Public Voice Watch Party Report
May 5, 2007 by Taylor Willingham
On the evening of May 1, ten members of Texas Forums participated in a research project for the Kettering Foundation. They watched an unedited version of Public Voice, a documentary filmed earlier in the day at the National Press club featuring panelists who were commenting on videotaped excerpts of National Issues Forums on energy. The panelists participating in this documentary were:
Host/Moderator: Frank Sesno
E. J. Dionne, Columnist, Washington Post
Betty Sue Flowers, Director, Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum
Jay Hakes, Director, Jimmy Carter Library
Mike Johannes, U. S. Secretary of Agriculture
Senator Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
David Mathews, Kettering Foundation
Congressman Charles Gonzalez, Texas
Andrea Seabrook, Congressional Correspondent, NPR
Senator Jeff Sessions, Alabama
Jerry Taylor, CATO Institute
Roger Wilkins, Author and Analyst
This is the Kettering Foundation’s description of the research:
“A Public Voice brings together policymakers and policy elites on a panel to react to and discuss the implications for their own work of scenes from publics grappling with a significant national issue, this year, energy. As the publics deliberate, they identify why the issue is important to them, what things highly valued by them they see at stake in the issue, why they cannot get everything they want regarding the issue, and so, in the end, struggle with what trade-offs among things highly valued they may be willing to make, and thus, what kind of permissions for action they would open up for policymakers.
In addition to demonstrating these qualities of public deliberation through A Public Voice, Kettering’s research interest lies largely in seeking to understand the conditions under which policymakers and policy elites come to recognize the contributions that a deliberative public can make to their own work. In conducting this research with policymakers, we bear in mind five underlying questions, greater understanding of which may help us understand better how a deliberative public can more effectively relate to its elected representatives, and how our representative institutions may become more responsive to a thoughtful, deliberative public. “
Below is a brief report filed by Marla Crockett who facilitated the discussion on May 1. We will prepare a longer report and meet in D.C. on June 8 with colleagues from the Ford and Carter libraries and Saddleback Community College who also participated in this research.
“Citizens who watched A Public Voice at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin saw and heard two different discussions Wednesday night. The seven women and three men were virtually unanimous in saying that edited comments from the public forums on energy were deliberative and held their attention, while experts on the panel were at times “dismissive,” and “spoke from a script.” Members of our group praised a few panelists, including Carter Library Director Jay Hakes and Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johannes, for really listening to the public state the problem, weigh trade-offs and reflect on leadership. However, the consensus in our group was that too many experts focused on positions and strategies instead of on interests and concerns.
What came through the loudest, however, was an unhappiness with the program’s format. While recognizing that the demands of television might be at odds with a deeper conversation, our Austin panel wanted to see a dialogue between the experts and the public. The exchanges led by moderator Frank Sesno were “jarring,” and too much like “Crossfire,” several people said. One woman felt more optimistic at the end of the program, because it seemed as though public officials and journalists really understood the public’s desire for change. But one of the men said that if citizens had been allowed to participate in the discussion, they would have held the politicians more accountable on issues like the influence of money on energy policy.”
Interesting, Taylor. Was any true, deep listening going on during the panel?
Jan
The experience was interesting, but frustrating.
Most frustrating was the Kettering Foundation’s failure to model the type of leadership we need for meaningful conversation.
The moderator seemed more interested in generating a series of quick-reaction sound bites than in creating an environment for careful listening and thoughtful responding. The manner of his leadership conveyed the impression that we were in a conversation space characterized by intense time compression; he seemed to be seeking to hear the greatest number of responses as opposed to seeking to hear carefully thought out responses. The challenges facing our society are many and complex. We need leaders who will take time to listen carefully and thougtfully. If a conversation is going to have depth, then the moderator should allow time for thoughtful reflection.
Especially frustrating was the moderator’s apparent unwillingness to allow conversation threads to develop. The moderator seemed uncomfortable with allowing participants to respond to one another. My memory of the event was that there were multiple times when a panelist would ask a question or make a comment that sought to address an issue more deeply, and instead of allowing the issue to be pursued, the moderator would assert control by asking a question on another issue, and would direct this question to an individual of his choosing. Thus we are left with the impression that the authority at the top of the structure is the power in control of the conversation. If we are going to pursue deliberative democracy, then the voice of the people needs to have more power to shape the conversation, as opposed to the conversation’s being shaped by the central authority.
Kettering Foundation espouses the idea that they are interested in seeing our leaders listen to the voices of the people. Well, here I am, I’m a people. (I’m sure I have my people credentials around here somewhere.) Are they interesed in hearing my voice?
Before I close, I must say thank you to the Kettering Foundation for the time and effort they are putting in. It is evident that they are trying to do something positive and productive. They are trying to use a old paradigm (centralized authoriity in control) to seek a new solution, but at least they are trying. Perhaps if we work together we can evolve new paradigms and develop new patterns for facilitating truly democratic conversations.