Imagine what would happen if progressives suddenly began talking, confidently, about The Pioneer Option in which America takes the lead on technological innovation, clean, renewable energy, and economic growth and development, in which we meet the future confidently, secure in our "Pioneer" values. Suddenly, progressives everywhere, when giving speeches or writing letters to the editor, are using evocative, powerful phrases that capture the sense of connecting America's best intentions from our past to our future. Imagine what would happen if progressives shared not only a common vision but a common language for articulating that vision. With Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy we got a glimpse of the impact it could have.
Compared to the challenges South Africans faced as Apartheid collapsed, our problems are less critical, though no less crucial. Adam Kahane was one of the leaders of the Mont Fleur process, which he describes in his book Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities. Kahane's model boils down to crafting plausible and possible scenarious for the future then elimiating those which are either unworkable, untenable, or unpopular, to at last arrive at scenarios which feel realistic, sustainable and supportable. In the Mont Fleur process, out of a host of options, participants finally agreed on the "Flight of the Flamingos" - an image which became part of the language of South Africans as they discussed the enormity of the changes they were facing. This option was evocative because it conjured up the image of an entire flock of birds, lifting off a body water into flight - not all at once, but as a collective, every individual joining in the overall trajectory; as Kahane summarizedit a scenario ""in which the government’s policies are sustainable and the country takes a path of inclusive growth and democracy." The metaphor of the flight became part of the national discussion.
The scenario described was largely strategic rather than tactical - a general trend toward a specific type of policy and social relationships in the wake of Apartheid. Again, as Kahane describes it:
The Mont Fleur process, in contrast, only discussed the domain that all of the participants had in common: the future of South Africa. The team then summarized this shared understanding in the scenarios. The aim of such non-negotiating processes is, as Marvin Weisbord, an organizational consultant, has stated, to “find and enlarge the common ground.”
Mont Fleur identified four realistically possible scenarios and their probable outcomes, and shared them with the nation (Ostrich, Icarus, Lame Duck and Flight of the Flamingos). These scenarios each contained risks and drawbacks, but they also represented possible and realistic avenues the people of South Africa might choose. The names of the scenarios serve as short hand for the actual content of the scenario.
Kahane's approach makes explicit that which is often assumed - it invites participants to state explicitly many of their assumptions; because it is rooted in what is actually happening right now, it also empowers participants to honestly assess the state of things.
Democratic politicians have been effective at resisting many of the demands of the Democratic base because they rightly perceive it as a collection of interest groups rather than a united movement with different areas of focus. Creating a shared scenario for progressive interest groups would counteract that but it would also make explicit the shared values and concerns of progressives making it easier for them to act and to pressure Democratic politicians. Making those values and concerns explicit would go a long way toward building a stronger and more effective coalition.
I go back to the analogy of a church. The choir, the sunday school teachers, the preacher, the janitor, the trustess, the volunteers who mow the lawn and the hospitality team are not competing special interests. They are all members of the church with different areas of focus, all of which serve to advance the overall goal of the church. If the choir has hundred year old hymnals and the pastor is preaching a contemporary, liberal theology you've got a problem. If the sunday school follows the common lectionary in planning lessons but the preacher picks and chooses passages according to her mood, you've got a mismatch. Getting everybody on the same page has power. And it doesn't just happen because we want it to.
So, if you think about the various aspects of the progressive movement in those terms - sometimes you've got to get the whole church together, have a sit down and sort out what you stand for. Obviously, Democratic politics are far more complex than a single congregation. You have a large, messy coalition with views spanning a large part of the political spectrum. The Democratic coalition includes center right politicians like Nebraska Senator Nelson, but also reliably progressive politicians like John Kerry. It includes pro-life as well as pro-choice individuals, strong supporter of gay rights as well as many individuals who would prefer the whole gay rights issue just went away. But, something must unite them as Democrats - seriously even Ben Nelson is a Democrat for a reason.
Imagine what it would look like if Dems could gather and unite behind a single, compelling vision.
Scenario planning is a very specific, highly professional discipline within the business and political worlds. Related to game and systems theories, scenario planning has been used by major international corporations, notably Royal Dutch/Shell, who work across political and cultural boundaries and very often with valuable resources. Scenario planning, in its formal applications, requires a high level of skill, insight and information. However, in a social or political setting, you can generate a great deal of the needed information from a group of willing and engaged participants (precisely because they are doing the work, they have the information).
If you've never been to Robert Redford's Sundance Ski Resort, I pity you. It is one of the most uniquely beautiful places in North America. I can envision hundreds of progresses from every corner of the American left gathered there for a week, engaged in discussion, speaking honestly and ultimately articulating several likely scenarios for the future of progressivism in America.
Over the next few months, those scenarios would bounce around - they'd get debated and examined on Daily Kos and at The Democratic Strategist and HuffPo and FDL and at organizations' annual meetings. Finally, a consensus would emerge behind the Pioneer Option. At another gathering at Sundance, the same leaders as before would deepen and broaden the Pioneer Option, they'd integrate insights and understandings gleaned from thousands of conversations. Pastors would find themselves drafting sermons about what it means as Christian Pioneers to stand shoulder to shoulder with one another in the fight for socially just Christian communities and witness. Politicians would polish their speeches and talk about Pioneer programs for America. Specific issue activists would unite behind the Pioneer Option as a means to accomplish their specific goals. Suddenly, the American left would be speaking with a united and unified voice.
Of the participative processes, I think Scenario Building is the most challenging to facilitate and plan but also has some of the most interesting outcomes. It only works if people are willing to come to the table. It is based in storytelling which is a powerful, transformative technique.
Drawing up scenarios presents interesting challenges - to be worthwhile, they have to begin with present reality - what is actually going on, what actual resources exist and what actions are likely to occur. For instance, I can't begin a scenario with the Koch brothers suddenly spending the millions on Democratic causes unless I have reality based reason for proposing such an outcome. I can propose that there are lots of wealthy progressives whose giving could be more strategic and that we approach such individuals. In creating the initial scenarios, our goal is to tell a story in broad strokes (rather like the provocative propositions from Appreciative Inquiry):
Beginning in Fall of 2011, Democratic candidates, officeholders and party officials work with progressives organizations to more effectively contact our donors; we use these expanded resources to more effectively field progressive candidates. These candidates benefit from a national progressive campaign theme and strategy, as well as training sessions for public speaking and making television appearances.
While these things are happening, progressives organizations begin using mutually reinforcing rhetoric. We all begin using the "pioneer" language about working together for a better future for all Americans. Rather than focusing on our specific issues, we talk instead about a broad progressive agenda for economic equality, civil rights and civil liberties. In our fundraising letters and messages, we use shared language about pioneer values. Our economic agenda isn't limited to budgets or taxes but rather to empowering people who work hard and play by the rules to get ahead, to realize their dreams. We're all in this journey to the future together, as a nation.
When elected, progressive politicians primary goals are to craft economic policies that benefit the most Americans, educational policies that create equal opportunities for all Americans, and tax policies that enable government to do the job American expect it to. Since strong local communities are the backbone of America's greatness, we support creating local initiatives that will help people move from NIMBY to YIMBY - Yes In My Bakcyard. Yes in my backyard to after school programs that help children do better in school, yes in my backyard to programs the encourage senior citizens and working family to form friendships and relationships, yes in my backyard to . . . .
I'm obviously just free associating this so a real scenario would be more detailed but also more visionary - something behind which we could unite.
In a week at Sundance, we might start with three days of story telling - hearing from lots of different people from all over the nation - progressives from liberal states and conservative states, from north, south, west, midwest and east, from issues activists to campaign workers. The story telling is about simply speaking their truth, relating their defining experience. These stories - of success and failure - will define the "as things are on the ground" starting point for the scenario planning. We could ask participants to include, as part of their stories, answers to questions such as "Why do you choose to be a Democrat? What makes you proud of the Democratic party?"
Day four would begin by breaking into groups to start crafting the scenarios for the future. There could easily be thirty such stories; as the stories are created, groups share them, and using a variety of voting methods, narrow them down from thirty to twenty. Maybe three are almost identical and can be synthesized into a single scenario and six of them are determined to simply be unworkable based on some flawed assumption or another. The stories don't have to all be good. One could be about progressive failure:
Progressives enter Drought period. In the drought, progressive organizations compete over increasingly scarce resources of time, energy, donations and volunteers. A few organizations succeed but many others go by the wayside. Without a strong, united progressive movement, progressive politicians continue to prioritize compromise over success and repeatedly miss opportunities to build a progressive movement . . .
The primary characteristic of the scenarios is that they realistic, grounded in today's reality and a reasonable projection into the future of what could happen. Rather than shy away from the outcomes we don't want, they face them honestly. A disunited progressive movement could lead to overall failure of progressive values and politics. There are middle grounds between success and failure and the scenarios can examine those honestly. It's about looking at the choices before us and thinking through the options. The point of these exercises is to responsibly and sanely look together into the future and project possible courses of actions and then choose among them that which seems mostly likely to create a sustainable and successful future.
These scenarios consider possible reactions from conservatives and moderates and try to predict them. In 2009, conservative astroturf groups were able effectively terrify conservative Dems and divided the party. The result was far weaker policy than we should have had. The scenario process allows participants to honestly explore ways to counter such tactics since they will be inevitable. Predicting conservative reactions and planning potential Democratic responses is a useful exercise, which can be integrated in the scenarios - i.e., we know if there were a Democratic majority debating a single payer system, the responses would include, so we have planned for our own ways to prepare for and manage our reactions within such a setting. Rather than hoping someone somewhere comes up with an effective response to the hysterical charges of deathpanelnazicommunistsocialistkillinggranny you actually think one out in advance. You know conservatives would publicly lose their minds in response to a Democratic congress, so why not try to predict what that would look like and how you'd respond? Maybe you change your tactics up front. (FWIW, you know conservatives would mock such a gathering and would try to treat it as some sign of incipient dirty fucking hippiness on the part of Democrats and would no doubt attribute all sorts of nefarious motives to it. That's gotta be part of the planning process - "You know Republicans come together every year for CPAC and do their thing, we're just doing the same thing - if they're making funof this do you think they take CPAC seriously?")
At the end of six days, we might have have gotten down to three scenarios - "The Pioneers", "Steady as She Goes," and "Drought." These scenarios would be published and distributed throughout the progressive world and progressives would struggle with them, debate them, argue about them. Slowly, a consensus would emerge about which scenario was our best hope for the future.
At a second Sundance Conference, we'd move from the strategic level ("The Pioneers") to a deeper tactical level - here's how we do "X", here's how we respond to "Y". But we'd also get back into the whole process through more story telling - what has happened since we last gathered? What conversations have you had, what debates, what new insights and learnings and experiences that reflect on what we're doing? A second Sundance Conference would deepen our insights and our connections. We'd be ready to move at the end of the conference - from vision to implementation.