Governance Archives

Blog

Updates from Governance

Betsy Wright Hawkings

December 11, 2015

For the past 11 months, the Democracy Fund’s Governance Program has been working to develop new approaches to understanding our nation’s system of governance and the forces of hyperpartisanship that currently render that system asymmetrical and dysfunctional.

Nearly one year on, I can say the opportunity to work with a group of people truly committed to representing all sides of the political spectrum has been remarkable and educational beyond anything I could have imagined.

The chance to put a quarter century of experience to use in more deeply understanding the system of Congress – – and where the greatest opportunities for leverage to reduce dysfunction existed – – has been unique.

The space to build a team within the governance program of individuals equally committed to the more effective functioning of government has been rewarding.

And the ability to create collaborations among existing organizations, help new innovative organizations expand, and encourage them all to develop collective impact in the space has been truly energizing.

Among the key challenges we have faced has been developing a strategy that reflects our knowledge and our values while continuing our grantmaking practice in an effort to impact the urgent challenges we hope to address. Described fondly within Democracy Fund as “building the plane while flying it,” we are grateful to have both metaphorically experienced pilots and mechanics on board to help us stay in the air. This infrastructure has enabled the Governance team to support our colleagues by attracting partners that reflect the ideological diversity of the American people, as reflected in their elected officials; develop and support new programs to help build relationships among members of Congress and their staffs; develop technology to enhance congressional constituent engagement systems, identify best practices and train congressional offices to more fully utilize them; and create strategies to advance efforts to “fix Washington” by creating more open and accessible legislative processes, all while developing and refining our strategic plan.

Looking forward to the next year, the governance program is asking itself some hard questions. Specifically: how can we build on our existing work to not just support existing organizations, but incentivize them to evermore groundbreaking work? How can we continue to support the institution of Congress, by strengthening it’s operating systems and processes, as well as the ability of those who work in Congress to use those systems more effectively? And, How can we incentivize government officials, specifically members of Congress, to behave in ways that increase the functionality of government, support bipartisan working relationships, and reward civility?

We know the answers aren’t easy. But we’ve known that all along. It took us a generation to achieve this state of dysfunction; it will take more than a year to fulfill the democracy fund’s mission of increasing engagement, strengthening the integrity of our elections, and improving the functionality of our government. And after all, the essence of systems thinking is that with so many variables, and so many interrelationships, the system is constantly changing and the work is never really done.

But in the Democracy Fund we have an organization that is attempting to not only talk the walk talk, but walk the walk – – of fly the plane—in our teams, in the larger organization, and in the field we are seeking to build as we work to strengthen our system of government.

All in all, a pretty good year, and even more exciting learning to look forward to.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Signs of Life in the Healthy Congress Index and New Hampshire

Betsy Wright Hawkings

October 23, 2015

There’s some irony in the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) releasing its third quarterly Healthy Congress Index two weeks after House Republicans failed to agree on a candidate for Speaker. And earlier this month, the search for a new leader intensified in Washington as the nonpartisan group No Labels convened more than 1,500 Problem Solvers and 8 presidential candidates in New Hampshire for a convention on finding common ground.

The coming months will reveal how the recent actions of a few members of the Freedom Caucus will play out politically, and how those actions will impact emerging signs of health in American democracy as seen in the work of organizations like BPC and No Labels Foundation (both of which are Democracy Fund grantees).

Healthy political parties play an important role in effective, functioning legislatures. But our government’s congressional majority, believing it depended on large numbers to enact a policy mandate to combat the Executive Branch, tolerated members willing to put politics above the basic institutional integrity of the House.

At the Democracy Fund, we are working to make sense of these complex problems and to open ourselves up to new, creative solutions. Our process includes mapping the systems of Congress, with the goal of helping our Governance Program better understand Congress and the hyperpartisanship that has recently characterized it. Our hope is to help the institution – and the dedicated members and staff who work there – to develop more efficient systems to facilitate its functions and to empower more effective leaders in service of our country.

Over recent weeks, the question of whether the system as we have understood it can continue to function became more urgent. So long believing that the common enemy of big government and overregulation would ultimately keep their team united, House leadership misunderstood that the real goal of some appears to have been to break the system entirely.

The Bipartisan Policy Center’s assessment of the Healthy Congress and No Labels’ Problem Solvers aside, time will tell how this episode will affect our political system’s ability to function—of the people, by the people and for the people.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Hacking Congress

Lliam Morrison

April 17, 2015

Ever wondered what it would look like if Congress worked a bit more like a tech innovator in Silicon Valley? Think Congress might benefit from adopting new, creative tech tools that better connect members to constituents, help strapped Hill staff track legislation, or facilitate bipartisan dialogue among members?

These questions point to a relatively new approach to improving the way our Congress and state legislatures work. A field that has traditionally focused solely on solutions rooted in process reforms and relationship-building efforts is exploring the ways technology and digital platforms can decrease dysfunction, increase civility, and improve communication between voters and their elected officials. One of the intriguing angles of this approach, beyond the innovative power of digital platforms, is the potential to bring together experts from a variety of fields who might not otherwise meet, let alone collaborate.

The upcoming #Hack4Congress DC, the third event in a series organized by the OpenGov Foundation and Harvard’s Ash Center, is an example of this approach in practice.

#Hack4Congress DC, which the Democracy Fund is pleased to co-sponsor, will bring together designers, journalists, congressional staff, policy wonks, technologists, academics, and other experts for two days of collaborative problem-solving around specific challenges. After two days, the groups will present their work to a panel of judges.

Previous winners include MyCRS – a service that creates a safe space for offices to query data, explore the effects of controversial positions, and helps reduce dependence on lobbyists as a source of information. A unique submission that helps better connect members and their staff to constituents and their stances on important issues. You can see more of the submissions and winners from the #Hack4Congress events in San Francisco and Cambridge.

Registration for the April 29th – May 30th #Hack4Congress in Washington, DC is open —and you can submit project ideas here. The winner of #Hack4Congress will have an opportunity to present their team’s new solution for Congress to several lawmakers in late May.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Following the Path of History in Alabama

Betsy Wright Hawkings

March 8, 2015

Congress members on the steps of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, on Friday.

Yesterday, at the foot of the Pettus Bridge, thousands of people marked the 50th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday. President Obama opened his speech by placing that day among the most crucial in American history saying, “There are places, and moments in America where this nation’s destiny has been decided. Many are sites of war — Concord and Lexington, Appomattox and Gettysburg. Others are sites that symbolize the daring of America’s character — Independence Hall and Seneca Falls, Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral. Selma is such a place.”

That fact was born out by the unprecedented congressional delegation of nearly 100 members that joined Congressman John Lewis and the Faith & Politics Institute, a Democracy Fund grantee, on this weekend’s pilgrimage to Alabama. The delegation, which I was fortunate enough to join, followed the path of history, retracing the route of the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery. As helicopters, patrol cars, and motorcycles of the Alabama State Police provided an honor escort to Congressman Lewis along the route, I could not help but be so very grateful for how different this ride was from 50 years ago and for how far we have come since the March on Washington, which took place the week I was born.

We then joined Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush; congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy; Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions; Alabama Representatives Terri Sewell, Martha Roby, Bradley Byrne, and so many more at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. We crossed it not only with Congressman Lewis but with David Goodman, whose brother Andrew joined the Freedom Summer and was murdered in Mississippi, along with James Chaney and Michael Schwerner, for daring to work to protect the “imperative of citizenship” about which President Obama spoke so eloquently yesterday.

Traveling this path and living this history offers new meaning and insight into the enormity of the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement in securing the right to vote for so many Americans. Remaining vigilant in protecting our democratic freedoms requires honoring the memory of dark events like Bloody Sunday.

This historic Pilgrimage is one way the common faith traditions of members of Congress can help move us to action as Americans. Coming together across the partisan divide to commemorate this seminal moment in our nation’s history offers the opportunity to think anew, act anew, and help forge new bonds outside of the context of party politics and gridlock.

While we no longer live in the era of Jim Crow, the march for freedom continues. Our democracy continues to face serious challenges in creating responsive elections, in ensuring voters have the information they need to make informed choices, in reducing government dysfunction, and in better securing voting rights for the future.

The participants on this trip came with a range of experiences – some were Civil Rights Leaders, some struggled in their own communities, and some are too young to remember this tumultuous period of American history. But each honors an era in American history that strove to bring the country together to address the deep oppression of racism. It reminds us of how far we’ve come and underscores how we still must work to strengthen our democracy.

As Senator Rob Portman wrote last week, “These challenges will not be easily overcome. Doing so will take all of us — from churches to community organizations, from living rooms to boardrooms, from the grassroots all the way to Capitol Hill — working together with the same unity of purpose that inspired a nation fifty years ago. We need that same faith, that same unwillingness to bow in the face of difficulty, no matter how long the road may seem.”

The path forward won’t be easy, but this pilgrimage is an opportunity for members of Congress—and all Americans—to reflect on the opportunity we share as Americans to move forward from this powerful experience together.

Back to Ideas

Press Release

Welcome to Betsy Wright Hawkings

Joe Goldman

January 6, 2015

The Democracy Fund is delighted to welcome Betsy Wright Hawkings as the new Program Director for our Governance Initiative, which seeks to foster dialogue across the ideological spectrum and support reforms that reduce incentives for hyper-partisanship and gridlock.

The Democracy Fund – a nonprofit foundation created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar – has committed more than $25 million in grants to organizations working to strengthen our nation’s political system over the past three years. Current grantees of the Democracy Fund’s Governance Program include the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Aspen Institute’s Congressional Program, and the Faith & Politics Institute.

With more than 25 years of experience on Capitol Hill, where she served as Chief of Staff to several members of the House of Representatives, Betsy will lead the Democracy Fund’s grant making to organizations working to build bridges across the ideological divide and seek out ways for our government to solve problems in the face of increased polarization. Recently awarded the Cresswell Congressional Staff Leadership Award from the Stennis Center for Public Service, Betsy clearly gained the respect of colleagues on both sides of aisle during her career.

I speak for the entire Democracy Fund team when I say I can’t think of a better way to start 2015 than to have Betsy join our team. We are excited to have someone of Betsy’s experience and energy lead the Governance Initiative. She is going to bring a deep and pragmatic understanding of the way Congress and the parties work – and of the challenges they face – to our efforts to support authentic, productive dialogue in our democracy.

Prior to joining the Democracy Fund, Betsy worked for two decades for her hometown congressman, Christopher Shays of Connecticut. Betsy took a leading role in helping Rep. Shays build bipartisan coalitions to balance the federal budget in 1995-96 and establish the 9-11 Commission and implement its recommendations. She also supported the enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, a provision of the 104th Congress’ “Contract with America,” which applied labor, civil rights, and workplace safety laws to Congress.

From 1996-98, Betsy was also Deputy Director of the Congressional Management Foundation, a non-partisan organization that works directly with Members and staff to enhance their operations and interactions with constituents. Betsy oversaw day-to-day operations of the Foundation and developed numerous guides and resources that provide Members with critical information, from how to establish and run Washington and district offices to best practices for setting strategic priorities over the course of a term.

Following Shays’ departure from Congress in 2008, Betsy left the Hill briefly to work for Amnesty International, where she was Managing Director of Government Relations and then Deputy Executive Director for Advocacy, Policy, and Research. She returned to Congress to lead the staffs of Congressmen Mike Turner and later Bobby Schilling of Illinois before signing on as Congressman Andy Barr’s chief of staff in 2012.

Betsy is a graduate of Williams College, where she was named a Mead Scholar of American Studies, and is a founder of the Form of 1981 Memorial Fund at her alma mater, Groton School, to support student financial aid. She and her husband, David, live in Washington with their two sons.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Guest Post: Seeking Common Ground and New Audiences in the Good Fight

Robert Wright

July 18, 2014

Over the past few months, with the support of the Democracy Fund, we at Bloggingheads.tv have been trying to show that, even in today’s highly partisan atmosphere, policy disagreements can be expressed civilly—and, what’s more, even ideological opponents can find things they agree on.

In a certain sense, this has been our mission ever since Bloggingheads.tv was created in 2005. From the beginning we found that when ideological antagonists have a face-to-face conversation, their civilizing instincts usually kick in. What’s different about our new project, The Good Fight, is our attempt, in collaboration with The Atlantic, to make this civilizing effect visible beyond the small but devoted audience of politics and policy aficionados who come to the Bloggingheads site to watch meaty discussions that can go on for 30, 45, even 60 minutes.

Here is how The Good Fight works: We host a video debate on some policy issue, and the moderator encourages the debaters to crystallize their disagreements but also to highlight any areas of agreement they may have. The whole conversation is shown on Bloggingheads.tv, and, in addition, we distill the results into a highlight reel of only four or five minutes in length. That’s what gets distributed on The Atlantic, the aim being to reach a broader audience than we normally reach, including people who won’t invest as much time in a policy discussion as will traditional Bloggingheads.tv viewers.

So what have we learned from this experiment?

Well, for one thing, we’ve learned that, though 4 or 5 minutes may seem short by Bloggingheads standards, to many of today’s internet denizens, that’s an eternity.

Some commenters on the Atlantic’s site have demanded that we just print a transcript—it’s faster to read than to watch and listen, after all. Others have suggested that, if they’re going to invest as much as four or five minutes in a video, they want something slickly produced, with vivid graphics, arresting animation, and so on. One Atlantic commenter recently wrote, “If you want to produce a video about it, then produce a video about it. The point of video is ‘show me’ rather than ‘tell me’.”

To be sure, some of the videos have done pretty well. A debate between Andrew Sullivan and David Frum on the legalization of marijuana got thousands of views and was shared 700 times on Facebook. And that’s not bad—especially given that the Atlantic precedes each video
with a 30-second ad, thus discouraging casual viewers from sticking around. Still, most of the videos haven’t done as well as the Frum-Sullivan debate.

And maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. If you reflect on the last time that you clicked on a video, you may find that it involved something visually compelling: footage of a storm or an unruly demonstration, say. And if the video was of two people talking, there’s a pretty good chance that there was heated debate, perhaps including a sustained rant. We all like drama, and the internet gives us so much of it to choose from that less dramatic if more edifying content faces an uphill battle for attention.

In any event, we’re proud to have produced some of that edifying content. Good Fight videos have shown that, even though committed partisans are often reluctant to cede ideological ground, points of agreement can almost always be found. For example, Sullivan and Frum agreed that marijuana can harm teenage brains. And NSA critic Conor Friedersdorf admitted that spying on foreign heads of state is appropriate, while Edward Lucas, a supporter of the NSA, conceded that Edward Snowden’s revelations about bulk metadata collection benefited the American public. And in a debate on whether to raise the minimum wage, Tim Noah agreed that placing the minimum wage too high would hurt employment, while Glenn Loury conceded that indexing the minimum wage to inflation made political and economic sense.

Our experiment is far from over. In collaboration with the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts, we’re going to conduct a rigorous study on the effects that such agreements can have on the viewing audience. For example, will conservatives who see liberal Tim Noah concede that point about minimum wage be more open to the liberal side of the debate than conservatives who only see disagreement between Noah and Loury? The study is scheduled to take place in June, and we’re eager to see the results.

Robert Wright is a journalist, the Editor-In-Chief of Bloggheads.tv, and President of the Nonzero Foundation.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Fostering a Culture of Problem Solving in Washington

Joe Goldman

August 14, 2013

“Compromise” is a dirty word in today’s political environment. To admit to making a compromising implies weakness and a lack of principle. In their new book, “The Spirit of Compromise,” Amy Gutman and Dennis Thompson recall a 2010 interview of Speaker John Boehner on CBS’s 60 Minutes:

JOHN BOENER: We have to govern. That’s what we were elected to do.

LESLIE STAHL: But governing means compromising.

BOEHNER: It means working together.

STAHL: It also means compromising. …

BOEHNER: When you say the word “compromise” … a lot of Americans look up and go, “Uh-oh, they’re going to sell me out…”

STAHL: Why won’t you say – you’re afraid of the word.

BOEHNER: I reject the word.

By design, our political system does not function without compromise. While partisans on both sides may hold out for the day in which they control super majorities who can make decisions at will, the reality is that these circumstances are rare and temporary. Failure to accept the need for compromise privileges the status quo and robs our political system of the capacity to solve problems. Compromise need not entail a violation of core values, but it does often require giving up some battles and letting the other side win something. To political leaders who are stuck in a permanent campaign, the idea of losing anything is unacceptable, which takes any compromise off the table. Gutmann and Thompson write that improving mutual respect and trust among political leaders can help shift this mindset and make compromise possible. They write:

“Because in politics motives are usually suspect and bargaining leverage often uncertain, capitulating to opponents is an ever-present fear. Mutual respect is an indispensable antidote. Without it, the parties to a compromise have little reason to believe that they are getting as much as they can reasonably expect, and they cannot assure their supporters that they are not selling out. Political leaders who combine being principled partisans with cultivating close relationships with their partisan opponents bring both the intrinsic and the instrumental values of mutual respect to the table when the time for compromise is ripe.”

Mutual respect cannot solve everything that is plaguing our politics – it may only be a small part of the solution. Real political incentives – votes, money, promotions – often stand in the way and can overpower any good will that exists between people. But some modicum of trust and respect is often a pre-condition to solving problems and can make a real difference. With this in mind, I’m happy to share that the Democracy Fund has added a new member of our portfolio aimed at encouraging bipartisan problem solving – the No Labels Foundation. As you may know, the No Labels Foundation is the educational arm of No Labels – a group of Democrats, Republicans, and independents dedicated to a new politics of problem solving in America. They join the Bipartisan Policy Center, the National Institute for Civil Discourse, and the Faith & Politics Institute in our portfolio of organizations working to ensure that our government has the capacity to rise to the challenges facing our nation. Over the past year, 82 Members of Congress have joined a Problem Solvers Coalition organized by No Labels to encourage greater communication and collaboration among political leaders from both parties. The No Labels Foundation has organized educational events in order to foster greater trust among these political leaders, their staff members, and other key stakeholders in Washington. By building relationships across the aisle within the policy making community, the No Labels Foundation believes it can foster an environment of trust among policy makers and their staff members. Their approach to building personal relationships between political leaders from opposing parties and focusing attention on common interests is well aligned with our aim at the Democracy Fund. I’ve personally attended several events convened by the organization to foster dialogue among policy makers. What has stood out more than anything else is how rare these opportunities seem to be where leader can get to know colleagues from the other side and identify space for genuine common ground. My sense is that there is a real hunger for these opportunities, especially among newer members. The Democracy Fund will continue to explore how structural changes – like redistricting reform and changes to Congressional procedures – can further shift incentives in our political system. But we are enthusiastic about the work that grantees like the No Labels Foundation are doing to contribute to a more productive governance process.

Back to Ideas

Blog

BPC Launches Commission on Political Reform

Joe Goldman

March 5, 2013

The Bipartisan Policy Center, a Democracy Fund grantee, will launch its Commission on Political Reform on Wednesday, which will seek to understand the causes and consequences of America’s partisan political divide and recommend reforms to help Americans achieve shared national goals. Watch the webcast of the launch here (March 6 at 1 pm eastern). The commission will be co-chaired by former Senate Majority Leaders Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS), former Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), former Senator, Governor and Secretary Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID), and former Representative and Secretary Dan Glickman (D-KS). The co-chairs will be joined by 25 other Americans, including volunteer and religious leaders, veterans, business executives, academics, state and local elected officials and journalists. “Democrats and Republicans are not just more divided ideologically, but less collaborative in practice than at any time in our careers. Even more troublingly, we suspect that the divide is not limited to Washington; that much of America is now riven along party lines, goaded to partisanship by increasingly shrill voices in politics, the media, and well-funded interests on both sides,” wrote Snowe and Glickman in an op-ed for USA TODAY. The commission will hold a series of “National Conversations on American Unity” starting on March 6, 2013 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library in California. Throughout the next year the commission will also host forums in other cities across the country, including: Philadelphia; Columbus, Ohio; and Boston. In 2014, the commission will present recommendations to the American people in three areas: electoral system reform, congressional procedural improvements, and promoting public service. The public can join the conversation by visiting www.bipartisanpolicy.org/CPR or following the commission on Twitter: @BPC_Bipartisan #EngageUSA. Check the website daily for new blogs and videos featuring the commissioners, information about upcoming Twitter Q&A sessions, and facts about bipartisanship. Questions and comments from the public will be incorporated into the “National Conversations on American Unity” in real time starting on March 6. Commission on Political Reform Co-Chairs: Tom Daschle, Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader (D-SD); Co-founder, BPC  Dan Glickman, Former U.S. Representative (D-KS) and Secretary of Agriculture; Senior Fellow, BPC

Dirk Kempthorne, Former U.S. Senator (R-ID), Governor and Secretary of the Interior; President and CEO, American Council of Life Insurers

Trent Lott, Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader (R-MS); Senior Fellow, BPC 

Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator (R-ME); Senior Fellow, BPC Commission on Political Reform Members:

Hope Andrade, Former Texas Secretary of State (R) 

Molly Barker, Founder, Girls on the Run

Henry Bonilla, Former U.S. Representative (R-TX); Partner, the Normandy Group

John Bridgeland, Former Director, White House Domestic Policy Council; Former Director, USA Freedom Corps; President and CEO, Civic Enterprises

John Donahoe, President and CEO, eBay Inc. Susan Eisenhower, Chairman of Leadership and Public Policy Programs, Eisenhower Institute; President, Eisenhower Group, Inc. Floyd H. Flake, Former U.S. Representative (D-NY); Pastor, Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral Mark D. Gearan, Former Director, Peace Corps; President, Hobart and William Smith Colleges Heather Gerken, J. Skelly Wright Professor of Law, Yale Law School  Michael Gerson, Former Speechwriter for President George W. Bush; Columnist, The Washington Post

Charles Gonzalez, Former U.S. Representative (D-TX)

Jennifer M. Granholm, Former Governor of Michigan (D)  Antonia Hernandez, President and CEO, California Community Foundation  Karen Hughes, Former Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs; Worldwide Vice Chair, Burson-Marsteller

Victoria Kennedy, Co-founder, Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate

Chris Marvin, Managing Director, “Got Your 6” David McIntosh, Former U.S. Representative (R-IN); Partner, Mayer Brown LLP Eric L. Motley, Ph.D.Former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush; Vice President, the Aspen Institute Deborah Pryce, Former U.S. Representative (R-OH); Principal, Ice Miller Whiteboard

Reihan Salam, Lead Writer, National Review Online’s “The Agenda”

Kurt L. Schmoke, Former Mayor of Baltimore (D); Vice President and General Counsel, Howard University Margaret Spellings, Former U.S. Secretary of Education (R); President and CEO, Margaret Spellings and Company

Diane Tomb, President and CEO, National Association of Women Business Owners

Ronald A. Williams, Former Chairman and CEO, Aetna Inc; Founder, RW-2 Enterprises, LLC

Elaine Wynn, Director, Wynn Resorts

Back to Ideas

Blog

A More Responsive Political System

Joe Goldman

February 20, 2013

In my last post, I introduced our grantees working to foster greater bipartisan problem solving in our political system. This time, I’d like to talk about some of the initial grants that we have made towards creating a more responsive political system – the newest program area of the Democracy Fund. At the Democracy Fund, we believe that our political system must be responsive to the priorities and needs of the American public. While organized interest groups are easily heard in the halls of Congress, the general public has fewer avenues to ensure that its priorities are reflected in the policy making process. We need to find ways to make government more accountable to the public and less accountable to political donors. In order to begin to develop our approach to this area, the Democracy Fund has supported research along with a small number of pilot projects. Examples of research that we are supporting include:

An initiative by the Campaign Finance Institute in partnership with the Bipartisan Policy Center to work with a diverse group of scholars in order to better understand what we do and don’t know about how our campaign finance system works and the relationship between money and our democracy. This initiative will produce a research agenda that can inform the broader policy conversation on the issue.

Another research program by the Meridian Institute is examining how a diverse group of stakeholders from across the political system think about the role of money in out political system in order to find new ways to support bipartisan dialogue and problem solving on the issue.

Research by the Committee for Economic Development seeks to understand the attitudes and views of business about campaign financing and the US political system. This research will help us to understand whether and how business leaders might bring fresh, new perspectives to the polarized discussion about this issue.

Additionally, the Democracy Fund has supported pilot projects aimed at creating a more responsive political system. In particular, the Center for Public Integrity’s Consider the Source program is using investigative journalism to help the public understand how donors are influencing our political system. The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Flackcheck.org has encouraged television stations to reject deceptive SuperPac ads (a program that also addresses our goal of informed participation.) In the coming months, the Democracy Fund will announce additional research that we will be supporting. We’ll also start sharing news of grants to support the strengthening of our electoral system to encourage participation. As we learn from these initial grants and develop our broader, long-term strategy in this areas, we’ll share more here on the blog.

Back to Ideas

Blog

Our Approach to Polarization and Gridlock

Joe Goldman

February 1, 2013

I thought it would be useful to dedicate a few early posts on our new blog to explaining a bit more about our priorities and the organizations in which we have invested. With this post, I’ll start by talking about our grantees working to encourage greater bipartisan problem solving. Future posts will discuss informed participation and creating a more responsive political system. There is no shortage of data supporting the observation that our system has become more polarized and less productive in recent years. While it used to be the case that there were dozens of Congressmen who ideologically fell between the most liberal Republican and the most conservative Democrat, that number has essentially fallen to zero. Certainly, it is no coincidence that our most recent Congress produced the fewest laws in modern history.

While polarization is not necessarily a bad thing (it clarifies choices and motivates participation), the checks and balances of the American political system require our two parties to work together in order for our system to function. Standard and Poors’ explanation for why it downgraded our nation’s credit rating provides a good example for what happens when the ability of Members of Congress to reach principled agreements breaks down. The polarized state of our political system is the result of major political trends that have emerged over several decades, like the regional realignment of southern conservatives to the Republican party and the increased competitiveness for control of Congress since 1994 that has resulted in a permanent campaign environment. At the Democracy Fund, we our under no illusion that there is an easy fix to the situation, but we believe that the current status quo is untenable. To that end, we have been inspired by the work of many organizations trying to make the system work better. Five organizations in particular have received initial grants from the Democracy Fund in order to work on this issue.

The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Democracy Program has marshaled its considerable research and convening capacity to analyze procedural and electoral reforms that have the potential to make a modest difference and reshape political incentives. For example, BPC is currently evaluating reforms that have been enacted by states to improve their redistricting processes and primary elections. They have also produced recommendations about how Congressional rules should change to make the institution work better.
The National Institute for Civil Discourse is a new institution created after Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and 18 others were shot in Tucson in 2011. While no one believes that simply being polite will solve our problems (or that such a goal is even desirable), the basic ability to have conversations about important challenges is a prerequisite to governing in a system like ours. When each side sees the other as the enemy or control by the other side as illegitimate, then the ability to solve problems becomes impossible. NICD and its high profile national board have launched several initiatives to work with members of Congress, state legislatures, media leaders, and others to foster greater trust, civility, and collaboration in our political system.
The Democracy Fund has also supported the Faith & Politics Institute in convening an ideologically diverse group of high profile faith leaders in order to explore the role that they may play in improving the state of our political discourse. Faith leaders hold a unique moral authority in our society and represent millions of Americans. We have been impressed by the genuine and sincere concern that these leaders have brought to the conversation and their personal commitments to contribute to making things better. The group is currently developing a plan for how faith leaders can make an impact over the long-term.
All too often, Americans live in echo chambers in which their assumptions about the world are reaffirmed by the media that they consume. The New America Foundation is working with Professor Talia Stroud at the University of Texas to conduct a series of experiments that seek to understand how media can better expose their readers to other points of view. New America is also supporting research to understand how media can more effectively correct misperceptions and deceptions in ways that overcome cognitive barriers.
Finally, Bloggingheads.tv has launched a unique program, called The Good Fight, which exposes the readers of ideological media sites to civil discussions between pairs of leading thinkers from both sides of the aisle. We’re eager to learn from this program about the degree to which exposure to thoughtful, civil dialogue can impact viewers when they know and trust at least one of the people participating in the dialogue. For example, this dialogue between Brad Smith and Heather Gerken on campaign finance reform shows that advocates from the Left and Right can find some areas of common ground on a highly polarized topic.

The Democracy Fund is still very much in learning mode on this issue and look forward to exploring different strategies for addressing it. While we do not believe there is any silver bullet for reducing hyper-partisanship, we are committed to finding ways that we can make a positive contribution to shifting the political incentives that are driving today’s political behavior. We hope you’ll join us in this important endeavors.