Discussions of political communication and conflict all too often focus on what's wrong with the process and the many ways in which political advertising and propaganda are leading to political decisions which do not serve the interests of our society or its citizens.
Yesterday, I was reminded that politicians also have the ability to inspire and genuinely call us to a higher purpose. The occasion was Colorado's moment in the spotlight of the national presidential primary campaign and a visit to the University of Denver by Barack Obama.
Having been persuaded to arrive really early by my political science student son, we were actually in the arena and avoided the fate of the many who were forced to listen to the speech at various overflow facilities.
What I heard, surprisingly, reminded me of Nelson Mandela. To a significant -- though thankfully lesser -- degree, the United States (like South Africa) has been torn asunder by a ruling elite that, from my democratic, liberal perspective, has attempted to dominate and ruthlessly exploit a large fraction of the population. While our travails have been nowhere near as horrific as those suffered under apartheid, those on the losing side of Bush administration policies have every reason to be furious and to demand that the crimes of the Bush administration be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
After all, this is an administration that has sought to bring about a permanent Republican majority by instituting a "pay-as-you-go" policy of institutionalized bribery, and by using a "starve the beast" strategy designed to prevent Democrats from providing government services to its constituents by bankrupting the government. This is also an administration that deceptively led the nation into a war from which its cronies are profiting handsomely, while the death count associated with the misadventure starts to rival that for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Like Mandela, who was uncompromising in his opposition to apartheid, Obama’s call for radical change represents a total repudiation of the policies of the Bush administration. What’s impressive is that, like Mandela, his focus is on the future rather than the past. Instead of simply settling for winning the partisan battle, he's calling for a bipartisan future that would reconcile past divisions and allow us to work together toward meeting a series of very daunting challenges.
The central issue of this political season is whether or not this is a realistic aspiration or whether it represents a naïve softness that will be ruthlessly attacked and ultimately defeated by the same partisan forces that have plagued the past two decades.
It's not enough to have an inspirational vision; one has to have a realistic plan for implementing that vision. This is the concern that Paul Krugman has so eloquently raised about Obamamania. (Click here for more.)
As someone who has spent a career studying intractable conflicts -- those situations that defy even the best efforts at reconciliation -- I recognize and appreciate the enormous challenge that Obama has undertaken. Still, as a result of the efforts of people like Mandela, who have worked to reconcile even more divided societies, we've learned a lot about what needs to be done and how to do it.
The time has come to put these ideas into play (and to develop new ideas for meeting unmet challenges). If this can be done, then it may be possible to transform a partisan political campaign for president into a national unity movement that focuses everyone on living up to our country's ideals.
There are certainly hints, from within the Republican campaigns, that such an initiative might be favorably received. Romney is running as an agent of change, McCain openly acknowledges the terrible mistakes that led to the tragedy of Iraq, and Huckabee articulates a set of Christian principles that are remarkably similar to the secular, humanitarian principles of the left.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Living with the Violence of Iraq
Discussions about Iraq -- and what it's like to live as a citizen in that war-torn country -- are almost always tied up in political posturing and esoteric strategic and tactical discussions. Clear and honest descriptions of what Operation Iraqi Freedom has meant to people who actually live there are much harder to come by. In this regard we found a blog, the Last of Iraqis, to be especially thought-provoking. And, this particular entry from the blog (which was featured in the Washington Post) is especially good.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Economics Everyone Should Understand: The Bubble
One of the fundamental principles to emerge from the conflict resolution field is the notion that positive-sum conflicts are a lot easier to deal with than zero- or negative-sum conflicts. When the "pie" is expanding, it's a whole lot easier to craft genuine win-win agreements that leave everyone better off. If you can't expand the pie (a zero-sum conflict), then the only way to get ahead is by taking something from someone else. Even worse are conflicts in which the pie is shrinking -- creating situations in which everyone faces the prospect of being worse off than they were before. This means that folks who want to maintain or enhance their current situation need to fight that much harder to obtain stuff from others.
This, unfortunately, is a situation that will certainly arise with the popping of the current economic bubble. The dismal economic news and the near-certainty of an ultimately painful outcome highlight the need for what might be called "downside" dispute resolution or political debate. Here, the goal is to allocate the costs of the impending downturn in ways which are wise and equitable and don’t aggravate the already deep tensions that exist within our society.
If you want to understand the nature of the boom/bust problem, there is no better place to start than John Kenneth Galbraith’s Short History of Financial Euphoria. The book explains the social dynamics that underlie enormously destructive boom-and-bust cycles and provides simple -- but perpetually unheeded -- advice on how we can avoid falling into the same old trap again and again.
This, unfortunately, is a situation that will certainly arise with the popping of the current economic bubble. The dismal economic news and the near-certainty of an ultimately painful outcome highlight the need for what might be called "downside" dispute resolution or political debate. Here, the goal is to allocate the costs of the impending downturn in ways which are wise and equitable and don’t aggravate the already deep tensions that exist within our society.
If you want to understand the nature of the boom/bust problem, there is no better place to start than John Kenneth Galbraith’s Short History of Financial Euphoria. The book explains the social dynamics that underlie enormously destructive boom-and-bust cycles and provides simple -- but perpetually unheeded -- advice on how we can avoid falling into the same old trap again and again.
Monday, January 21, 2008
The Spectre of Global Negative-Sum Conflict
U.S. Soldiers and Shoppers Hit the Wall
By ROGER COHEN
January 21, 2008
New York Times
There are numerous economic storm clouds associated with the United States' extremely low savings rates and high levels of borrowing and consumption. If these and related trends produce a serious recession, then we are likely to see an increase in tensions across our society. Conflict is certain to accompany the shift from a positive-sum situation in which in which lots of people were getting richer to a negative-sum world in which the economic fortunes of lots of currently prosperous people will start to deteriorate. This will give rise to new kinds of conflict problems that were not now paired to deal with.
Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have pushed the U.S. armed forces to the limit. Many soldiers have scarcely seen their families in recent years. But a much larger American army, the one that's spent this century shopping, is even more overextended and its pain is now coming home to roost.
Nobody ever made money exhorting people to save. But U.S. banks and financial institutions have spent huge amounts in recent years telling people debt is good and savings are dumb.
Their ads - to the effect that "good daughters go into debt to take their mothers on vacation," as Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor, put it - paid off handsomely as consumers went on a debt-financed shopping spree. Consumption has driven the U.S. economy; the only problem is consumers ran out of money years ago even as they did not run out of credit cards.
The rest of the article is available from the New York Times.
By ROGER COHEN
January 21, 2008
New York Times
There are numerous economic storm clouds associated with the United States' extremely low savings rates and high levels of borrowing and consumption. If these and related trends produce a serious recession, then we are likely to see an increase in tensions across our society. Conflict is certain to accompany the shift from a positive-sum situation in which in which lots of people were getting richer to a negative-sum world in which the economic fortunes of lots of currently prosperous people will start to deteriorate. This will give rise to new kinds of conflict problems that were not now paired to deal with.
Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have pushed the U.S. armed forces to the limit. Many soldiers have scarcely seen their families in recent years. But a much larger American army, the one that's spent this century shopping, is even more overextended and its pain is now coming home to roost.
Nobody ever made money exhorting people to save. But U.S. banks and financial institutions have spent huge amounts in recent years telling people debt is good and savings are dumb.
Their ads - to the effect that "good daughters go into debt to take their mothers on vacation," as Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor, put it - paid off handsomely as consumers went on a debt-financed shopping spree. Consumption has driven the U.S. economy; the only problem is consumers ran out of money years ago even as they did not run out of credit cards.
The rest of the article is available from the New York Times.
Friday, January 18, 2008
The True Meaning of Society-wide Conflict
At the core of the conflict resolution field are two-party images of conflict and resolution processes (which often involve a third, intermediary party in mediation, arbitration or other roles). "Multiparty" processes may expand this to include a dozen or more parties who jointly try to build consensus around a particular cluster of issues.
Society-wide conflict is even more complex. It involves a staggering and, in many ways, unimaginable array of issues and competing interest groups. One of the great, and as yet unmet, challenges for the peacebuilding field is to find effective ways working at this level scale and complexity.
To do this we have suggested that the conflict fields move beyond its “table oriented” metaphors which trys to reduce problems to the level of small-scale dealmaking. Instead we need to start thinking in terms of “directory (phonebook)-oriented metaphors” with very large numbers of independent organizations working to advance their own interests (and to some degree the interests of their society) through myriad “calls for action.”
One of the big advantages of the new generation of Internet “super sites” is that they make visible the full scope of society-wide conflict. In this regard one of the most impressive sites that we’ve found, the Issues and Actions section of Congress.org provides a comprehensive directory of a large fraction of the websites of political action groups involved in roughly 40 areas of political interest. Even more impressive is that the site provides access to all of the “calls for action” issued by these groups. Put another way the site provides a comprehensive listing of very large fraction of society’s active political disputes.
Browsing the site quickly delivers a much more accurate, gut level feeling of of the nature of the society-wide conflict problem. In this context, the best that alternative dispute resolution and consensus building processes can do is produce agreement based resolution of some of these disputes.
The real peacebuilding challenge is much broader and requires the promotion of a more constructive mechanisms for handling this truly massive and inevitable stream of disputes.
In doing this one must recognize that there are few leverage points through which institutional (and cultural) change at this level might realistically be able to occur.
Issues and Actions section of Congress.org
Legislative Branch Resources on GPO Access
It is reasonable to assume that there are comparable levels of scale and complexity associated with the world's great peacebuilding challenges. (Still, the exact structure of these society-wide conflicts depends upon local cultures, political institutions, and economic means.)
Society-wide conflict is even more complex. It involves a staggering and, in many ways, unimaginable array of issues and competing interest groups. One of the great, and as yet unmet, challenges for the peacebuilding field is to find effective ways working at this level scale and complexity.
To do this we have suggested that the conflict fields move beyond its “table oriented” metaphors which trys to reduce problems to the level of small-scale dealmaking. Instead we need to start thinking in terms of “directory (phonebook)-oriented metaphors” with very large numbers of independent organizations working to advance their own interests (and to some degree the interests of their society) through myriad “calls for action.”
One of the big advantages of the new generation of Internet “super sites” is that they make visible the full scope of society-wide conflict. In this regard one of the most impressive sites that we’ve found, the Issues and Actions section of Congress.org provides a comprehensive directory of a large fraction of the websites of political action groups involved in roughly 40 areas of political interest. Even more impressive is that the site provides access to all of the “calls for action” issued by these groups. Put another way the site provides a comprehensive listing of very large fraction of society’s active political disputes.
Browsing the site quickly delivers a much more accurate, gut level feeling of of the nature of the society-wide conflict problem. In this context, the best that alternative dispute resolution and consensus building processes can do is produce agreement based resolution of some of these disputes.
The real peacebuilding challenge is much broader and requires the promotion of a more constructive mechanisms for handling this truly massive and inevitable stream of disputes.
In doing this one must recognize that there are few leverage points through which institutional (and cultural) change at this level might realistically be able to occur.
Issues and Actions section of Congress.org
Legislative Branch Resources on GPO Access
It is reasonable to assume that there are comparable levels of scale and complexity associated with the world's great peacebuilding challenges. (Still, the exact structure of these society-wide conflicts depends upon local cultures, political institutions, and economic means.)
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Moral Instinct
By STEVEN PINKER
January 13, 2008
New York Times
One of the dominant sources of destructive conflict within our society arises along the fault lines which divide secular and religious communities. Religious leaders commonly worry that a belief in evolution threatens to leave society without a moral compass capable of curtailing the human tendency toward unbridled greed and self gratification (with the associated threats of anarchy and human misery). This provocative book/article offers one of many lines of reasoning that suggest that secular philosophies do, in fact, have such a moral compass.
Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it's an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates, infamous for giving us the Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been decapitated in effigy in "I Hate Gates" Web sites and hit with a pie in the face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug?
Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers. Borlaug, father of the "Green Revolution" that used agricultural science to reduce world hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives, more than anyone else in history. Gates, in deciding what to do with his fortune, crunched the numbers and determined that he could alleviate the most misery by fighting everyday scourges in the developing world like malaria, diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.
The rest of the article is available from the New York Times.
January 13, 2008
New York Times
One of the dominant sources of destructive conflict within our society arises along the fault lines which divide secular and religious communities. Religious leaders commonly worry that a belief in evolution threatens to leave society without a moral compass capable of curtailing the human tendency toward unbridled greed and self gratification (with the associated threats of anarchy and human misery). This provocative book/article offers one of many lines of reasoning that suggest that secular philosophies do, in fact, have such a moral compass.
Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it's an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates, infamous for giving us the Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been decapitated in effigy in "I Hate Gates" Web sites and hit with a pie in the face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug?
Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers. Borlaug, father of the "Green Revolution" that used agricultural science to reduce world hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives, more than anyone else in history. Gates, in deciding what to do with his fortune, crunched the numbers and determined that he could alleviate the most misery by fighting everyday scourges in the developing world like malaria, diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.
The rest of the article is available from the New York Times.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The Meaning of Civility
Guy Burgess, Ph.D. and Heidi Burgess, Ph.D.
Co-Directors, Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado
Copyright ©1997 by Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess
Originally posted at:
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/civility.htm
The increasingly vocal campaign for civility in public discourse reflects an understandable and widespread frustration with the current tenor of political debate. There is a growing realization that our inability to deal with broad range of problems is largely attributable to the destructive ways in which the issues are being addressed. This raises a crucial and increasingly controversial question--what exactly do we mean by "civility"?
Clearly, civility has to mean something more that mere politeness. The movement will have accomplished little if all it does is get people to say, "excuse me please", while they (figuratively) stab you in the back. Civility also cannot mean "roll over and play dead." People need to be able to raise tough questions and present their cases when they feel their vital interests are being threatened. A civil society cannot avoid tough but important issues, simply because they are unpleasant to address. There must also be more to civility than a scrupulous adherence to the laws governing public-policy decision making. Clearly, there are numerous instances in which the parties to public-policy conflicts act in ways which are destructive and inappropriate, even though they are (and should continue to be) legal.
In short, any reasonable definition of civility must recognize that the many differing interests which divide our increasingly diverse society will produce an endless series of confrontations over difficult moral and distributional issues. Often these issues will have an irreducible win-lose character and, hence, not be amenable to consensus resolution. While continuing confrontation is inevitable, the enormous destructiveness which commonly accompanies these confrontations is not.
In our work at the University of Colorado's Conflict Research Consortium, we have been developing an approach which we call "constructive confrontation." This approach combines an understanding of conflict processes, dispute resolution, and advocacy strategies to help disputants better advance their interests. In addition to explaining why the politeness embodied in conventional definitions of "civility" is important, we also identify a number of other areas in which adversaries, decision makers, and those caught in the middle can work individually and collectively to increase the constructiveness of public debate. Examples of these areas include:
Separating People from the Problem
First, and most obviously, is a commitment to civility in the traditional and relatively narrow sense of the word. People need to recognize that other thoughtful and caring people have very different views on how best to address their community's many complex problems. Constructive debate needs to focus on solutions which are most likely to be successful, and not upon personal attacks leveled by adversaries against one another. This is summed up by Roger Fisher, Bill Ury and Bruce Patton, authors of the New York Times best-seller Getting to Yes, who advise disputants to "separate the people from the problem." When this is not done, conflicts tend to escalate so much that key decisions are made on the basis of very personal, "us vs. them" animosities rather than the relative merits of competing problem-solving strategies.
Obtain Available Technical Facts
Many public policy disputes involve factual disagreements which are amenable to resolution through some type of fact-finding process. Failure to discern available facts substantially increases the probability that the situation will be so misunderstood that the solutions adopted will fail to achieve the desired results. Constructive civil debate, therefore, requires that the parties work together to resolve factual disagreements wherever possible. There are, of course, many cases in which factual issues can't be resolved because of irreducible uncertainties associated with the limits of scientific inquiry. When, this is true, contending parties need to publically explain the reasoning behind their differing interpretations of the factual information which is available.
Limit Interpersonal Misunderstandings
Often the adversaries proceed on the basis of very inaccurate (and usually unjustifiably evil) images of the interests, positions, and actions of others. Civility requires that contending parties make an honest and continuing effort to understand the views and reasoning of their opponents. The community needs to condemn the deliberate distortion of information and the presentation of unbalanced views as unacceptable.
Use Fair Processes
Civility also requires that the public issues be addressed by a process that is fair in both appearance and fact. Public input needs to be honestly solicited and considered. Decisions also need to be made on the basis of substantive arguments. For example, advocates of the status quo should not be able to prevail by simply introducing endless procedural delays which prevent alternative proposals from being considered or acted upon.
Limit Escalation
The most destructive confrontation process, escalation, arises when accidental or intentional provocations beget greater counter-provocations in an intensifying cycle that transforms a substantive debate characterized by honest problem solving into one in which mutual hatred becomes the primary motive. De-escalation and escalation avoidance strategies are needed to limit this problem.
Honor Legitimate Uses of Legal, Political, and Other Types of Power.
Public policy disputes involve issues which people feel very strongly about. Given this, disputing parties can be expected to use all of the powers available to them in an attempt to prevail. In our political system this means that people are entitled to use the legal and political system to advance their interests. We should respect this right and not attempt to require that the parties renounce their power options as a precondition for discussion.
Separate Win/Win from Win/Lose Issues
Wherever possible, the parties should try to reframe the conflict in ways which transform win-lose confrontations into win-win opportunities. In cases where this is not possible, the parties need to recognize and accept the fact that political and legal institutions will repeatedly be called upon to make the tough choices.
Limit the Backlash Effect
While political, legal or other types of force may produce short term victory, they also tend to generate a powerful backlash. People hate to be forced to do things against their will and can be expected to launch a "counterattack" at the earliest opportunity. The best way to limit this backlash effect is for parties to take positions which can be justified on the basis of broadly acceptable principles of fairness which all members of society have an interest in supporting. While such justifications cannot be expected to convert all opponents, they can be expected to increase the parties' base of support by attracting some opponents as well as a larger number of "middle of the roaders." This emphasis upon the justification tends to produce more reasonable positions on both sides while making it more difficult for contending parties to pursue purely selfish objectives.
Keep Trying to Persuade and Allow Yourself to be Persuaded
One crucial element of civility is recognition by conflicting parties that it is possible that they are wrong and that the policies advocated by their opponents are actually better. This entails an obligation to seriously consider the persuasive arguments made by opponents and to carefully try to explain and justify one's own position to one's opponents and others.
More Persuasion, More Exchange, Less force
The best ways to produce stable, long-term policy change is through persuasion in which parties are converted to their opponent's point of view, or through exchange through which the parties negotiate mutually beneficial win-win trade-offs. This implies that the use of force should be minimized wherever possible.
More information on these and many related approaches for improving the civility of public discourse is available from the Consortium. Contact Guy Burgess or Heidi Burgess: Campus Box 580, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309; phone: (303)492-1635; fax:(303 492-2154; e-mail: crc@colorado.edu; web: http://www.colorado.edu/conflict.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Peacebuilding, Development and Security Program
Key to successfully dealing with intractable conflict problems is the ability to simultaneously mobilize the full range of available peacebuilding capabilities described in the Intractable Conflict Knowledge Base. This requires taking a "complex operations" approach to peacebuilding, which goes far beyond the traditional notion of simply bringing leaders of warring factions together at the "peace table." This program, from the University of Calgary, is one of those seeking to implement this much broader and, we think, much more effective approach.
The Peacebuilding, Development and Security Program (PDSP) is housed in the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies (CMSS) at the University of Calgary and represents a partnership between CMSS and the Institute of World Affairs in Washington, D.C.
Born out of the challenges which have risen in the contemporary international environment in devising strategies to end civil wars and build lasting and sustainable peace, the PDSP's mission includes the fostering of both practitioner-focused and scholarly research along with interagency and civil-military dialogue in order to improve the practice, and ultimately the effectiveness, of international assistance to conflict-affected countries. This will involve examining the utility and potential hazards of existing approaches and advancing the understanding of effective linkages between relief, peacebuilding, development and security. Our work aims to identify models where multiple, diverse and overlapping civilian and military streams of international assistance actually "add up" to substantial long-term positive impacts in the target countries.
For more information see the CMSS Website.
Evolution Book Sees No Science-Religion Gap
By CORNELIA DEAN
Published: January 4, 2008
New York Times
In the United States, some of our most intractable conflicts revolve around complaints that the constitutional separation between church and state is being violated by government policies which favor the teaching of evolution over other explanations of the origins of life. This raises a politically explosive question: Is science simply a different kind of religion? In a new book, the National Academy of Sciences addresses this crucial question.
In 1984 and again in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most eminent scientific organization, produced books on the evidence supporting the theory of evolution and arguing against the introduction of creationism or other religious alternatives in public school science classes.
On Thursday, it produced a third. But this volume is unusual, people who worked on it say, because it is intended specifically for the lay public and because it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.
“We wanted to produce a report that would be valuable and accessible to school board members and teachers and clergy,” said Barbara A. Schaal, a vice president of the academy, an evolutionary biologist at Washington University and a member of the panel that produced the book.
The rest of this article is available from the New York Times.
The book is available from the National Academy of Sciences.
Published: January 4, 2008
New York Times
In the United States, some of our most intractable conflicts revolve around complaints that the constitutional separation between church and state is being violated by government policies which favor the teaching of evolution over other explanations of the origins of life. This raises a politically explosive question: Is science simply a different kind of religion? In a new book, the National Academy of Sciences addresses this crucial question.
In 1984 and again in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences, the nation’s most eminent scientific organization, produced books on the evidence supporting the theory of evolution and arguing against the introduction of creationism or other religious alternatives in public school science classes.
On Thursday, it produced a third. But this volume is unusual, people who worked on it say, because it is intended specifically for the lay public and because it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.
“We wanted to produce a report that would be valuable and accessible to school board members and teachers and clergy,” said Barbara A. Schaal, a vice president of the academy, an evolutionary biologist at Washington University and a member of the panel that produced the book.
The rest of this article is available from the New York Times.
The book is available from the National Academy of Sciences.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Generation Q
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
October 10, 2007
New York Times
In this thought-provoking article, Friedman challenges today's generation of college students to become more involved in politics -- both for their own sake and for the sake of the nation as a whole. We found it to be a good starting point for discussions of social and political responsibility.
Also interesting is "Youthquake," by Michelle Conlin, published in Business Week. It describes why there is good reason to believe that Friedman's Generation Q may be becoming politically active in a very significant way.
I just spent the past week visiting several colleges — Auburn, the University of Mississippi, Lake Forest and Williams — and I can report that the more I am around this generation of college students, the more I am both baffled and impressed.
I am impressed because they are so much more optimistic and idealistic than they should be. I am baffled because they are so much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be.
One of the things I feared most after 9/11 — that my daughters would not be able to travel the world with the same carefree attitude my wife and I did at their age — has not come to pass.
The rest of the article is available from the New York Times.
October 10, 2007
New York Times
In this thought-provoking article, Friedman challenges today's generation of college students to become more involved in politics -- both for their own sake and for the sake of the nation as a whole. We found it to be a good starting point for discussions of social and political responsibility.
Also interesting is "Youthquake," by Michelle Conlin, published in Business Week. It describes why there is good reason to believe that Friedman's Generation Q may be becoming politically active in a very significant way.
I just spent the past week visiting several colleges — Auburn, the University of Mississippi, Lake Forest and Williams — and I can report that the more I am around this generation of college students, the more I am both baffled and impressed.
I am impressed because they are so much more optimistic and idealistic than they should be. I am baffled because they are so much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be.
One of the things I feared most after 9/11 — that my daughters would not be able to travel the world with the same carefree attitude my wife and I did at their age — has not come to pass.
The rest of the article is available from the New York Times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
