention taking place in homes, schools, churches and community centers across the nation.
The delegates often don't identify with either party. They think of themselves as mothers, fathers, teachers and neighbors before they think of themselves as ``Republicans'' or ``Democrats.''
Sometimes they talk about the same issues as the politicians. It is how they talk about them that matters.
``People think about issues differently than issues are often presented on the national scene,'' said John Doble, a public opinion researcher who studied citizen deliberation for the National Issues Forums Institute. ``The public is not ideological.''
Many, but not all, of these gatherings are organized under the auspices of the National Issues Forums, a project of the Kettering Foundation in Dayton, Ohio. The NIF provides briefing materials and discussion guides on the issues to help people participate.
David Mathews, president of the NIF and Kettering, estimates that 5,000 organizations across the country sponsor the discussions. He describes them as ``public deliberations of the kind you find in a good jury.''
The discussions are not held to produce polls, or satisfy marketing studies, or even necessarily to find solutions. They are held so people can think and talk together about their concerns.
``There's a widespread belief that Americans are apathetic, that they're turned off about politics,'' Doble said. ``What we've found is that this is just not true. There is a hunger to be engaged, to grapple with these issues, a hunger for greater understanding.''
The willingness of Americans to tackle complex issues and to deal with them in all their complexity may be one of the most refreshing aspects of the National Issues Forums' account of these discussions.
``People aren't sitting around in these forums looking for magic solutions to the nation's problems,'' said Yvonne Sims of Grand Rapids, Mich., a professionally trained moderator who ran some of the discussions. ``That's a fool's game.''
In fact, one of the complaints voiced most often by citizens was that politicians treat the problems too simplistically.
``People were deeply frustrated by the way politicians approached these issues,'' Mathews said. ``What they hear on the campaign trail is one solution, politicians come up with a solution and try to sell that solution.''
Instead of surrendering their power to those politicians, many of them meeting this month in Chicago and San Diego, participants wanted to make a difference.
``Folks come to these forums venting frustration and powerlessness, but they aren't apathetic,'' said Hofstra University professor Mike D'Innocenzo, one of the moderators. ``As they work through the issues, there is an eagerness to take on their responsibilities as citizens.''
Although the number of people taking part in such conversations nationwide is countless, probably several hundred participated in the particular discussions observed by Doble and his staff, mostly held in the latter part of 1995 and early 1996. They talked about their concerns in three general areas.
The American family is the one thing that people most wanted to talk about, and that they most often came back to, Doble and others said.
Participants generally saw the family as under tremendous stress in our culture.
Doble said they identified four trends:
Many mothers are working and are not home with their children. No one wanted to ``turn back the clock'' and somehow force women to stay home, but they were nonetheless concerned about the phenomenon.
The ease with which we move to different cities to pursue careers or other interests has weakened family and community ties. Again, that doesn't mean they want everyone to stay in the same town, but they worry about the consequences.
The tax system provides fewer benefits than ever for families with children.
External forces, such as drugs, gangs, and sex and violence in the media, are more difficult than ever for families to deal with.
How did people want to deal with these issues? Environmentalists would recognize the philosophy that emerged: ``Think globally, act locally.''
Personal responsibility was a key value, Sims said.
``There is a role for government, but people have to take responsibility,'' she said. ``Lots of people don't do anything because they don't feel like they can do very much.
``So the question became, how can they do a little and make it collectively a lot? How do we pool our time and resources?''
Pressures on the pocketbook are related to concerns about the family because it's another kind of stress: Parents who have to work two jobs or more have less time with their children. But this discussion also moved into larger questions about the economy.
Participants were worried that the middle class is shrinking, or losing its economic vitality. As the economy shifts from manufacturing to services - in other words, from making cars to making burgers or making beds - people fear it's harder to get a ``good job,'' one that will support a family, buy a house, pay for college educations, etc.
This discussion of jobs and the economy revealed a deep difference of opinion among Americans, he said.
Older, middle-class Americans, particularly white men, tended to say that these economic problems were the result of an eroding work ethic plus the normal bumps and bounces of the free market. They point to the successes of some immigrants, particularly Asian-Americans, as examples that you can still get ahead.
Younger Americans, particularly women and minorities, argued the other view: that the ``rules have changed'' and the idyllic post-World War II economy imagined by some people doesn't exist anymore. They cite the numerous layoffs, even of middle managers, and wage stagnation.
America's role in the world, the third topic most often discussed, is complicated but probably less anxiety-producing for most participants.
Doble said Americans discussing this issue instinctively felt that the country may sometimes spend time and resources on problems in other countries that ought to be spent at home.
While people typically believe we spend more on foreign aid than we actually do - it's about 1 percent of the U.S. budget - their basic point was that the end of the Cold War represents an opportunity for us to re-focus on domestic problems.
They were not advocating isolationism, however, Doble said: ``They rejected America withdrawing from world affairs.''
People said America should be involved around the world if its vital interests are at stake. The trick is figuring out how ``vital interest'' is defined.
Generally, people cited economic factors, international stability, preservation of international law and alleviation of suffering as worthwhile motives.
KEYWORDS: PUBLIC JOURNALISM COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS by CNB