On Sunday, I attended a deliberation called “Honey, We Shrunk the Middle Class”, a discussion on the American middle class. The deliberation was designed to look at how the middle class has changed since the late 20th century, what that means for the country, and how we can restore it to its previous size and attainability. I thought the topic was quite interesting, and I wanted to go to support some of my friends who were presenting in the group.
When I got to CommonPlace, I was surprised by how many people were there. My friend told me they had difficulty in finding enough people to invite and he said that barely anyone showed up. When I got there, there were two groups deliberating simultaneously; the other group was discussing sexual assault at Penn State. I sat down in the couch area with the rest of the people involved in the middle class discussion, and looking around it seemed like there were about 15 people there; I couldn’t understand what my friend was talking about. Then, during the personal stake when we all went around and introduced ourselves, I realized the problem. At least 10 of the people who were in the circle were in the group that was presenting. There ended up being about only 6 or 7 people who were there to actually discuss, not present. All of us were students, some freshmen and some sophomores, except for one man who was about 65 years old.
Once the deliberation got started, it seemed like it was going well. The topic was interesting, the first approach was well introduced with some good discussion questions, and people were willing to talk right away without any significant awkward science. Then the older man, who was named Jimmy, gave his first contribution. The first approach was about raising the minimum wage, and he started out by saying that he didn’t believe in the minimum wage. That was fine by me; I think the plan has some benefits, but I was very willing to hear a different idea, especially from someone who had more experience than myself on the matter. After that though, he launched into a 10-minute narrative of his life that left everyone there utterly confused. Instead of talking about the possible economic effects of raising the minimum wage, he instead reminisced about how he joined the Air Force out of high school to dodge the draft, worked as a garbage man and got a recommendation because he did a good job, and is now richer than he ever has been thanks to the stimulus package and his smart investments. I felt bad for the presenters, because I couldn’t really see a way to interrupt him without being rude, but they were clearly very uncomfortable with what had happened and tried and succeeded in steering the discussion back on track, at least until the start of the second approach.
The second approach dealt with changing the tax structure and eliminating certain loopholes abused by the very wealthy so that they contribute more of their fair share. I spoke about the advantages of a plan like that and some of the current issues, such as how Warren Buffet has a lower tax rate than his secretary. I was then promptly told by Jimmy that loopholes were a “fart in the wind” and would have no effect at all on the economy. He then spoke for another ten minutes about rich people, how if you hold a minimum wage job when you’re in your 30s that you are a failure and you don’t deserve a minimum wage of $7.50, and the fact that people who have children before they’re married and wealthy should give them up for adoption. When it came to approach three, I didn’t even try to speak, and Jimmy continued to totally dominate the conversation.
Overall, the experience was far different from my experience with both of the groups in our class. I thought ours went very smoothly and stayed mostly on topic, with very equal contribution from a diverse range of people. In this deliberation, the conversation was totally dominated and off-topic for almost the entire duration. Myself and many others felt uncomfortable speaking because we knew our opinions wouldn’t be respected and there was never an opportunity to actually address the topic due to how quickly it would be diverted. Additionally, the group next to ours was very loud and distracting, and I ended up paying more attention to that conversation while I waited for the deliberation I was in to get back on track. It was very unfortunate that the conversation was so quickly diverted because I was excited to talk about the subject and I think that the group did a good job of preparing for the conversation, but unfortunately no such discussion ever really took place. It really made me appreciate the participation in our deliberations and how smoothly the whole thing went.