The World We Want

The World We Want: From Athens and Jerusalem

H. Peter Karoff -- can you imagine him bald and barefoot in Athens, like Socrates or Diogenes, accosting the wealthiest citizens and asking crafty questions about "The World We Want?" I can. I believe his writings are essentially an attempt to come to terms with that role, the role of, as Socrates put it, being "the midwife" of the interlocutor's soul, or moral life. Paideia is the term for doing that, the elicitation of what is best in a person, within the traditions by which the person has been formed and must pass on, as any creature is formed by its genes and passes them on with variations. (Part of our genetic code as Americans is the charming delusion that we are each self-made, just coincidentally as alike as mass manufactured commodities.) In any case, at Gifthub, Giving as Moral Heroism is about these issues. Where the work of philanthropy goes wrong is when we honor big givers who give just a little of what they have over broken people who give all. Gifted givers are all equal in the eyes of God, if we take Jesus as any guide to that. That is my theme, and you can say, I impose it on Peter's work. But if you read his essays again you will see that the examples holding his attention are creative, artistic, or heroic, and that many instances are not about money at all. The book, The World We Want, may be mostly about the life-determining and culture-determning gifts of the wealthy, but Peter's surprising inclusion of me in that book was at least a back door open to people of limited financial means. I hope that through this blog we can include in the conversation gifted givers whose wallets may be empty, but whose head, heart, and dedication might put many wealthy people to shame. Where the World We Want may come to life is when we meet as citizens in common purpose and money is subordinate to shared ideals, joint action, and love (caritas). I believe these were among the founding principles of our country, and reflect our debt to Athens and Jerusalem.  We pay that gift forward, whether rich or poor by upholding those ideals and passing them on intact to our heirs, keeping our democracy alive, even as wealth, power, honors and prestige, flow upward to the few. To keep our traditions alive, to conserve The World We Want, we must wake up, as Peter suggests in Sleepwalkers. As vile a man as he might be, I will give my own Morals Tutor the last word.
 

Jay Hughes and Dynastic Wealth

What is the role of dynastic wealth in the World We Want? Phil Cubeta and the Happy Tutor on Jay Hughes.

The World We Want Alliance?

As people come forward with ideas for "the world we want," I feel uncomfortable in the role of a) manager and b) go-between with Peter who himself has expressed an interest in maintaining his privacy and quiet time. so that he can think and write. Who am I, or Peter, really to dictate what is and is not conducive to the world we want? We are "we the people," in communities all over the country and the world. How can we, then, make this budding movement of active citizens more like a democracy, and less like a corporate project, or personal property? I have to say this: Peter does not own the world we want. He has shown zero interest in monopolizing the phrase or exploiting this emerging movment for any kind of personal gain or glory - that is Peter. He is a giver, not a grabber.

What if we simply started a loose confederation, alliance, or club? Groups that join could display a banner saying, "Member of the World We Want Alliance," or something like that. The alliance, like any other club, could have mission, membership rules, and a governing body drawn from the membership. It could be as simple as a webring. It could be as elaborate as Kiwanis or Rotary. It could start simple and grow over time. If such a group formed I would attend the initial organizational meeting, and would take an active interest, but would probably not seek an official role. I would feel most comfortable creating a space for others to fill. As a member of the Alliance, I would blog it, like anyone else, and would try to connect the network with those active in philanthropy. Peter could be invited to the organizational meeting. He might or might not attend. My hunch is that he would send a poem instead, offering an oblique blessing and best wishes.

If we turn the discussion to governance and membership rules, we would have a very interesting set of issues. Bluntly, whose projects could not be included? What does it take to get thrown out of the world we want? Is this political? Whom do we hate? Who are the enemy? Can we be inclusive, even of elements that are discordant? How do we reach out to those who may not be "like us"? How do we encourage diversity, if diversity is part of the world we want?

If we take this "open space or open source" approach, we don't have to worry about managing urls. Each member would have his or her own url, along with a tag saying, "Member of the World We Want Alliance," and a link to a site listing all the other members, along with the purpose and structure of the Alliance itself, and information on how to join and get active.

Getting a World We Want Alliance going would be a noble effort. If the worldwewant.org url is the logical one, I could be induced to turn over the url to a governing body that was democratically constituted. I hope it is clear that I am not sidestepping work as much as really wanting this to be more than a top down project. The whole point and purpose it seems to me is to put the "we" into the world we want, and have that "we" be inclusive and democratic. If I find myself right now at the center of this, my hope is to use that "positional power" to make room for many others, and then to bow to the direction established by a democratic process. I don't want the idea to get hijacked by by this or that "faction." But I would love to see a truly inclusive group form for the purpose of advancing a better world, in communities all over the country and all over the world through citizen action and engaged giving.

A key word in this whole discussion is "legitimacy." What legitimizes the claim of anyone to speak for "the world we want"? Doesn't it have to come from many people through a process open to all, in accordance with constitutional rules that are fair?  A little guaranteed slack helps too. We all have the right to be wrong and to pursue happiness in our own way, and happiness may mean a shared concept of the good, one that differs from community to community. Under the banner of the world we want we have the right to assemble with our own civic friends, hash out direction, and applaud others who do the same, even if their group and our group do not agree in all particulars, so long as they grant us the same rights.   

Your thoughts, my fellow citizens?

E-Democracy as a Model For The World We Want

E-Democracy.org: Excellent compilation of proven best practices in starting a grassroots deliberative forum as part of a larger network. Very helpful. We should take this recipe very seriously. Here is what I take away:

• Build a local steering committee.
• Affiliate upwards into larger local, regional, federal groupings, like Kiwanis and other proven membership organizations.
• Use email listserv as the preferred technology since it is the lowest bandwidth.
• Have a neutral forum moderator.
• Restrict posting per participant to two posts a day
• Add a blog or online forum if you wish as a optional extra
• Create deliberative groups to mirror neighborhoods and political territories
• Find a credible local or national umbrella organization to sponsor and give credibility.
• Invite people one by one, with a phone call or face to face conversation, or maybe a personal note or email.

For me the the important new tip: Do not open the forum until you have at least 100 already signed up. What I have noticed in other experiments like this is that the early adopters set the tone and can rapidly drive out others. We tend to be so tribal. Getting the right initial mix and diversity of opinion is critical.  In  Open Space this is the "invitation" process in which convenvers personally invite their key contacts. What makes The World We Want a special opportunity is the quality of Peter's personal list, and the people they could invite, not just "bigshots, but key people from the organizations they lead or contribute to. Also in Peter's network are the community foundations, who are a great source of names and lists, as well as credibility. What differentiates The World We Want from, say, Edemocracy.org is the emphasis on giving - on volunteerism, philanthropy, and direct citizen-with-citizen action. We are not just trying to get someone elected, or just to influence local and national policy (though policy issues will be important), but to ask, "What can we do pending political impact or reform? What can we do ourselves?"

Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative Democracy: How little public deliberation do we see? We see pundits, lobbyists, marketers, attack ads, phony political debates, soundbites, and decision made behind closed doors in committee, and signing statements exempting the highest powers in the land from the laws they impose. (We are consumers of what is called "democracy," and we buy with our votes, Coke or Pepsi. Yet we should be creators of it, by our active engagement.)

Imagine a real debate, a town meeting, a constitutional convention, or a congress that operates transparently. Voters can't today deliberate because they are deprived of the data. Our representatives don't seem much to deliberate as much tack to the winds of public opinion driven by mass media and advertising, or to curry favor with funders and then use that money to propagandize us. We can do better, model better methods. Online conversation and face to face open space meetings can give us a taste of what we have lost and let us recover it a little.