To move forward, more of us need to learn ‘participatory democracy’
Gov. Greg Abbott recently finished three days of heart-wrenching but productive conversations with a cross-section of people, including students, parents and professionals who were affected by the Santa Fe School shooting. The purpose: to find solutions, not point fingers; to get practical, not debate grand principles. I call this “participatory democracy,” and it’s something more of us need to learn.
I teach a freshman course in participatory governance in which students from across Texas learn to engage in practical, productive conversations about difficult social issues. Typically, the course begins with the students divided nearly equally between conservatives and liberals — and it ends with the students still nearly equally divided politically.
What changes dramatically is their level of respect for opinions, values and life experiences that run counter to their own. They learn to listen to others’ viewpoints with the intent to understand them, not to find fault. They learn how to think through tough issues together, and how to facilitate difficult dialogues. Above all, they learn to care.
The governor’s dialogues on school safety set an example — a high watermark in Texas for how to address exceedingly difficult and potentially devastating public issues. These are the issues that have no simple cause nor simple solution. In such complex issues, solution wars can never solve the problem.
Gun control vs. armed campuses — this is not the question. Abbott knew that. He created a new kind of conversation, one that has the potential to address truly difficult issues having deep roots and multiple causes.
What were the key ingredients to make this new conversation possible?
Invite a representative cross-section of those concerned with, affected by, and knowledgeable about different aspects of the issue. If this means youth, include them. Bring parents, teachers, administrators, mental health providers and security officers. Invite advocates and politicians from both sides of the aisle.
Create a “we” space — not an “us/them” space or a “win/ lose” space. Do this by setting forth a clear sense of purpose: We are here because there are no simple answers. We are here because each of us has direct knowledge about the issue and because we each care. We are here to come up with effective actions.
Listen. The governor made sure each person could speak without interruption, where feelings could be expressed safely and received compassionately, where ideas big and small would be considered. This is civic dialogue, not the grandstanding and mudslinging of solution wars.
Learn. The governor admitted he did not have the answers. Everyone’s ideas are welcome and necessary. We all need to learn from each other. This is collective inquiry — beyond expert opinions and political platforms.
Abbott showed us how to engage a rich cross-section of people representing differing perspectives, experiences and concerns to address an urgent and intractable public issue. He showed that such a dialogue can be thoughtful, compassionate, creative and productive.
His proposed action plan incorporates valuable proposals developed and embraced by the participants in the dialogues. Now, he must exercise the leadership to get the action plan vetted and implemented.
But waiting for others to act is not enough. Each of us must see what we can do in our own homes, schools, workplaces and communities to address the root causes of any contentious social issue. Today, it is school violence. Tomorrow, it could be a different issue.
We must stop painting issues in black and white and stop demonizing those who see things differently. Simply put, we must each model what the students in my class have learned: to listen to others; to understand and include them; to become engaged and caring citizens. Our democracy depends on it.
A quote from the Santa Fe School murderer’s father: “My son, to me, is not a criminal; he’s a victim.” This because he thinks his son was bullied.
Blame guns all you want — and they are surely a part of the equation — but if this is what passes as a parent in society, we are in real trouble.
His son said he spared “the kids who were the good kids.” Who gave this narcissistic sociopath the right to decide who lives and dies? Perhaps his father who sees him as a victim can tell us.
Re: May 28 commentary, “Wear: Work underway to speed up the sometimes slow road to Houston.”
Thank you, Ben Wear, for answering the question as to why an interstate highway was not constructed between Austin and Houston.
I have sent letters to the Texas Highway Commission asking the same question. As Wear indicates, it is now nearly impossible to build a traditional interstate between cities because the cost would be prohibitive using federal construction standards.
In my mind one question remains unanswered: If Austin was not in the original plans, why would Interstate 10 follow the old Highway 290 route, which is far to the north of San Antonio, rather than Highway 90, which is a direct route from El Paso, a much shorter distance and less hilly, making construction easier?
I suspect politics was involved.