Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues have developed a set of 9 intuitive moral values that are consistent with evolutionary psychology insights. Amateur psychologists appreciate the Myers-Briggs model while professionals promote the “Big 5” personality traits. Google AI allows us to relatively quickly check our intuitive sense of how the moral values connect with the personality traits.
Professor Haidt’s work emphasizes that moral values are part of our internal makeup based upon evolution, especially recent evolution into a social and cultural species. His team promotes the “rider and elephant” model that asserts that we acquire and reflect deep-seated moral, political and religious views in an intuitive fashion. We only use our rider/rational character to defend/explain our choices from time to time. This was developed independently of Daniel Kahneman’s system 1, system 2 “thinking fast and slow model”. We mostly think fast/intuitively but are able to think slow/rationally as required. The “Moral Foundations Theory” team says that we are 90% selfish chimp and 10% cooperative bee. We are now a hybrid species.
Dr. Haidt is an intuitive, experiential liberal whose academic/scientific work forced him to re-examine his moral beliefs and biases, and those of the left-leaning social sciences. His team documented that there are traditional moral values widely held throughout history and across cultures that do not comply with the dominant WEIRD model of western, educated, industrial, rich and democratic. They took the usual modern experimental psychologist steps and defined 5 moral values. They later expanded their model to 9 values, breaking fairing/no cheating into equality and proportionality and adding liberty/oppression, ownership and honor.
Their team was widely criticized from the left for challenging/undermining the prevailing views of modern moral values (stage-based development, ala Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Lawrence Kohlberg) and opposing the “conventional wisdom” of inevitable moral and cultural progress towards a liberal ideal. At an early stage, they determined that liberal individuals and politicians had a limited moral palate of just care/harm and fairness while conservative individuals and politicians appreciated care/harm and fairness and many traditional moral values. Circa 2013 they tried to convince Democrats that they were playing politics “with one arm tied behind their backs”. The team must have thought “in for a dime, in for a dollar” when they later added ownership and honor to the traditional values of loyalty, authority and purity as valid, universal, historical moral intuitions.
I will take a first pass at how moral intuitions relate to personality traits and then to political views.
Introversion versus extraversion has a limited connection with moral intuitions or politics. Both parties and philosophies attract introverts and extroverts.
Abstract, intellectual individuals emphasize care/harm and fairness/equality as their main moral virtues. Haidt and others criticize this dominant academy view as “thin morality”, inadequate for the real world of community and politics. More concrete/specific/sensing/experiential/practical people tend to also support the conservative values of ownership, loyalty, honor, authority and purity.
Open-minded “perceiving” individuals support care, equality and liberty. Their “judging” counterparts support the 5 clearly conservative values listed above and proportionality as important principles for equity.
High “feeling” individuals tend to adopt the care and equality moral possibilities. They also tend to support the more conservative value of group loyalty. High “thinking” individuals like the structure provided by proportionality, authority and honor. They also tend to be more sensitive to liberty/oppression.
The “Big 5” personality value of “openness” to new experiences is considered the most important predictor of political views by political scientists and psychologists. High openness drives moral intuitions of care and equality. Low openness leads to a preference for ownership, loyalty, honor, authority and purity.
Conscientiousness is affiliated with the conservative values of ownership, loyalty, authority and purity. Proportionality is more neutral for politics, but clearly connected here.
Agreeableness does not align with the other factors. Friendly, high feeling individuals predictably support care and equality. But they also support conservative leaning proportionality and honor. Non-agreeable individuals are more sensitive to oppression, a relatively neutral value. Non-agreeable individuals are more interested in the conservative value of property ownership.
Neuroticism is an equal opportunity offender. Tightly wound, sensitive individuals tend to support the liberal core of care and equality. They are also attracted to the “conservative” values of ownership, honor and purity.
Summary
There is a clear left-right, liberal-conservative divide in some moral intuitions and personalities. There are statistical trends and tendencies. But real individuals are more complicated. Modern individuals are more likely to consider themselves independents with a portfolio of liberal and conservative views on specific topics. Many personality dimensions are unrelated to political views. Humans have different personalities, moral intuitions and political views. There is no clear “right and wrong” view. We are stuck with each other.
I encourage all partisans to deeply consider this result. Politicians are incentivized to win. They look for the “least common denominator”, the most effective words to assemble and maintain a voting coalition. In the modern world of politically and religiously low-engagement citizens, this is a rational and winning approach. Polarization and win/lose positioning are also logical means to election and re-election.
I think that we inherently hold different moral intuitions and political views based upon our personalities and life experiences. We are stuck with each other. We need to invest in Civility to make our political systems work. We need to embrace compromise and “good enough” political results.
In 2013, Jonathan Haidt summarized a decade of research on what values make man tick. What moral intuitions are widely held across time and cultures? Which ones are consistent with evolutionary psychology? How do people think about moral values? The researchers identified and validated 5 values, which have been expanded and refined into 9. People are born with the ability to develop certain moral intuitions. They adopt them subconsciously from experience, family and culture. They hold them deeply and defend/rationalize them as needed. We can change our moral values, politics and religions, but we usually don’t.
(1) Care/Harm
Don’t harm others, take care of people, relieve suffering, empathize. Leads to the virtues of kindness, gentleness and nurturance.
(2) Fairness/Cheating/Equality
Treat people fairly. Reciprocal altruism. Impulse to impose rules that apply equally to all and avoid cheating. Intuitions about equal treatment and equal outcomes for individuals. Generates ideas of justice, rights and autonomy.
(3) Liberty/Oppression
Feelings of reactance and resentment people feel towards those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Seek liberation from constraints and fight oppression. Motivation to assemble to oppose invalid authority. Promotes equal rights, individual freedom and freedom from oppression.
(4) Fairness/Cheating/Proportionality
Intuitions about individuals getting rewarded in proportion to their merit or contribution.
(5) Ownership
Intuition about possession rights in society, similar to territoriality, which reduce conflict.
(6) In-Group Loyalty/Betrayal
Instinct to affirm the value of groups you identify with, including family and country. Leads to the obligations of self-sacrifice, vigilance, patriotism and punishing betrayal of the group.
(7) Honor/Self-Worth
Basing one’s self-worth upon reputation, including family and kin reputation.
(8) Authority/Subversion
Stable social order based upon the obligations of hierarchical relationships, including obedience, respect and fulfilment of role-based duties. Prevent/oppose/punish subversion. Leads to the virtues of leadership, followership, deference to authority figures and respect for traditions.
(9) Purity/Sanctity/Degradation
Intuitions of physical and spiritual contamination and disgust elevate the value of purity in thought, word and deed. Leads to the virtues of self-discipline, self-improvement, naturalness and spirituality.
Criticisms of the Liberal Values Approach
Liberals are attracted to the first 3 of the 9 values, while conservatives find all 9 to be appealing, including the traditional ones that liberals tend to avoid. This provides conservative politicians with the advantage of having 9 moral flavors to attract and inspire followers, while liberals make do with just 3.
Contrary to the self-image of most liberals, holding just 3 values can make us (me) intolerant, limited, uninformed, less caring/empathetic, disrespectful, proud, faithful, rigid, narrow, critical, uncivil, elitist, divisive, polarizing, righteous, close-minded, controlling, unsophisticated, Manichean, and unscientific!
Haidt and others criticize liberals for taking a simplistic “march of progress” view of history. C.S. Lewis called this “chronological snobbery” and “the spirit of the age” in comparison with universal views. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s quote “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” fits into this determinist historical view. Hegel provided a philosophical basis for historical progress. World War I ended the naive view of unstoppable progress in all dimensions of life. The critics don’t discount the relative importance of the first 3 values but reject the elimination of the other 6.
Critics argue that liberals have applied “Occam’s Razor” to trim the list of important, experienced, valuable virtues to just 3 in order to make a political philosophy appear scientific. This is inconsistent with the historical liberal support for pluralism; the recognition of multiple, irreducible values needed for political, religious, economic and community life.
They argue that the short-list elevates the individual while removing any sense of community from the core values of man. They consider this nonsense. The history of philosophy, religion and social science focuses on the critical relationships between the individual and the community, universe, nature, church, city/polity, family/kin group, the many, and the whole.
They say that the strong liberal view is overly rational, elevating formal, scientific, instrumental logic above other forms of logic, feelings, intuitions, group logic, experience, habit, creativity, development, insight, values or spirit.
They say that the liberal view is overly formal, legalistic, individual rights based, administrative, measured, enforced, guaranteed, state based, centralized, bureaucratic, literal, detailed, and inflexible. It is based upon exact fulfilment of idealistic principles without regard to the realities of people or life. It falls into the trap of “the perfect is the enemy of the good” voiced by Voltaire. This approach mirrors that of the Pharisees in the New Testament. It attempts to formally implement utopian goals.
Critics say that care, equality and liberty are collectively very inadequate bases to support a social, political or spiritual philosophy. Too individual, ideal, abstract and emotional. Not balanced with community, spirit, and practicalities.
Critics argue that this approach undermines the essence of the liberal democratic model which recognizes that political differences of all kinds are inherent and offers a structure that limits the risks of worst cases while promoting the development of large majority support for compromise positions.
They say that elevating 3 values and discounting the inherent validity of other values leads to polarization. Caring is good. Trade-offs, qualifications, clarifications, competing values are bad. Equality of opportunity and results is good. Self-interest, group interest, access and preparation costs, excellence, risk-taking, creativity, perseverance, natural abilities, teaching, technology, self-discipline, and diet are bad. Liberty is good. Community, responsibility, duty, honor, hierarchy, wealth, power, feedback, and rewards are bad. There is an inherent limit to raising up any one or few values to be the “creme de la creme”. It doesn’t work. In reality, we are stuck with a messy, indeterminate set of values. Historically, liberals were more comfortable with complexity, change, and emerging perspectives; a reforming, organic, and evolving world.
Critics note that liberals have historically promoted a subjective world view, with individuals happily pursuing different newly created views. They have emphasized tolerance and welcomed paradoxes. They have embraced the arts. They have promoted F. Scott Fitzgerald’s view that “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function“. The recent liberal perspective is much more fixed.
Critics charge liberals with elitism for believing that their set of values is “obviously” superior to others. They argue that their discounting of others’ values is disrespectful. They say that it ignores their inherent value as worthy individuals.
Rebuttal
Conservatives are creating a “strawman” opponent. Some liberals DO believe that the first 3 values are most important and sufficient for supporting our social, political, spiritual and economic worlds. Very few hold this extreme position.
“Liberal versus conservative” is a simplifying intellectual construct. Liberal leaning individuals show great diversity in their beliefs. Individuals increasingly hold a portfolio of left, right and center views. Different interest groups within the liberal family emphasize different values.
“Liberals” do not live in ivory towers. They are engaged in their communities with individuals of varying political views. They are practical. They agree that good is better than perfect.
Tolerance and respect for individual views is a strongly held liberal value.
Politicians, volunteers, donors and thought leaders tend to be more divisive but they are a small share of “liberals”.
Recent survey research confirms significant differences from left to right in making explicit choices, but lab experiments and observational studies show that liberals also respond to situations based on all potential values.
Both conservatives and liberals tend to overexaggerate the depth of support for values or positions held by their opponents. The true differences in moral intuitions and values are not so extreme.
Politicians, strategists and communicators have learned from Haidt’s work. They better understand that humans are motivated in a variety of ways and seek to offer all 9 flavors.
Perception is Reality
Clever politicians live in the world of framing, soundbites, community building, targeted messages, fake news, impressions, smears, reinforcement, enemies, actions drive beliefs, brand is everything, share of mind, emotions, exaggerations, polarization, lies, click-bait, etc.
The so-called “liberal” positions described above do not have to be real, substantial, significant, constant, priorities, enduring, deeply held, common, important, material, central, core, logical, widely held, or consistent. They only have to be plausible or believable. Modern communicators have very few personal filters. Most listeners employ few critical thinking skills. They consume political news and commentary as entertainment and personal validation.
Hence, the views of the most extreme, true-believing, progressive, new left, far left, green, environmental, globalist, utopian, socialist, pro-labor, postmodernist, dada, creative, anti-privilege, defund the police, community activist, radical, intellectual, legalistic, disadvantaged, oppressed citizen, immigrant, politician, intellectual, influencer or local neighbor can be used to portray liberals as extremists, radicals, and severe threats to the American way of life.
Few of us write or act with an eye or ear cocked towards avoiding caricature. In the modern world we all need to become much more disciplined: individually, in our local politics and in holding state and national politicians to a new gold standard of support by the broad American public.
(1) Care/Harm
Surveys indicate that liberals and conservatives equally support this critical value. Because conservatives trade-off Care with other values in their policies, decisions and communications, some liberals accuse them of being cold, heartless or unfeeling. They reject this characterization and question the wisdom and character of their accusers, creating another cycle of polarization. In parallel, some liberals hold Care for the weak, poor, widowed, immigrants, imprisoned, disabled, or unlucky as the supreme value which does not allow for trade-offs to be made. Practical, balanced conservatives reject this utopian, idealistic approach and view it as proof of liberal extremism.
(2) Fairness/Cheating/Equality
Haidt and his team were required to separate 2 Equality from 4 Proportionality as they learned that different people defined fairness in quite different ways. The moral intuition that “cheating is wrong and basic fairness is right” prompts a variety of beliefs. Even when defined as “equality” it covers equal opportunity, equal treatment, equal rights, roughly equal outcomes and equal outcomes. Conservatives have “middling” support for 2 equality. Liberals show very strong support for “equality” of all kinds, broadly applied, often in its strongest form. The response to a violation can be so strong that it looks like (9) Purity/Sanctity/Degradation. Conservatives who don’t have this strong experience can see liberals as over-reacting, thin-skinned, woke, virtue signaling, overly protective, or bleeding hearts. Some liberals who watch conservatives dismiss differences, treatments and systems as relatively unimportant cannot understand why they don’t see the deep violation of human dignity as intolerable on all levels and not subject to context, materiality or trade-offs. This difference of relative weighting, intensity and perspective is difficult to bridge but both sides could start with recognizing it as differences rather than an ultimate “right versus wrong”.
(3) Liberty/Oppression
American liberals and conservatives both rank this as very important. They apply it to different situations. Liberals worry about powerful businesses, multinationals, banks, individuals, churches, courts, militaries, systems, processes and traditional institutions. Conservatives worry about the government, criminals, immigrants, foreigners, militaries and non-traditional institutions.
(4) Fairness/Cheating/Proportionality
Liberals give this a “middle” priority. They value logic and reason. Some support our meritocratic economic and social systems. Conservatives give this a much higher value. They worry about being cheated by governments, bosses, suppliers, welfare beneficiaries, immigrants, tenured faculty, free riders, criminals, storekeepers, retailers, foreign governments, international agencies, and self-dealing charities. (9) Purity/Sanctity/Degradation feelings arise as individuals monitor and prevent attempts to violate this deep sense of fairness. In a mirror image to (2) Fairness/Cheating/Equality, some liberals criticize conservatives for overreacting to remote, infrequent, low impact or nonexistent threats. They encourage others to make rational economic decisions to reduce but not eliminate such actions. Conservatives see this as a non-tradable value and wonder why liberals can be flexible on a truly essential human right – to not be violated.
(5) Ownership
This recently added moral intuition clearly resonates with the conservative values of fairness/proportionality, authority, and liberty/oppression. “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours” is obvious. Conservative support for property rights has a long history. Liberals have weaker support for Ownership as a core intuition or value. They worry about powerful actors oppressing the weak by depriving them of property directly or indirectly [(2) Equality and (3) Oppression]. Some liberals argue that property is an agreed upon legal necessity subject to community definition and control. This view is unintelligible to many conservatives as we saw in the Obama “you didn’t build this” debate about the relative source of value/rights of property ownership between government infrastructure and business owners. Many conservatives today take the opposing view that “taxation is theft” because property ownership is seen as the supreme human right or value in society, befuddling their liberal neighbors. Liberals can benefit from gaining an intuitive sense of ownership as deeply felt and influential. Conservatives can benefit from seeing the government/economic systems perspective as being valuable just like the cultural/social norms perspective.
(6) In-Group Loyalty/Betrayal
Conservatives appreciate this value. Liberals give it weak support or oppose it as being contrary to the individual and a possible tool of oppression by powerful institutions like churches, political parties, fraternities and governments. Conservatives value community and individuals. All communities require forces to bind members. This infringes on perfect individual freedom but is unavoidable. Liberals remain concerned about the long history of powerful institutions doing “whatever it takes” to assume and maintain power, including taking away member’s rights. Liberals want to always emphasize the need for individual choice in making decisions to join, support and follow an organization. As conservatives worry about (4) being cheated in many dimensions of life, liberals worry about losing their individual rights and voice when they join any organization. This is a gut level, nagging concern. Yet, liberals do form strong group attachments to institutions, universities, sports teams, neighborhoods, professions, civic organizations, political parties, interest groups and churches in the lived world. Once again, greater self-awareness combined with better observation and understanding of “others” could reduce the perceived gap about what is important.
(7) Honor/Self-Worth
Another recently added moral intuition. Conservative honor is based on duty, hierarchy, and group integrity; Liberal honor is based on compassion, rights, and individual fairness. Conservatives highly value loyalty to the group and respect for authority, which are core components of traditional, collectivist “honor”. Liberal honor is less about group loyalty and more about universal human rights and compassion.
Liberals develop feelings of self-worth largely through individual achievement rather than their status as part of a family, profession, role, nation or group. Conservatives value communities more highly so see honor in the group, role or self as more important.
(8) Authority/Subversion
Conservatives greatly value a stable social order and the tools needed to build and maintain it. Liberals tend to fear oppression from powerful collective organizations, so minimize this value. This value is closest to the “essence” of liberal versus conservative views as measured by political scientists. Liberals seek new experiences while conservatives avoid unnecessary risks. Liberals could benefit from distinguishing (3) Liberty/Oppression from this value. Conservatives argue that social organizations, institutions and norms are required for any society. Proper authority must be respected to make this work. Liberals support authority for some organizations such as the government, so should be able to see the proper role of authority elsewhere.
(9) Purity/Sanctity/Degradation
Conservatives support this value, considering it obvious and universal. Liberals tend to consider it relatively unimportant. They often see conservative concerns about sex and sexual differences, racial interaction, criminals, religious beliefs and practices, flags, patriotism, foreign languages and “others” as overreactions to weak or nonexistent risks. Liberals have their own sacred items/threats such as children, abuse, animals, pollution, organic foods, fascism, locally handcrafted goods, mass transit, prejudice, microaggressions, and personal identities. Conservatives see the lack of liberal support for traditional social norms and institutions as a lack of human decency; an extreme point of view. Some liberals criticize the deeply felt support for these institutions, their leaders and symbols as being unfounded. Conservatives feel the sting of disrespect.
Summary
Humans have sets of moral intuitions that are deeply felt and often unconscious. There is a “liberal versus conservative”, “modern versus traditional” dimension that groups together sets of values. There is a long history of Western societies adopting more liberal values and fewer conservative values but there is no evidence that conservative values will disappear someday as society becomes more informed, intelligent, urban, secular, cosmopolitan, scientific and rational. Anyone who invests time studying all of these values will see that they are heartfelt, prewired intuitions. Some humans will hold each of them and consider them important.
Liberals and conservatives can both benefit from studying these values and recognizing their intrinsic validity. Individuals choose and/or hold different sets of values. They prioritize or weigh them differently. Most people acquire values informally by living life, not through explicit political, religious or philosophical choices. They have and defend their values. We will continue to hold different values. We can be civil. We can use our political system to manage these differences. Liberals, who claim to take the broader perspective and seek to find new solutions for problems, are obligated to invest in self-awareness and better understanding how others think about the world and what they can do to help everyone understand and connect.
Rose Colored Glasses; Man Bites Dog; If it Bleeds it Leads.
Politicians, journalists and influencers of all stripes emphasize the bad, the emotional and the unusual. This burdens us and our society. Allegedly, “it’s bad now, and it was MUCH better in the past”. This eternal NOSTALGIA is a big problem for our society today, leading many people to turn to populists, idealists, authoritarians and charlatans for salvation.
I will outline how much better the United States of America is TODAY than it was in the mid-1970’s. I graduated from high school with the class of 1974. I watched the emotionally mixed American bicentennial celebrations in 1976. I remember Jimmy Carter’s 1979 “malaise” speech in which he said that we, the people, needed to face our challenges directly, especially at a moral level. He was briefly cheered but then criticized for being too negative and pessimistic; an uninspiring leader!
Modern life in the USA is immeasurably better than it was in the 1970’s. It is certainly not perfect. The country has not achieved all that it could have or should have in the last half century. It still faces large global and moral challenges and wonders where it can possibly find the leadership, consensus and engagement to resolve them.
The sheer magnitude of changes in daily life across 50 years is difficult to describe but I hope that my outline will collectively communicate the great scale of improvements we have experienced and the resulting hope and expectation that the next 50 years will deliver the same kinds of positive growth. When we consider the last 50, 100 or 150 years of American life, we should be very optimistic.
Global Threats and Opportunities
The Cold War ended in 1989, relieving the pressure of 4 decades of imminent nuclear destruction. This was a miracle. No war. No revolution. No territories seized. No leaders executed. A quiet end to the threat. The US managed the threat of nuclear terrorism. West Germany embraced East Germany. The European Union welcomed new members. The global economy thrived.
The US established relations with China in 1979, beginning the country’s path to economic prosperity, trade and global influence. The growing trade between China and the world has acted to reduce the threat of conflicts while reducing the cost of goods for all.
The US welcomed the growth of Japan plus the “four tigers” of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, as Asian nations embraced the “Western consensus” of mixed market capitalism, global trade and liberal democracy.
European nations also left behind histories of authoritarian governments or too much socialism to embrace the “Western consensus” and thicken ties through the European Union. Francis Fukuyama prematurely declared “the end of history” but the attractiveness of these successful choices was clear.
The US joined international efforts to reduce tariffs and increase trade leading to a doubling of imports and exports as a share of GDP.
The US adopted a less internationalist position after 9/11/2001, declaring a war on terror, defining the axis of evil, revoking treaty commitments, justifying preemptive war and invading Iraq without UN support. Even with this change, the US largely avoided major military conflicts and losses.
Total immigration to the US grew during this period from 2.3% to 2.9% of the population per decade. Many immigrant groups successfully joined American society.
The US welcomed foreign students to its universities. International tourists increased from 15 to 75 million per year.
The US attempted to resolve the Middle East conflicts with some success, avoiding large scale wars.
The US participated in talks to define and address the threat and impact of global warming. It has taken steps to reduce US carbon emissions.
Politics
Presidents Ford and Carter helped to rebuild confidence in the government after Vietnam and Watergate.
Ronald Reagan established “Conservatism” as a broad political philosophy for the Republican party.
Bill Clinton repositioned Democrats more to the center on economics with his “third way” approach.
Both parties increasingly used wedge issues and either/or choices to polarize parties and choices; although the share of independent voters has grown from 30 to 45%, with the rest evenly split between the two dominant parties.
Perot, Buchannon, Palin and Trump provided social and economic populists with a choice.
The country increasingly accepted racial minorities, women, gays, religious minorities, and immigrants; but the conflict between traditional and modern views was politicized as some could not tolerate the changes and others sought to embed the changes as universal human and legal rights accompanied by social pressures to comply with the dominant “tolerant” view.
Federal government employment was reduced from 5 to 4 million in 50 years, while the population grew by 50%. After Reagan, “government” solutions were inherently suspect. Even Bill Clinton declared “the era of big government” is over.
Total federal, state and local government activities grew a little faster than the economy, with the ratio of tax receipts to GDP inching up from 29% to 32%. The ongoing pressure to “cut spending, taxes and regulations” could not defeat the pressures to address social, political and economic issues and interests.
The top marginal income tax rate was reduced from 70% in 1982 and has remained just under 40% since 1987. Neither party has proposed widespread tax increases.
The Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, helping to bring the share of Americans without health insurance down from 20% in 1975 to 8% today.
The US safety net/welfare system has remained intact during this period driving the supplemental poverty rate down from 20% to 15%, while the official poverty rate has declined by just 1%. The share of the elderly (65+) in poverty has fallen from 16% to 8%.
The Economy
Real dollar GDP is 4 times larger at $24 trillion.
US real per capita GDP has remained the highest of all major countries for a century. Continued leadership reflects a dynamically successful economy.
Real per capita GDP has increased by 250% to $70,000.
US fiscal and monetary policy has repeatedly been effective in taming the business cycle and recovering from shocks like the housing crisis and the pandemic.
Industrial production, including energy, is up by 250%.
The number of business establishments has doubled to 8.6M, providing ownership and employment opportunities in a more specialized, globally traded world.
The number of franchise businesses has grown from 375,000 to 800,000+, employing more than 10 million people.
The rate of new business formation and success increased throughout the period, with a new boost after the pandemic.
Businesses responded to the 1970’s “Japanese invasion” and became strategically more focused, measured more effectively, focused on cost reduction, invested in R&D, and applied information technology and process improvement tools. Foreign and domestic competition led businesses to be more cost effective, improve product quality and offer products better tailored to diverse customer wants and needs.
Firms experimented with factory robots by 1975. They now use 380,000 robots, adding 10% more annually.
Auto production in the US has increased from 8 to 10 million units per year.
Farms produce twice as much using 20% less land and 40% less labor.
Businesses adapted to the world of greater international trade by growing or shrinking facilities, markets, products and product lines. They adapted to the new power of consumers and retailers and reduced power of manufacturers. They divested units and rejected the conglomerate model. They rejected vertical integration, learning to outsource all functions where they did not have a competitive advantage.
Firms embraced more effective banking, equity and bond markets to fund their activities. They tapped global sources and private equity. They learned by use financial leverage to increase net earnings and acquire other less dynamic competitors.
Firms changed organizational structures to have fewer layers, less positional power, more staff experts and the ability to use cross-functional (matrix) approaches to core operations, projects and joint ventures.
Education
Preschool/Kindergarten enrollment up from 5 to 9 million. Nearly all part-time in 1975 and mostly full-time in 2025.
High school graduation rate is up from 75% to 85%.
Intelligence test scores have increased by more than 10 points.
Share of young adults who have earned college degrees has doubled from 20% to 40%.
Share of adults with college degrees has more than tripled from 12% to 38%.
Share of young women with a college degree is up from 17% to 45%; shares for men up from 27% to 37%.
Share of degrees in STEM disciplines has grown from 11% to 19%.
Number of college students studying abroad is up by 5 times.
Law school first-year enrollment remains at 40,000, while the population has grown by 50%.
US holds 18 of top 30 global university spots.
The number of annually earned doctorates has doubled.
US accounts for 50% of Nobel prize winners, up from 40% in 1975.
Transportation
22% of new cars are electric. Self-driving cars are widely deployed.
Fuel milage has doubled from 13 to 27 miles per gallon.
New car defects have dropped by two-thirds.
Air travel miles are up by 5 times.
FedEx 2-pound overnight service was introduced in 1975 for $75. Service is widespread today at $55.
Same day and next day delivery services are available today, making Amazon.com, grocery and restaurant deliveries common. Catalog mail order lead times were 6-8 weeks in 1975.
Energy
The US faced energy crises in 1973 and 1979 that disrupted businesses, emptied filling stations and led to recessions.
The US imported 35% of its petroleum products in the 1970’s. It is a net exporter today.
Energy intensity, the ratio of energy used to GDP, has fallen by 60% since the 1970’s.
LED bulbs last 10 times longer. Lithium-ion batteries last 4 times longer.
Wind power is 10% of electricity generation. Solar is 10% of electricity generation. Solar is the lowest cost source today, accounting for two-thirds of new generating capacity added.
Coal production is the same today as in 1975, down 50% from its 2007 peak. It is declining rapidly.
Environment
Toxic air pollution measures are lower by 65-90%.
The world resolved the threat to the ozone layer.
Percentage of US homes in communities with treated wastewater has increased from 50% to 80%.
State parks acreage has doubled. Federal parks acreage has tripled. Land trust additions are equal to the state parks area.
Total US forest land area has increased from 750 to 800 million acres, while the US population has grown by 50%.
Nesting pairs of American bald eagles have grown 100-fold, from 700 to 70,000.
US (1976) and global (2014) birth rates are half of historical levels, reducing environmental demands.
US is on track to reach 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Health
Life expectancy has increased from 73 to 78 years.
Infant mortality rate has dropped by two-thirds.
Smallpox has been eradicated. Polio remains eliminated. Other diseases close to zero.
Smoking rate is two-thirds lower, down from 37% to 12% of adults.
Death rates down: Strokes 67%. Cancer 25%. Flu/pneumonia 67%. Heart disease 50%+. Liver disease 25%.
US governments, medical industry, businesses and people responded to the Covid-19 pandemic resulting in a death rate that was half of the 1917 Spanish flu. Novel vaccine development and flexible delivery resources limited the death toll.
Abortion rates have fallen by 50% since 1980.
Medical research continues to develop new science and solutions. Cloning and human genome mapping.
In vitro fertilization births have grown from 0 to 100,000 per year.
Modern anti-depression drugs (SSRI-Prozac) are much safer and more effective than their predecessors.
Kidney dialysis extends lives for 550,000 today versus 25,000 in 1975.
Americans have 40 million MRI scans done on 13,000 machines, up from zero.
Laser eyer surgery has grown from an experimental procedure to 800,000 annually.
50,000 organs are transplanted each year, up from just a few experiments.
Safety
Property crime rate is down by more than 50%. Violent crime rate is one-third lower.
Both the workplace fatality and injury rates are down by two-thirds.
Traffic fatalities per driven mile are three-fourths lower.
Fire incidents have been cut in half while the population grew by half.
Emergency medical services have grown from 2% to 90% of counties; employing 300,000 people, 50,000 ambulances and 1,300 helicopters.
Consumer
Firms have offered consumers much wider options for products in all industries. A typical Walmart Supercenter has 125,000 different SKU’s.
We enjoy year-round availability of most fruits and vegetables today rather than shopping by season.
Clothing and durable goods prices have been cut by half.
The average automobile is 13 years old versus 6, reflecting massive quality improvements.
Car buyers can choose from 15 major manufacturers instead of just 4.
Appliances in more homes: Washing machines (70-85%), dryers (45-82%), dish washers (28-54%), microwave ovens (4-95%). Refrigerators are 25% larger, half price and 75% more energy efficient.
Median new home square footage has increased by half, from 1,500 to 2,200 square feet.
Mortgage loan rates have declined from 8-14% to 4-7%. Real rates are just 2% today.
Total debt service payments (home, car, credit card, student loan) as a percentage of disposable income have declined from 11% to 10%.
Air-conditioned homes have grown from a hot 55% to a cool 95%.
Away from home food spending has more than doubled from 28% to 59% of total food spending.
Household consumption is up from 87% to 92% of disposable income. Savings is down from 13% to 8%.
Leisure
Many television program options. Top 4 network share down from 90% to 30%. Recording and streaming options exist today.
Cable or satellite TV access has grown from 14% to 100%.
The number of feature films released each year has bloomed from 100 to 700.
Music singles are effectively free today. They cost $7.50 each in current dollars in 1975. The transistor radio has been replaced with portable, wearable devices served by playlists, suggestions and feeds.
Real consumer electronics prices have declined by 80-95%. A 21-25 inch color console was $2-3,000 in 1975 in current dollars. A 50-inch tv is available for $500 today.
A 1982 IBM PC cost $10,000 in current dollars. For $2-3,000 today you get 1,000 times the processor speed, 10,000 times the memory and 100,000 times the storage space.
Video rentals boomed in the 1980’s and 1990’s growing into a digital $100 billion industry.
The $5 billion pinball machine sector evolved into the $50 billion handheld and online gaming industry.
Virtual reality equipment is increasingly popular.
Passports are held by half of US citizens, up from 5% in 1975.
Following deregulation, the real price of air travel per mile has glided down by 40-60%.
Hotel room capacity has doubled from 2.4 to 5.3 million.
Pet food consumption has tripled.
American wine production has increased from 250 to 700 million gallons, along with quality.
American brewery count has increased from 150 to 7,000, along with quality.
Wealth
Mutual funds, index funds and 401K’s offer investing to everyone. Percentage of stockholders has grown from 12% to 60%.
The number of retirement plan participants has grown by 250%.
Real dollar retirement plan assets have grown thirty-fold, from $1.6 to $48 trillion.
Homeownership rate increased from 64% to peak of 69% before falling back to 66%.
Family wealth more than doubled for those in the 1st-25th, 26th-50th, and 51st-90th percentiles between 1989 and 2022. Summary data for 1975 to 1989 is not readily available. Real home prices increased by 20% and the real dollar S&P 500 increased by 75% during this period, overall.
Labor
Compounded labor productivity has increased by 150%, more than 2% per year!
Manufacturing, administrative and farm jobs were reduced by 20% of the total during these 50 years. They were replaced by STEM/analysis, management and health care jobs.
Prime age labor force participation increased from 74% to 84%.
Typical unemployment rate declined from 6.5% to 5%.
Share of self-employed workers increased from 9% to 11%.
According to the Gallup Organization, the share of “engaged” workers has increased greatly in the last 20 years.
Real median family income increased by 40% from 1984 to 2024.
There are dozens of expert calculations of real incomes, adjusted for taxes, government benefits, charity, fringe benefits, hours, etc. Most show that 1975-1990 was flat and that 2000-20 showed modest increases.
Society
The US continues to lead the world in charitable giving as a percentage of income, double the nearest country, Canada.
US migration and population growth in the “Sunbelt” impacted local and national economies, politics and society. Texas (13-31M), California (21-39M) and Florida (8-23M) showed the greatest growth and national influence.
Share of adults cohabiting has increased from 1% to 13%.
Teen pregnancy rate has been cut in half.
The share of married couples has declined from 83% to 67% of households.
Parents now invest 20 hours per week caring for children, up from 12 hours in 1975.
Same sex marriage was legalized by the US Supreme Court in 2015.
Female labor force participation rate has increased from 46% to 57%.
The female to male wage discount has been reduced from 35% to 10%.
The number of congresswomen increased from 19 to 155 (7X).
Women today have access to credit and credit cards in their own names.
Black unemployment declined from 15% to 7%, with the excess above whites falling from 7% to 2%.
Black poverty rate has declined from 30% to 18%.
The Black to White income ratio has improved from 60% to 67%.
The share of interracial marriages has increased from less than 1% to 10%.
Percentage of Americans moving per year has declined from 20% to 12%. Interstate moves have declined from 3% to 2%.
Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” shows a 40% decrease in social participation during this time.
Awareness, tolerance and support for “differences” is higher by an order of magnitude: races, nationality, immigration status, physical or mental disability, gender identity, mental health, autism, obesity, and personality.
Hispanic Americans have increased from 6% to 20% of the population.
The percentage of non-Christians, including religiously unaffiliated, has increased from 12% to 35% of the population.
The share of 40-year-olds never married has increased from 6% to 25%.
Computers
Personal computer software and phone apps provide tools for email, calendars, word processing and spreadsheets to everyone today.
Personal computers are in 95% of homes versus 0% in 1975.
More than 90% of jobs today require computer skills.
Home internet access is 92%.
Digital cameras, music, videos, sound and storage make everything portable.
Voice controlled devices and instant language translation.
Today’s 10-day weather forecasts are as reliable as next day forecasts in 1975.
Google search and artificial intelligence provide access to all of man’s writings and promise thought, itself.
Communications
Internet structure and web browser provide access to everything and everyone.
Smartphones integrate computing and communications. 90% ownership rate. Provides photo, filming and navigating capabilities.
Mobile/cellular phone networks and wifi routers offer universal access to the internet and phones.
Social media networks combine the input of many to build and use networks.
Internet allows for open-source software and information creation.
Video conferencing and internet enabled phone/video calls are common.
Voice mail, answering machines, caller ID and 911 were invented.
Digital books have grown to 25% market share.
Annual first class mail per person increased from 240 to a peak of 360 in 2000 before falling to 130 today.
Daily newspaper subscriptions have plunged from 60 to 20 million.
Share of homes with landlines has fallen from 90% to 30%.
A 3-minute long distance call in 1975 cost $8.70 in current dollars. An international Skye call today is 77 cents.
Summary
The world is a better, richer and safer place. Politics has evolved. The economy is 4 times larger. Businesses and education are more effective. Energy is cheaper. Transportation is better. The environment is much better. Health is much better. Safety is much better. The consumer is king. Leisure options and quality can’t even be compared with 1975. Wealth is up. Incomes are up. Society is digesting many large changes. The computer and communications revolutions have delivered miracles and promise more.
We face social, political and environmental challenges. We have more resources than ever before. Based on American history we should be very confident about solving our challenges.
Civility is a set of behaviors that recognize differences and build respect. Civility is demonstrated through self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship management, communications, growth and problem solving.
Civility is driven by the RICH RAP values of responsibility, intentionality, constructiveness, human dignity, respect, acceptance and public-spiritedness.
These values are essential components of the major world religions, including Christianity.
Responsibility
Responsibility for one’s choices and actions is central to Christianity.
To God: have faith, obey, repent and account for your life.
To Self: grow spiritually, resist sin, develop self-control and seek salvation.
To Others: Show love, serve, choose wisely and build relationships.
To Family: Provide for all needs.
Accountability: Be responsible for thoughts, actions and results. Listen and repent.
Action: Faith must be applied.
Stewardship: Use God-given time, talents and treasures for God’s purposes.
Reflection of Christ: Become more Christ-like through a life of holiness, love and service.
Christianity roots respect in human dignity. It is viewed as a command rather than an earned privilege, focusing on humility, love, and treating others better than oneself.
Image of God: showing respect to others honors God.
Commanded love: proper respect to everyone, including opponents, authorities, and believers.
Humility and selflessness: outdo one another in showing honor.
Value of dignity: respect is based only on intrinsic value given by God, not by social status, merit or agreement.
Reflection of Christ: Jesus showed compassion to the outcasts, the vulnerable, the weak and chose common men and women as disciples to build His church.
Christianity says that all people are created in God’s image, loved unconditionally, and invited into community regardless of background. Jesus exemplified this by engaging with marginalized groups and individuals, and Scripture emphasizes complete equality through spiritual unity.
Radical inclusion by Jesus: breaking social norms to engage outcasts, sinners and the “unclean”.
Theological equality: all are equal in Christ (Galatians 3:28).
Commandment to Love: Love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:39); all of your neighbors.
Welcome the Stranger: the Old Testament repeatedly preaches that foreigners and the marginalized must be treated the same as the native born.
Community of Grace: all individuals are accepted into the community of faith and grace.
Christianity requires members to act with love, justice, and integrity in civic life. Serving the community, promoting good laws, and engaging in public discourse reflect God’s love and desire for the common good.
Love God, Love Neighbor: The great commandment requires service to society.
Identity in Christ: A child of God, redeemed by and connected with Christ, belongs to the community and as a “new” person willingly serves it.
Salt and Light: Called to be a positive influence through and for the community.
Morality: Actions are right or wrong. Individuals can/must do “right”.
Civic Engagement: Voting, holding office, debating and advocating are civic responsibilities.
Common Good: Building relations with others to work for the common good is required.
Positive Witness: Contribute so that others will see the value of “following Jesus”.
We live in a place and time where Civility has declined as a habit or social norm. It is necessary for our social, economic and political communities, IMHO. We need to rebuild Civility as a habit, norm and ideal. We can do this for practical reasons.
Or we might embrace Civility because it is a logical consequence of our religious beliefs.
Christianity is a positive force in the lives of 2 billion people. It is clearly consistent with and supports the 7 Civility values.
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” is recorded in 3 of the gospels. Christians are warned that they must distinguish between the material and spiritual, the personal and the community, the practical and the ideal. Some have read this line to encourage Christians to withdraw from practical and civic life in favor of a private, ascetic, withdrawn spiritual life.
Most Christian theologians emphasize the duality of Christ as “fully man, fully God”. Unlike many religions, Christianity embraces the material, natural side of man as being created by God. Genesis records that God concluded his creation and man were “very good”, despite the fall and imperfections. This perspective encourages us to go “all in” as individuals, spouses, parents, stewards, fishers, builders, carpenters, teachers, servants, prophets, nurses, and participants in community.
We promote Civility as a set of behaviors, values, habits, norms and expectations; NOT as a replacement for religion, but as a secular framework for managing community in a world of 8 billion people.
I personally believe that there are common moral values that God has revealed to men in various places, ways and times.
I don’t see a groundswell of support for this view or for Christianity alone, so I promote the secular alternative of Civility as a “least common denominator” way for our “kingdom of man” to function effectively on behalf of the 8 billion children of God.
Civility is a set of behaviors based upon the seven commonly held values of: human dignity, respect, acceptance, intentionality, responsibility, constructiveness and public-spiritedness. A social, political and economic society must have some core beliefs, norms and behaviors. The modern renaissance of Civility attempts to define the beliefs, norms and behaviors so they can be shared and promoted. We need to be confident that we know what Civility is, how we should behave, how/why we should influence others and why the underlying principles make sense.
Acceptance and Inclusion Defined
Acceptance involves tolerating, respecting, and acknowledging differences. Acceptance is being open, tolerant, non-discriminating, nonjudgemental, understanding and minimizing prejudices. It is a habitual state of mind. The differences can be personal or group characteristics, beliefs, behaviors or identities.
Inclusion is acting on the value of acceptance. It includes being present, supporting others, choosing welcoming language and behaviors and preventing or reducing social exclusion.
Inclusion is primarily shown by intentionally creating positive social environments where all individuals are welcomed and feel a sense of belonging. Individuals are respected, heard, accommodated, and supported. They feel safe, trusted and free to be authentic. They are encouraged to participate, contribute and thrive.
Acceptance and inclusion help individuals to more effectively interact with others, communicate, trust, bond, listen, center, and build awareness and community.
We emphasize “acceptance” in order to avoid the political differences regarding “inclusion” in the DEI abbreviation. Acceptance and inclusion go “hand in hand” and are necessary foundations for embracing Civility as an idea and a set of behaviors.
Acceptance and inclusion are supported by the major world religions.
Judaism (Google AI)
Christianity
Islam
Buddhism
Hinduism
Taoism
Shintoism
Confucianism
Secular Humanism
Summary
The major world religions support acceptance and inclusion:
All individuals have human dignity, created by God, worthy of acceptance and inclusion.
Religion is practiced in communities where diverse individuals are brought together.
The strange, vulnerable, marginalized, foreigner, widows, prisoners, and outcasts are different and must be embraced.
Individuals are commanded to be compassionate, caring and loving to all.
The spiritual dimension of individuals in communities makes them equally worthy of acceptance.
Religious rituals emphasize the unity of individuals in community practice.
The universe is one and individuals should seek harmony with all of it despite the surface level diversity.
There are multiple, fluid paths to enlightenment or connecting with God, so diversity is natural.
Many religions specifically call out the value of diversity, differences, designs, races,other religions, non-religious sectors and viewpoints.
Some religions emphasize the inherent incompatibility of the individual with the whole, yet they are complementary despite the unbridgeable differences.
Religions note the path of personal growth and learning that is driven by interacting with diverse thoughts, experiences and individuals.
Civility is a set of behaviors based upon the seven commonly held values of: human dignity, respect, acceptance, intentionality, responsibility, constructiveness and public-spiritedness. A social, political and economic society must have some core beliefs, norms and behaviors. The modern renaissance of Civility attempts to define the beliefs, norms and behaviors so they can be shared and promoted. We need to be confident that we know what Civility is, how we should behave, how/why we should influence others and why the underlying principles make sense.
Respect Defined
Respect is an attitude or behavior of high regard, admiration or consideration toward a person, object, or entity.
We respect others, social roles, institutions, rules, laws and the boundaries of others.
Respect is shown through active listening, active engagement, conflict management, tolerance, maintaining safety, being courteous and considerate, honoring boundaries, intentionality, empathy, affirming and empowering others, equal treatment, trusting, justice and inclusion.
Human Dignity is a core Civility value. Respect is a recognition of that value through kindness, courtesy, and protecting rights.
Respect combined with the Civility value of Public-Spiritedness creates a need for social justice: protesting, correcting, and preventing actions that diminish human value.
Respect combined with the Civility values of Human Dignity and Intentionality requires us to proactively seek to understand and care for the needs, rights, and feelings of others.
Respect combined with the Civility values of Human Dignity and Acceptance requires us to acknowledge the value of all people, particularly those who face systemic disrespect.
Respect is supported by all major world religions.
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Buddhism
Hinduism
Taoism
Shintoism
Confucianism
Secular Humanism
Summary
World religions strongly emphasize respect as a necessary human value and practice.
They empathize that we are created in the image of God or as an intentional part of the universe. We must respect ourselves, others, God, nature and the universe.
Some describe us as “children of God” or very special beings or imbued with the divine spirit. Self-respect and respect for others follow. We have human dignity, something greater than our material existence.
Religions call for respect for God/the universe and the laws or commands which include respect for others.
We are to live in harmony with the created universe, respecting others, family, ancestors, elders and given social roles.
We are naturally created with the heart for compassion and empathy and are obligated to interact with love, accordingly.
Given our position in the universe, we are to live with humility, honoring God, nature, the universe and others.
Practicing humility, honor and respect are essential for personal growth.
Religions command us to have respectful “right relations” through our speech, actions, interactions with others, community participation and God.
Civility is a set of behaviors based upon the seven commonly held values of: human dignity, respect, acceptance, intentionality, responsibility, constructiveness and public-spiritedness. A social, political and economic society must have some core beliefs, norms and behaviors. The modern renaissance of Civility attempts to define the beliefs, norms and behaviors so they can be shared and promoted. We need to be confident that we know what Civility is, how we should behave, how/why we should influence others and why the underlying principles make sense.
Intentionality Defined
Having a deliberate plan or purpose before acting. An internal state of mind where an individual consciously chooses a course of action to achieve a specific outcome.
Intentionality weaves together two mental dimensions. It is purposeful, planned, logical, forward looking, rational, process-oriented, habitual, structured, informed, calculated, contextual, goal-oriented, practical, scope limited, applied and instrumental!
It is also deliberate, chosen, willful, volitional, proactive, conscious, engaged and intended.
Intentionality is a complement to responsibility, which refers to accountability for actions and consequences.
Taken together, they encourage us to be fully responsible for our choices, actions, consequences and relations. We are to consider all dimensions and make great choices. We are obligated to clearly define goals and seriously pursue them. We have human agency and a responsibility to be self-aware of our choices. We are obligated to work towards becoming mature, balanced, prudent, wise adults.
Intentionality is crucial to Civility because it:
Promotes proactivity over passivity.
Supports conscious, deliberate and purposeful commitment to treating others with respect, courtesy, and dignity.
Encourages self-awareness in decision making, including considering the impacts on others.
Challenges us to define our goals on a deep philosophical, spiritual or religious basis and seriously aligning our decisions and behavior with them.
Focuses on goal-oriented thinking which includes the goals of building relationships, trust and safe communities.
Emphasizes our shared responsibility for defining, supporting and reinforcing the rules of civil behavior that are mutually beneficial.
Recognizes that we are responsible for systematically evaluating, building and improving our behaviors and expectations and the norms and institutions of our communities.
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Buddhism
Hinduism
Taoism
Shintoism
Confucianism
Secular Humanism
Summary
The major religions offer support for being rational, considering context and consequences, being calm, balanced, focused and purposeful, but they mainly emphasize the spiritual, emotional and willful dimensions of intentionality. They encourage us to:
Begin with the end in mind (Covey). Know, follow, engage and align with God’s will or the structure of the universe. Use the power of this knowledge and connection (holy spirit) to make the best choices.
Make decisions based upon values and principles, not self-interest or practical concerns alone.
Be aware, conscious, fully present in life and making decisions. You are an agent.
Be proactive.
Be self-aware and self-disciplined.
Invest in spiritual growth to understand and connect with God/universe which will improve decision making in a self-improving cycle.
Cultivate the heart and compassion as a basis for choices.
Sincerity and proper personal intentions are critical for making choices that deliver good results and which align the person with God/universe.
An intentional person is serious about defining/prioritizing goals, making good decisions and improving themselves.
I sometimes think about “intentionality” as the weakest or marginal Civility value. Major religions consider it to be essential for a good life.
Civility is a set of behaviors based upon the seven commonly held values of: human dignity, respect, acceptance, intentionality, responsibility, constructiveness and public-spiritedness. A social, political and economic society must have some core beliefs, norms and behaviors. The modern renaissance of Civility attempts to define the beliefs, norms and behaviors so they can be shared and promoted. We need to be confident that we know what Civility is, how we should behave, how/why we should influence others and why the underlying principles make sense.
Responsibility Defined
Responsibility is willingly and actively managing our “selves” in all roles to appropriate, and even heroic, legal and moral/ethical standards.
We fill our personal, professional and social roles within the context of society. We recognize our interdependence and the need for mutual consideration.
We carefully listen, engage, empathize, apply, decide, speak, impact, influence, share, consider, decide, and act.
We welcome the joy of Responsibility with a capital R!
We consider the views and interests of others, including our families, neighbors, suppliers, customers, coworkers, bosses, employees and team members.
We consider our roles as citizens, demonstrate public-spiritedness and invest our time and resources accordingly.
We do our “fair share”. When the situation calls for it, we do more than our “fair share”.
We manage our personal, professional and ethical development.
We embrace accountability for our behavior and consequences. We seek to be considered reliable and trustworthy individuals.
We embrace “shared accountability for organizational results”.
Support
Responsibility is sometimes deemed a conservative value, but I believe that active engagement and responsibility is an independent value. Liberals and conservatives and major religions all require Responsibility for moral conduct.
Modern man struggles with Responsibility because it has often been imposed as an unavoidable duty. He has thrown off all of the constraints of the past. He is now totally free. But this is an illusion. He is unavoidably a member of many communities and subject to the influence and expectations of each. He can choose to be a radical individualist, a free rider. Or he can recognize that he is inherently a social creature who is logically, ethically and spiritually obligated to interact with others based upon their mutual dependence. Responsibility recognizes that the individual is part of many larger systems … and that this is good.
Good News 