Putting aside the substance of the legislation for a moment, the whole debate has been a fascinating exercise in political framing:

Using “Right to Work” as a label is a clever and strategic way to frame what the legislation is about.  If you are “for people having jobs,” how could you dare be against their “right to work”? Any critic of “right to work” laws has to try to find some other meaningful label to use for themselves that isn’t derived from the original name, but in doing so they lose some of the attention of voters.  (From what I can tell, the phrase “right to work” was introduced when a group of business owners in the southern U.S. formed the National Right to Work Committee in the 1970s to try to work against union efforts.)

The “Big Labor” bashing that happened last year across the Midwest set the stage for the “Union” label itself to be tainted to some degree in the minds of many voters (“Wait, are those unionized teachers really just trying to squeeze out every last taxpayer dollar while they sit around in luxury doing nothing? Golly!”), and so at least in part because of this association, I don’t think unions have succeeded in being the rallying point for those who oppose these proposals.

A related frame that gets invoked all the time around this legislation is “creating a pro-business climate.”  If you are for “right to work” then you are for creating an atmosphere where businesses can thrive.  If you are against “right to work,” you must hate commerce, capitalism, business and the American Dream.  Of course we know that “pro-business” doesn’t have any particular meaning; someone who traffics in human slaves can say they are “pro-business” but that doesn’t mean they’re operating in the interests of most people.  But again, critics haven’t succeeded in presenting a suitable alternative theme – being “pro-worker” or “pro-living-wage” – and so the debate is framed around whether you are for or against business, period.

Another frame that’s emerged in Indiana is the idea of Democratic state representatives who have used procedural moves to prevent a quorum for voting on this legislation as “cowards” who are “shirking” their duties and who don’t have the courage to just come and vote.  Democrats have argued back that they are trying to stand up for the interests of their constituents, but it’s so effective for Republicans to use the image of “we showed up to do the business of the people and guess who didn’t?” to beat up on Democrats as insolent children, and so they’ve used it every chance they get.

In a culture that generally celebrates “fighting back when you’re being bullied” instead of “call out the bully for the chaos and disrespect they bring,” Democrats haven’t been very effective at calling those fouls.  The closest they’ve come (as seen in e-mails I get from my state rep) is talking about how the legislation was “rushed” and “rammed through” and then about how “disappointed” they are in this “massive mistake.”  By only being against what their Republican colleagues are perpetrating and lacking a frame that everyone can be for, they end up mostly looking like sore losers.

I won’t even get into the “class warfare” against “job creators” being waged by “job killers.”  You get the point: In Indiana and elsewhere, conservative Republicans are dominating the frame game.

If we put aside the frames and labels that polarize this debate, we could see more clearly what’s happening in the statehouse.  We could see a broken system of legislating perpetuated by vindictive, reactive and politically driven agendas that don’t necessarily represent the interests or priorities of voters.  We could see politicians manipulating the fears and relative ignorance of their constituents to go for the quick win in that day’s news cycle, instead of thinking about what’s actually good for those same constituents in the long run.

Even if it passes, the “right to work” legislation has been a failure and an embarrassment for Democrats and Republicans alike.

As a resident and employer here I can say that I think the intent of the bill is unhelpful for Indiana workers and a waste of taxpayer time and dollars to pursue given other more pressing needs.  But more significant and important for me is what the process and framing being used signals about the dishonorable intentions of lawmakers and the foundering condition of governance in the Hoosier State.

Some will talk about the dangers of having weapons of various sorts and sizes available to individuals like Breivik and passionately implore for tighter controls and regulation of firearms or other weapon-making materials.  Indeed, we should be asking hard questions about when, where and why we create weapons designed to kill other human beings, and how we allow them to be used.

Some will talk about how this is a clear cut example that acts of terrorism are an ongoing threat and need to be safeguarded against using increased governmental or military power to fight terrorists and prevent attacks.  Indeed, we should be asking hard questions about whether current efforts to prevent acts of terrorism are effective, and what else could be done.

Some will speak of a lone madman who was mentally ill, and how we must find better ways to diagnose and treat mental illness of this sort before an individual’s darkness can turn into violence.  Indeed, we should be asking hard questions about how those among us who suffer from mental illness are treated and how they are helped.

But we must not forget that behind all of these interrelated paths to such awful acts of violence, there is a singular cause that no amount of weapons control, military might or psychological analysis can predict or prevent:

Somehow, this man was able to construct a worldview for himself in which it was permissible to murder other people because of their political views.

We might like to convince ourselves that creating or adopting such a worldview is not something that can happen to rational people.  But we know that our brains and our mental models of the world are pliable.   They can be shaped and reshaped easily, sometimes with almost trivial effort.  This is why television ads and billboards convince us every day to buy or do things we wouldn’t otherwise buy or do.  And we know that people from all backgrounds, all social classes, all levels of education and intellect can do awful, horrible, unthinkable things…if they just come to think about the state of the world in a way that necessitates those things.

In his long manifesto posted to the Internet, Breivik stated that “The time for dialogue is over.”  A simple and chilling statement, but one not too different from the sentiment expressed in social and political discourse happening every day in the US.

As the news media and 24-hour cable news machine tell urgent stories about seemingly great injustices in the world, thinking for us about how to delineate between what is clearly good and clearly evil without lingering too long on any facts or context, they enforce a worldview that suggests the time for dialogue is over.  (I’m looking at you, MSNBC and Fox News.)

As political parties create contrived and over-simplified arguments for why one candidate or another is essential to the future of the city, state or nation, and brush aside nuance or complexity in what effective governance might look like, they send the signal that the time for dialogue is over.

As religious and cultural institutions imply or suggest directly that because someone is of a certain gender, religious belief, sexual orientation or ethnicity that they are not fully worthy of some right or privilege that others are granted, and in fact may be inherently evil, they reinforce for their members or followers that the time for dialogue is over.

As communities trade away their public squares and opportunities for substantial conversation about the future of their neighborhoods in exchange for more opportunities for convenient shopping and individual instant gratification, we create places to live where the time for dialogue is over.

And when we no longer see any room for real dialogue, for meaningful, introspective, vulnerable, respectful exchanges about the way the world can and should work, we reinforce a worldview of “us vs. them” and begin to create that pretext for violence as the path to victory.  Maybe it’s not physical violence…maybe it’s economic violence or cultural violence.  Maybe it’s not a swift act of destruction, but a long slow whittling away of resources or dignity.   But when the time for dialogue is over, what’s left other than the leveraging of power and the exertion of force?

The acts of violence in Norway are to be condemned, the lives lost to be mourned.  But we must also recognize that this came about not because of a lack of gun control or not enough money spent on policing and anti-terrorism or a failure to stop a lone act of insanity.  They came about because our culture is creating and reinforcing a narrative about the future that allows for and even encourages exactly this kind of violence against each other.

Until we can imagine a new worldview that doesn’t end up at murder and oppression as a logical conclusion, that seeks to build shared understandings through genuine dialogue, and that values life over power and profit, we participate in creating a pretext for even more violence.

I was only scheduled to give one presentation (“How to talk, or not talk, to your clients about Perl”) but after hearing some of the opening remarks at the conference that spent too much time and energy, IMHO, declaring that “Perl is not dead!” I signed up to give a new talk about possibilities for re-framing that sentiment.

You can view a video of the talk, or you can view my slides [PDF].

The problem is, McCain has done nothing to question the underlying thinking and assumptions that have fueled these fires. By passing them by he essentially reinforces the dangerous framing, and does little toward any truly just treatment of the issues that have come up.

Take the exchanges in this town hall meeting, for example. A man says he’s scared of an Obama presidency, and McCain says that you wouldn’t have to be scared of an Obama presidency, but doesn’t say why, or why whatever there was to be scared of in the first place isn’t really a legitimate concern.

A woman says she’s worried because Obama is an Arab. McCain says no, he’s a decent family man. So, according to McCain, being an Arab man is the opposite of being a decent family man? Not only is this a minimally effective request for respect toward Obama, it’s essentially an endorsement of the racist premise of the remark.

No, the recent tempering of the tone doesn’t seem to be much more than a shift in political strategy and perhaps a move that makes McCain himself feel a little better about getting up in the morning. But until some of the underlying awfulness that’s driving things can be confronted, there will be only temporary peace without any sort of justice.

I know this practice is not at all constrained to Republican politicans, by the way. It’s rare that a candidate of any political persuasion confronts a difficult or controversial issue head on at a level that really moves the conversation forward, so I know I shouldn’t expect much here. But I do expect better than this.

I’ll note too that it shouldn’t be lost on anyone interested in framing that while all of that was going on, President Bush was cautioning in his speech about the financial crisis that “anxiety can feed anxiety.” WOW – is it possible that an administration that has based much of its public relations around major policy decisions on feeding Americans with anxiety and fear could now be admitting that maybe this isn’t always the most useful practice?

Is it possible that John McCain and George Bush are both realizing at the same time that when your citizens are so riled up with misinformation and doubt about their future, they don’t ALWAYS decide to act exactly how you want them to? Let’s see how well that works out for them.

UPDATED on 10/13/08 to add this great segment from On the Media: Smear Campaign.

• That we have to choose between a candidate from the Republican party and a candidate from the Democratic Party.
• That within a given political party, we have to choose a single candidate who is the best and only choice.
• That the party conventions are a time when the will of the people is represented and expressed in the form of a meaningful vote, and not just a time for the powerful and well-connected to party on someone else’s dime.
• That we have to vote for the person who can win, instead of voting for the person that best reflects our own values.
• That we must choose the candidate with the most political experience, since the presidency is no place for on-the-job training, instead of choosing a candidate who could be the most effective once in office.
• That we have to choose between efficient, accurate, secure electronic voting machines with no paper trail and slow, unreliable, corruptible traditional voting methods that leave a written record of our choice.
• That it is possible choose a President who will represent us individually and work to address the concerns that affect us on a day-to-day basis, instead of working on those concerns ourselves within our community.

What other false choices are we asked to make? Feel free to add your own in the comments.

• Do you depend on Gmail or Google Calendar? Did you know they’re not ready for production use yet?
• The Rockridge Institute, a progressive think tank (THE progressive think tank for many) abruptly closes its doors because there wasn’t enough money coming in. But as a part of their exit, the description of “The Big Job” to be done is compelling, and so life goes on.
• I love a good idea I’ve never heard of before, and this place has lots of them
• Can you survive for 24 hours without your computer? I didn’t think so.
• One of the best YouTube videos I’ve seen in a long time: An Engineer’s Guide to Cats
• The Palladium-Item will be updating its website this week – and once again wiping out any archive of past reader discussions in their forums. I can’t decide if this is a blessing or a shame, and it’s probably both. I hope the new beginning represents a new mode of conversation, but I won’t hold my breath.

This is made even worse when stereotypes are perpetuated about the group, and negative but finely detailed false images of them are painted by those who would pursue particularly harmful or discriminatory practices against the group. Come on, you’ve heard them: “all illegals are…” and “the gays just want to…” and “the homeless won’t even…” and “liberals don’t know how to…”, repeated over and over again. This is how we learn to disrespect entire populations, ethnicities, and world-views without really knowing anything about them. This is how we learn to hate.

How does it change the conversation, then, when we say “illegal immigrants”?

Or when we say “people who are immigrating illegally”?

Or “men and women and children who are crossing the U.S. border illegally”?

Or “men and women and children who are crossing the U.S. border in hopes of finding something better for themselves and their families, in spite of attempts by others to keep them out”?

The more clear we are about the real human beings we’re discussing, and the motivations involved in their actions, the better discussion we can have about the issues at hand. And difficult though it may be, the more likely we are to be affected by the real people involved, instead of distanced from them through the use of an all-encompassing label. Yes, it’s harder and takes more thought and doesn’t sound as snappy in an article, but words matter, and I think we owe it to our fellow humans to be more precise.

I also think it’s a basic responsibility of the men and women who create the news media we consume to expose this disingenuous and harmful use of language; they certainly shouldn’t be perpetuating it themselves.

Quinn, who I’ve mentioned here a few times, is an author who has spent much of his life writing books that try to show readers a different way of looking at the world and the story we tell ourselves about how the world works. In Write Sideways, Quinn essentially tries to answer the question, “once you have seen the world from a different perspective, how do you help other people see that same new perspective in a way that’s meaningful and lasting for them?”

As a man who often puts himself in the role of a teacher, Quinn also seems to be ever in pursuit of ways to explain his methods and process, perhaps in the name of passing on the practice of opening eyes and changing minds (his approach to world changing). But as he tells in Write Sideways, he seems to have some difficulty doing so effectively, at least based on the wild and strange questions he gets from his readers. This is not the first time he’s told his own story in an attempt to provide some context and background to his approach; in Providence: The Story of a Fifty Year Vision Quest, he recounts his life leading up to the publication of Ishmael, his most famous and impacting work. I was worried that Write Sideways would be a recycling of that information or of other parts of his writings, but despite some re-hashing of parts of the Ishmael novels, I would say it’s a self-contained and fresh take. (It’s not necessary to have read his other books, but you’ll get more out of it if you have.)

The book is structured as a conversation between Quinn and one of his readers, Elaine, who visits him for a few days in his home. It’s essentially a slightly edited transcript of the conversation, and so it reads quickly, as though we are sitting in on the conversation, turning our heads back and forth between Quinn and his guest. I thought one of the key points in the book came early on, when Quinn admitted that while he’s always avoided looking at himself as anyone special, he’s come to accept that he has a unique frame of reference on the world, and that getting to that frame of reference is a kind of skill and wisdom in itself. From there, Quinn guides Elaine through challenges and exchanges that attempt to help her do the same, often with questions from readers as exercises.

Each time I have encountered Daniel Quinn, he has always inspired me. At first it was Ishmael and his other earlier books that inspired me to look at the world in a different way, and to find other people who were doing the same. Since then, when I’ve met him, talked to him on the phone or heard him speak to groups, it’s been his process and approach so some of the world’s most vexing problems that have inspired me, as someone who seeks to do some eye-opening and mind-changing in my own life and work.

I’m not sure anyone will ever be able to truly replicate what Quinn does, but as I’m sure he would say, it’s not really about him, it’s about finding new ways for humanity to live that are sustainable. To that end, Write Sideways is a helpful contribution from someone who’s been pioneering those efforts in his own special way for quite some time.

• The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd. A great, compelling story that is so rich and enjoyable. Reminds me of how I felt reading A Prayer for Owen Meany or To Kill a Mockingbird. I can also recommend Monk Kidd’s The Dance of the Dissident Daughter.
• The Soul Tells A Story: Engaging Creativity With Spirituality In The Writing Life by Vinita Hampton Wright. I couldn’t enjoy this one as much, perhaps because it seemed to define spirituality a little too differently than I do, and the resulting instructions/advice just didn’t feel as applicable. It also wasn’t as tightly structured as I would expect a book on creative writing to be.
• Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World by Bruce Schneier. My review of Secrets and Lies is at the Summersault Weblog.
• The Golden Compass by Philip Pullman. Another really fun book that will appeal to fans of the “Narnia” and “Harry Potter” style of adventure-telling. Also coming out in December on the big screen as a motion picture starring Dakota Blue Richards and Daniel Craig – worth a see.
• The Assault on Reason by Al Gore. My review of The Assault on Reason is in my last weblog entry.

Now reading:

• Thinking Points: Communicating Our American Values and Vision and Whose Freedom?: The Battle Over America’s Most Important Idea, both by George Lakoff. If you read this blog with any regularity, you already know I’m a fan of his stuff.
• Codes, Ciphers, Secrets and Cryptic Communication: Making and Breaking Sercet Messages from Hieroglyphocs to the Internet by Fred B. Wrixon. Nothing gets me up in the morning like a Bifid Cipher.
• The Woman and the Ape by Peter Hoeg. Highly recommended by Anna Lisa, and I’ve always enjoyed books with large primates as main characters.

I’ll post reviews of these as I can. Your own reviews, recommendations and comments welcome!

No End In Sight is pitched as an insider’s tale of the reckless decision-making and subsequent incompetence that has propelled the invasion and occupation of Iraq forward from the planning stages to the present day, and it satisfies that characterization quite well. I was impressed with the broad scope (in rank, affiliation and political persuasion alike) of the subjects that writer/director Charles Ferguson was able to secure for the film – everyone from former State Department leader Richard Armitage to soldiers and diplomats who had been on the ground in Iraq carrying out the haphazard instructions from afar. What’s more, they seemed unusually candid and authentic, almost humbled by the chance to reflect – saying out loud how badly things were done, clearly second guessing themselves and their decision-making process they engaged in, barely containing their frustration at the conflicts and politicking within the Bush administration that prevented any real meaningful collaboration or planning to take place. It was amazing to hear from some of the people who were ostensibly planning for life in Iraq after the invasion, and all the roadblocks and impossible tasks they encountered. It reminded me somewhat of Errol Morris’s The Fog of War, with the same kinds of long, uncomfortable pauses as people who were directly responsible for life and death decisions came to grips with their place in history.

Beyond the interviews, the film is a great chronology of the invasion and occupation as a whole. With the inattentive and lopsided media coverage the many-hundred-billion dollar adventure gets, it’s all too easy to forget that it’s been going on for more than 4 years and that so many different milestones of presidential, congressional, and national identity (many of them unfortunate) have been reached along the way. But despite the moving stories of discontent from U.S. soldiers and the wrangling of egos and power agendas in the U.S., this is about huge losses of life, total destruction of communities, cities, cultures, livelihoods, and a profound sense of injustice, all sustained by the Iraqi people at the hands of our country’s military/industrial complex. The collection of footage often never shown in mainstream media for its heartbreaking implications is in itself a story of unacceptable disconnection from this tragedy.

One of the soldiers interviewed for the film, Field Artillery Gunner Hugo Gonzales, talked about how his life now was preoccupied by trying to find some meaning in the occupation there, especially given his debilitating injuries and near-constant pain. I felt such sadness for him and his fellow soldiers, knowing they have in most cases done what they believe is right and necessary, and that some of them are now feeling pangs of doubt (if not plain outrage) about the nature and origins of their mission. As I walked out of No End in Sight, it was clear to me that any universally useful meaning will probably only come years from now, when the machinations of national and cultural self-consciousness will finally lead to some wider-spread sense that the whole ordeal was a catastrophic mistake. But until then, the movie gives us as much perspective as might be possible while the battles continue and more lives are needlessly lost.

While President George W. Bush would not be interviewed for the movie, other interviewers have asked him and his advisers about the logic and decision-making process that governed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and most often the response is to brush off the mistakes of the past, saying that dwelling on them doesn’t really serve a useful purpose, and to talk about what needs to happen to move forward (hey, that sounds familiar!). While I understand this perspective, I think it is horribly flawed.

And so I really appreciate that in The Assault on Reason, Al Gore took the time to look deeply at the thought processes, public and private conversations, and general approach to decision making that has dominated the Bush administration’s tenure, not the least outcome of which was the mess in Iraq. Gore starts with the psychology of fear and takes us on a whirlwind tour of how it is used to subvert our appreciation of reason, even to the point where the decisions we make are not in our own self-interest. He looks at the language and framing used by modern politicians (certainly with a critical focus pointed right at conservatives) and how every pressing issue of the day — from climate change to foreign policy to immigration to Katrina to the economy — are being poorly addressed or not addressed at all because of the paralysis of the nation due to these tactics. The sad part of his thesis is that, for those who are assaulting reason, it’s all about power:

Throughout history, our innate fear of others-who-are-different-from-us has combined all too frequently with some malignant dogma, masquerading as a message from God, to unleash the most horrific violence and oppression in the repertoire of hell. Moreover, this deadly form of exclusivist group passion can be virtually invulnerable to reason. So it is especially useful to demagogues who learn how to fan it and exploit it to gain and consolidate power. –p. 48

Like some interviewees in No End In Sight, Gore effectively lambastes the Bush administration for its approach to Iraq, but does so in the context of the notion that the Iraq invasion was a distraction from the search for Osama bin Laden and those who attacked the U.S. on 9-11. He returns to the amazing phenomenon where some high percentage of U.S. citizens surveyed incorrectly believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with those attacks, and the rhetoric and carefully planned talking points of the neocon planners that facilitated that trend. In other words, because of the way reason has been assaulted and the truth twisted, lots of people died.

Gore is optimistic about possibilities for improvement and solutions to the phenomenon he lays out, but I’m not sure I can agree with the specific paths he sees to resolution. His primary conclusion is that if Americans can reclaim the practice of meaningful public debate about the issues that face us, we can once again be a nation governed by reason and true democracy. Specifically, Gore sees the promise of the Internet as the key vehicle to that reclaiming, and goes on to promote some of his own efforts with Current TV to that effect.

…the Internet is perhaps the greatest source of hope for reestablishing an open communications environment in which conversation of democracy can flourish. It has extremely low entry barriers for individuals. The ideas that individuals contribute are dealt with, in the main, according to the rules of a meritocracy of ideas. It is the most interactive medium in history and the one with the greatest potential for connecting individuals to one another and to a universe of knowledge. –p. 260

It sounds really good, but as George Lakoff and others have identified, pinning our hopes for the resurrection of a nation driven by progressive values on the notion that everyone just needs to be more reasonable is NOT a strategy for success. The reality is that people will let their understanding of the world and their short-term preferences override any deep comprehension of what might be reasonable or right; even, as I mentioned above, when they are making decisions that conflict with their own self-interest. I’ve experienced that often here in my home town, where some of my attempts to engage those with opposing viewpoints using the tools of logic and reason results only in further misunderstanding, animosity, and even outright resentment at the attempt. I’ve come to understand this as something I can’t really completely blame on the people I’m engaging – if I can’t interact with them in a way that is meaningful and useful to both of us, then that’s partly my fault, too.

Still, Gore’s clarity of vision is worth hearing out, even if it isn’t a comprehensive one. As with soldier Gonzales` attempt to find meaning in the events of the past four years, Gore does manage to make a lot of sense of how we got where we are in a fear-based national identity, and I consider The Assault on Reason to be an essential contribution to the discussion about what we want for ourselves from here on out.