Now, depending on your perspective, a claim that there is a crisis in American public discourse might seem absurd, suspect, probable or obvious. Recently, I've been moving closer to the obvious camp, though it's mainly intuition that brings me there. There are likely studies out there related to these claims I plan to make - studies that might support or counter them - and anyone with access to them is kindly asked to point me in their direction. For now, here's what I'm thinking.

Yes, we do have a crisis in American public discourse. And, yes, that really matters, because it implicates a crisis in our democracy.

The first evidence is the obvious popular portrayal of poor discourse in the media. Clearly, shows like Crossfire, Hardball, etc., are hardly examples of a respectful and meaningful exchange of ideas. Radio does its part, too, mainly on the AM dial. When OrangeBand began, we spoke about the polarization in our society as exemplified by these shows and had a vague feeling about that being "bad." Our main reasoning revolved around these shows potentially scaring people from ever engaging in "dialogue" or "debate" because of the negativity these popular examples project. Those exchanges exhibit disingenuous, reactionary, and fallacy-ridden arguments for and against the extreme sides of a dualistic spectrum. Rarely is there room for a moderate stance or time for a real exploration of the premises for people's conclusion.

But so what? Why does it really matter if these shows are on TV and on the radio? It's just entertainment, anyway. That was a question I struggled with for a while. The first cut at why this matters rests in the answers I get when I ask friends, colleagues, students, and others why people seem to avoid getting into conversations where they could expect disagreement:

* They don't want to be attacked personally for their opinion
* If they don't have a definite opinion, they may fear being exposed as weak or uninformed
* They may not want to be in a position to have their views challenged because it may require them to change their mind, another sign of weakness
* They may feel that participation is futile because their points will likely never be really heard or listened to anyway
* They may not want to be in a conversation that will inevitably take a competitive, win at all costs turn
* They may not want to be associated with the caricatures these shows' hosts paint of their "opponents" (e.g. war monger, flip flopper, neo-con, right wing nutcase, liberal wiener, terrorist, traitor, unpatriotic, murderer, etc)
* They aren't comfortable with the prospect of defending themselves against straw man attacks and other tactical maneuvers designed to do anything but engage the actual premises and conclusions
* These are sentiments I frequently hear - and they must be coming from somewhere. These shows certainly are a prime candidate since they are so common in the mainstream media.


But, so what? Is this enough to claim a crisis in American public discourse? Perhaps. But my reasoning for this claim has an added dimension: the crisis in public discourse is not just because its popular portrayal makes people less interested in participating - it's that the actual concept of virtuous public discourse is being redefined by these shows as their hosts claim they do, indeed, provide a model for authentic dialogue and/or deliberation.

It would be one thing if they made it clear their shows were an exercise in entertainment, or unabashedly said, "Yes, we are advocating from a particular position." But they do the opposite: they actually claim the space of civil discourse, open dialogue, and/or debate. Begala, while grasping for air in a defense of Crossfire, tells John Stewart in response to his critiques of the show, "We're a debate show." Bill O'Reilly frequently claims to be hosting an open dialogue when he's not telling callers to "Shut up!" In the documentary, The Fire Next Time, John Stokes claims his incendiary show offers the Montana community "civil discourse" as he's calling all environmentalists "green Nazis" and inviting listening to shoot bullets through a UN flag.

All this might be fine if the hosts weren't insisting they offered "civil" or "open" or "balanced" dialogue or deliberation. I don't mind that don't - but I mind terribly that they say they do. And here's why: their listeners believe them and begin to accept the show's example as a model for civility, openness, balance, etc. So, when they themselves are participating in conversations with others, they are at least unpracticed in skills of active listening, authentic debate, and honest argument or at worst not aware of these skills' relationship to civil dialogue and deliberation. So, when these dedicated listeners are presented with opportunities to engage others, they may very well believe the disingenuous, disrespectful, and fallacy-ridden behavior is acceptable or even expected.

But that's the media. What can you expect, you might say - they're just out to make a quick buck and we shouldn't depend on them to set the example anyway. That's where this takes a deeper and all important turn: at times, leaders in the dialogue field fall prey to this popular misunderstanding of debate and perpetuate the misunderstanding by either not giving credence to the authentic form of debate and/or presenting a false choice between deliberative and dialogic processes. I get to this point shortly, but first we need to define our terms..

We need a clear definition of dialogue as distinct from deliberation. Dialogue, in its true form, is a divergent exercise, where participants attempt to build an understanding of each other's opinions and reasons for them. Deliberation, in its true form, is a convergent exercise, where participants attempt to come to a satisfactory solution, product, or decision. A dialogue between friends about what is each person's favorite restaurant is a distinctly different exercise than were those friends deliberating on where to eat dinner tonight. Both are legitimate conversations to have and one is no "better" or more virtuous than another. Sometimes we want to see what everyone's thinking, sometimes we need to come up with a decision.

Here's the problem: because the popular shows readily claim to be "debate" shows, the public is quick to develop a prejudiced understanding of debate itself and possibly deliberative process in general. I'm a prime example. In 2003, when OrangeBand first started, I was saying we wanted to promote "dialogue not debate." But, when I said "debate", I meant its inauthentic form, that most available to me via the media. And, before I became friends with a former national debater, I didn't have a clear understanding of the value a quality debate can have in testing the robustness of particular arguments. Authentic debate is a strong deliberative tool and real debaters are using tools of rational argument to work towards truth - which can be achieved whether the position they represent is the "winning side" or not. Because of my populist and novice understanding, I didn't know to separate "bad debate" from "good debate." It's still debate, right?

Now back to the point about scholars and leaders in the field contributing to the muddied waters. I was recently a student in a leadership institute taught by respected environmental negotiators associated with a respected university. These people are leaders in the field, go-to professionals when it comes to dealing with the most complex of environmental conflicts. The first class was geared at defining the terms dialogue and debate. On a handout, under the heading "Dialogue vs. Debate", here is the opening section:

quote:

We all know the characteristics of an all-out, knock-down, drag-out debate. Opponents line up against one another to seek (or invent) the weaknesses in others' statements. Nobody ever admits wrong or uncertainty. The argument begins with the answers and participants defend their answers against all attack.

Tactics may include verbal and physical intimidation, name-calling, labeling, and stereotyping. Deception and deliberate distortion of the opponents' words are also often accepted as part of the game. Supporters of each side rally around their own afterward. And observers who do not share the fervor of the true believer turn away in despair at ever figuring who to believe or disgust with the process.

Does rancorous personal debate necessarily accompany contentious issues? Is there nowhere to turn for people who do not accept this scenario? Absolutely not!

Think of the qualities you appreciate in good dialogue:

* An opportunity to be heard without interruption or distortion of your views;
* An assumption that you are speaking honestly, without a hidden agenda;
* An interest on others' part to understand your views and to seek agreement where agreement exists;
* An acknowledgement of the importance of your feelings about the issue;
* An opportunity to share your doubts about your own positions without that ambivalence being marked as a sign of weakness;
* A readiness on others' part to admit doubt, to learn, to change;
* A recognition that difference does not have to mean enmity.


The question then becomes how to create forums that nourish this type of productive dialogue rather than unproductive debate.

When I read this the first time, I had more internal red flags raised than I can remember in a long time. This instructional document, in my mind, has potential to do as much damage to the popular perception of debate - and even deliberation - as the aforementioned TV and radio shows. Hyperbole? Consider this:

* By not allowing for a deliberative alternative to disingenuous debate other than dialogue - or even suggesting that authentic debate is in the realm of possibility - the hand out presents a false dichotomy between dialogue and debate. This is further evidenced by the "vs." in the heading and the lack of recognition for the role of dialogic process as opposed to deliberative process.
* The handout strips all value from the concept of debate by first defining it by its disingenuous form and then associating the virtuous "qualities" only with dialogue, suggesting they have no connection with debate. In fact, they all could be argued to be qualities of real debate.
* This, then, sets up the false choice between "productive dialogue" and "unproductive debate."
* By not presenting ways dialogic processes could be disingenuous or co opted, the handout suggests that dialogue processes by their nature are always good and appropriate.
* The people presenting this information are experts, PhDs in the field, authors of books, instructors in the course - they aren't schmucks or lackeys on the TV or radio. They are authority figures in the field of public discourse. Their passing judgement on debate, and being imprecise about the distinction between dialogic and deliberative process, can do as much to prejudice the audience's perception of deliberative exercises as media pundits.

Now, let's assume these instructors probably didn't intend to give this perception and, if asked, could likely articulate many virtues of debate and the distinction of dialogue and deliberation. Indeed, I know this to be true. If this is the case, there are some remedies to the misperception that involve more intentional naming. One problem may be that we don't have distinct terms for the "good debate" and the "bad debate." That muddles up the discussion. I propose, for example, we elimnate the use of the word "debate" when describing "bad debate." I suggest using the word "crossfire." That type of negative exchange is so far removed from true debate, we do debate an injustice by putting crossfires in their same category. Stewart's response to Begala's claim that Crossfire, the show, is a debate is like calling WWF wrestling an exercise in real athletic competition.

But whether the instructors were innocent in their inattention to detail or not, the impact is the same: an affirmation of the popular misunderstanding of "debate" as "crossfire." Combined with the media shows, there is an overwhelming misperception being propagated that risks losing a word - and thereby potentially even the concept - for quality debate.

But, so what? Here's what: our whole democratic system is based on its citizens being able to deliberate with each other in order that the collective wisdom might lead to the best solution. Without the skills of even a novice debater to critically analyze their own opinions and those of others based on the merits of their premises and conclusions, citizens will be hard pressed to come to the better solutions. And that still might not even matter if it weren't that democracy is the best form of government conceived of to date that our society thinks could let us achieve freedom and justice. Without proper definitions and models for proper debate, citizens can't be expected to effectively participate. And with the improper definitions and models of crossfire, it might be better they don't.

The discussion to this point assumes there isn't a counterbalance to the misperceptions. I accept there are people working against crossfire, even in the media, who either discuss these ideas or actually model debate. Thousands are connected with the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, an organization that takes so much care to be precise about these concepts that they make the distinction in the title of their organization. Yes, that's true. But it's not enough. It's not even close to enough to counterbalance the prevalent bad examples and misperceptions.

This needs to change. We need practitioners, scholars, students, media, community leaders, and consumers to be champions not only for dialogue but also deliberation. At the same time, we need these same individuals to be ardent, vocal, and active critics of bogus discourse like crossfire. We have to reclaim debate as a valid method to use for some purposes and we have to empower ourselves and others make that argument publicly. We need to practice dialogue and deliberations and welcome them as part of daily life, part of our roles as citizens. We need to normalize the idea of deliberation, so that it's accepted and people are comfortable, able, and eager to debate in an effort to enrich their world view, be self reflective, and deepen their understanding of their own opinions.

Sharing your voice is the primary right and responsibility for a citizen in a democracy. Currently, it seems a significant number are uninterested and/or unable to do so. That threatens the health of the democracy. Therefore, efforts aimed at promoting authentic conversation are working at least indirectly at promoting authentic democracy.

And that final point has given me a renewed appreciation for the value and potential for The OrangeBand Initiative. Over 8,000 people have taken OrangeBands to hang from their bags to use as invitations to respectful conversation. So what? In an environment where quality dialogue is misrepresented as crossfire, the strips of orange fabric identify a willingness - a yearning for some - to engage in real conversation, to have their voice heard and to hear other voices. In a campus community of 15,000, two thousand took OrangeBands in four days. The visual impact paired with the message of respectful conversation raised, at least temporarily, the consciousness. Dialogues started. Deliberations followed. Somehow, the campus was a degree closer to the democratic ideal - to operating on the premise that, despite our differences, we have a common human nature upon which we can depend.

Yes, OrangeBand is about dialogue. But it's also about democracy. I don't know if a few million people with OrangeBands can have the same positive effect, but I feel a new sense of urgency to find out. If you're interested in testing it out, go to a fabric shop and buy some fabric and put it on your bag - or request an OrangeBand from our website. And when you see each other, just ask "What's your OrangeBand?" and see what happens.