Civic Professionals

Those of us working in the field of civic engagement are increasingly drawn to an idea called "civic professionalism" that has been particularly well articulated by a philosopher named William Sullivan, one of the co-authors of both Habits of the Heart and The Good Society. Civic professionalism, which Sullivan explores most extensively in his book Work and Integrity, can be a rather elusive term and concept. One simple way to understand it might be the responsibility that any member of a profession has to learn from and add to the knowledge, skills, and values that constitute a profession's community of practice, and then to use what is gained to contribute to the overall public good. 

Just to be clear, this definition suggests there might be four stages to becoming a civic professional. First are the pre-professional educational experiences where we acquire the general knowledge, skills and sensibilities that allow us to become better thinkers, more skillful inquirers, and more well-rounded and understanding human beings.  Second is the somewhat narrower learning where novices acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions held by seasoned professionals about what it means to conduct oneself thoughtfully, skillfully, and ethically in that particular profession. From this perspective, it isn't enough to be a knowledgable and skillful practitioner. You are also expected to gain a perspective on the professional that is moral, that offers an account of what it means to treat clients and co-workers respectfully and compassionately. Third, one accepts the responsibility to become a leader in the profession by continuing to improve that community of practice and by actively inducting new members into the profession, again keeping in mind that knowledge and skills aren't enough. There is also a professional ethic that must be given its due.  These first three stages are part of what it means to be a good citizen of the profession. 

The fourth stage, which requires considerable "fleshing out" by both Sullivan and myself and others, invites experienced professionals to use their expertise to promote community betterment, and may even oblige them to be open to what can be learned from outsiders who have made use of the services that professionals provide. That is, civic professionals who are, say, doctors, contribute their expertise to solving social problems that have a medical dimension, but they also remain open to what patients and other observers of the health system can share about making the profession of medicine even more effective, humane, and inclusive for everyone's sake.

One of the attractions of civic professional is that it encourages more of us to think about how we might enact our civic responsibilities, perhaps not primarily in the public sphere through some form of community service, but definitely within one's profession or vocation. Even if a person only reaches the third stage of civic professionalism, there is still a significant role for that person to play in practicing the habits of a good citizen, which may contribute significantly to that profession's ability to be responsive to society's needs. Civic professionalism also carries important implications for how we educate people for highly responsible vocations. Gaining a sense of how that profession has developed over time, what that profession contributes to the public good, and how practitioners can continue to ensure that the profession's overall impact is benign might be important additions to professional education that could even begin in the pre-professional courses that make up general education. 

In any case, civic professionalism, rightly understood, is something we all can get behind because of its potential to help all of us as individuals become more effective practitioners, even as we also focus on how our professions are contributing to the general welfare.

SNAP Data

Courtesy of today's Wall Street Journal, a few statistics about SNAP or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Formerly known as Food Stamps.

Throughout the U.S., 47,791,996 people are on SNAP, which is 15% of the population.

In New York State, 16% of the population are on SNAP.

In New Jersey, 10% of the population are on SNAP.

In Mississippi, 23% of the population are on SNAP.

In North Dakota, 8% of the population are on SNAP.

In California, 11% of the population are on SNAP.

In Louisiana, 21% of the population are on SNAP.

In 2012, about 75 billion dollars was spent on SNAP.

In 2007, about 30 billion dollars was spent on SNAP.

The average monthly benefit for SNAP nationally in 2012 was $133 a month or about $4.43 a day.

Roughly 45% of all SNAP recipients are children.

Without SNAP, tens of millions of Americans would be significantly undernourished, reducing their ability to concentrate, work well, or learn.

With SNAP, many Americans are still more undernourished than they should be, but most have enough to eat in order to concentrate, work well, and learn.

SNAP works. Please support the full funding of SNAP.

The Future

“Same-sex marriage is very new,” Justice Samuel Alito recently observed during the Supreme Court hearings regarding the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans. The Associate Justice further noted that “It may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing. But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet? I mean, we do not have the ability to see the future.”

Mr. Alito is certainly right. Neither he nor the rest of the Supreme Court have the ability to see into the future.  Which affirms that any case requiring the Court to take into account the future impact of their decision should not be heard. Unfortunately or fortunately, we can't be sure because of our own inability to foretell the future, that pretty much rules out all cases. After all, every decision will have a future impact that cannot be entirely predicted. 

So using Mr. Alito's logic, the Supreme Court shouldn't be making any decisions at all, which, you have to be admit, will do a lot to lighten their workload. Furthermore, this will give them more freedom to give speeches and make thought-provoking remarks, like the one Justice Scalia offered in December about same-sex marriage:

“If we cannot have moral feeling against homosexuality, can we have it against murder?”

Consider the profundity of this statement. Isn't it powerful? Isn't it full of indisputable logic? Aren't we lucky to have such a powerhouse sitting on our nation's highest court? After all, Justice Scalia is one of the great legal minds of the 21st century, and this statement is certainly further evidence of this. With the Supreme Court freed from making decisions, he can devote all of his time to offering up these intellectually tantalizing tidbits. What a treat for the nation!

Constructivism - What it isn't and What it is

Progressive educators like to talk a lot about a theory of learning called constructivism. It is noteworthy that it is seen as a theory of learning, as opposed to a theory of teaching, for constructivism contends that our understanding of content goes deeper when learners actively work with that content to make sense of it. Constructivism is the process of using the knowledge and experience we have accumulated to clarify what we understand, to build on those understandings and then to use what is learned to adapt more successfully to our environment. Constructivism demands that we begin with sound, accurate knowledge as a basis for creating new knowledge. It is not a philosophy that claims any answer is as good as any other. By the way, here is how one aspiring teacher defined constructivism. This is a particularly fine example of what constructivism is NOT:

"I am very anxious to return to my classroom and teach science. Constructivism has taught me [that] I do not need to know any science in order to teach it. I will simply allow my students to figure things out for themselves, for I know there is no right answer."

In how many different ways does this statement misinterpret constructivism? First, you need to know a lot of science to teach it in a constructivist manner. Learning in this way requires solid, verifiable foundational knowledge (that might come from a reading, lecture, or video) that can be developed further through discussion, experimentation, or creative exploration. Second, the students don't just figure things out for themselves. They ask analytical questions, they employ some sort of scientific method, or they use a structured process for probing more deeply into the material. Third, there may not be a single right answer, but there are plenty of wrong answers, and usually only a handful of right answers that are supported by evidence, logic, or past experience.

Let me just say for emphasis that constructivism does not rule out using materials that are didactic, such as lectures, readings or demonstrations. Although these traditional methods are not emphasized under constructivism, they are often a necessary aspect of a truly worthwhile constructivist learning experience.

Constructivism, then, is an exciting, hands-on approach to making sense of the world. But at its best it is content-rich, rigorous, evidence-based, demanding, and highly collaborative. 

High Impact

We just returned from a brief meeting with the Bonner Foundation centered on what they call "High Impact Practices" for supporting students in becoming civically engaged individuals. Such practices include having students become members of learning communities where community involvement is emphasized and a structured process for reflecting on that involvement is included. When students go into communities and do something to help the residents of those communities, then spend time assessing the value of these experiences, and then attempt to write up how these experiences have shaped them, they are engaging in high impact practices that tend to make them more likely to develop the habits of active citizenship. Even more important, when they can observe the results of this involvement and how it leads to healthier, more empowered communities, they are learning first-hand what it means to benefit from high impact educational practices. All of this is in keeping with the Bonner Foundation's mission to encourage students to engage in community service and become civically involved in order to help communities everywhere more effectively address the social and economic challenges that face them.

Karen and I went to this meeting to plan for a High Impact Summer Institute which would have teams of colleges, including Wagner, decide on projects that would lead to college-community collaborations designed to directly tackle real challenges facing those communities. Prior to the Institute, Wagner will need to identify two administrators, two faculty, two students, and two community partners who will make up the leadership team and help to decide on projects that are likely to bring about change on issues that matter. 

We are excited to move forward, both to help students develop the habit of democratic citizenship and to help communities make new progress in dealing with some of their most daunting challenges.

Debating 4 Democracy

I just got back from the annual Debating 4 Democracy Conference that is the signature event of a group called Project Pericles, a consortium of 29 colleges from around the country, dedicated to promoting civic engagement and positive social change through Discussion, Deliberation, Debate, and active Democracy (Note the 4 Ds).

I found it to be a stimulating day and a half, almost entirely for two reasons. First, the panelists, most of whom are activists and leaders in non-profit organizations that attempt to promote the public good, were unflaggingly stimulating and inspiring. Second, because the students representing these 29 colleges from places like Bates and Pitzer and Macalester and Carleton and Wagner and the New School were all so well informed and so deeply engaged by the issues being discussed. Being at such an event where everyone is excited to talk through important issues really can restore your faith in the future of democracy.

Which is partly the point. The goal is to gather to talk about hard social issues, but to exchange ideas in a way that is respectful and yet passionate. To hear people out patiently and eagerly and to offer your own views, when it is appropriate to do so, with vigor and conviction. To my amazement, the entire conference was conducted in this manner. Not a single exchange deviated from the expectation to be both passionate and restrained, simultaneously committed and yet open to a different perspective.

Here is a sampling of backgrounds of speakers represented at the conference:

• The founder of the website Idealist, which connects potential employees and volunteers to non-profit organizations. 
• The COO of All Out, which is an alliance of straight, gay, lesbian, bi and trans people, fighting for full equality for people with unconventional sexual orientations. 
• One of the people, who in collaboration with activist Bill McKibben, launched 350.org to draw attention to unsustainably high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
• An attorney in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program who focuses especially on the investigation of cases of voter suppression.
• A founder of Community Voices Heard, a non-profit which grew out of concerns that so-called welfare mothers were being unfairly stereotyped and that it was important to hear their stories directly.
• A reporter for the Huffington Post who has written widely about immigration and race and their impact on recent elections.

What unites all these amazing people is a commitment to an important cause and a desire to do whatever it takes to see to it that their particular cause gets the attention it deserves. Without exception, they were articulate, engaged, hopeful people eager to share what they have learned with the Periclean students.

This experience, paired with a number of others I have had recently, is persuading me that our students at Wagner need to know more about the political process and how to advocate for an issue that matters to them. I hope to play a role in helping to make political advocacy (as opposed to direct service in the community) a much larger part of the civic engagement experience at Wagner.

Meals on Wheels of Staten Island

Today I attended a special tribute to Meals on Wheels of Staten Island, one of the many thousands of programs that make up the Meals on Wheels Association of America, which serves over a million meals a day to senior citizens all over the country. Meals on Wheels is not only known for making hot meals available to the elderly, it is also known for providing older people with consistent companionship and regular medical check-ups that help to ensure their continuing well being. It is one of those organizations that most of us take for granted, but that do a tremendous amount of good and spread a great deal of good will.

Joe Tornello, the CEO and President of Staten Island's Meals on Wheels, who is also a partner of Wagner College, spoke eloquently at the Borough President's Office about the role his organization has played over the last 40 years in reducing isolation and supporting good nutrition for the elderly. As Tornello pointed out, Meals on Wheels is more than a meals program, as important as that is. It could more accurately be characterized as "a daily visiting program that brings food."

On Staten Island, Meals on Wheels relies on 400 volunteers who make 1000 home visits daily. For the 1000 households they serve, they are a veritable lifeline. It is an honor for Wagner College to be associated with Meals on Wheels. We hope to continue to work closely with them and to do even more in the future to advance their all-important goals of improving the quality of life of the elderly on Staten Island.

About my brother, John Preskill

I have spent the last few days in Southern California, near Cal Tech in Pasadena, where I participated in a 60th birthday celebration of the life and work of John Preskill, my brother, the Richard P. Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cal Tech. Most of the celebration involved a series of highly technical papers detailing the influence of John on various physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists. But the dinner that a number of his family members, including me, attended was lighthearted and fun, accessible to even the most scientifically-challenged observer. The highlight at least for us family members was the singing of Johnny P, Johnny P., Johnny P., Johnny P to the tune of the Beatles' "Let It Be." This song was led, incidentally, by John's wonderful and creative daughter, Micaela. We, naturally, added many funny and appropriate verses to personalize the song for our beloved Johnny P. Mine were about the endless games of baseball that John and I used to play on my family's front lawn.

But this is all by way of preface. I feel the need to write about John because he offers us lessons of what it means to be a good citizen, both as a professional and as a member in good standing of his community. He is an exemplar, one who has much to teach us about citizenship in a democratic society.

What makes John such a good citizen? A number of things that include his integrity, his unimpeachable honesty about what he knows and what he doesn't and what he needs to do to learn more. And his incredible self-discipline. All of these are related. He works and works until he is clear about an idea or a theory. And he keeps asking questions of others so that he can make sense of what they are saying. Because of his vast scientific knowledge, others may see such questioning as intimidating, but it is not meant to humiliate anyone or to tear them down. It is simply his way of learning from others, of getting the most out of what they have to offer.

Similarly, throughout the 2 and a half days in which John was being celebrated through papers and conference presentations, he could never completely disengage from what was happening. He wanted to be a good honoree. So he listened and absorbed and thought deeply about what people had to say about his work, because he wanted to understand what they were claiming and wanted to be able to respond respectfully and knowledgeably. It takes effort to do this. You have to give your full, uninterrupted attention to such presentations and when you get home it's not easy to forget it and to get a good night's sleep. Of course, John enjoyed the acclaim he received from this celebration, but I think it took its toll on him, too, because he sought to be so utterly present.

Similarly, democracy is hard work. Giving full attention to others is difficult, especially over a long period. But it is worth it, both in terms of the respect that is returned to us and in terms of what we are able to learn. I am reminded here of what Robert Bellah and his associates said about democracy in the final chapter of their book "The Good Society." They said "Democracy Means Paying Attention."

John is a man of integrity. If he agrees to be part of something or to contribute to something, he cannot hold back or give it anything less than his full and undivided effort. He is either all in or not in at all. But such a commitment takes time and energy and can even sap the human spirit.  During this weekend, I wondered about the challenge of paying such close attention and doubted that I could sustain such attention in the same way. It seems to be part of John's nature to maintain complete presence, to remain fully a part of what is happening around him. He, and others who strive to be like him, give this full and undivided effort, even when it enervates them, because they know it is right and because of the long-term benefits that accrue from such behavior.

This insistence that one be fully a part of whatever one commits to has, without question, greatly contributed to John's success as a physicist and as a citizen. It is this quality of his that I believe I admire most and that has the potential, more than any other, to help make our democratic communities more humane and transformative.

What Kind of Citizen?

"What Kind of Citizen?" is the title of an article written by Joel Westheimer and Joseph Kahne back in 2004 for the American Educational Research Journal which attempts to capture "the spectrum of ideas about what good citizenship is and what good citizens do..." After studying ten programs designed to teach civics, they settled on three conceptions of citizenship that they believe reflect the broad range of approaches they encountered. Before I go on to briefly summarize these approaches, I want to thank Kevin Farrell, a Wagner College student, for bringing this article to my attention.

The authors label the first of the conceptions "The Personally Responsible Citizen." This is the person who feels an obligation to contribute to her or his community in a variety of ways. It tends to be a strongly service-oriented conception and one that sees the individual, not the community, as the primary level of responsibility. People who subscribe ONLY to this view might, for instance, be angered by the notion popularized by Hillary Rodham Clinton that it takes a village to raise a child. They would claim that such a view is too oriented toward collectivism.

The second conception is referred to as "The Participatory Citizen." This person takes their contributions to the next level by working with others in a coordinated and organized way to bring about change and to ease social problems. This person probably does agree with the idea that "it takes a village," but is not necessarily offering a serious critique of the origins of the social problems she or he is attempting to alleviate.

The third conception is the "Justice Oriented Citizen." This is the person, as the authors say, who "calls explicit attention to matters of injustice and to the importance of pursuing social justice goals...and considers collective strategies for change that challenge injustice and, when possible, address root causes of problems." This conception demands that citizens think critically about social issues and that they commit to developing an analysis of issues that can be translated into concerted action. Whereas a person representing the first conception might contribute food to a food bank, and the second might organize the food drive, the justice oriented person is tracking down the causes of hunger and acting on what is learned.

The lesson of outlining these three approaches is not so much to reject one in favor of another, but to be aware of all of them and to think and act in such a way that all of the conceptions can be acted on simultaneously without conflict or contradiction. In other words, there is nothing wrong with direct service, as long as it doesn't stop there. Similarly, taking the time and effort to engage in a critique of social problems should not prevent us from taking action in the present to alleviate the suffering of people right now. All three have value and all three need to be practiced in a consistent and disciplined way.

Still, it is true the conceptions one and two are far more likely to be adopted than conception three. In order to guard against this tendency, we should make a special effort to focus on exploring the roots of social problems and to developing possible solutions to solving those problems that attempt to bring about change at the systemic level.

Sandy Stories

It was a great privilege today to visit St. Charles School, which is a K-8 private, Catholic school greatly affected by Superstorm Sandy. A number of us from Wagner College spoke to students about their experiences during the storm and how their families coped with the stress of seeing many of their homes inundated by flood waters. The students, who ranged from grade 4 to grade 8, spoke powerfully and honestly about what they went through. Many stayed in their homes until they absolutely had to evacuate because of the overwhelming tide. Others were able to stay in their homes, despite losing power for many days. Interestingly, the students seemed to learn new ways to amuse themselves that did not depend on the availability of electricity. Board games and simple conversation took on new importance for many of these kids. 

But they also spoke forthrightly and bravely about people who were lost to the storm and about their own fears that their families could not possibly compete with mother nature. They witnessed the power of the water and gained new respect for its unyielding force.

These children, ages 9 to 13, seemed to be learning how unforgiving nature could be and how important it was to be cautious when danger threatened. Most important, we heard many of them speak of their own good fortune and how proud they were of their Staten Island neighbors who seemed to come together in a crisis to help one another. They spoke of a sense of community, of people coming to one another's aid, in part because they had no other choice, and, in part, because it was, without question, the right thing to do.

A Place at the Table

I saw the new documentary film about hunger called "A Place at the Table" again, and I must say I found it to be better the second time. Here are a few of the things it gets right.

• Emergency food, as provided in food pantries and soup kitchens, is necessary, but it can never solve the problem of hunger in America
• The U.S. came very close to ending the problem of hunger in the late 1970s
• Hunger was successfully addressed then and can be again now through legislative action that includes generous provisions for food stamps (SNAP) and other supplemental nutrition programs and increases in the minimum wage
• The best way to persuade legislators that fighting hunger is important is to expose them to the real experts on hunger - the hungry themselves - through programs like "Witnesses to Hunger"
• Programs like WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) that provide nutrition assistance and nutrition education to women and children are vital and should be increased, not cut
• SNAP-Ed, or nutrition education funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, works to help children and families make more nutritious food selections
• Healthy food - fruits and vegetables - must be subsidized to the same degree as wheat, corn, soy, etc. so that poor people can have ready access to food that is good for them

Girl Rising

Karen and I were actually pretty appalled by a documentary film we saw last night that we had high hopes for. It is called "Girl Rising" and it concerns the need for all of us to commit ourselves to educating women around the world.

Why appalled? Because the answer to this problem of educating women seemed to be, according to the documentary, for all the women in the world to try harder, to be persistent, to defy authorities, and good things will happen. In other words, it is a hopelessly simplistic account of what needs to be done that omits all the complex economic, cultural, and religious forces that are preventing women from getting educated.

The film focuses on 7 or 8 girls around the world and their struggles to get an education. There are a lot reasons why having access to a good education is a daunting goal, including prejudices against educating girls, challenging economic circumstances, sheer apathy, and surprising ignorance about the benefits of securing education for women. But this film barely touches on these, and uses an exasperatingly arty approach that lengthens the film and limits its entertainment value. Most of all, we learn little about what is happening around the world to advance education for women. The film is so myopically mired in the individual lives of a few girls that we just can't get any sort of larger perspective on the subject. And somehow even the mini-portraits of these individual girls are surprsingly dull and drawn out.

This should have been a great film about an incredibly important subject, perhaps the biggest challenge currently facing the global community. But for enlightenment and understanding and even inspiration, don't turn to "Girl Rising." You will be frustrated and deeply disappointed.

Hunger Troubles

While attending the Anti-Hunger national conference in Washington, D.C. recently, I had the unusual opportunity to sit in on a discussion among leading anti-hunger advocates about the speed and direction of social change in the hunger movement.

I was told to go to an evening meeting on the 12th floor of the Washington Hilton and when I got there at about 8, there were probably 40 people gathered in a circle talking informally in a very large hotel suite that took up a good part of the 12th floor. Many of them were sipping glasses of wine and chomping on cheese and crackers and a variety of pretty fancy desserts. I was directed to help myself to wine; there seemed to be no limit to how much one could pour. And then not long afterwards the meeting was called to order by a food bank director from Texas.

Of the 40 people in that room, a handful of us were volunteers for the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. All the rest were paid employees of some non-profit or another working to defeat hunger in America. Some of these professionals worked for advocacy groups; others worked for food emergency programs such as food pantries or soup kitchens. Some were affiliated with national organizations such as FRAC (Food Research and Action Center) or Feeding America (more or less focused on getting food directly to people who need it). While others were linked to local and regional organizations such as the New York City Coalition or New York State's Hunger Action Network. In the discussion, these lines of difference seemed to matter a lot.

It was a heated discussion, but it was often difficult to tell exactly what the basis for the differences was. As time went on, I perceived tension between those who were part of national groups and those who were part of regional and local groups, and those who were primarily advocates for more generous allocations for SNAP and WIC and those who primarily wanted to ensure that the coffers of food banks were well supplied through federal and state funding.

In the end, though, I think it's fair to say that one of the directors of a regional group was particularly disappointed in the lack of leadership provided by nationals like FRAC, and that therefore urban-based organizations, like his, would have to step up. The nationals, for their part, feared what they saw as this person's overly aggressive and self-absorbed spearheading of a new movement that would alienate potential supporters. This urban-based leader implied that, in fact, his goal was to end hunger, pure and simple, and that too many of his colleagues at the national level were overly cautious, more concerned about maintaining their positions than doing what was right.

I'm honestly unsure whether I have captured these tensions accurately. But it was pretty damn interesting and quite heady to witness these conflicts in a movement that could spell the difference between hunger and well being for about 50 million people in America.

Hunger in America

The visit to Capitol Hill on Tuesday with the group from the New York City Coalition Against Hunger (NYCCAH) was a memorable experience.

We visited the congressional offices of 7 New York City representatives, most of whom are quite progressive and eager to support maintaining full funding for anti-hunger programs such as SNAP-Food Stamps (Suppmental Nutrition Assistance Program) and WIC (Women, Infants and Children nutritional assistance programs). WIC, in particular, is under assault as a result of the sequester. Some 600,000 women and children are losing access to nutritious food and nutrition counseling through WIC as a result of the automatic cuts linked to sequestration.

Unfortunately, we were not able to meet with the representatives themselves, but their aides were knowledgeable and receptive. The offices visited included Representative Rangel's of Harlem, Nadler from the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and Michael Grimm on Staten Island and parts of Brooklyn. Grimm is an especially important target, as he is a Republican and tends not to be as supportive of issues relating to poverty and hunger.

On the whole, I was impressed with the dedication and commitment of these staffers. And I was proud to make these visits with members of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger. All these activists are really seeking is simple justice for the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who can't be certain where their next meal is coming from.

National Anti-Hunger Policy Conference

I am here today in Washington, D.C. at the national conference of people affiliated with the anti-hunger movement, either as advocates, food bank and food pantry managers, or as directors of school-based and day care focused meal programs. The conference attracts people from three national groups. One is FRAC (Food Research Action Center), focused primarily on advocacy and the promotion of such federal programs as SNAP (Food Stamps) and WIC (Nutrition Assistance for Women, Infants and Children). Another national program is called Feeding America, which bills itself as America's leading hunger relief charity program. The last is CACFP (Child and Adult Care Food Program), another national program dedicated to making meals available in day care centers, after school programs, and through adult day care providers.

All of these groups work closely with USDA or the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers most of the programs that fund, supply, or advance the goals of these groups.

I am here as a representative of NYCCAH (New York City Coalition Against Hunger). We do advocacy and thus are most closely tied to FRAC.

One of the sessions I went to today, entitled Resonating in Red States, put forward strategies for persuading conservatives why anti-hunger programs have value and should be funded. We were urged in this presentation to find common ground with conservatives and to advocate from that common group position. For instance, one suggestion to encourage conservatives was to speak in terms of SNAP and WIC helping people to get on the path to independence and self-sufficiency, a goal we all seek. Another proposal was to stress the needs of children and the return on investment that results when children receive the nutrition they need to focus, stay on task and to learn well in school.

This emphasis on finding common ground seemed especially attractive to me. It is a strategy I am planning to develop further in future posts.

National Anti-Hunger Policy Conference

Today I head to Washington, D.C. to attend the National Anti-Hunger Policy Conference. I expect to see thousands of people from around the country engaged in advocacy for poor and hungry people. The conference is designed to encourage these advocates to share and network their best anti-hunger advocacy strategies.  Most should leave the conference with a handful of new, more creative and effective strategies for persuading legislators and other policy makers that protecting people from experiencing the scourge of hunger must become a national priority.

The conference culminates with a visit to Capitol Hill and an opportunity to speak to legislators and their staffs about the urgency of maintaining full funding for SNAP (Food Stamps), WIC (Nutritional Assistance for Women, Infants, and Children), and SNAP-Ed (Educational Programs for Promoting Good Nutrition), and other such programs that support sustainable and nutritious diets for everyone.

My next few posts will focus on my experiences at this conference.

Commitment and Conciliation

The tension between political commitment and political conciliation is much on my mind these days. I find myself listening respectfully and sensitively to those who say we must express our opinions powerfully without going overboard and thereby putting off those holding opposing views. 

The new film "A Place at the Table" is a case in point. It's a pretty good film about the hunger crisis, and the scandalous fact that 50 million people in this country are unsure where their next meal is going to come from. But it is also a bit tepid, apparently out of fear of offending those who don't quite see it this way.

Another example once again comes from today's New York Times. Two incredibly well meaning people with strong backgrounds in advertising are organizing a campaign to curtail gun violence. At one point, they reject using an advertisement that cites data indicating that a gun in the house is 22 times more likely to be turned on an innocent person than to provide protection against an aggressor. Why do they reject this spot? "Too hectoring," and thus too alienating.

And, I suppose, we have the example of the President of the United States, who is often referred to as uncompromising, but who, in my view, seems to be constantly resorting to compromises and conciliations.  Which leaves us with questions as to how effective all this compromising and conciliating actually is.

My inclination is to move forward with fewer compromises, especially for things as urgent as hunger, gun violence, and universal pre-kindergarten. There have to be priorities. And, not surprisingly, these are some of mine. We need to stand for a few things that are unquestionably right, and then fight for those things without deprecating or making fun of opponents, but with a clear sense that what we demand aren't frills or desirable options, but absolutely necessary for our collective flourishing.

Politics Over Public Good

Reading the New York Times today, I was again struck by a relatively conservative economist and, as it happens, Federal Reserve Chair, Ben Bernanke, who is quoted as asserting that deficit spending is the wisest course of action given our current economic conditions. The drumbeat for deficit spending is so strong right now from both the left and the right, I am increasingly forced to conclude that the Republican insistence on budget cuts has little to do with what is right economically and much more to do with what is in their interest politically.

Here's why. Deficit spending will most likely improve the economy. If it does, that will help the Democrats. And helping the Democrats is anathema to Republicans. So the Republican strategy becomes to oppose deficit spending, despite what leading economists recommend and despite what is best for the country.

I call that demagoguery. Deciding to do the wrong thing and making it sound like the right thing for no other reason than to gain political advantage. Doesn't seem to matter that it's bad for the country. If I'm right in my analysis, the Republicans have sunk to a new demagogic low.

For after all, isn't the point of all democratic engagement to advance the public good? This appears not to be the case for most members of the Republican Party.