In response to my article outlining my Bock Scale of Republic Robustness (BSRR), Chet Bauch wrote an encouraging reply which started with this comment: “Hi MIKE: Your BSRR is dead nuts on. Problem: realistically people don’t have the time to participate in these activities, with the exception of a few.” This is my reply:

Chet, a small group — “the exception of a few” that you refer to — would make a huge impact if they were united in purpose and determination. The wise words attributed to Margret Mead comes to mind: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” The DaytonOS masthead hasn’t changed in eight years. It includes this question: “How to make a better world?”  Mead gives an answer — become a member of a group of thoughtful committed citizens.

The group of “thoughtful committed citizens” that I’m imagining is: “The Fellowship Of Those Who Dare To Understand (TWDU).”

I like the notion of fellowship, friendship. Polarized partisans can still enjoy friendship and fellowship when they are united by a connector of more importance than politics. A commitment to family or to religion usually takes precedence over politics.  My thought is that TWDU fellowship would be a diverse group representing all points of view. The connector for the diverse members of TWDU would be a commitment to change the world by increasing theirs and the public’s understanding of the world in which they live. Part of each member’s commitment would be to do the work needed to understand each other and each other’s point of view.

My thought is that the initial goal of TWDU should be to change our congressional district, OH-10. If enough citizens in OH-10 could act as group, a deliberative democracy, to bring about a big boost in theirs and the public’s understanding of issues and politics, then OH-10 would be changed. It’s all about motivation. A big goal — if it seems feasible — can be very motivating.  The notion of changing OH-10 would be very motivating to a lot of citizens, particularly if there is shown a positive vision of what such change would look like.

A good question: To change OH-10, what would it take? How many citizens would be required? My conclusion is that 1% would be more than enough, and with the right plan, engaging 1% in a close-knit group is feasible. In OH-10, 1% of registered voters amounts to 5000 citizens — about 10 in each precinct. The idea would be for this group to use the latest technology to act as an online deliberative democracy — deciding the priorities and actions of the group. The notion of networking large numbers of individuals as voting members in a direct democracy would be motivating.

Thanks for your encouragement. Several months ago, I declared that I was putting together a plan and I’ve yet to deliver. It’s been a challenge but I’m still thinking through a five year project — based on generating the motivation and the leadership needed to establish a network of TWDU fellowships throughout OH-10.

I like the old gospel song that begins, “What a fellowship, what a joy divine, leaning on the everlasting arms …”   I remember the congregation enthusiastically singing those words in the church of my youth — a congregation where there was a wonderful spirit of togetherness and fellowship. This is my dictionary’s definition of “fellowship” :

A community bound together in fellowship: companionship, companionability, sociability, comradeship, camaraderie, friendship, mutual support; togetherness, solidarity.

We are in an era of intense partisanship. One benefit of partisanship is fellowship — a solidarity, a companionship — with other like-minded individuals, just as members of opposing armies enjoy companionship and troop camaraderie. The problem is, our emphasis on partisanship is failing to produce the thoughtful and energetic government that we must have — if our republic is to survive the huge challenges coming our way.

We must move beyond partisanship. It is clear that a long-term answer to fixing our system will require a big increase in nonpartisanship — cooperation and unity within the system — it will require more peace, love, and understanding. I’m thinking it will require a big increase in the fellowship of those who dare to understand. Such a fellowship would be focused on understanding:

• the social, economic, and political world in which we live,
• the challenges of the future
• competing points of view of others.

The “Dare to Understand” is a reference to Immanuel Kant’s famous essay, “What is Enlightenment?” The opening paragraph:

Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one’s own understanding without another’s guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one’s own mind without another’s guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) “Have the courage to use your own understanding,” is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

Suppose Gort — the big alien — demanded a huge increase in public virtue.

Ronald Reagan’s favorite movie was, “When The Earth Stood Still,” and in a speech at the UN Reagan mused about what would happen if, as in that movie, an alien force of insurmountable power demanded that the world work together peacefully.  Reagan said, “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”

Gort — the big alien shown in the movie ad — gives this warning, “Your choice is simple: join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration”

I’ve been reading a little of John Adams and I’d like to see a remake of that movie where Gort makes a more specific demand:  “Your choice is simple — within five years show a big increase in public virtue— or else!”

Public virtue! You can imagine the committees of experts who would scurry about trying to decide how to respond. First, they would try to understand what exactly public virtue is.

Our founding fathers emphasized that for a republic to survive and flourish, it must have a citizenry that is virtuous. Virtue, they noted, has two aspects: private and public. Private virtue is demonstrated in character traits like frugality, honesty, temperance, personal responsibility, etc. Religion was seen as having an important role to play in developing those traits, as was education.

Public virtue was defined as actions motivated by a desire to advance the public good. These are the words of John Adams:

Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honor, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. (John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776)

What would a society look like that took Adams’ warning to heart — that public virtue in the essential foundation needed for republics? What would its educational system look like if one of its big goals was to establish in the minds of youth a positive passion for the public good? What would its TV programs look like?  What would we be doing if the earth stood still and Gort demanded a big increase in public virtue?