We Approve This Message

“If you can’t say something nice about somebody, don’t say anything.”  This oft-heard expression is one of those lessons learned in childhood that we repeat to our children and grandchildren.  While I haven’t said it yet to the lovely Madelyn Simone (probably because she’s still not fully verbal), I’m sure that will be needed soon enough.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama, I’m guessing you’ve heard that phrase because your moms got it in a genetic marker labeled ‘Mother,’ along with “Don’t run with that, you’ll poke your eye out” and “Your face is going to freeze that way.” I also know that the campaign experts keep telling you that attack ads work.  But here’s some free advice – they’re getting on my nerves.  Of course you have to say something about your opponent – but there’s got to be a better way.

The “don’t say anything” rule of childhood does need adjusting as we approach adulthood, because we do need to talk about the qualifications a person brings to his/her quest for leadership.  We shouldn’t vote for someone just because of her family name or his great hair, but when’s the last time we elected a bald president?  I guess hair does matter, but character matters more.  

So how do we talk about a person’s character, whether that of a presidential candidate or a community leader?  Can we do so by “speaking the truth in love,” as the biblical letter to the Ephesians suggests?  That’s a valuable rule of thumb in personal relationships – is it possible to extend its counsel to the political arena?  What would that look like?

Yet the issues facing our country and our communities go beyond the character of the man or woman providing leadership, for as much as character counts, so do policies.  We were treated to public verbiage regarding a number of policy issues through the televised debate this week, but if Facebook posts, Twitter tweets and lunchroom conversations are any indication, we weren’t too satisfied with the process or the results.  There have got to be other ways to sort out the issues that concern us.   

That’s why I’m so pleased with a movement afoot to bring a measure of civil discourse to Ashland through the use of a forum model, using what is known as democratic deliberation (as in democracy, not the Democratic party).  It stems from the premise that governments and citizens ought to work together – what a great idea!   A forum in this context is the process where people take time to hear other people’s opinion and stories so that a common ground can be reached on issues that impact all of us.

The Center for Civic Life at Ashland University partnered with the Ashland University Center for Non-Violence to sponsor one such discussion the night after the first debate, bringing a variety of views on the national debt to the table of respectful conversation.  There was plenty of lip service to the national debt during the debate, but it was in the setting of the forum that the problem and potential solutions began to make sense. 

 It’s the premise that matters in civil discourse.  In a debate or argument, the most powerful, polished and persuasive voice wins – just listen to the political pundits after the debate if you don’t believe me.   But in the forum model, the goal is to move towards consensus, not victory. The Center for Civic Life (or their umbrella organization, the National Issues Forums) does not advocate for one specific solution or point of view.  Instead, the process helps all of us weigh the pros and cons of the choices while meeting together with people who have an interest in economics, children and families, education, civil rights, the environment, health, or government.

The next subject to be wrestled with by the Center for Civic Life is prescription drug abuse, scheduled for October 23^rd at the Dauch building at AU.  If you’re tired of talking back to the political commercials barging into your living room, stop by and join the voices of our community as we name, frame and deliberate together.  We’re Ashland, and together we approve this message.