1
Introduction:
The disastrous events taking place outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention (DNC) in
Chicago revealed a gaping hole in the already thinning veil over so-called American democracy,
but it would not be the last of its kind. As the wise philosopher George Santayana once said,
“Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”1 And so today, it seems, he is right. Just this
year the mistakes of the 1968 DNC protest, which created such a backlash of violence and bad
press, were not only repeated at both the Democratic National Convention (DNC) and the
Republican National Convention (RNC) 2008 demonstrations, but were also, in many ways,
augmented. All produced brutality and public ridicule. The final chapter in the Chicago story
ended with a handful of organizers prosecuted and jailed, along with two lawyers who dared to
represent them. Hence, the tale exposed a painful truth about some genuine risks of voicing
dissent in America. It appears that America is not amicable to dissent, and to make matters
worse, America seems to be growing increasingly hostile toward dissenters. For instance, where
in 1968 protestors were accused of being communist sympathizers, today they are labeled
domestic terrorists or enemy combatants. What can be learned from these failed attempts at
conflict resolution, social control, and democratic participation insofar as opposition might be
handled more peaceably in the future?
In seeking solutions, the old adage, “simple not easy, “clearly applies to this problem. The
master keys found in the most rudimentary laws of communication theory are simple, but
applying them to realpolitik will not be easy. This paper discusses how fundamental peace
1
Santayana, George. (1905). “The Life of Reason” in 1998 version, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
2
building skills, commonly used by mediators2 and philanthropists to catalyze transformative
change, were not exercised by the U.S. government as they dealt with angry dissenters during
both the Democratic and Republican National Convention protests. Furthermore, we explain
how these conflicts were escalated as a direct result of unproductive strategies and tactics
employed by police and other legislative forces. In conclusion, we suggest some transformative
measures by which the demonstrations could be alternatively approached and, as a result, the
climate for democratic discourse be improved.
Political Conflict as the Catalyst for Social Change:
For a country which owes its very existence to revolutionary dissent and rebellion against an
oppressive government, paradoxical have been the methods by which, soon after, dissent has
been dealt with. United States history bears ironic witness as to the difficult nature of the road
trudged by the oppressed seeking to be granted the most minimal civil and human rights.
Abolitionists, peace advocates, anti-capitalists, civil libertarians, and proponents of women’s
rights, workers rights, along with gay and lesbian activists, have many times flooded the streets
of cities large and small. Bursts of public outrage have inspired social mergers and marches and
ignited U.S. cities with flames of impassioned protest. Nascent climates experiencing social
shifts that indulge changing attitudes have frequently emerged with crushing force. On many
American streets demonstrators have raised their voices and in their memories, both
triumphant and wounding, we can experience the deep scars carved by these historic, raging
paths of indignation.
2
Egan, Gerard. (1998). “The Skilled Helper: A Problem-Management Approach to Helping, sixth edition.” Pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co;” Goleman, Daniel. (1995). “Emotional Intelligence: Why it can Matter More
Than I.Q.” New York: Bantam Books; Yalom, Irvine D. (1995). “The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy.”
New York: BasicBooks.
3
Transformation has all too often been born of violent action when committed swirls of
citizens have breathed life into peace movements, equal rights movements, and nuclear
weapons bans. They assemble to stop killing, prevent hunger, fight immoral capitalism, and
most importantly to engage in desperate attempts to rekindle democracy and bring the people
back into politics. Many argue that America, the Land of the Free, the home of the brave,
unique in her qualities of democracy and the right to free speech, is more a rhetoric than a
reality. In theory, her citizens are taught to believe that dissent provides the cornerstone for
America’s great leaps forward, that the ability and will of the people to merge their energies
and bring about change for social justice has forged our noble place of power in the world.
With peace movements growing at the grass roots level one might think that the United
States government, as a representative republic which is supposed to reflect the values and
popular views of constituents, would be showing at least some signs of progress as well.
Indeed, the United States government has been a careful student of past demonstrations, but
the lessons learned by leaders do not seem to have forged a peaceful path for improved
negotiations nor have they led to the development of new and better techniques which could
sustain peaceful resolutions and allow transformation by supporting an environment which
does not first and foremost engender anger and violence.
The Conflict:
Conflict, from the state’s perspective, is always about social control. Politicians depend on
economic consistency, low crime rates, favorable media coverage, and positive public image for
reelection. The idea of media frenzy, like the ones surrounding the 1968 Democratic National
Convention and the 1999 Seattle World Trade Organization (WTO) protests, may have been an
4
unsettling thought for organizers and participants at the 2008 Republican National Convention,
especially in a year already fraught with political controversy.
For protestors, conflict centers, in one form or another, on questions of democracy.
Rebellions begin to swell up when the people feel a desperate need to be heard, and their
representatives are not addressing or even listening to their concerns. Under these conditions
remonstration is an eventuality, particularly in places where harsh oppression is commonplace.
It was for the reason of communicating disagreement to the government that, in August of
2008, tens of thousands of people from all over the country traveled to St. Paul, many of whom
were aware that they would be up facing possibly the largest, most well-armed government
police force ever assembled against its own citizens on American soil. Said journalist Will
Dunbar, “They arrived with the hopes of disrupting the Convention, voicing their distaste for
the platform and tactics of the conservative movement and demonstrating to the powers that
be that they will not sit idly by as our world is sold off to the highest bidder at the expense- and
exploitation- of working people the world over. At the end of the week, nearly 1,000 people
had been arrested, thousands had been injured by police violence, thousands more had been
given a first-hand showing of how little the ‘rule of law’ matters to police forces.”3 The
complaints raised by protesters ranged from the grievous Iraq War to evidence of a breached
constitution and violations of the Bill of Rights, to an ad infinitum list of complaints and
frustrations emerging from other governmental failures such as poverty and unemployment,
3
Dunbar,Will. (Nov. 24, 2008). “The 2008 Republican National Convention Riots & Protests: What Is To Be
Learned?” http://www.twincities.indymedia.org/. Note: The exact number of arrests was reported at 818 by
Statchura, Sea. (Sept. 5, 2008). “Final Day Protests end in an estimated 300 arrests.” Minnesota Public Radio.
5
forty five million uninsured Americans,4 the Patriot Act5, corporate crime, and rampant
government corruption in the form of sex scandals6, torture scandals7, and financial
misappropriations8, all of which were aggravated by an egregious lack of accountability on the
side of Washington and state and municipal politicians. But at the root of all these voices of
dissent is a common theme. Many Americans feel ignored by their representatives; they feel
their voices are being silenced or at least marginalized behind an illusion of free speech.
Although letters were written, little appeared to change, and as a result flocks of
Americans hit the streets to observe their constitutional right to assemble in peaceful protest.
Signs were carried, one reading: “This is a test of the emergency free speech system;” another,
a picture of George W. Bush next to Adolf Hitler reading, “Same shit, different asshole.” Their
task was to do the very thing the mainstream media was again failing to do, possibly knowingly:
fight the peoples’ apathy and the immorality of the powerful. In response, dissent was labeled
terrorism by the White House and Congress. The methods for repressing conflict at home have
come to reflect the same militant strategies as those used overseas: arm the forces,
dehumanize and overpower the enemy, and complete the mission. Given the absence of
corporate media coverage about the pending demonstration the message was reinforced to
Americans that if they felt doubt, anger, or lacked faith in their government they were either
alone, or in the company of a few, unpatriotic loons who were orbiting along societies lunatic
fringe.
4
Reinberg, Steven. (Aug. 26, 2008). “Number of Uninsured Americans Drops.” U.S. News & World Report.
H.R. 3162 In The Senate of The United States, Oct. 24, 2001.
6
See Elliot Spitzer, Larry Craig, Mark Foley
7
See Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay Prisons
8
See Jack Abramoff, Ted Stevens, and Tom DeLay
5
6
But the conflict looming in the shadows of the convention was not made up of a few
outcasts. In fact, there seemed to be an organized mob amassing. Based on a clear record of
inaction regarding a historic multitude of civil complaints one might think that political leaders
had no idea the people were even upset. But the vast expenditures and funding marked for
premeditated and extreme security measures make it impossible for Republicans to claim
ignorance about the overwhelming wave of discontent marching toward them on the horizon
of the Convention.
Security Measures:
Although similarly unprogressive tactics were utilized at the Democratic National Conventions
of 1968 and 2008, we will focus on the particular security strategies used during the Republican
National Convention of 2008. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) christened the
convention a National Special Security Event (NSSE),9 thus immediately granting primary police
responsibility to the United States Secret Service (USSS),10 the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI),11 and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).12 A Multi Agency
Communication Center (MACC) was established as a command post for local police and
government officials, coordinating information and logistics through telecommunications
companies,13 all of whom were militarized for the purpose of emergency control.14 Joint
9
As outlined by National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-46; and Homeland Security Presidential Directive
(HSPD)-15
10
Responsible for the task of security design, security planning, and security implementation. Burghardt, Tom.
(Nov. 19, 2008). “Pre-emptive Policing and the National Security State: Repressing Dissent at the RNC,” Centre for
Research on Globalization http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=110:
11
Responsible for crisis management and counterterrorism, see Burghardt (above).
12
Responsible for consequence management, see Burghardt (above).
13
Including Verizon Communication, Verizon Wireless, Quest, Sprint, AT&T, and EXCEL Energy, see Burghardt
14
See Burghardt.
7
operations were of vital importance with more than 30 agencies involved in the task of
maintaining security.15
External to the MACC preparations was exposed the more physical magnitude of
mounting costs. Expensive riot gear was purchased to protect the massive police and military
forces as they worked to create an impenetrable wall separating convention attendees from
convention protestors. $210,000 dollars were spent on tasers16 for a local police force of 3,500
who were paid time and a half for their services; just one of the expenses compensated by a
$50 million dollar federal grant which had been specifically designated for security purposes.17
In short, millions of tax dollars were used by those in charge exclusively to keep the politicians
protected from interactions with a disagreeable public.
Another $16.3 million dollars in federal funding was received by the GOP Committee on
Arrangements (COA). This money was used, in part, to reserve the X-Cel Energy Center, the St.
Paul River Centre Convention Center, the Roy Wilkins Auditorium, more than a hundred hotels,
and numerous other venues.18 An additional $58 million dollars was raised by the Host
Committee,19 made up of 48 corporate donors20 who forked over $1.2 million dollars for a
police-liability insurance policy, which would cover up to $10 million in damages should civil
suits be filed against police. Other expenses absorbed by the Host Committee included
compensating local businesses for profit losses when access to their shops and parking lots
were closed off in the name of security.
15
New York Times: New York Edition, Sept. 2, 2008, A-20.
Yuen, Laura. (Feb. 16, 2008). “St. Paul Police Dept. Seeks 230 Additional Tasers,” Minnesota Public Radio.
17
Yuen, Laura. (Aug. 5, 2008) “St. Paul police say 3,500 officers will be ready from RNC,” Minnesota Public Radio.
18
2208 Republican National Convention official website, http://www.gopconvention2008.com/about/
19
Yuen, Laura; Scheck,Tom. (Oct. 16, 2008). “RNC Host Committee Reaches Goal of Raising $58 Million” Minnesota
Public Radio.
20
http://www.muckety.com/2008-Republican-National-Convention-host-committee/5042707.muckety
16
8
Operations began early when, in the days prior to the convention, dozens of raids were
carried out by law enforcement agencies on homes resided in by community organizers. Along
with detaining dozens of conspiring protestors, reporters, and filmmakers, the police
confiscated literature such as newspapers and political pamphlets, printed at the
demonstrators’ expense, which would have been passed out on the streets of St. Paul.
Computers, magazines, phone numbers, $1,000 dollars in tools, cash, duct tape, one machete,
sling shots, bricks, rocks, baseball bats, as well as what the cops thought were buckets of urine,
were taken into police custody to be used as evidence against the dissidents. They were
charged with “Conspiracy to Commit Riot in the Second Degree in Furtherance of Terrorism in
violation of MN Statute 609.71.2; 609.175.2(3); 609.714.1(2); 609.714.2, Maximum Sentence: 5
years or $10,000 fine or both,”21 marking the first time use of Minnesota’s version of the Patriot
Act.
In summary, efforts to impede interactions spared no expense. More than $100,000,000
was afforded the cause, with more than half that amount purely dedicated to the task of
protecting delegates from even distant contact with dissenters. One can only guess at the
ultimate price tag attached to this enterprise in the untallied expenditures which are not
limited to arming police with special weaponry, recruiting additional forces, arresting, booking,
detaining, and processing individuals on various charges, processing and storing evidence,
lawyers fees, court fees, compensation for judges, prosecutors and public defenders. The
extensive social and political costs are yet to be determined but as repressed anger builds the
21
From the documentary film Terrorizing Dissent presented by Friends of the RNC 8 at http://rnc8.org/
9
events witnessed at the RNC protests are certain to reinforce negative feelings and they are
likely to give rise to more conflict in days to come.
The RNC: a Negatively Reinforced Conflict Model
People are communicating all of the time through words, body language, and various other
forthcoming signals. The choice presents itself in each social situation to speak, act, and interact
morally or immorally, successfully or unsuccessfully, fairly or unfairly, in an open or in a closed
fashion. For successful conflict transformation at home or abroad, all parties should become
amicable to taking an introductory step into the realm of mutual conversation governed by
mediation contracts. Conversation, one productive and moral form of communication, is about
both speaking and listening, both sharing and receiving.
On the macro level, the United States’ form of communication with other sovereign
states over the past several decades, but exacerbated during the George W. Bush
administration, has been one of pre-conditioned demands rather than open-ended
conversations. By defining certain countries as part of an “axis of evil,”22 for example, the
president communicated to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, as well as to the rest of the world, that
certain states, in their entirety, are evil. This enabled the administration to deal with members
of particular ethnic, geographic, and social groups as isms rather than human beings.
In a related fashion, domestically, the incidents at the RNC show how the State moved
to localize an enemy, waging a physical war against an ideological one, attempting to overthrow
communicative and structural struggles with labeling, physical aggression, trespass, and
blockade. The United States government has, mostly recently, opted to communicate with its
22
Bush, George W. (Jan. 29, 2002). “President Delivers State of the Union Address” at the U.S. Capitol.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129.
10
own public through surveillance, terrorist watch lists, illegal searches and seizures, and
paranoia, culminating in the deployment of both military, as well as paramilitary forces, on
American soil. In the context of the RNC specifically, the United States Government chose to
adapt its responses to the set of laws it prescribes in accordance with the platform it has
become most comfortable with, a militaristic model that communicates with weapons and
force, ultimately undermining actual trust and security. Under the guiding rules of this current
system the voices of opposition do not have to be faced and the uncomfortable feelings
individual politicians might experience in mediations that require listening to those voices can
be completely avoided.
But an agenda which forcefully prevents access to alternative solutions and effectively
stops two-way conversations can only lead to escalations and growing problems in the future.
In the situation unfolding at the RNC it seemed, at times, like an act of war against public
opinions. In fact, the actions taken by the State provided clear proof that dissenters may have
been correct in their accusations about free speech. In being arrested protestors probably
achieved their best case scenario, in that they were able to attract attention to the fact of State
sponsored terrorism being carried out at home. In the long run, future violence is probable
since under this model both sides will need to escalate their positions in order to be, either,
noticed and heard or to maintain the comfortable status quo. Without a transformative change
to the modus operandi between the government and dissenters, violence is certain to
perpetuate itself ceaselessly as evidenced by the common reflections between events
witnessed in 1968 and again forty years later.
11
Theory:
Up to this point we have demonstrated certain shortcomings pertaining to a so-called
democratic, even a republican, United States of America. The evidence to convict the United
States of perpetuating plutocracy, fearocracy, war crimes, and committing a variety of other
corrupt acts, is convincing. It is obvious that a significant percentage of the population is
expressing discontent as evidenced through the mainstream media’s center-left leaning
popularization of opposition to the Bush administration’s tenure and overwhelming excitement
for the coming presidency of Barrack Obama. But agreement on the status of contemporary
America provides no blueprint for the future, merely an acknowledgement of the great task
ahead. As Al Smith said, “the only cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy.” 23
Democratic theorists agree that democracy cannot be imposed on a society from the outside in;
it must grow from within the heart of the individual, the community, and the world.24
Therefore, as we suggest, if democracy can offer some relief from the status quo, it must
emerge horizontally, through mass interaction of public opinion which in turn has an effect on
government such that it cannot be ignored.
The great thing about democratic theory is that it is up for interpretation with each new
voice brought to the conversation. Dissent is not only acceptable in a democracy but
encouraged, on the grounds that deviant voices get sufficient time at the microphone. “The
spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always
23
In Hardt, Michael; Negri, Antonio. (2004). “Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire.” New York: The
Penguin Press, p. 231.
24
Hardt, Michael; Negri, Antonio. (2004). “Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire.” New York: The
Penguin Press, p. 237; Minch, Michael; Sanders, Clifton. (2008). Democracy as Music, Music as Democracy. (p. 5).
Currently unpublished work by Utah Valley University and Salt Lake Community College professors, respectively;
Ghandi in Diamond, Larry, The Spirit of Democracy (New York: Times Books, 2008), on the page before the Table of
Contents.
12
kept alive…I like a little rebellion now and then,” said Thomas Jefferson to the wife of John
Adams after hearing about the “debtor’s rebellion” in 1786 Massachusetts.25 When individuals,
communities, and states stop disagreeing entirely on political issues, it will be too late to ward
off totalitarianism, as witnessed by the rise of the popular Nazi Party in post-WWI Germany.
Even the current two-party political system accepted in the US is a less than adequate
substitution for genuinely democratic elections. Yet the people, not the politicians, must
demand a multi-party system, and they must be willing to invest in their own governance.
With the importance of active participation on the part of civil society established, what
now can be said about the importance of active participation on the part of its governing
officials? We believe the responsibility bestowed on those who take office to be even greater,
after all they have taken an oath and under social contract it is expected that they conduct
themselves accordingly. Although it seems obvious, we feel this must be plainly stated; since
the politician is paid to perform a diplomatic representative service to the people they should
perform a diplomatic representative service to the people. This means they can, and should, be
answerable to the tasks for which they are entrusted care. Being accountable to the people, for
politicians, means engaging in interface with the people, in much the same way as office
workers customarily must interact with and be accountable to their boss. It is here that a
fundamental link has been missing. For instance, there was a time when politicians would
campaign among the people. Although, still a show, there was a personal relationship which
developed through the process of grand-standing, or participating at the community level in the
campaign process. Today, politicians interact with their constituents from a one-sided platform,
25
In Hardt, Michael; Negri, Antonio. (2004). “Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire.” New York: The
Penguin Press, p. 248.
13
largely from a distance, using television, internet, and papers to communicate promises and
positions, without ever being required to move among the poorest of the people they are
employed by. In response to onslaughts of mail from concerned citizens, form letters are
prepared and sent by staffers with pre-set answers to frequently asked questions and concerns.
It is no wonder people are distrusting of politicians. In The Good Society, Robert Bellah states,
“…it is much harder to build trust than to lose it. But that is our problem in the United States:
we have begun to lose trust in our institutions—not yet, fortunately, in the electoral transfer of
political power, though cynicism about elections is growing. The heritage of trust that has been
the basis of our stable democracy is eroding. This trust is not a nonrenewable resource, but it is
much easier to destroy than to renew. That is why our problems are ominous in their
implications for our future.”26
In discussing the character traits and moral awareness required of both governments
and people, Daniel Goleman adds, “If character development is a foundation of democratic
societies, consider some of the ways emotional intelligence buttresses this foundation…Being
able to put aside one’s self-centered focus and impulses has social benefits: it opens the way to
empathy, to real listening to taking another person’s perspective. Empathy, as we have seen,
leads to caring, altruism, and compassion. Seeing things from another’s perspective breaks
down biased stereotypes, and so breeds tolerance and acceptance of differences. These
capacities are ever more called on in our increasingly pluralistic society, allowing people to live
together in mutual respect and creating the possibility of productive public discourse. These are
26
Bellah, Robert N. (1991). “The Good Society.” New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
14
the basic arts of democracy.”27 And, paraphrasing and superimposing Yalom’s therapeutic
group principles onto the political sphere, accessible leaders who have an established and
transparent modus operandi, who listen, empathize, validate, and share their experiences must
not be considered a luxury—they must be viewed as the minimum requirement for political
office.28
So, while theories for improvement are numerous, most call for a living relationship
amongst all citizens, from the governors to the governed. Therefore, as with many forms of
conflict healing and change, it is not unreasonable to suggest that accessibility and mediated
communications have the highest potential to heal and shift the dynamics and fundamental
meanings manifest in the large scale conflict we have been discussing.
An Appeal to Government; Suggesting Alternative Strategies
For a fraction of the cost, the RNC fiasco could have instead become a golden opportunity to
shift the negative dynamics that define the current relationship between the US government
and a growing segment of its populace. By employing transformative mediators to moderate in
open conferences the Republican Party could have redeemed their own image and mitigated
more than a few frustrations through the pure and simple gesture of showing a willingness to
engage in productive conversations. This shift in strategy would apply the work of
communication toward a democratic conflict transformation and not only would financial costs
have been minimized but the way the community of St. Paul, the American people, delegates,
and potentially, the world, experienced this event would have been entirely different.
27
Goleman, Daniel. (1995). “Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ.” New York: Bantam Books.
Yalom, Irvin D. (2003). “The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy.” Fourth Edition. New York: Basic
Books.
28
15
Since the government appeared to have a perfect awareness as to who many of the
organizers of demonstrations were, it seems reasonable to suggest that these groups could
have been contacted and, at the very least, and for a start, a few of their representatives
invited to participate in mediated discussions with Party Members. This option may have
required the extra expense of showing up a few days early, hiring professional mediators, and
maintaining security although, we suggest a less costly, less intimidating version, possibly in the
form of unmasked peacekeepers. Certainly, the gesture alone would have triggered a shift in
the conflict even if we don’t consider the other possible effects. The principle upheld here is of
the utmost importance since conversation is the best starting point for addressing any issue.
This new arrangement would have supported an atmosphere of transparency rather than
secrecy, a mood of concern rather than apathy, and provided a space where permission was
granted to emote and speak openly rather than constructing a confined space and climate
which both outlawed and repressed opposing views.
The use of riot gear and overly armed police impedes interaction and sets the stage for
violence. The anonymous and masked appearance of these servicemen and women invites
problems as studies have shown that masks which hide the features of attackers may
encourage them to act less morally as they are operating in disguise which creates anonymity
and therefore unaccountability for ones actions. This has been found to be particularly true of
those who are also functioning under stressful circumstances. Additionally, for the
demonstrators, facing an intimidating line of black clad, fully armed, unresponsive, faceless,
figures does not seem to encourage free speech or any other type of human interaction which
may have been beneficial to the situation. Properly trained peacekeepers can provide security
16
and still meet and interact with others face to face influencing an atmosphere in which each
side has the opportunity to see and hear the other. In some instances, protesters and police
have been capable of working together in a collaborative approach with a peaceful result.
Additionally, this provides an opportunity for each to see and understand the other as human
beings involved in a large scale action, but not really that different after all.
Let’s imagine now, that the press had been invited to attend these mediations between
delegates and public groups, such as the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW). Would public
concern about the war have increased? Maybe, but at the same time, public trust in political
leaders may have also increased somewhat. By allowing the public to become a part of this
process they are given the opportunity to assume their rightful place in the mediation, as
participants of a democracy who have an interest in understanding the truth of the
conversation taking place. Just as an individual may gain a new perspective of another party
over the course of the mediation process, the public would be able to gain new perspectives
about their government, the protestors, and the issues. Alternatively, the positive press the
Republican Party could have generated on the whole might have put them back in the running,
so to speak. According to this new framework, on the local level, streets could remain open,
and all business would thrive. Revenues would have skyrocketed and the community could
have generally profited rather than paying for damages through taxes, suffering from
inconvenience, and struggling with the fears that forceful militant actions and re-actions incite.
It is easy to see how this shift away from the detrimental status quo methods of
handling dissent would have allowed positive modifications in meaning to occur and set forth a
new precedent for democratic procedure in the United States. This new ideal would locate a
17
foundation on which to build new political traditions by establishing an act of faith in such
things as responding with love and concern toward others, making a visible effort toward reengagement, creating a new transparency to the process, making politicians accessible to the
public, becoming an example of conflict transformation at the government level, reducing
anger and violence, rebuilding trust, teaching and learning on all sides, providing opportunities
to both listen and speak, developing mutual respect through supported interactions—even
when it is uncomfortable, allowing dissent and anger, and remembering our past in the quest
for redemption and change.
The most solvent aspect of this model may be founded upon the fact that it requires
nothing outrageous of political leaders. In fact, all that is required is that they merely perform
their jobs, since it is the job of politicians to represent, protect, and respect their public by
implementing the basic diplomatic principles of positive, progressive, responsible, and honest
communication. Merriam-Webster defines diplomacy as, “1) The art and practice of conducting
negotiations between nations, and 2) Skill in handling affairs without arousing hostilities.” So, if
not in the name of social justice, law and mediation, or communication then, let us act in the
good name of diplomacy, which most politicians understand, at least in theory. Americans can
realign themselves with democracy through conflict transformation frameworks. By placing
value on conversation as the best defense against ignorance and misunderstanding people can
produce a finer society which includes rather than excludes the majority, and encourages
rather than discourages alternative ideas and different perspectives.
18
Conclusion:
Anger, resentment, misunderstanding, self-interest, and violence—basic challenges of
democracy and civil society—represent failed means and ends in the communication process.
The persistence of these problems seems to invalidate any arguments or reasons to hope for
better circumstances in the world. But love, forgiveness, empathy, community interest, and
peace—the great ideals—are experienced on the individual level with much success every day.
In relationships, family structures, on sports teams, in bands, and in religious communities the
world over, these positive human characteristics occur frequently, negating the philosophy that
humans are always self-serving and fully autonomous beings. This latter group represents the
moral of society, the utopia, the hope of organizations large and small.
In the end a question must be asked of communities. What kind of government do you
want? What are you willing to sacrifice in order to stay at home and remain uninvolved? The
recent demonstrations provide hope for a more democratic state in which people care enough
to step out of their comfort zones and demand that political leaders do the same. The operating
systems of the United States are in desperate need of change and what better model to look
toward for enduring answers than to propose that governments listen to the mood of the
people, hear the cries of the poor, heed the wisdom of humanitarians and peace activists, give
an audience to anyone with the courage to request one, and authenticate the very meaning,
not just the rhetorical representation of democracy, and the freedom, liberty, and happiness
described in the United States Constitution. What could be better for converting the U.S. to a
true born-again democracy than a good, old-fashioned, come-to-Jesus between those who
order, “ Jump!” and those who say, “How high?”
19