"For vs. For"

You would think they would learn. It's always disappointing when political candidates or those advocating for a political issue resort to attacking opponents rather than sticking to one's own platform. It's a sign of weakness. Keeping one's composure and calmly explaining the rationale for one's own platform can win the confidence of American people.

This is extremely difficult to do, especially when recommending change, because most people tend to choose the status quo rather than risk change, even if that change could have positive results.

The voucher debate in Utah is a good example of what can happen when sides resort to an attack tactic. More often than not in a situation such as this, the status quo wins.

There are some lessons to be learned from the Utah voucher debate:

Lesson #1: Rather than making vouchers the focus, it may have been more constructive to focus on the education of diverse learners, parental rights, teacher shortage, improving public schools, saving money, and/or some other issue.

Lesson #2: Rather than having a "for vs against" stance, a "for vs for" stance has a greater chance of a win-win. In other words, all sides of an issue present a solution platform to improve the education of diverse learners. This way, status quo is not an option. People will have to make a decision and not just vote against something because the proposed change is still fuzzy in their minds. Voting against something without having to offer an alternative solution is an easy out and doesn't take much thought.

Lesson #3: Sticking to one's own platform on how to address the issue explaining the rationale rather than attacking the other platform shows respect not only for the opposite side, but also for the American people.

Lesson #4: Trusting the American people to make a wise decision is a respectful manner that appeals to their mind as well as their heart.

These are lessons that all political candidates and those advocating for political issues might want to consider learning if we as American people are to be well served. We as the American people have a responsibility to continue to encourage that these lessons be learned through our example of words and actions.

Willing to Dialogue With Those With Whom We Disagree

The work of my good friend, Izzy Kalman, the author of Bullies to Buddies, has done it once again!

I was disturbed by a conversation I had yesterday with a friend. This friend had just been involved in a very hot debate in Utah over vouchers. He shared with me that when he had reached out, more that once, to dialogue with those who had not only attacked his ideas because of their opposing views, but also had attacked his character, his offer to dialogue was either rejected or ignored.

This disturbed me greatly for various reasons, one being that if we as adults can't be role models on how to dialogue with those who disagree with us, how can we expect our young people to learn how to deal with conflict in a civil manner? Looking for answers I went to Izzy's website--www.bullies2buddies.org-- for some counsel. I wasn't disappointed.

At Izzy's website there was a link to another website--www.freedomforum.org. At this site I found "A Statement of Principles" called Religious Liberty, Public Education, and the Future of American Democracy. Although there are seven principles all of which are excellent, there was one, the 7th that particularly fit this situation with my friend.

The 7th principle: CONDUCT OF PUBLIC DISPUTES
Civil debate, the cornerstone of a true democracy, is vital to the success of any effort to improve and reform America's public schools.
Personal attacks, name-calling, ridicule, and similar tactics destroy the fabric of our society and undermine the educational mission of our schools.....Through constructive dialogue we have much to learn from one another.

There are still some lingering questions I am facing this morning: How can we have this happen--especially when efforts to dialogue are rejected and/or ignored? Where do we start?

It could very well be that the answers to these questions lie within the principles of spiritual leadership.