Turning the Mudslide of 'Me' into the Responsibility of 'We' By Sylvia L. Lovely, March 11, 2005 The recent mudslides in southern California offer yet another window on the world of citizenship today—which too often means individuals focused on their own narrow needs. The mudslides had prompted one resident, understandably in anguish, to say that the county should have done more to bolster the mountain. After all, there had been another mudslide years before. But what really angered her, she said, was what she was told by county officials: "We can't afford it!" The question becomes, who is "we" and who is "me"—and how much responsibility does each of us have for the "we" in the equation? Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was of course being political when he said that people had every right to live on the hillside below the mountain. But he was apparently whisked away by handlers and protectors before answering the crucial question: What do "we" owe the hillside dwellers? Perhaps, in a sense, instant coffee has ruined the world—or at least serves as a symbol of a certain malaise in which we want immediate results and want them to come easily. We have become a nation of individuals, each out to get our narrow and immediate needs satisfied as quickly as possible. But we are reaching a point where determining what needs can be met and what needs can't is crucial. Two headlines are relevant. In its Bluegrass poll, the Louisville Courier-Journal reported that citizens don't want service cuts but don't want to pay higher taxes in most instances. However, they are willing to tax "sin"—the idea being that those who engage in it should pay all of us for the privilege. Of course, it could be seen as avoiding the bigger question—namely, is the best way to raise our revenue done through the tyranny of the majority who can lord it over the minority, such as is the case with smokers and drinkers … or should such decisions require a more thoughtful and effective process, even if it requires difficult choices? Those choices rarely if ever come as easily as instant coffee. If we take the time to see the enormous responsibilities and challenges facing those serving in local government, we can take the first steps toward solving the we/me divide. The other headline involves people who are demanding more openness in government. When it comes to open meetings/open records law, governments actually get pretty good marks for their responsiveness to requests, as well they should. Transparency in government, after all, is absolutely essential. Such transparency is necessary in part because it answers the question of "me" versus "we" (and I use "versus" in this instance deliberately.) There was a wise old soul who observed: "We have met the enemy and it is us." The hillside dweller who complained and the ones who seek open records perhaps need some civic lessons themselves. Namely, that in wanting the government to take care of "me," they need to realize that they themselves are part of the "we" that is government. We often hear citizens referred to in almost reverent tones as taxpayers, but does that mean we should feel separate from those responsible for how our taxes are used? Why should we put the entire burden of governance on that monolithic and impersonal thing called "government" – which is, after all, our creation? In other words, being a taxpayer is only a small part of being a valuable part of the community. The government provides the necessary order that taxpayers desire, but if government grows out of control, it is up to the taxpaying citizen to do something about it—joining with others who deeply care, either as leaders or followers, and most certainly as voters. In my work with elected officials, I especially love to see civic activists run for office. Not only does it make sense, given their passion for making a difference, but it is heartening to see the growth they experience, which, I am happy to say, is often the case—at least at the local level. Once in government, the elected official who grows into the job suddenly puts away the instant coffee and realizes the complexity of the community and the diverse needs of all who live there. This holds true for any community, no matter the size or location. At their best, elected leaders understand the need of the hillside dwellers to live in a safe environment, one of the more fundamental responsibilities of the community. But, also at their best, they make clear to citizens that the question of affording anything is really up to them. And that's where the hard choices must be made. Through debate and open dialogue, citizens can decide what they are willing to pay for. Great communities have citizens who have been shown how great places are built, who can see beyond their own little world, and who understand that leadership is complex and multifaceted. It is often said that politics has not permeated local government as it has at other levels. In other words, there is no such thing as a Democrat pothole or Republican trash. All there is can be found in the story of the little boys who asked the wise old woman in town: Was the bird hidden in one of their hands dead or alive? "The fate of the bird," she replied, "lies completely within your hands." And so it is with us citizens, too. Brian Wright Public Relations Coordinator Office-859-977-3707 Cell- 859-351-4282