Mike Dahl: The Full Interview

Will: I’m curious about your personal journey, how your experiences as someone who grew up in the Sixties in Redding/Shasta County, served in the military, and on council in the late Eighties and early Nineties have shaped your worldview. What has made you a bridge builder versus a divider?     

Mike: The social environment for young people in the sixties was an exhaustive and bewildering dichotomy: an exciting, yet frightening, inspirational, yet unnerving experience. Yin/yang. It was a cornucopia of conflict and confusion. Our shared foundations and institutions were being challenged and invalidated. The meaning of truth was no longer fundamental; truth was now relative. For young adults in Shasta County, this societal convulsion would continuously spin our developing minds. Some became adherents of the emerging counter-cultural revolution while others, like me, took the established route of embracing societal norms, and joining the United States Marine Corps. From the perch of my early worldview, I could see we were at war. It was my time to serve, and preserve, our cherished freedoms like the generations that preceded me.  It was my time to pay admission to the American experiment.

I was raised in a politically conservative household with a traditional nuclear family. We were working class, and blue-collar. Proud. Patriotic. We had limited resources, but we always had books and magazines to stimulate thought and a quest for knowledge. Dinner table conversations introduced me to the world of politics. I was taught the value of hard work, personal responsibility, limited government, and the virtue of individual freedom. John Locke over Jean Jacques Rosseau, the individual over the collective. I also believed in science, empiricism, and critical thinking over fantastical mysticism which was attracting many of my post-World War II “Baby Boomer” generation. I was a “classical liberal” in the spirit of the Enlightenment. In the 1960s this was considered a “conservative.” I am still a classical liberal (conservative) which explains why I find Trumpism and its alternative facts and counter-science “populism” so disheartening and repugnant. 

I departed Shasta County in early 1967 for Marine Corps boot camp, the greatest challenge I had ever faced. It was brutal. But I was doing my duty as an American in the spirit of John F. Kennedy who challenged us, declaring that we should “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” I answered his call by joining the ranks of the “few, the proud, the Marines.” I did this despite New Age protagonist Timothy Leary posing the counterargument that we should “turn on, tune in, and drop out.” Surviving boot camp and receiving the coveted Eagle, Globe, and Anchor, I would soon receive my orders and would ship out to Vietnam. 

I lived a sheltered life in Shasta County. We were a rural community, sparsely populated. We were ethnically and culturally homogenous.  Racism and discrimination were abstract concepts, something we read about or saw on the television. Joining the Marine Corps opened a new door to the outside world. The good, the bad, and the ugly. And there was a lot of ugly in Vietnam. I arrived in late 1967 and was with the First Marine Division outside of DaNang in the foothills. At first, everything was relatively quiet. Not what I expected. New Year’s Day 1968 came and passed. Still quiet. Then it happened. January 29th all Hell broke loose. It was the beginning of the infamous Tet Offensive! We were overrun the first night. Welcome to The Nam!

This surreal, brave new world of war, 6,000 miles from home, provided a lot of time to think… and ponder… and wonder, and ask questions of fellow Marines that came from other states, big cities with diverse cultures, and small towns in the Deep South and Midwest. Sitting on top of sandbagged bunkers, with an M-16 nestled in my lap, I could listen and learn for hours. We would all get news from home and were very aware we were despised by many. It was disconcerting. The Viet Cong hated us and tried to kill us constantly. We expected that. Our fellow Americans, not all, but many, also hated us. We did not expect that. Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam and showed her support for the enemy. We were stuck in a social vice and caught-up in a crossfire of overlapping revolutions. One in Viet Nam and one at home. Then news came in that MLK was slain. Soon after, news came that Robert Kennedy was murdered. War is Hell. Nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide. MLK’s dream became a nightmare. 

I survived my first tour of duty and smugly went home for a 30 day leave proud of my coveted Marine Combat Action Ribbon. To the shock and chagrin of my parents and family, I thoughtlessly volunteered to return for another tour. To my developing brain, this decision made total sense, albeit baffling and painful for my loved ones. To me, Marines exist to fight wars. If you are not fighting in a war zone, why are you a Marine? What’s the point? It was an uncomplicated, and simplistic, calculation and choice. A month later I am off to war again and land in Chu Lai, south of DaNang. I still had more to learn. And learn I did.

In 1970 I returned to civilian life and enrolled in college, sponsored by the GI Bill. This was a precious benefit. I would never have the means to attend college without this assistance. I was incredibly grateful. I was also having problems adjusting to civilian life. I missed the lifestyle of order and structure, pride and purpose. I wanted to reenlist in the Marines, but they were pulling out of Vietnam and would not guarantee I could return. So, I returned to Shasta County with many other returning vets, some in wheelchairs, a few missing limbs, others with horrible burn scars. We were looked down upon and avoided. No parades. No “thank you for your service.” None of that, like today. For many, it was very disheartening and depressing. For me, I was pissed. In my young mind, I thought I knew firsthand what the war was about. The civilians didn’t. They weren’t there, was my logic. In my view, I was an expert on the War in Vietnam. This attitude set me up for another learning experience. Maturity would eventually teach me that I was not an expert and I knew little about the war. I just happened to be there.

The Vietnam War was an extraordinarily complex and complicated engagement. As I matured, I realized my initial perception as an expert was extremely flawed. I was only an expert on what I witnessed, not the full story which continues to be debated by historians.  Many of us fall into the delusional trap of believing we have moral or historical authority over an event we witnessed or experienced. This is not true. Consider the individual experience as a pixel in a digital photo. The witness is an expert on a single pixel. The witness is not an expert on the complete photo composed of hundreds of pixels. The big picture is the real story, not the single experience. Anecdotal evidence vs. empiricism. I have learned more about the Vietnam War in the last three years than all my combined knowledge in the prior 73 years. It’s complicated. And I am still learning. Being in the center of an experience doesn’t mean you can see or understand it. Only when you break away from the fog of emotional preconditioning can you apply logic and reason to understand the experience.

I went on to finish college earning a bachelor’s degree in political science and a master’s degree in public administration. After a brief stint as a consultant with the California State Assembly Republican Caucus, I went into the private sector and was a partner in a successful manufacturing firm for 38 years. Fortunately, I still found time to stay active in local politics. At the urging of several friends, I ran for Redding City Council in 1986, won election, ran again in 1990, and won again. I also served two terms (tours) as Mayor of Redding. During this period, I was able to leverage my knowledge of business in the private sector with my academic background in public administration. It was an experience that taught me humility and the importance of teamwork, like in the Marine Corps. 

My worldview became more “worldly” in 1990 when I started traveling to China for business opportunities. My first visit was the 1st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. I was exposed to a completely alien culture. I also had the opportunity to establish a maquiladora in Mexico as we continued expanding our business. My worldview continued to evolve and expand. 

I retired from my business career a few years ago after we sold our company. I was now entering a completely new phase of life: The “Elder Phase.” With age comes wisdom, wisdom defined as the sum-total of your experiences, both failures and achievements. With wisdom comes responsibility. The Elder Phase can be as exhilarating and enlightening as the previous phases, if you keep your mind open to new ideas along with a thirst for knowledge. Wisdom is an asset. It has value. If it is shared. That is the key. If it is shared. To me, that is the responsibility and opportunity for our late-stage Elder Phase. We have a responsibility to the incoming generation to mentor, prepare, share, and guide. We can leave the world in a better condition than when we entered if we follow this path. Each generation must realize the legacy they leave behind is the legacy the incoming generation inherits. The good, the bad, and the ugly. 

Will: What drew you to the difficult conversations workshop initially?

Mike: I initially received information about the workshop from Jesica Rhone with the McConnell Foundation. I have a great deal of respect for her and looked forward to working with her on a new project. She is an example of a young leader representing the incoming generation filled with energy, enthusiasm, altruism, and intelligence. Plus, she was teaming up with Janessa Gans Wilder, another amazing woman who established the Euphrates Institute. For me, this would be an exciting learning experience. (I would represent the Redding Chamber of Commerce).

I was also enthralled with the concept of providing an objective workshop that focused on developing the skills necessary to augment a “difficult conversation.” At the time, I was increasingly concerned by the fissures threatening our society, counterfactualism, conspiracy theories, and the evolving tribalism. Americans were precariously descending into warring clans, trapped in their informational echo chambers.  Much of our dialog was counterfactual and partisan. Groups that were originally on the fringe or outer periphery of the political spectrum were now gaining traction. Social media, cable television, and talk radio became the vector for spreading the social virus of division, disorder, and hate.

The workshop provided an opportunity to offer and reintroduce our participants to the principles of civil discourse, and the ability to apply reason, logic, and objectivity when seeking solutions to community challenges and the development of public policy. To create a solution, there is an essential process of defining the problem to be solved. The workshop was an opportunity for us all to sharpen our skills for critical thinking and recognizing the importance of breaking away from our comfort zones, intellectual safe places, echo chambers, and cyber bunkers.

Will: The group you assembled at the 2017 Redding workshop was one of the most ideologically diverse groups in the history of the program. What was the experience like of organizing that event? What approach did you take to get people who might vehemently disagree with one another into the same room?   

Mike: One of the challenges in organizing the workshop(s) was choosing the participants. We wanted diversity and balance. But we also wanted to attract people that had influence. We invited, through a process of selection, individuals representing private sector, public sector, non-profit, and advocacy.  Many of these people were community leaders, very influential, including command over the direction of public policy. For example, we had the Sheriff, District Attorney, police chiefs, city council members, county supervisors, tribal leaders, underrepresented minorities, large and small philanthropic organizations, health care, social services, veteran advocacy, and private sector business. 

Our goal was to pass on the principles of having open-minded, respectful dialog to community leaders, hoping they would pass on this knowledge within their social spheres of influence. In retrospect, I think we were prudent in our selection process. Realistically, there are people that are so deep in ideological extremism and tribalism they cannot be reached. They are trapped in the fringes of reality. Their minds are locked into an alternative reality. We were selective. 

Will: Looking back to your terms on city council in the late eighties and early nineties and comparing issues faced then to issues facing council today, what has stayed consistent? What has changed? 

Mike: The means of communication and the sharing of knowledge (and opinion) have radically changed due to digital media. As a society, we are overwhelmed with information, disinformation, and noise. This novel digital platform has democratized social interaction, including the most bizarre and extremist assertions only a science fiction writer could develop in the past. The freedom to vent and opine has no bounds and we have witnessed a growing mass of keyboard bullies and thumb thugs. The meaning of “truth” has continued along the path of relativism that started in the sixties. The search for truth has become extremely difficult due to a lack of consensus on facts and has descended into a process of bias confirmation. Charlatans and demagogs have taken advantage of this trend which allows them to market their notions and themselves. Andy Warhol famously said, “in the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.” So true today thanks to mass, social media. If only we could limit the voices of animosity and discord to 15 minutes. 

The other disturbing change from a few decades ago is the lack of decorum, respect, and civil discourse. Politics has become a blood sport and the worst behavior is being exhibited at all levels including national, state, and local. Various public voices represent identity groups and continuously preach grievance and discord. For many, politics has become a new form of religion, with their leaders acting as prophets and preachers of a political gospel. One of the most unfortunate consequences is the lack of political consensus building through compromise. For too many, consensus is viewed as weakness and heresy. 

Social dynamics are continuously changing including the ways we communicate and interact. These seem like very dark and challenging times. And they are. But time is not static, and change is never permanent. Keeping that in mind provides comfort in the hope and desire that our incoming generation of leaders and influencers will have the ability to listen and learn and participate in difficult conversations leading them through their lifecycle of leadership which will leave the world a better place when they leave than when they entered.