Simply because people have a common enemy, doesn’t mean that they agree on anything else.

Breathe, people. Breathe. Give them time to find themselves.  They won’t achieve clarity or consensus any faster than your teen-aged child will figure out the rest of their life. How could they possibly?!

Unfortunately, Candidate Obama’s wide-eyed, idealistic optimism has given way to Politician Obama’s having to decide for the media whether he supports or opposes issues such as the plan to build a Muslim Mosque near Ground Zero.  See Obama backs ‘Ground Zero’ mosque.

The President’s job is not to decide whether he supports or opposes a project such as this.  His job is to lead by making certain that there is a healthy dialogue going on.  The pressure on President Obama from politicians and the media, who are all accustomed to dealing in a world of positions, has caused him to do the worst thing he can do as a leader:  take a position on the issues that Americans care about.  The astute politician, and the masterful leader, know how to advance the dialogue without taking a side, and understand that as soon as they take a side, they have alienated all of the people who believe strongly in the other side.

What is needed here is more than a Beer Summit, but it is not as far off as most people would think.

Recently, I brought together two Arizona legislators to hold a mediated dialogue on the immigration issue facing America.  We calmly discussed each group’s underlying interests, goals and values and found that they surprisingly agreed on most of the issues.

This kind of dialogue, however, only tends to occur when a professional facilitator is managing the discussion, when the stakeholders are all present or represented, and when the discussion turns away from positions (black or white, thumbs up or thumbs down) to each group hearing the other – not unlike the President did when he held the Beer Garden Photo Op.  In that discussion, and in that setting, it was a different discussion than the two men had ever had.  That was the same response that I had from the two legislators, who each told me that they had learned more and had a better discussion in the two hours on a stage with me than they had been able to have in sum to that point.

What this issue needs is a real dialogue, facilitated (mediated) by a professional who is expert at managing the emotions, the values and the discussion between representatives of the two groups.  Give me Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and some of his leaders, along with some of the most vocal opponents, preferably from families of those who died in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, and I will guarantee you a dialogue where each walks away having heard the other and having had their eyes opened to things that they had not realized before this discussion.  Televise it, put it on the internet, and broadcast it over the radio, and we will educate hundreds of thousands with one discussion.

This is what we do – those of us who resolve conflict.  Mediators do it every day in legal battles, Ombudspeople do it in the workplace environment and conflict coaches do it with individuals who are in conflict.  My personal passion is to do it in situations such as this.

It is time for President Obama to begin delegating the facilitation of issues such as this to those of us who do it professionally, and return to running the county, focusing on the wars, the economy and jobs,  and the spill that endangers the Gulf Coast.

“If leaders on all sides managed to address the dispute in a broader perspective, it ought to become obvious that Americans actually agree on both of the key issues in the debate,” Medved wrote in “Time for a Mosque Beer Summit?”

Issue one:  Muslims have the right to harassment-free worship.  Issue two:  The proposed location is a lightening rod for America’s concern or fear surround Muslims.  Medved asks, “What prevents the various parties to this battle from cutting through the multiple misrepresentations and misunderstandings to reach a meeting of the minds that would benefit everyone?”

That’s a good question, particularly since government officials including the likes of New York Gov. David Paterson has offered to help find a less controversial location for the mosque.

Sometimes a solution that seems so simple to third parties doesn’t even address the heart of a conflict.  Many Americans are still angry about Sept. 11, 2001.  Muslims don’t feel welcome in much of America, and holding on to one address in New York may be largely symbolic of their greater battle to win acceptance in this country.  If any situation could use a good mediator, this is it.

When two sides become as entrenched as those we see here, they need to talk in a neutral setting with an accomplished mediator who has the capacity to recognize the emotions behind the conflict, to ensure that each party listens to and acknowledges his opponent’s position, then to help them move beyond to a workable solution.  We call this a “win-win,” when both parties end up with what they essentially wanted in the first place.

It’s hard to get there, though, when people keep shouting at one another, clinging to their rights and refusing to come to the table where a meeting of the minds can occur.

It really is time for a change.  In a time where more mediators are running for office, bringing with them the skills that conflict resolvers use, and where for a recent judge seat in Los Angeles County, four mediators were among those running, I think the change is more one of process than of ideals.  While most will agree that President Obama has certainly been a change from his preceding President Bush, many would also say that policy change has not solved the problems we face.  What is needed instead is process change.  Until we change the way we do leadership, in government, big business and in every organization, whether a massive homeowner’s association or a small non-profit board, we will continue to face the same frustrations, the same failures, the same disenfranchising, and the same power struggles.

This is why I decided to hold our Immigration Dialogue 2010 at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles on July 23rd.  Sponsored by the American Institute of Mediation, this will be a discussion of a different kind.  Rather than hosting a debate, where each side slings sound bites and talking points at the other, and the result is that each audience member becomes even more galvanized behind the position they carried with them into the debate hall, we are putting on a facilitated dialogue, essentially a mediation, featuring Arizona Representatives John Kavanagh (R) and Kyrsten Sinema (D).  We will discuss the immigration issues facing our nation, and have some discussion about Arizona’s controversial SB 1070, which is due to become law on July 28 of this year.

These two lawmakers, both intelligent and articulate, along with their constituents, have lived with these issues up close and personally in recent years.  Because of their experiences and their perspectives on the immigration issues we all face today (the fact that there are somewhere between 11 and 12 million illegal immigrants living in this country), we can delve into the underlying interests that they and their constituents hold, that are driving their positions on the solution.

In hosting this event, the American Institute of Mediation is hoping to commence a change in the way we all talk about the critical issues that face our society, and to become more collaborative and a little less competitive; to listen more and argue less; and to explain, describe and attempt to understand, rather than simply repeating sound bites and talking points.

We will attempt to find the underlying interests that they have in common, and build from there because we believe that solutions that are derived from people’s interests are generally strong and long lasting, and we hope to demonstrate this by moving this discussion in that direction using the same skills that mediators use on a daily basis.

If a mere 120-minute dialogue about immigration among stakeholder representatives could curtail protests, boycotts and protracted litigation, wouldn’t you welcome the opportunity to watch such a conversation live and in person?  We expect to fill a 300-seat neutral venue in Los Angeles with members of the public, government, law enforcement and of course the media who would witness how parties interested in the controversial immigration question might come together to have a facilitated dialogue from which every state, not just Arizona, could benefit.

We will do all that we are able to provide a safe, protest-free venue, a respectful audience, media coverage and the opportunity for our guests to speak about their issues freely and fully.

I am donating my time and resources to this project because in my 16-year career as a mediator, I have never encountered a conflict that could not benefit from a structured mediative approach when the parties so need to have their interests understood.  I believe the immigration dilemma has been minimized to sound-bites and protests and is no exception to this rule. Our guests, as thought leaders on this topic deserve to be better heard and understood by those who disagree with them, and we are able to provide that forum.

We invite you to join us for this AIM Institute Special Event. Only 200 tickets will be sold, so register now before it sells out. Advance registration is required, and parking is free.  Video highlights will be available online at the AIM Institute site following the event.

I beg to differ with Faircloth, because I believe it is never too late for a sincere apology.

Here’s the dilemma:  Most product manufacturers that allegedly cause injury are advised against apologizing because it could be viewed as an admission of wrongdoing.  Most injured parties require something more than an apology to be made whole.  Defendants realize that no matter what, they are still on the hook for monetary damages, so why bother.  Besides, they think that no matter what they say, it won’t ever be enough.  Just ask Faircloth.

So why apologize?  I submit that it is almost always the right thing to do – both ethically and strategically.  From a strategic perspective, people (plaintiffs) will fight longer and harder in the absence of an apology.  And why is that?  Because absent expressions of real remorse or empathy from the alleged wrongdoer, the aggrieved person has no choice but to fill that vacuum with his or her own worst imagination.  Couple that with the frustration of not having expectations of an apology or empathy met, and you have a recipe for explosion.

Wouldn’t a sincere apology from the Pope regarding the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal ease a good deal of the public’s outrage about the Church’s handling of the incidents?  Without that, people fill that void by assigning to the Church feelings of apathy, indifference, even tacit acceptance, and it is that array of feelings to which people are reacting.

In Toyota’s case, company President Akia Toyoda apologized publicly.  He said the important words, “I am sorry for any accident Toyota drivers have experienced … and I will do everything in my power to ensure such a tragedy never happens again.”  You can listen to his entire apology here:  http://aiminst.com/toyoda.

Is he sincere?  Only time will tell, but the world will be watching Toyota’s production quality very closely, and skeptically, to see.

Litigants don’t have the opportunity to offer or hear apologies such as the one Toyoda made to Congress and the world.  In civil litigation for monetary damages where lawyers and witnesses do all the talking, apologies are almost never a part of the equation (except sometimes on TV dramas).

Mediation is different, however.  In mediation, litigants come together for the express purpose of talking about their disputes in an environment that both encourages and facilitates apologies as part of resolution.  For some parties, hearing the words “I’m sorry” is part of being made whole.  For defendants, having the opportunity to say and mean those words can lift a burden they may have carried for years.

I have seen apologies work wonders for all involved in sexual harassment and discrimination cases, medical malpractice cases, product liability and personal injury cases.

Once, in a sexual harassment suit I mediated, after the plaintiff told how the harassment had affected her entire life, the defendant shocked us all when he literally confessed. “I did it,” he said.  “I did everything she just described.”  He could only do that because of the protections provided by mediation.  He went on to apologize, explaining that he thought they were all just goofing around, that everyone in their workplace flirted with everyone, that he never dreamed his actions affected her the way they had  and that if someone had ever made his wife feel the way she was describing, he would want to strangle the guy.  He apologized sincerely, asked for her forgiveness, and wanted to know what he could do to make it better.  Those are the three components of a real apology.  More important, his words gave that plaintiff exactly what she needed.  The modest amount of money she accepted meant less to her than the apology.

In a medical malpractice case, when the plaintiff talked of losing her elderly mother, the hospital’s risk manager answered, not by denying liability, but by telling her own story of loss – her elderly father in a hospital.  Upon hearing that, the plaintiff felt she had someone on the other side who understood her.  We were able to resolve that case in about 30 minutes with just one monetary offer.  Read more about this at http://aiminst.com/advopen.

So, my advice to Faircloth — and all who are skeptical about the motives behind apologies — is that the words “I’m sorry” mean something, no matter how long you have to wait to give or receive them.

The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution on March 5 publicly acknowledging and condemning Turkey’s Ottoman army for their role in the Armenian Genocide almost 100 years ago.  According to New York Times reporters Sebnem Arsu and Brian Knowlton, “Turkey reacted sharply, recalling its ambassador to Washington, Namik Tan, in a display of annoyance.  Turkey is a critical United States ally in NATO, but the question of Armenian genocide taps deep veins of national pride.”  Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told the reporters, “Each interference by a third party will make this normalization impossible.”  See “Turkey Criticizes Committee Vote on Armenian Killings.”

With all due respect to Minister Davutoglu because I know he means well, the U.S. government acknowledging the Armenian Genocide will not harm Turkey-Armenian relations and it should not add strain to Turkey’s relationship with the United States.

Minister Davutoglu doesn’t understand what mediators know to be true:  There are different levels of defining peace.  While many people, Americans mostly, define peace as a state of bliss where everything around us is good and everyone around us gets along, others, notably people in war torn countries, consider peace to be an absence of active war.

Mediators define peace (we call it “success”) differently, too.   One way is compromise that avoids expensive litigation through settlement, but doesn’t necessarily resolve the conflict.  The parties may still walk away believing their opponents are the enemies who intentionally injured them.  If the relationship continues, as it often must, the unaddressed, underlying conflicts resurface and manifest in a new dispute.  Take neighbors, for example, who dispute property lines or encroaching tree limbs.  Once the survey is done and the tree is trimmed, that immediate dispute is settled.  But unless the animosity and bad feelings between them are addressed, and the underlying conflict resolved for good, new disputes will likely erupt in a few months over parked cars, fertilized lawns, noise, lights or any other lever disgruntled neighbors can find to fight about.  That’s how unresolved, underlying conflict continues.

Turkey and Armenia are neighbors who will never have true peace until the travesties of the past are acknowledged, discussed and artfully apologized for.  My “Talk It Over” co-host Louise “Weezy” Palanker puts it this way:  Don’t just say “I’m sorry,” (or worse, “I’m sorry you feel that way”), you have to also say, “can you ever forgive me?” and “what can I do to make it up to you?”  The transgressor who asks these questions is taking responsibility for his or her actions and attempting to make things right.

Minister Davutoglu seems to believe that silence and a lack of unrest indicate that all is well when it fact, Armenians are merely tolerating the current situation while still holding a vey deep grudge, resulting in an unresolved underlying conflict.  Real peace between Turkey and Armenia will be achieved once Minister Davutoglu or another high-ranking Turkish leader delivers a public acknowledgement, complete with a responsible apology, and asks the “what can we do to make things right?” question.  Then, and only then, can discussions about forgiveness and peace begin.  And perhaps then, the world will have one fewer ticking time bomb ready to explode in that part of the world.  Permanently.

For example, in “Obama Offers to Use Some G.O.P. Healthcare Proposals,” New York Times reporter David Herszenhorn writes, “Mr. Obama announced his plans to work on the Republican suggestions in a letter to Congressional leaders of both parties.  But his main point was one Republicans did not welcome:  that Democrats would press ahead with comprehensive legislation over the minority party’s objections.”

The reason we have so much litigation in America (especially in California) is that defendants so rarely understand that their actions often guarantee a lawsuit.  When one party suppresses another to the point of pain or powerlessness, the injured party feels he or she has little choice but to retaliate.  Plaintiffs choose litigation because it may be the only legal way to inflict suffering – loss of control, unfavorable publicity, monetary awards, punitive damages, etc. – of the caliber the defendant will understand and respond to.

As a result, defendants are often responsible for creating the emotional monster on the other side of the table. When plaintiffs believe every other door has been slammed in their faces, they become enraged enough to flex their muscles in the only remaining venue where they stand a chance of having a level playing field.  Of course, the same is true in the other direction, with plaintiffs sometimes overreaching, leaving the defense with no choice but to go to trial, and fight back with a vengeance.

What makes mediation work is the introduction of a neutral third party.  Having an unbiased person at the table can bring big picture perspective into the room when all others are mired in the fog of their power games and can’t or won’t see another approach.  Perspective is a mediator’s greatest qualification.

That’s why President Obama can’t be the mediator of all the controversial congressional reforms:  healthcare, job creation and financial system accountability, to name a few.  He has a dog in the fight and he’s one party’s (read: extreme’s) leader.  If he were serious about leading, he’d appoint a neutral person who could bring with them reason and perspective.  A real neutral, who wouldn’t be a politician campaigning for re-election, would turn off the cameras, close the door, and encourage everyone to disclose his or her needs, pressures and underlying interests in the privacy and confidentiality of the mediation process.

Isn’t that a pendulum swinging too far to the left in response to having swung too far right during the previous administration?

Any group who feels suppressed will eventually attempt to dominate its suppressors. Employees who felt their rights were neglected under Bush now will secure their immediate future by making business owners experience the same pain and frustration that workers did, ensuring that leadership rallies and flexes their muscles as soon as they regain power.  Today, the majority of our politicians perpetuate this “us vs. them” mentality through extreme rhetoric to ensure their own re-election, and what passes for the news media these days assists them because the conflict drives readership.

If management didn’t view laborers as nameless, faceless commodities, and if labor didn’t view management as greedy fat cats trying to amass wealth at the expense of the laborer’s health, security and dignity, then capitalism could actually thrive.  But when management exploits labor, causing — and I mean causing — labor to organize and elect a politician who is almost socialist-leaning whose followers believe that a CEO’s salary should be determined by a multiple of the average worker’s pay, then it’s no wonder we end up with lawmakers who believe restraints on commerce are good ideas if they can force business to conform to the latest political thought (and I use that term loosely).  It’s no surprise that management outsources work to third-world countries!

The problem is our leaders are trying to resolve conflict through power struggles, rather than collaboration (or even cooperation), using polarizing positions instead of reasonableness, and a process of trying to win over “them”, rather than trying to win them over.  This short-sighted self interest in taking back the hill just lost only ensures another battle over the same hill with renewed insurgency from the defeated.  But do our politicians recognize how entrenched they are?  No, they just know they need to take the hill, whether that hill is healthcare or taxes or a village in Iraq.

Operating this way without seeing the big picture guarantees that the pendulum will continue to swing wildly between extremes and that career politicians will continue to be extremists rather than leaders.  What we need is a leader who leads with reason, rather than one who simply turns the power of the position the opposite direction from his or her predecessor.  Perhaps then we will have less conflict (too often intentional) and more actual leadership.