One of many lessons I teach students whenever the opportunity arises is the value of showing respect to anyone you seek to influence. This is particularly true in instances where you are trying to have an impact with someone who, you know in advance, vehemently disagrees with you. The reason of course is very simple. By being respectful, the conversation has potential to help get beyond your differences into learning more about your potential agreements and, ultimately, a compromise resolution to the conflict.

That is why the activism by the students of Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (and the millions nationwide who joined them) is so impressive. I hope you had a chance to listen to some of the speakers at the D.C. rally and take note at how respectful they were of those who obviously disagree. They aren’t turning cars over or breaking laws to make their point. They are focused on the right way to truly have an impact and, so far, have put many of their adult counterparts to shame when it comes to engaging civilly without personal attacks or distractions. They are taking their case to the American people and pushing any and all who agree to make their message heard in policy-making and on election day. I hope to see their approach and their tone continue as they work to engage elected officials through town hall events and other advocacy efforts. This will have lasting implications, not only for the gun policy discussion but also for the future engagement of a generation that’s beginning to find its voice and take a more active role in shaping the world around it.

That is also why I took notice of a piece written by David Brooks of the New York Times, entitled “Trust and respect first, then compromise on gun control,” published in a recent edition of the Manhattan Mercury. I have long liked Mr. Brooks, a sound, but sane conservative from the old school, someone who is always respectful of others. In this article, he shared about a process for bringing together a mixture of far right conservatives and clear liberals, with the goal of building respect among each other. Only after that is achieved can you have any chance of working out your differences and coming to some compromise that serves the greater good.

Clearly Washington D.C. could use some help, and this seems to flow down into other levels of government and into our international relations as well. You might have noticed in representing the United States at the winter Olympics, Vice President Pence chose to totally snub the sister of the President of North Korea. Now that might at first blush seem very logical. But when you think about their growing capacity to do us serious harm, maybe a step or two of respect might have been a good investment for future successful diplomacy. But enough from me. I really want you to take time to read the Brooks article. It is most timely on a variety of fronts and if applied could make a difference in resolving, or at least taking mini steps, on some of our major challenges where there are polar differences and little or no respect for each other.

Fortunately, the task of reviving civility has received more attention in recent years (with different organizations and resources coming together), and perhaps it can gain more traction as we continue the task of strengthening our democracy for the 21st century. Each of our daily exchanges will help write the story. But the true test will be our ability to come together and solve problems—​both big and small—​today and into the future.

It turned out to be the year I took the plunge into elective politics, but on March 18th, 1968, I had no plan to run for any office beyond Smolan Township Democratic Committeeman. I remember going alone to the event and worrying on the drive there that the attendance may not be that great. After all, Kansas was not a hotbed of much left-of-center thinking and certainly not at K-State. I was puzzled at Kennedy’s decision to make Kansas a very early stop in his effort to win the Democratic nomination for President. He had only very recently shared this plan following President Johnson’s announcement that he would not seek another four year term. On reflection, it also puzzles me why Kennedy was invited to give a Landon Lecture. I can’t picture a similar event today, and certainly, in more recent times, the well-known and respected Landon Lecture Series does not invite active candidates from either party. ​Despite all of this, Kennedy's site selection made it clear that he planned to reach out and energize a new generation of voters and also that he was determined to compete and at least make his case in all areas of the country.
​
It was a pretty typical March day as I remember and certainly no bad weather to complicate things. Going to the Ahearn Fieldhouse was not new for me. I had been to most of the basketball games played there up to that time, having attended with my parents since it opened in the 1950-51 season. On that day, much to my surprise, Ahearn was jam packed, and he had the crowd with him from the very beginning of the speech. His message focused primarily on the Vietnam War and his differences with the Johnson Administration’s actions there. He admitted that, along with his brother, he had played a role in the very early actions in Vietnam. In a display of great character, he accepted responsibility for the past but also made it clear that he wanted the United States to find an appropriate exit in the future. By the time he ended, his audience would have followed him wherever he wanted to take them. It was truly amazing. After Ahearn, Kennedy went later that day to Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence and experienced similar results, after of course sharing regards from Manhattan to the crowd at KU.

I remember talking with Dr. Jerry Marion, my dairy judging team coach, as I was leaving and how his reaction was so similar to mine. It isn’t that often that one speech can have that much impact. For me, there was only one other that could compare. At the 1976 Democratic National Convention, Congresswoman Barbara Jordan from Texas had the crowd spellbound with her powerful voice, a cadence that worked, and a message that was incredibly well-received.

Shortly after his appearance in Kansas, Kennedy was campaigning in an African American neighborhood in Indianapolis, Indiana the night Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.—who made a visit to K-State earlier that year—​was assassinated. Kennedy's capacity to communicate was again tested as he had the role of sharing with the crowd the news and was able to do it in a way that did not set off similar violence to what occurred elsewhere during that difficult time.

Then, on June 5th—​after winning the California Primary—​Robert Kennedy was assassinated. I did not stay up to hear the final results in California but woke to the tragic news at 5:00am, as I prepared to go milk. If Bobby had lived, I believe there would have been no Watergate nor President Nixon. Bobby was very different than his older brother, President Kennedy. Bobby had deep-bedded, strong beliefs and he was passionate about getting things done. Though his presidency never came to fruition, his impact and enduring legacy remains in all those who were inspired by his message and his work. And this includes myself, as a result of one unforgettable day 50 years ago.

In the passing of Karl Weissenbach, Lynn and I lost a good friend and a wonderful former colleague, and our country lost a great public servant. For ten years, Karl was the Director of the Eisenhower Presidential Library, retiring last year. While at the Library, he brought many new initiatives that opened the records to a much larger audience and raised the visibility and learning around President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s life and service.

When I was at the National Archives, he ran the Nixon Project, managing the staff that spent years dealing with the Nixon Tapes and other records. Between the historians, access advocates, lawyers, and the Nixon family, this was very challenging work. Karl was careful, dedicated, and maintained a steadfast commitment to serving the American people. I salute him as an outstanding public servant, at a time when in both Topeka and Washington D.C. public service is disrespected by many, in favor of political friends and financial supporters.

Karl is an excellent example of why career public servants are so valuable. Because he made public service his career, he fine-tuned his skills to more effectively manage and lead workers to serve the Eisenhower Library's mission. When career service is under-appreciated, the system never develops the expertise or the continuity that is so important for wisely serving the public interest. In Kansas, for example, Governor Brownback led the change where now, when a state public employee leaves or retires, the administration can appoint any political friend they want and, in the process, takes that position away from the civil service. And, at the federal level, there have already been plenty of examples of the Trump administration either subverting or showing blatant disrespect for the experts who carry out the people’s business within the various departments. In no way can this action be called good government.

All who knew Karl mourn his passing and share with his wife Jessica and family our condolences. And here’s to a future where more individuals can bring the same level of respect, expertise, and commitment to their careers in public service.

With the date set for Governor Brownback’s confirmation hearing (October 4th), we in Kansas have the opportunity to look back on his six plus years as Governor. Below are my reflections on the lasting impacts of his time in office and some thoughts on where we, as a state, go from here.

What we got from Governor Brownback was not quite what we expected. Much changed between the time he was Secretary of Agriculture and Governor. He went from being quite likable and non-controversial to being a very polarizing figure. His leadership approach was certainly not built on bringing people of different persuasions together. Not only did he change religions but, philosophically, he went from reasonably moderate to extreme right.

His policy mistakes were many but none more puzzling than his systematic destruction of the Kansas Bioscience Authority (KBA). What was at one time the darling of legislators across the board (created with bipartisan support in 2004) was now being trashed. Truth was not important and philosophical positions were often quite bizarre. None was more puzzling than his stance against picking winners and losers. He disliked that the KBA worked hard to make the wisest investments for the best interest of Kansas. He preferred that we invest the money without considering the likelihood of success. I think the Bible talks about putting the seeds where they can grow and not on the rocks.

His lack of support for all levels of public education is another example of his move to the far right, which favors private education. This dramatic change of position was totally new for Kansas. Proud of our public school system, most Kansans took for granted that the support from most public officials would be strong. With big money from private donors and other public school opponents, a push to support private education took place—​more often and in new, different ways. This includes an assault on our judicial system to change the way we select judges in Kansas, in order to push the policies that these monied interest groups favored.

In his run for re-election, he loved to promise of his support for very much needed highway improvements. He was comfortable endorsing specific projects but never sharing on how they might be funded. Given he robbed extensively from the highway fund to avoid Kansas going broke, maybe that is understandable. Historically, highway maintenance and improvements had strong support from both sides of the isle, but not under this Governor.

As puzzling as anything was his adamant opposition to Medicaid expansion. Kansans were paying for it but not getting it. Despite many Republican Governors accepting the dollars and significant support from Kansas citizens, he stood his ground. The result was pain inflicted on large numbers of Kansans as well as the financial viability of many, particularly rural, community hospitals and nursing homes.

But maybe the most damaging mistake over time will be his lack of support for, and his meat ax approach to, the civil service system and public service in general. I say that because it may take a generation or more to restore the quality state workforce we once had. With the Governor's recommendation and the Legislature’s support, now when a civil service employee leaves the system the position automatically becomes political, bringing back in essence the spoils system that most of us thought was a thing of the past.

The story of the past six years will be about a Governor who sowed the seeds of political division in Kansas. From his all-out attacks on members of his own party, to his blatant disregard for opposing views of any kind, Governor Brownback leveraged a big money machine to turn our state into a petri dish for far-right policy and an extremist approach to governing. This is a far cry from the Kansas that many of us have known and loved.

What will happen to our state as a result of the Brownback years remains to be seen, and it will largely be up to us to decide. Kansans of all political stripes have certainly been activated. And, so far, there are signs that we may learn our lessons from these divisive and damaging years for our state and begin to put Kansas back on the right track by bringing people together around the solutions to our largely self-created challenges. The path forward will not be easy, and there is certainly a lot of work to do. But perhaps the next chapter can be the most exciting and impressive one yet: a state turning the page on division and building a model for how to come together, engage, and overcome the disastrous results left behind by these difficult years for Kansas.

​It is hard to find the appropriate words to express one's reaction to the events in Charlottesville, Virginia this past weekend. White supremacy and Nazism have no place in our country, and I am shocked and disgusted at the thought that any President of the United States would fail to denounce them and make it clear that those are not the values of our country. 

One area that I will be paying close attention to, especially as we approach a new school year, is the reaction on our college campuses, which will be directly impacted by the situation in Charlottesville and at the University of Virginia. I have come across a few messages that cover well what I would want to say. And, as I’ve done before on my blog, if someone else has said it better, there is no need to reinvent the wheel.

So I have shared a few excerpts and links to the full messages below:

One message is from our former K-State President, Kirk Schulz, now at Washington State University:
“As a higher education leader, there is no way to reconcile the work that we do with violence and hate…The senior leadership team at Washington State University is united—we strongly denounce racism and Nazism of any kind and condemn the violence that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia. Hate has no place at WSU…
…We also believe in the mission and purpose of higher education. As vile and offensive as we find certain speech and individuals who hold those beliefs, we are committed to wrestling with, challenging, and combating racism and anti-Semitism to become the community WSU must be. It is not just about our campuses—it is about our nation’s future…WSU is a microcosm of what is happening throughout our nation. Our work begins at home…”

Another message is from the new Chancellor of the University of Kansas, Douglas A. Girod:
“…Like many of you, we were horrified at the sight of white supremacists with racist and hate-filled messages marching on a university campus...As faculty, staff, and students return to Mount Oread this week, we will apply ourselves to discussing how we can continue to confront hatred and bigotry, both through our scholarship and efforts outside the classroom. More broadly, we will commit ourselves to our ongoing work to address diversity and inclusion on our campuses, and to ensure that all Jayhawks feel valued and welcome here.
The University of Kansas is a marketplace of ideas. We will–and should–have difficult conversations and disagreements with each other on complicated topics. But racism, intolerance, and hatred–and violence borne of those views–are never acceptable at KU and, in fact, are antithetical to our values as a university. We pledge to work with all of you to ensure we live up to those values and do our part to condemn and confront prejudice and hate wherever they exist.”

The final one comes from the President of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Peter McPherson:
“…Precisely because public universities are and always must remain committed to free speech, hate groups have aimed to turn campuses into flashpoints. What’s more, public universities have a large number of students who may well protest hate speech. Hate groups know their demonstrations, including violent ones, can and do spark a spectacle and ultimately draw attention to their hateful views.
Still, we must denounce their hateful rhetoric. The First Amendment is not just a right. It’s also a responsibility. We must speak out against evil, hateful beliefs through free speech of our own that advances the shared American value of equality. The struggle against hate will only be won through education and public understanding.”

Each of these messages make it clear that Higher Ed leaders are stepping up to the challenges we face. And, as a Wildcat, I know that our leadership and the entire Wildcat Nation join in these concerns so passionately expressed. And, as students of all ages return to school in Kansas and across the country, it is important that they enter in a welcoming environment that is focused on their success. They are the future, and it is critical that they learn from these challenging times, live out our country’s values, and continue working toward the ideals of our founding.

This Saturday evening, the Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders here at K-State’s Staley School of Leadership Studies will be wrapping up a six-week Civic Leadership Institute. The Young African Leaders Initiative is facilitated through the U.S. State Department with the goal of helping develop the next generation of leaders in Africa. In all, there are 1,000 leaders studying at colleges and universities around the U.S. this summer who will bring their learning and newly-established networks back to their countries and continue to make change in their communities upon their return home. For the second straight year, the Staley School has had the pleasure of hosting this Fellowship. Twenty-five young but experienced Sub-Saharan African leaders, representing twenty three countries, make up the group. The time has been filled with class work and training sessions, interactions with local public, private, and nonprofit sector leaders, participation in some local civic engagement efforts, and making the most of a variety of experiences from Kansas City to Wichita. Building off our experience from last year, this year's program has not only been well-received but has proven once again to be of significant value.

As alluded to in my welcoming remarks six weeks ago, I made it clear then that the learning would go both ways, that we—​here at K-State and in Kansas—​would benefit significantly as well. That has certainly played out in real time. I was particularly struck by the candid comments from our visitors at a forum for local elected officials to share and answer questions. Just one example made clear by a young woman, Folasade Bamisaye from Nigeria, who shared during the forum that she was amazed that this country taxed feminine hygiene products. Here in this country there is little or not even discussion about this issue, much less action. So there is much that can be gained from a dialogue and exchange of ideas on the future.

Each of the Mandela Fellows is engaged across a wide array of issues, including: youth development, public health, gender equity, grassroots organizing, agricultural sustainability, and disability rights. The benefit of having six weeks is having the time to work on specific challenges they had in their leadership experiences in Africa. Naturally they all, as we do, want better ideas in general on how to lead effectively and mobilize people to address challenges. But they also focused on a couple specifics. They wanted to learn more about developing partnerships to work towards systemic change. And one piece in particular, that we all need to focus on, is the importance of utilizing volunteers more successfully.  

One of the unique aspects of this program is the one-on-one mentoring that takes place. Last year, my partner was Abdoul Salam Diallo from Guinea (pictured to the left). Our natural link was his family’s tie to milk cows, so as would be expected that put us together, but from there, our relationship grew to include more areas of discussion around his work. My partner this year is Ahmed M. Afi from Somali. Our connection is his direct interest in public service, and he has made some progress in that regard. His ambitions include being a national leader for Somalia, and given his knowledge, passion, and political savvy, I’m not going to be surprised at all if he achieves his goals. I certainly look forward to staying in communication, continuing to share lessons from my experiences, and knowing just how his plans are going.

Now, here is the not so good news. This program, along with many others, falls under the banner of “Foreign Aid” or investments in diplomacy. As you may know, these types of investments are currently under attack by the President, and it will be up to the Congress to—​as our country has historically done—​appreciate the value of investing in programs like this and other aid efforts. Stronger, well-prepared leaders for the future of Africa will help empower and mobilize citizens to address a range of issues that exist throughout the continent. Meanwhile, the ability to address community needs such as food insecurity not only helps these countries build for the future, but it’s also absolutely in our national security interest. Hungry people can easily be the target of self-serving leaders who prey on the needy to the benefit of themselves and, in the process, create an environment that is ripe for terrorist activity.
​​
It has been an absolute joy to spend time with the Mandela Fellows during these past six weeks, and most importantly, I look forward to the impacts that their leadership will make in the effort to build a healthier, happier, and more peaceful world for all.

Learn about each of the Mandela Fellows on the Staley School's blog or see more pictures on Facebook.

In the June 12th New York Times, there was an excellent op-ed piece that Kansans should take pride in. The title was “Finally, Something Isn’t the Matter with Kansas,” written by Michael Tomasky. His title, of course, plays off of William Allen White’s famous essay, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” The focus of the article is the Kansas Legislature’s override of the Governor’s veto of the tax package. The piece is well-written and hopefully will be accurate in suggesting this action might just lead to a new and more positive direction in this country, which brings to mind another famous William Allen White quote from one of his later writings—​and one that I have referenced in past blog posts—​”When anything is going to happen in this country, it happens first in Kansas.”

But it’s the rest of the story, left out in this op-ed, that I want to focus on and what I believe will be needed if this kind of action is to spread. Contrary to the usual reporting, and reinforced in this op-ed, the new approach was not so much a change in the Republican direction on taxes as it was the bipartisan approach that made it possible. In the end, every single Democrat and enough rational Republicans cast their votes for a wiser way forward. The effort to override was backed by every former Kansas Governor of both parties. But maybe the most significant aspect is that much of the initial leadership came from a group of female legislators from both parties, working over a period of time, to lay out key elements of a tax package that ultimately passed.
 
Historically, both at the state and national level, it is this bipartisan approach that brings quite often the best of times. I think of Speaker Sam Rayburn and Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, both Democrats, working with Republican President Dwight Eisenhower that led to numerous successes, including the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neil working with Republican President Reagan that brought successful reform to the Social Security System. The successes I had as Governor came from working with the majority Republican leaders in the Legislature. Contrast these examples with Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell publicly stating that his number one priority was to oppose every measure President Obama wanted, including legislation that Republicans had once proposed and supported. And, also counter to positive results on our highway system and social security, is the Affordable Care Act, which did not have bipartisan support. Now, with Republicans in total control of Congress, there is the possibility of a new health care plan, replacing President Obama’s plan but, if passed, it will be done without Democratic votes. Isn't it likely as soon as the Democrats have the power there will be another change? Working together, for instance on the needed adjustments to the Affordable Care Act (which could garner both Democratic and Republican support), would result in a much better plan and the stability to positively impact health care over time.

On a larger scale, what it takes is members of both parties agreeing on the outcomes we want to achieve for the people of our state and country, keeping the future well-being of the people at the center of the process, and checking big money interests and bitter partisan wedge issues at the door while they work to achieve the results that the people want and need. Another key to this will be reestablishing the value of truth (even when it means accepting the hard truths) and agreeing on the facts at hand. For example, the more that Kansans understood our budget challenges, the easier it became to send representatives to Topeka who had looked at the facts and agreed on the problem—​which allowed citizens to more effectively voice their concerns and create a critical mass of support for the Legislature to work towards real solutions to the challenge at hand.
 
So, only time will tell whether what has happened in Kansas will spread across the country. Meanwhile, in Kansas—​in order for this direction to continue—​support for legislators from both parties who made progress possible must continue. And we should be judging future candidates by whether they support a solid, stable financial future for the state or a return to the reckless and failed fiscal and economic direction that landed us in this mess in the first place. The elections in 2018 and 2020 will determine whether this is truly a new direction for the state of Kansas or just a blip in the passage of time.​

"He yelled ‘Get out of my country,’ witnesses say, and then shot 2 men from India, killing one" 
​This is a headline from a national story about the incident that occurred at a bar in Olathe, Kansas. I intentionally waited to comment for two reasons. One, I wanted to learn more before I spoke. And two, our son-in-laws are from India and Vietnam. This makes my concerns beyond hate crimes and economic impacts to personal, family concerns about feeling uncomfortable encouraging our east coast families to visit us in Kansas.

Condemning this hate crime should have been a natural, for if we do not speak out, we communicate to the larger world our indifference about such crimes perpetrated against our international friends—​and friends of all backgrounds. Fortunately, leaders at many levels have spoken, now including even the President, along with citizens expressing their outrage at such an action.

What needs more attention, particularly for our citizens who see this as “no big deal,” is the resulting economic impacts. If fewer immigrants come here to be educated, and even fewer stay, the results will be dramatic. We are not able to produce near enough scientists or doctors of high quality without friends around the world who come here to learn and contribute to our communities. And we give up on the values that make our country truly great.

I am reminded of my personal experience helping run a small startup company in Lawrence dealing with High Temperature Superconductive materials. Without candidates from China and Eastern Europe, I would have had no staff to complement the research and knowledge of Dr. Kai-Wai Wong at the University of Kansas.

I have searched for the right words to say more, knowing I’m for sure not a great writer. Then I ran into a piece from Rajiv Srinivasan, a friend of Aaron Estabrook and who was his Platoon Lieutenant when they both served in Afghanistan. Rajiv went on to be a Captain before leaving the military to become a very successful entrepreneur with various technology startups as well as an outspoken writer on the national level. So why create something when what I really want to say already exists? Please read his message below, and take heart—as I do—with the compassionate response from those who are ready to, as he puts it, "do better."

“Leadership matters. Words matter. There are of course valid arguments made about illegal immigration, economic priorities, and skills gaps in our country. But when leaders decide to throw nuance out the window and oversimplify the problem as "immigrants are taking over our country," the conversation doesn't become more thoughtful as it rolls down to the masses. And 2 Indian engineers were gunned down because someone in our democracy inferred that they were the cause of whatever pain and anger he was feeling. Honestly, how can we fight the radicalization of Americans by ISIS if we are unable to tackle the radicalization of Americans by our own political discourse? This isn't a problem of mental illness, and not a problem of politicians being poor leaders. We get the leaders we deserve. Our politicians and their campaigns are designed to win us over by appealing to our worst reptilian instincts. I try so hard to resist, to deserve better leaders. I read the local and national news everyday from reputable sources. I vote in EVERY election cycle (not just once every 4 years). I read books by people way smarter than me. I listen to my friends. I ask questions. And I try not to impose my worldview too harshly on others. Politicians are not the cause of our society's ugliest problems, they too are symptoms of a country undeserving of good leadership.
So if you are unhappy with the hate, with our leaders, what are you doing to deserve better ones? I challenge my friends to doubt their confidence in how good of citizens you are...start from assuming that you need to do better, and let's all step it up a notch. Read, have humility and just be kind. God only knows how bad it gets if we don't. I am honestly getting afraid we will soon find out.”

 - Rajiv Srinivasan

More from Rajiv:
-Rajiv's Bio Video
​-Piece for Hindu-American Foundation
-NY Times "At War Blog"
-PBS (POV Series) 
-Pieces for TIME

With the Kansas Legislature taking the week off, now is a good time to assess where, as a state, we are. Overall, I am very pleased with the first seven weeks of the 2017 Legislative Session. Topping the list of positives would be the totally improved capitol environment. There is a much friendlier atmosphere and certainly more communication and willingness to work together across party lines. It is my opinion that this is the result of electing so many new legislators who are committed to solving the real problems, rather than just adding “Legislator” to their resume. Leadership on both sides of the aisle seem more committed to doing what is best for the state. But then again, this is only after seven weeks, and so much can and will happen—​both good and bad—​in the remaining time.

The new House and Senate members who Save Kansas—​which all our living former Governors support—​played a role in electing have been making several positive contributions. So far, despite being new, they are not only following through on their commitments with the votes they cast but also, in many cases, are providing strong leadership. Normally, I might advise and expect new members at this point to listen, stay in their seats, and let the veterans take the lead. But, given the struggles of recent legislative sessions, I am most happy with the way they are engaged. In my opinion, the state is going to really benefit from the class of 2016—​hopefully for years and terms to come.

As to specifics, on the positive side of the issue ledger, it appears the remaining budget questions for Fiscal Year 2017 (ends June 30) are resolved without making further cuts. The leading success to date that I wrote about last week is the progress towards repealing the Governor’s tax experiment. But the House didn’t stop there. They went on to pass Medicaid expansion with 80 plus votes and also a bill to restore due process rights to our state’s educators. All of this is just more evidence of how much the election of 2016 is positively impacting Kansas.

I also continue to be encouraged by the level of engagement from the citizens of our state, who have been pushing for change and sustaining their energy and focus on the problems that need solving—​both during the election cycle and throughout the first weeks of the session. This element will be absolutely critical to any successes moving forward.

On the negative side, what stands out for me is the unwillingness to address the rightful concern about guns on campuses. Even just focusing this issue on KU Medical Center couldn’t get out of committee. I will have more to say on this soon, but suffice to say I want to believe common sense will prevail before sine die adjournment in late May.

The disastrous first weeks of the Trump administration have been met with a wave of activism and engagement unlike any in our history. Beginning on January 21st, the Women’s March broke all sorts of records for the numbers marching in Washington D.C., across the country, and around the world. Next, the Trump administration and their immigration policies set off another round of protests across the country. In some ways, this round of protests was even more impressive, in that they sprung up instantaneously. All impressive for sure. But the lasting impact will, for the most part, depend not only on organized groups but also individuals who must accept a responsibility to take action and hold their elected officials at all levels accountable.

As we learned from the massive engagement effort involved in opposing several of President Trump’s cabinet picks—and the Republican Senators who failed to listen to their constituents—this is not always easy or 100% successful, unfortunately. Which illustrates exactly why that passion needs to be joined by persistence. Only a sustained effort over time is likely to succeed. In fact, the Trump administration, by running through so many controversial issues so fast, is likely counting on “resistance fatigue”—an attempt to overwhelm the opposition to the point where a movement either loses either momentum or interest. So what can our citizen engagement efforts do to overcome this?​

1. Join or support organized groups: Many of the contacts with elected officials can and will be made through staff of organized groups. Their role is important because they have resources to gather vital research, the capacity to officially testify, and infrastructure to repeatedly deliver the message. But for the cause to succeed, in many cases it will be civically-engaged citizens individually or part of an organized group just speaking up and sharing their stories, that will most likely impact the politicians’ decisions. Why? Because they are the voters.
2. Commit to persistently raising your personal voice: So, for those voters, there are several ways one can communicate to elected officials. You can write letters, make telephone calls to their offices, make use of social media, or just show up in their office requesting a visit, at minimum with staff. For me, telephone calls can be most effective. When the phones light up, it gets everyone’s attention. The phone call is immediate, not delayed by delivery time nor put off with the task of opening the mail or email or easily sifted through, as many of the form letters or pre-written messages can be. It can also be much more personal, when delivered with some passion. As I’ve shared before, the number to the Congressional Switchboard is (202) 225-3121, and for Kansas, look up your legislators to get their contact information. A recent example where this paid off in Congress was a few weeks ago, when they were going to eliminate the Ethics Committee. All hell broke loose. Citizens didn’t like what they heard, and most importantly, they let the individual members know. Within hours after the telephones lit up, the plan was reversed. It was citizens making it clear how they felt, and it was truly spontaneous. Will you always get your way? Most likely not, which is why persistence is key. So your voice—and yes, even your voicemail—matters.
3. Stay informed, and have a long memory: There are many ways to keep an eye on the issues that matter most to you. Make use of the technology at your fingertips to support fact-based journalism, follow feeds and social media accounts that keep you informed on issues, and find ways to archive or keep track of particularly informative content—so it can be used and referenced later when the time comes for action. There are also services to help reference specific legislation or follow issues as they come up. For Kansas, the State Library services can be particularly helpful. They can be contacted by phone (through their toll-free legislative hot line, 1-800-432-3924, or via text message at 785-256-0733), email, or even a live chat with a librarian through their website. Reference and research librarians are available to answer questions on legislation, legislative procedure, state government, or policy issues, and your calls are confidential. Again, be sure to remember what you’ve learned when it comes time to engage or cast your vote.
4. Build community: Build a network that’s ready for the long haul. Events and rallies are effective for bringing people together, but what can you do to keep that momentum going and/or keep the group connected when engagement will be needed down the road? This is another area where technology can be very helpful. For both formal and informal networks, organization and communication are critical. Your social groups, book clubs, and civic organizations are all networks that can be mobilized, and they function because each member has some sort of "buy-in." So establish a routine that you’ll stick to, and don’t forget to have some fun in the process. You’re all there for serious business, but that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy the time together. Some of my best memories have come from the community that is formed by a committed group of people who care. A sense of community can help ensure that all members have a connection to the group and a way to help “recharge their batteries” for a sustained effort.
5. Engage civilly: If your group is ready to start talking to fellow voters, be ready to do so with respect, civility, and factual accuracy. One quote that helps with this is, “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” To put it simply, listen. What are they saying? Where are they coming from? Then, you can begin to introduce your thinking. Is there any common ground? If so, start from there, and work your way out. If not, what is the real root of the disagreement? Get beyond politically-charged rhetoric, focus on the real issues and the source of disagreement. If you reach the root and are at an impasse, agree to disagree, but do so very specifically. In other words, if you don't agree on something, at least acknowledge the grounds for the disagreement, and keep future engagements either focused on, or working around, that—without delving into the realm of personal attacks or looking to drum up “alternative facts.”​ ​

​I plan to continue discussing these issues on my blog in the coming weeks and months. But to sum it up, your follow-through will make a difference. Politicians can be persuaded if their re-election is threatened. So make the calls, build for engagement today, and organize for tomorrow. They need to know you are serious. And if you are really serious, please pass this message along to others who are looking to engage and grow their impact. "The more, the merrier" really fits here.

Today marks two years since the launch of my website and social media presence! It’s been another exciting year of growth and learning! I’ve enjoyed hearing from my fellow Kansans and Americans about the issues they care about, and through the website and blog, I’ve also had the opportunity to discuss several of the issues I see as important to our future. So for the many who have been engaged with this site, I want to express my gratitude and appreciation for being part of this new journey for me.

As I’ve shared before, Civic Engagement is my passion. And, in our challenging times, it also represents the on-going quest to form that “more perfect union” envisioned by our founders. It is rooted in the idea that the future of our communities and our country must be continually shaped by “We the People.” I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to live out this value as a public servant, a teacher of Civic Leadership, and now as a fellow citizen through this website. This is the true definition of a “passion project” for me that involves reaching out and engaging as many people as possible with the issues and challenges facing our future.

In the second year, we’ve built on the success of Year One, grown our following to over 2,300 on Facebook, and reached tens of thousands more with our posts—through your Likes, Comments, and Shares. The site receives around 500 page views on an average day and can top over 10,000 on days when particularly engaging content is shared. Growth on Twitter has picked up throughout the past year, with over 400 followers to date, and I will continue to provide timely updates, including some that are available exclusively on Twitter.
​
I was also proud of what this online community was able to accomplish through issue-education and voter readiness leading up to the 2016 elections. It has always been my goal through this site to avoid partisanship and keep the focus on the information that citizens will need in order to make their own informed decisions at the ballot box and become active voices for change in their communities. I believe this network was able to make an impact, at a time when more Kansans are coming to understand our challenges and commit to being part of the solutions.

​Below is a highlight from each month of Year Two! Hover over the photos to read the titles, and click on the image to read each post:

So what’s on the horizon for Year Three?

• As current events unfold, I’ll have plenty more to share on both state and national issues, along with more stories and examples from my personal experiences to be incorporated into future blog posts.
• With help from various media outlets, the State Archives, and a lot volunteer hours on the part of my sister, Ann Carlin Ozegovic, we’ve collected more photos to share in “Throwback Thursday” posts and future blogs.
• The guest contributor section of the site—the Leader Corner—will continue to add more voices and more issues for discussion in the coming year.
• In the Leading and Learning Moments section, you’ll find a set of short YouTube videos on several areas of learning that I discuss in my classes and can be used for personal or organizational learning on leadership. ​This year, I’ll be releasing a new set of videos and more resources on Civic Engagement that can be helpful in community-focused work, engaging elected officials, involving others in the democratic process, and mobilizing others in efforts for change.
• ​Many of the challenges we face can only be solved through true listening, cooperation, and collaboration. Across all the differences that divide us, our nation must heal, we must seek common ground, and we must come together for the sake of our future. This does not mean abandoning our beliefs and values but simply treating other ideas and opinions with respect and a willingness to listen and seek understanding. There really was a time in politics when we could “disagree without being disagreeable,” and it is my hope to continue pushing for a revival of this type of civility in our discourse—as we usher in a new era of what it means to be an active, informed, and engaged citizen.

​Again, I am very grateful to all who have followed the website and social media, shared the content, referred a friend to the site, or added your voice to the conversation. Through the online community we’ve built together, more voices can be engaged, more issues can be explored, and more dialogues can continue to shape our future. My goal with this site is to reach people of all backgrounds and political stripes and encourage them to own the many challenges we face and help lead the changes—both big and small—that will be necessary for the future of our communities, our state, our country, and the world. I hope you’ll consider joining me, as we continue to grow together in 2017!
​
If you have about three minutes to spare, I'd appreciate hearing some of your feedback in the short survey below. This information will help shape the upcoming year of growth and engagement!

​The progress that was made to return sanity to the State of Kansas in the August Primary and continued on November the 8th must take another step next Monday (December 5th) in Topeka. That is when legislative leaders will be selected for both parties in both Houses. For my thoughts on the results, read my December 6th Update at the bottom of this post.

The people have spoken. The Brownback policies have failed, and the voters said strongly that change is in order. For that to translate into real action starting in January, strong leaders from both parties—who are ready to address problems and start turning things around—must be selected for these leadership positions.

I served a two year term as Speaker of the Kansas House many years ago, and I am well aware that much has changed. But what hasn’t changed is the power the speaker has in controlling the agenda. The speaker controls the committee makeups, who will chair each committee, what bills ever come up to the floor, and in what order. Individual members, knowing those facts, can more easily be persuaded to support the Speaker. On the Senate side, there has been much change. The President of the Senate now has as much power as the Speaker, making who these two people are very important.

In the Senate on Monday, it appears there will be limited change. The moderate coalition does not have the votes to really influence the outcome. But on the House side, the story is very different. The race for Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader are very much contested, and from all appearances, they are all very close. One thing that is clear is that the large number of new House members will control the outcome in both parties. And my message to them is to keep in mind the people who helped get you to where you are. Most were elected to help bring changes that a strong majority of Kansans want. Therefore support those candidates with the best capacity to help lead the next steps in restoring Kansas.

Now if you are reading this and live in a district where a new moderate was elected, you might remind the new legislator that who they elect Monday will not just make a difference to them, but most importantly, will be key to any hope of needed change. This is just one of many ways in which we citizens must take a much more active role. Only an activated citizenry can really help mobilize the changes Kansas needs. Elected officials are in a stronger position when their constituents are informed and involved.

​December 6th Update: Thoughts on the Leadership Selections
The legislative leadership election yesterday brought a mixed bag of progress and holding on to the past far-right direction under Governor Brownback. In the Senate, there was little change on the surface, with one exception: Senator Vicki Schmidt of Topeka, a key moderate, was elected to the leadership team. Despite limited success, the balance in the Senate now stands at 20-20. This should allow the moderate Republicans and Democrats to be much more effective. In the House, aside from electing another very conservative Speaker, the moderate Republicans prevailed. Combined with the Democratic election success, the moderate coalition now holds a significant majority. This means the Democrats, now led by Jim Ward of Wichita, have the opportunity to play a much more significant role.

The summary of all this comes down to the top leader in both houses still having significant power to control the agenda, but the moderates will have the power to stop whatever they so choose. What that means is that, at some point, compromise must play a strong role in both houses for Kansas to take positive steps forward.

The ultimate success or failure of any President is tied to their leadership capacity, their political savvy, and who they put on their team. Given that we want to elect someone who has a chance at being successful, wouldn’t it be helpful if they’d get around to telling us their approach to leading the country? Since the first debates during primary season, I’ve been focused on the topic of leadership discussion and dialogue in the Presidential race. Policy plans and general temperament to be Commander-in-Chief—two areas that have been on display already throughout the debates so far—are important. But to this point, we have heard little about how they would get the job done.
​
In a recent blog, I wrote about the difference between being President and doing President. I made the point that some candidates for public office are interested in gaining the title and the power but have little or no intention of working hard to achieve results. To actually lead a different direction, to solve particular problems—to actually do the job of President—one has to have the skills and talents to be a change agent. In my latest follow-up post on the topic of leadership dialogue in Election 2016, I provided a list of some of the questions that could help voters understand their approaches to the doing aspects of the Presidency. In the absence of these types of questions being asked to our current Presidential candidates, one must look back at their history and record to discover how they would approach the job and work to get things done. And from my observations so far, this year we have a clear choice between being and doing.

From what we’ve seen from Mr. Trump throughout this race, it’s clear that he enjoys the attention brought upon candidates for the highest office in the country. The idea of being President is something he clearly takes an interest in. Although I do not understand some of his strategies, and he offers very few specifics, his focus seems to be on “winning” and promising more “winning” to the American people. But, given what we’ve seen from him so far, can he do the job? 

Though the Presidency brings a high level of authority and influence, one person alone cannot carry out the job. Although Donald Trump seems to be taking more leadership cues from Vladimir Putin than anyone who has ever served as President of the United States, our system of government was not set up for a bully to simply order things done. There are three equal branches of government. Between successfully working with one branch and staying within the Constitution and laws of the other, one cannot simply dictate orders through force of personality—a tactic Trump seems to rely on heavily in his business career. And when it comes to this country’s role in the global community, “tough talk” and offensive rhetoric is no way to gain and work with allies, exercise leadership, and build coalitions to get things done on the world’s stage. Hopefully, in the next four weeks, he will be challenged to tell us just how he plans to work with others to do the job of President.

Hillary Clinton’s challenges are different. Her lifetime of experience and commitment to public service demonstrates her desire to lead change, to do the job. She has a specific plan for most, if not all, of the critical issues we face—even going so far as to outline how she plans to accomplish each objective—and has made these plans accessible to the public for review. It is also clear that she understands the complexities of the role of President. And, from her experiences with the other branches of government as well as her leadership of a large, diverse executive agency with a worldwide presence, her prior jobs have given her opportunities to demonstrate some of the leadership capacities needed to successfully do the job. 

​The question for her is, how are you going to be successful with a divided country, represented in Congress by two opposing camps who can’t seem to work together on anything? When President Obama was first elected, Republican leadership announced that their number one goal was to see to it that he would not be reelected. If this repeats, the future could be bleak. It will take leadership that focuses on bringing people together, finding areas of agreement, and working beyond barriers and differences—such as party lines, country borders, generations, races, religious beliefs, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and differing abilities—to make progress on behalf of the people.

In my view, those will be the leadership challenges that each candidate will face. While I hope that some of these questions will be discussed and answered in the remaining four weeks, I am not holding my breath that the October 9th and 19th debates will in any way focus on the doing of the job. But I will continue to engage this topic, which I believe is critical to our future. And I am hopeful that the winning transition team has given these challenges of doing President a lot of thought and that our soon-to-be new President will refine a leadership and political approach that has a chance of being successful and moving us forward as a nation.

Last week, I received a copy of a message that William Jones, President of Bethany College, shared with his Bethany College family and the Lindsborg community in response to the racially-charged threats aimed at him and his family. Having grown up in that area—I attended high school in Lindsborg and watched my father serve as a very successful volunteer fundraiser for Bethany College—this incident hits me on a deeply personal level. As well as the obvious disgust to learn that such racist actions are going on, the potential impacts are way beyond upsetting and are making folks feel unsafe in this small, tight-knit community. Apparently, because of Bethany’s success in recruiting minority students, a small faction want to shut the college down. Although the college is rightfully doing their best to protect free speech and avoid any connection to politics, I understand the folks responsible for the threats have made very clear their political leanings—going so far as to shift the message of their chosen Presidential candidate into the despicable phrase, “Make Lindsborg white again.”

Though, as a country, we have made strides towards our founding belief that all people are created equal, the way this progress is perceived, disseminated to, and acted upon by the general public has often reminded us just how much work remains—on both a systemic and grassroots level. We have grown more conscious of intolerance and injustice and demanded greater respect for our historically-marginalized communities, but yet, hateful messages and actions persist in many ways and all across the country. So how have we arrived here, and what can we do about it? I do not pretend to know for sure with great accuracy. But I know we have had disagreements over the direction of our communities and our country throughout history and have been able to discuss these issues civilly within our political sphere. Today, I worry that this ability may be eroding, and these problems are only made worse by the intolerant rhetoric spewing outward from the Presidential election.

I understand there is blame to go around—in truth, no one is without some responsibility. But when Donald Trump suggests that the Secret Service guarding Hillary Clinton should not be armed, just to “see what might happen,” I fear we have done more than just reach a new low in this Presidential race. I believe we have, in essence, authorized politically compatible citizens—who in many cases are legitimately frustrated Americans—to take actions that were never before thought as acceptable for any person.

At a time when we should be debating the best way to grow the economy, take care of our infrastructure, deal with the challenge of immigration, and preserve our nation’s security—just to name a few—​instead what we see all too often looks like a food fight. This was made possible by irresponsible Republican candidates who failed to step up and seriously challenge the Donald. And, of course, the press always likes a horse race, so they did their best to provide him with as much free publicity as possible. But the outcome of this election will be decided by the people—one-by-one—who enter the voting booth, and before they do so, I strongly urge them to consider this question: Do we really want to elect a President whose primary “accomplishment” so far has been to bring out the worst in us?

All of this is now playing out in the area where I grew up—the place I originally learned the importance of community and the value of mutual respect. I have been encouraged by the response from the Lindsborg and Bethany College community, who have rallied around their leader and his family to affirm their support for a more inclusive campus and community. Though this supportive response doesn’t come as a surprise to me, I believe it sends a strong message to those who spew hate that the revolting actions they have threatened will not be tolerated. I also want to believe that come November 8th we will have significant positive results, so the message of darkness will have suffered a setback and, as a country and a state, we will have some hope for a stronger, more united future.

​One thing I’ve emphasized throughout my time teaching is the concept of learning as a “two-way street.” While I do my best to pull together interesting readings and examples to share with students, often times some of the most powerful learning comes from them to me. One such lesson, which I’ve been reflecting on a lot throughout this particular election season, happened several years ago when I had a student from Lithuania in my Practical Politics class (which I taught every spring semester for ten years). In one of the final papers assigned to the class, she shared her thinking on political candidates here in the United States. Her question for the voters was this: do you want to elect resume builders or problem solvers?

​In other words, do you want to vote for someone just angling for a higher office or someone who wants to be a part of solving the problems that exist? We need the latter, but I fear all too often we elect the former. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean we should expect our candidates to disavow any interest in a higher office. But what it does mean is that we expect them to deal directly with the problems at hand knowing there will be political risk involved.

Along the same vein, from Steven Sample’s book The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership, is a chapter on "to be President" or "to do President." His focus is on leaders in higher education, but the point has general merit. Like my Lithuanian student raised, is the goal in seeking office to be a state legislator in order to build a resume that could lead to higher office? Or is it to do the job, to help legislate progress, and to actually help bring the change that is obviously needed?

I’ve thought a lot about this and, for me, both my student and Steven Sample have hit on a really important point. As we look for folks to fill key positions, whether in the political arena or elsewhere, we should be clearer about who it is we are looking for and really need. Do we want someone who will be likable, play it safe, appear to be leading, and willing to "just go along" in order to set him or herself up for the next job on the way to the top? Or do we want someone who has the talent, critical thinking, and will to own up to and take on the clear challenges we have, knowing that this direction often leads to less popularity (particularly over time)?

Come November the 8th, the entire Kansas Legislature is up for election. It is our opportunity to decide whether we want resume builders, someone to just be a legislator, or do we want problem solvers, folks to do the job and do what is best for the public? I don’t think it is too hard to decide who we need. The challenges we face are real, and they're beginning to be more fully understood by the public at large. Incumbent Legislators locked in to the Governor’s agenda and endorsed by the State Chamber of Commerce, versus talented challengers ready to take on issues, make difficult decisions, build consensus, and lead—these are the choices we have. Now is the time that we identify who we want to support and help financially and by volunteering. In each race, I think you will find out who the real leaders are: they are the ones who are running for office to solve problems. Our future—the future of Kansas—come January, will be tied to whether problem solvers or resume builders control the majority in the Kansas Legislature. Each and every one of us can make a difference, and there are many problem solvers who will need your active support.

​The results of Tuesday’s Primary are in, and the message is clear: Kansas voters are ready to get our state back on course. The opposition from Republicans against their party’s extremist legislators indicates that they’re ready for a change of direction. In the most visible and critical contests, new candidates won almost every race, adding more common sense and moderation to the Kansas Legislature and giving the state a new vision for the future. From Western Kansas to Johnson County, there will be new faces in the legislature and new problem solvers to begin the hard work of undoing the damage done by Governor Brownback and his legislative allies.

We knew August 2nd would be a critical benchmark day, and there are several important things to take away from it as we go forward. Obviously, this was one huge step toward returning Kansas to times of balance and sound decisions—under the consensus-building leadership of both Republicans and Democrats. Now the focus turns toward the November 8th General Election, where this coalition has the opportunity to build on the gains made in the Primary. With that in mind, now is an important time to mention that our friends with the Kansas Chamber of Commerce (etc.) and their wealthy backers will have had their reality check and will likely return—with more money and more misleading attempts to convince you that their experiment is working and “the sun is still shining in Kansas.” Fortunately, we now have proof that Kansas voters know better, but this makes the effort to continue reaching out and educating our fellow citizens even more important. It will be incumbent upon all the backers of quality candidates and real solutions to our challenges to double down and make the most of every campaign day. We have witnessed some dark days throughout the past few years, but with the help of many committed Kansans, the light of a new day can shine brightly all across our state.

The key contests in November will depend much more on the success of Democratic candidates in uniting people from across the political spectrum around this vision for a better future. In these races, there is a real opportunity to bring together the rational conservative voters, who value fiscal responsibility and support wise investments in our future, with Democratic and Independent voters, to reject the failed policies of the past, look beyond party labels, and bring change on behalf of the people of Kansas—not just the monied interests that got us where we are today in the first place. The quality of the candidates is certainly there, and I've been very impressed with their passion and commitment. The rest is up to us, the voters, to stay engaged and get involved.

For me, Tuesday’s results are a reflection of citizen concern about all the harmful decisions that have been coming from Topeka and, most importantly, a realization that concerned folks needed to do more than just complain. I see it reflected as well in the armies of grassroots support that many sound, moderate candidates have been able to assemble. The unified concern for restoring our constitutional commitment to public education, sustainably addressing the fiscal crisis, maintaining our infrastructure, securing the role of an independent judiciary, and rising to meet our many other challenges has been truly inspirational. Now, we just need more Kansans to join this cause. And, once again, I urge readers who are ready for a change of course to share this message and/or actively seek opportunities to prepare your friends and neighbors to vote for a continuation of the momentum we established in the Primary. What we do between now and November will decide the future of our state.

With the horrific tragedy in Dallas—on top of what happened in Baton Rouge, Minneapolis, and Orlando (and unfortunately the list could go on)—it seems as though we, as a country, are sitting on a powder keg just waiting for the next tragedy to take place. Peaceful protests, shared words of concern, and 24/7 news coverage is not enough. I lived through the sixties. It can get worse.

This is a time when real leadership needs to step up, not self-serving political rhetoric. Rather than just bounce from one tragedy to the next with similar reactions, concerns, and appropriate talking points, we need to hear more about real understanding of what is going on in this country. We need to talk about the legitimate concerns of all, not just the population that fits your political interests.

This Presidential campaign has brought out frustrations from coal country to the rust belt to the many minority populations in communities across the country. From young people to the concerned families of the middle class who see opportunities slipping away, there are reasons why Independents are growing in numbers, and that will not change until one or both political parties step up to the complex challenges we face.

We need leadership that will be totally honest with the American people, that will listen as much as anything, and will acknowledge that the ultimate answers are not going to be at either extreme of the spectrum. We need leaders from all segments of our population to put the country first, to be willing to listen to each other, to commit to working together, and to putting the people’s interest above party and political gain. I know, given the environment we have today, that this sounds far off, but something close to it is the only way to real solutions. The American people want answers and real change, continuing with the same thoughts and prayers from tragedy to tragedy is simply not enough.

Learning about Governor Brownback’s recent decision to remove Kansas from the program that resettles refugees, I’m again reminded of how most of us do not understand how that program works or the damage we do to our country’s security in the process of not presenting a unified front. Given the recent events around the world, it is understandable that people would be concerned, particularly as it relates to the screening process for the refugees who will enter the United States. This concern is something I understand and accept. But flat out opposition will not only have us break from our traditional approach but will be counterproductive in our effort to fight ISIS.

When we say or do anything that suggests we are anti-Islam, or that we want to ban all Muslims from our country, we feed right into the recruiting strategy of the terrorists. They benefit from any action we take that gives them an opening to reinforce their narrative and justify their tactics to new (and future) recruits. I know, for example, when Governor Jeb Bush was running for President, he tried to choose words that reflect an appropriate approach while not offending his party base. Although, his idea to take in only Christians from Syria not only proved to be hard to explain in any follow-up questions but also sends the wrong message to those we are trying to defeat. Now is the time to engage our Muslim friends and partners, both in our communities and around the world, to help address this mutual threat—rather than further alienate the very people we need as allies in this global struggle.

As we all work to be more understanding of all this, there are a couple of facts we need to keep in mind. One, there is an established screening process in place with successful experience that takes from one to three years to clear any refugee for entrance into the United States. They will not be shortly coming on boats, arriving at our shores, and casually entering our country. Secondly, a large degree of the threat—and some of the most recent attacks—in the United States have come from “homegrown” terrorists. That doesn’t mean this can’t change, but shifting our position on refugees will not only fail to prevent these types of attacks within our borders but will more than likely be counterproductive to the cause at large. However, it would make good sense for the Congress to review our current program for screening refugees seeking asylum, make any sound changes, and most importantly, make sure it is funded to the level needed to do the job correctly.

“What the Hell is Wrong With Kansas” was the title of a joint presentation that Governor Mike Hayden and I made in Wichita on Saturday, at a forum sponsored by Women for Kansas. The effort highlighted some of the serious issues facing our state and, in the process, made the point that the concern wasn’t just coming from one political party. Kansans of all political stripes—​Republican, Democratic, and Independent—​have real policy differences with the Governor and those in the legislature who made his agenda a reality in our state. This is what prompted Governor Hayden—​a conservative—​and myself to speak out together on the desperate need to change directions in Kansas.

In our presentation, we discussed just how much has changed in the political environment in the years since we each left office—​from the decline in civility, to the increased impact of special interest money, and the viciousness and extremism of our politics. Of course there were very strong differences when each of us served in the legislature and the governor’s office. But the fight then was always over how best to serve Kansas, knowing that we had to wisely invest in education, take care of our infrastructure, and provide help to our citizens most in need. Throughout our history, our approach to solving problems has been straightforward: we listened to each other, clarified our differences, and reached compromises that wisely served the people of Kansas.

Fortunately, the proud past I just described isn’t ancient history—in fact, it’s far from it. This August and November, the people of Kansas have an opportunity to restore this common sense approach by electing more problem solvers to the legislature. And that spirit of collaboration and compromise for the common good is alive and well among the many courageous individuals—both citizens and public servants—who are working (or will join the effort) to turn things around. It’s critical that voters understand the importance of being informed on the challenges we face and that they know which candidates would serve their real interests. In order to accomplish this, volunteers and supporters will need to work purposefully every day to make sure that their personal networks—and their neighbors—are ready to vote for a change of course.

The first benchmark day will be August 2nd, where the Primary Election will decide a number of key seats in both the House and Senate. That will be the first opportunity to send a clear message—​around the state and to the nation—​that we’re getting back on track, that the failed tax experiment will be brought to an end, and that the long tradition of sane, forward-thinking policy is on its way back to Kansas.