The case for a more deliberate progressivism: define the goal, study the consequences, listen to the public, test the idea, and refine it before going all in.
Today’s so-called “progressives” have accomplished few of their objectives while, at the same time, alienating old-line Democrats to such an extent that they often just sit back and moan when they see what’s occurring. These new progressives just get a new idea and then launch a loud and rowdy effort to push it forward. It’s obvious from the lack of progressive accomplishment that their approach is a “loser.”
Those of us who’ve been around for many years have witnessed, and participated in, an approach to make things better that actually works.
Rather than just yelling at conservatives and irritating them, the proven approach engages them in meaningful dialogue and a proven step-by-step way to meet objectives. This method starts by expressing the end goal that is sought. After that, ideas are expressed that it is believed can help lead to meeting that end goal. These ideas state in clear detail what steps need to be taken to succeed in meeting the goal.
Careful analysis is then needed to list the effects (both pro and con) that taking those steps would have. This can only be accomplished by engaging people on both sides of the issue and having them detail the pros and cons that implementing the steps would have. Town hall meetings, focus groups, and individual conversations with people who it is believed will be affected by implementing the new idea are all effective—if the leaders carefully listen and avoid badgering participants. After this input, the chosen objective and ways originally suggested to implement change may need to be tinkered with to minimize the negative effects people have pointed out and maximize the benefits of the new idea.
After refining the new idea, it is critical to test it on a small-scale basis, with the test including people of all types. Analyses of the test should be taken during its actual implementation and afterwards. The analyses should include additional input from people (those affected and those not affected) as well as reviewing changes over the test period to any actual data that are collected (e.g., bus ridership if the idea addresses that).
After this evaluation of the new idea’s test implementation, tinkering with it to address discovered problems should occur. If a lot of tinkering is required that would make the amended approach differ dramatically from the initial one, getting feedback again from the community is important. Once the idea has been refined, it should be implemented in an actual pilot test—which is a small-scale implementation in the actual “real world” setting where it is envisioned. A follow-up evaluation of the pilot test should be conducted with the results made public. The evaluation will show the actual benefits that occurred, how many people benefited, and additional adjustments that may be needed.
This approach is not new and has been used for many years to obtain results that guide future actions. One example that comes to mind is the ridership study the Metropolitan Council conducted years ago to determine “why” people did not rideshare more often. This study was done prior to trying to pressure people to rideshare more often. The insights gained from the research included, among others, these reasons people did not rideshare often or at all: (1) they had to drop children off at a daycare center/sitter on the way to work, and others in a rideshare wouldn’t want to take that extra time; (2) they often had to work late hours, and others in a rideshare would want to get home [and buses no longer ran at those late hours]; (3) they had lots of chores to run in disparate areas of the Twin Cities and needed to use a vehicle to get to them all; (4) they often needed to make unexpected out-of-the-way stops on the way home, and those would irritate other ride sharers; and many other rational reasons.
Another example is from years ago when Saint Paul Public Schools wanted to increase attendance by Mexican-American students. Before implementing a lot of changes that may have seemed reasonable, the district conducted research with students and parents to learn why attendance was lower than desired. One key finding was that students in Mexican-American families were often the only ones who spoke English, and when a parent or grandparent needed to seek medical help, the student needed to go with that person to ensure communication with medical providers was accurate. There were other reasons as well. This knowledge allowed the district to develop ways to address the reasons for low attendance, and attendance increased.
As I look at how today’s “progressive” leaders act, I get annoyed by the lack of a reasonable way to address problems/desires. An example is the City of Minneapolis’ approach to adding bike lanes to city streets. The choice of which streets on which to place lanes lacked review of past knowledge of those streets. For example, it used to be that Portland and Park Avenues were used by commuters to get in and out of downtown quickly and safely. The City had made those streets each one-way (in opposite directions) and set the timing of intersection traffic lights so cars could move through long sets of blocks without having to stop frequently at intersections. By narrowing these streets to add bike lanes, the fast “in and out of town” benefit of the past was lost. And now that cars sit and idle longer at intersections, pollution increases (which most progressives would see as a bad thing). Having the bike lanes on the streets on either side of Portland and Park would have resulted in the old benefit of those streets being retained while still allowing for bike lanes. Also, a review of past street engineering planning would have shown that driving lanes had “manholes” in the middle of lanes so people’s tires did not hit every one of them as they drove along—damaging tires and causing people to swerve to avoid the manholes—increasing the risk of accidents.
The bottom line of all this is “Slow down and take the time to evaluate plans before and after implementing them.” By doing so, irritation among people affected by change will be reduced and the intended results of changes will be maximized. Just yelling and making noise is counterproductive to positive change.
Doug Berdie, Ph.D. is a retired marketing/social research professional with 40+ years of experience working with companies, social service agencies, government agencies, educational institutions, etc.
The bike people aren’t rational Doug. And the progressives, many of them bike lane people, have really messed up public policy ideas they are chasing.
This is true.
Thank you for this. Listening to differing points of views seems to be a lost skill among our local officials. I cringe when I hear city council members called leaders. That feeds their egos too much. I believe the proper title is public servant.
Thought I was the the only one serving to avoid some of these massive manholes in our city. Seriously. I understand they are recessed below the street level so the snow plow do not hit them. but come on, some of them are several inches below.
And yes, I have had suspension repairs in the last year.
Should have sent my bill to the city.
/Rant