Some very nice work out of Seattle...
> We choose a unique hybrid dialogue/debate format called a “fishbowl” in order > to more fully hear each other’s views. A group “for government sponsored > health insurance” and one “against government sponsored health insurance” was > formed. The first group arranged their chairs in a small circle (6 people) > and talked about the reasons for “government sponsored health insurance” > while the other group remained in an outer circle along with those who > weren’t taking one side or the other. Then the groups switched and those that > were against government sponsored health insurance (8 people) got in the > “fishbowl.” > After both “sides” stated their reasoning behind their positions each group > returned to the middle to reflect what they had heard the other side say. It > was a fascinating chance to determine if we were really listening to each > other. The two groups returned to the full circle to talk about the process. > Both sides, by and large, said they felt heard on their main points. Would love to see more centrist-sponsored fora for getting at the root of disagreements. -- Ernie P. Begin forwarded message: > > Transpartisan Alliance > A message to all members of Transpartisan Alliance > > > By Joseph McCormick and Franca Baroni > > This past Wednesday night at a meeting of the Transpartisan Alliance at the > Mosaic Coffee house in Seattle about 20 Seattle area citizens > from the left, right, and center met for a two hour dialogue/debate. We > had no set agenda for the meeting. Topics were allowed to emerge from > the group. > > The first thirty minutes were spent introducing each other and putting issues > on the table. As people spoke, the topic they personally > wanted to discuss was added to a list. We then had to frame the issues > on the list in such a way that people could choose to be “for” or > “against.” Finally we began a voting process to determine which was the > “hottest topic” to spend the rest of the evening debating. > > Here’s some topics that came up: > > • Should we address homelessness and the downtown Seattle environment > • Should we have a National ID > • Should we restoring integrity to the jury and grand jury system > • Should we have a climate change policy > • Should we increase/decrease gun control > • Should we audit/end the Federal Reserve Bank > • Should we organize an unofficial parallel election > • Should we have government sponsored health insurance > • Should we find solutions to overpopulation > • Should we have federal mandates of vaccines > • Should we revoke corporate “personhood” (14th amendment protection) > • Should we address political polarization > • Should we address elite social control > > It was interesting that within a politically diverse group (greens, > libertarians, republicans, democrats) certain controversial topics like > National ID, mandated vaccines, or elite social control did not create > polarization. The topic that had the highest polarity was health care > (not surprising given the larger national debate.) > > We choose a unique hybrid dialogue/debate format called a “fishbowl” in order > to more fully hear each other’s views. A group “for government > sponsored health insurance” and one “against government sponsored > health insurance” was formed. The first group arranged their chairs in > a small circle (6 people) and talked about the reasons for “government > sponsored health insurance” while the other group remained in an outer > circle along with those who weren’t taking one side or the other. Then > the groups switched and those that were against government sponsored > health insurance (8 people) got in the “fishbowl.” After both “sides” > stated their reasoning behind their positions each group returned to > the middle to reflect what they had heard the other side say. It was a > fascinating chance to determine if we were really listening to > each other. The two groups returned to the full circle to talk about > the process. Both sides, by and large, said they felt heard on their > main points. > > We then began a conversation about where we agreed and disagreed. The main > difference between the group was the degree of trust that each > group put into the government and insurance companies. But after > listening to each other we also realized and acknowledged that the two > groups shared many of the same concerns and needs. And there was much > overlap in everyone’s frustration that both big government and big > corporations are inefficient and disempowering to deal with. > > We realized that we had different ideas on “how” to solve the health care > issue but given more time we would possibly be able to come up > with a more integrated, transpartisan solution. Also, we realized that > much more time was needed just because of the complexity of the issue. > At the end of the meeting it seemed that most of the group felt > energized to continue to explore the topic in a way that all sides can > be heard and included. In the “one word check-out” a word that came up > several times was “more.” This was just a beginning but an important > one: the potential of citizen empowerment through a transpartisan > dialogue. > > The Transpartisan Alliance will organize the next step to this > dialogue/debate on health care on Wednesday, April 7, 6-9:30pm at the > 2100 Building (Room B), 2100 24th Ave S. in Seattle. A whole day > transpartisan health care dialogue/debate will follow in April or May. > > > Visit Transpartisan Alliance at: > http://network.transpartisan.net/?xg_source=msg_mes_network > > > > To control which emails you receive on Transpartisan Alliance, click here > >
_______________________________________________ Centroids mailing list: [email protected] http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
