257 items pulled from all arenas of life. Technology dominates, especially in the last century.
Grouping events into 40-year blocks shows 1940-79 as twice as dynamic as other eras.
1450 – 1779 20
1780 – 1819 12
1820 – 1859 16
1860 – 1899 31
1900 – 1939 47
1940 – 1979 99
1980 – 2025 32
1492 – Columbus reaches the new world. The Columbian exchange begins. The old world has much to reconsider.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_exchange
1517 – Martin Luther starts the Protestant Reformation. The Church’s authority is challenged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
1545 – The Catholic Reformation addresses challenges to the Church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation
1738 – Methodism offers a new relationship to God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodism
1807 – Britain ends its slave trade after 3 centuries. The abolitionist movements create new views of societal change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
1821 – Liberal Christianity adapts to the Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution, Critical Analysis and Darwin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
1865 – The American Civil War. Federalism, abolitionists, slavery, Lincoln, warfare, transport, industrialization, government growth, reconstruction, economic recovery, “Lost Cause”, Jim Crow. “A nation divided cannot stand”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
1880 – Community organizations of many kinds are created to manage immigrants, urbanization, industrialization, growth, mobility, diversity, poverty and public health.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_organization
1880 – Peak level migration from Europe to the United States begins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_immigration_to_the_Americas
1886 – Post-impressionism leads to modern art, distanced from the public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Impressionism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_art
1893 – The American Frontier era closes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Thesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_frontier
1899 – American Popular Music emerges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_music
1910 – The “Great Migration” from the South to the North.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)
1910 – Christian fundamentalism is defined as a real alternative to “liberal Christianity”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism
1920 – A majority of Americans live in urban areas. 76% in Northeast, 28% in the South.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States
1922 – Protestant neo-orthodox theology is defined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth
1922 – Personal psychology, “stream of consciousness” writing joins modern art to insert psychology and philosophy into popular arts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(novel)
1936 – Self-help books, seminars, programs and counseling blossom, providing an individual, transactional, psychological, positive alternative to religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-help
1940 – US high school attendance reaches 80%, up from 40% in the 1920’s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_school_movement
1944 – American soldiers enroll in higher education at record rates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.I._Bill
1946 – Returning soldiers also make up for lost time in forming families and having children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-20th_century_baby_boom
1946 – New families needed new housing, leading to suburban real estate development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levittown
1949 – Dystopian fiction packs a much greater punch in the post-war era.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopian_and_dystopian_fiction#Dystopian_fiction
1965 – The Roman Catholic Church addresses modernity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council
1965 – Urban riots erupt in major US cities for several summers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_riot
1965 – University students rebel against the expected cultural conformity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture_of_the_1960s
1965 – Legal and illegal immigration to the United States grows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States
1969 – Divorce started to become a more personal, transactional event rather than a social or religious one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce
1969 – LGBTQ groups and supporters advocated for legal and social rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_history_in_the_United_States
1970 – English becomes the global language for trade, diplomacy and science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_as_a_lingua_franca
1976 – The US birth rate drops by half. World rate is cut in half by 2014.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate
The movement from one Church to many Christian denominations to “A Secular Age” is the largest change. The growth of the US from a small colony to a world power and then to an economic, military and cultural superpower is of equal magnitude. Migration westward, northward, inward and to the cities has reshaped American culture. Individualism has grown to become the dominant cultural perspective. The role of laws and social norms in shaping personal behavior has dropped.
Americans have been extraordinarily mobile, joiners, religious, productive, creative, patriotic, pragmatic, skeptical and independent. The country has succeeded as a multi-cultural nation and been a successful exporter of its culture around the world.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Fall-of-the-Roman-Empire
There has been a groundswell of interest in addressing the loss of civility in modern society. Members of both parties, young and old, rural, urban and suburban have begun to engage on this important topic. Civility is treating others with respect, especially when you disagree. It is a mental attitude, a habit, a character trait, a set of actions. Civility is a key to effective life in community, especially for participating in a democratic government.
Yet, I will argue that the loss of civility is a symptom of much larger challenges rather than a root cause. We need to examine and address these challenges and their causes. Other symptoms of a civilization crisis include political polarization, declining trust, weakened institutions, less social capital, deep skepticism, increased pessimism about the future, anxiety, social isolation, lack of common morality, greater income inequality, personal insecurity, diminished global institutions, and a “secular age’ where religious belief is tentative, in tension with scientism, commercialism, postmodernism, pragmatism, libertarianism, materialism, progress, individualism and the classic liberal political state.
I have summarized the root causes as:
Radical Individualism
Human Nature
Skepticism
Imperfect Myths
Our Secular Age
Insecurity
We have unintentionally become a society of individualists, failing to adequately invest in community. We prioritize individual rights, commercial rights, gun rights, abortion rights, property rights, human rights, individual choice, self-actualization, creative development and raise tolerance to a mega-virtue. We need to re-establish the balance between individuals and the community.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1992, Francis Fukuyama’s bold claim that we were seeing “the end of history” seemed plausible, even likely. Liberal democracy, mixed capitalist economies and deepening global trade looked like sure winners. Historic options had been completely discredited. People are not so easily satisfied. Politicians are more creative than expected. They have redefined, repackaged, reorganized and recommunicated. They have convinced us to merge our religious and political identities. We have “retreated to our corners”, embracing polarized politics because the other guy is most certainly awful.
Fukuyama says that pure liberal democracy depends upon a cultural, community, philosophical base to hold it together. We coasted on the tails of Western civilization and Christianity, but that common source is gone. We have become so concerned with defining and defending our identities that politics has become a matter of “ultimate concern”! Klein documents how we have moved into this mess and provides some practical solutions. Haidt outlines our built-in religious/political mental patterns and how politicians use them to craft seductive policies, parties and messages.
We have paths out of this polarized dead-end.
The breakdown of the “Christian consensus” undermines the certainty of religious belief, making any denomination, including “none of the above” simply one choice among many. Humans need answers to big challenges like:
Our present solutions are imperfect. We have not developed a context or framework for living comfortably and confidently in “A Secular Age”. We have confronted big challenges before and have succeeded.
Scholars, intellectuals, historians, political scientists, philosophers and theologians mostly reject the idea of creating a common morality to hold together society, especially our political culture and processes. I say that we have no choice but to try. We have done this in our public schools for a century. We can define a common moral core just like the Boy Scouts and Rotary have done.
The loss of a solid religious base combined with a high rate of technological changes and a meritocratic economic system create deeply felt insecurity. We must create a context where “everyman” can rest, survive and thrive.
We have many problems. We need many solutions. Some can be addressed through grass roots efforts to simply change the way we see the world and how we interact with each other. Some will require difficult political changes.
We have reached a point in US history and Western Civilization where individualism has overreached and eclipsed community, religion and morality. We see this everywhere. We need to recognize our difficult situation and build upon our historical strengths. We have made tremendous progress in all dimensions during the last 500 years around the world. We know how to get along even when we disagree. We need to refine and invest in those structures. We understand human nature much better today than we did in 1500, 1750 or 2000. We know we can’t create a “Tower of Babel” but we can create useful structures to manage our political and religious differences while offering everyone a good life.
BERTHE:
She climbs a tree
And scrapes her knee
Her dress has got a tear.
SOPHIA:
She waltzes on her way to mass
And whistles on the stair.
BERTHE:
And underneath her wimpole
She has curlers in her hair!
SOPHIA:
I ever hear her singing in the abbey.
BERTHE:
She’s always late for chapel,
MARGARETTA:
But her penitence is real.
BERTHE:
She’s always late for everything,
Except for every meal.
MOTHER ABBESS:
I hate to have to say it
But I very firmly feel
BERTHE AND SOPHIA:
Maria’s not an asset to the abbey!
MARGARETTA:
I’d like to say a word in her behalf.
Maria makes me laugh!
SOPHIA:
How do you solve a problem like Maria?
MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
MARGARETTA:
How do you find a word that means Maria?
BERTHE:
A flibberti gibbet!
SOPHIA:
A willo’ the wisp!
MARGARETTA:
A clown!
MOTHER ABBESS:
Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her,
Many a thing she ought to understand.
MARGARETTA:
But how do you make her stay
And listen to all you say,
MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you keep a wave upon the sand?
MARGARETTA:
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?
MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
MARGARETTA:
When I’m with her I’m confused,
Out of focus and bemused,
And I never know exactly where I am.
SOPHIA:
Unpredictable as weather,
She’s as flighty as a feather,
MARGARETTA:
She’s a darling,
BERTHE:
She’s a demon,
MARGARETTA:
She’s a lamb.
SOPHIA:
She’d out-pester any pest,
Drive a hornet from his nest,
BERTHE:
She can throw a whirling dervish
Out of whirl.
MARGARETTA:
She is gentle,
She is wild,
SOPHIA:
She’s a riddle.
MARGARETTA:
She’s a child.
BERTHE:
She’s a headache!
MARGARETTA:
She’s an angel!
MOTHER ABBESS:
She’s a girl.
ALL NUNS:
How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a clown and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibberti gibbet!
A willo’ the wisp!
A clown!
Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her,
Many a thing she ought to understand.
But how do you make her say,
And listen to all you say?
How do you keep a wave upon the sand?
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
Our polarized political situation is just the tip of the iceberg. We have similar challenges with our communities, economics and philosophies. We have well-meaning groups of individuals with apparently incompatible views without obvious ways to build bridges. We are facing a self-reinforcing cycle of increasing polarization, threatening modern civilization.
I’ve been focusing on the “root causes” of our situation recently and concluded that there are 6 interacting features that must be understood and addressed.
In each case, the simple “left versus right” analysis or viewpoints are inadequate, misleading and ineffective.
6. Conservatives emphasize a return to a culture with fixed answers on all dimensions thereby eliminating the difficult questions and uncertainties. Liberals emphasize a larger role for the state to buffer the real and mental anxieties of the modern world. Rather than finding a blended approach, the two groups shout louder and louder. Conservative means to liberal ends? More choice and more government options?
What do we see in common here? There is no simple solution that is going to be embraced by everyone. The moral, social, political world does not work like the science and business world. We don’t see cumulative progress and increasing consensus. We struggle to find new or revised solutions to our old and new challenges of living a good life within community.
We know more about reality today on each of these 6 dimensions. We can rule out some bad ideas. We better understand trade-offs. We understand where religious and political views inherently cause disagreements. Our challenge is to use this better understanding to find better solutions.
We appear to have many unavoidable trade-offs and paired perspectives. The individual and community. Individual choice and shared community understanding. Analog and spiritual nature. Nature, nurture, chance and other. Certainty and doubt. Idealism and pragmatism. Logic and stories. Individual and universal/eternal. Either/or vs. both/and. Win/lose or win/win.
We have a deep need for certainty, understanding and purpose. We tend to press this too far and expect too much. The progress of science, technology, business and practical areas is so great. Our personal experiences of getting what we want is so common. We are unwilling to accept messy, imperfect, complex, fuzzy answers to important questions. We embrace the general progress of society, politics, science, business, human rights, medicine … and conclude that everything works this way. We look at Newton, classical physics, the scientific method, the ancient Greek model of the atom/materialism and Plato’s ideal “forms” and conclude that a very well-defined world is our birthright.
It’s time for a “revolution of expectations”. We can work with existing philosophies, theologies, worldviews, politics and social institutions and make them more effective. We can learn to embrace paradigms/myths that are imperfect. We can adjust our views and institutions to better support us in this new world.
In general, we need to become more comfortable with “both/and” solutions without falling into the trap of radical skepticism, relativity and subjectivity. We must look more deeply at the scientific method, science and the philosophy of science and understand how they are also imperfectly certain. Even mathematics is not perfectly certain. This is OK. Our political, cultural, social and religious views don’t need to be perfectly certain. We can embrace Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” as a gift, an insight, an experience rather than a curse.
It’s 1965. Maria means well. She can’t easily fit into a classical religious organization. She is too human, too dynamic, too modern. The cat is out of the bag. The horse is out of the barn. The genie is out of the bottle. “How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?” Like the sisters, we need to embrace the tension, complexity, mystery, and potential of individuals, organizations and life. The classical answers are inadequate to the modern (or postmodern) situation. We have to understand our situation. We need to embrace the positive features. We should be optimistic and idealistic. We must work together on practical changes to make life better at all levels. This is not easy or trivial. We want simple answers. We want “either/or” style certainty. We want definitive rules and laws. We are “all in this together”. We can make progress. We can have a society with enough in common to work together and enough individual freedom to largely make our own choices.
First, we need to recognize where we are. We’re truly stuck “on the horns of a dilemma”. The historical conservative options of Christendom, nationalism, theocracy, libertarianism, laissez faire capitalism and totalitarianism ignore 500 years of Western culture and society. The liberal options of secular humanism, communism, progress, scientific materialism, romanticism, environmentalism, globalism, existentialism and postmodernism have not found broad public support [because they don’t fully meet human needs].
We seem to be “stuck in the middle” with a “classical liberal” form of representative government, a mixed market plus government form of capitalism and a mixed form of nationalism plus some internationalism for trade, defense and global issues. Our challenge is to refine, communicate and optimize the options and choices within the broad range of options here in the “middle”. We need to collectively reject the extreme views, so they don’t influence our debates. We need to define the essential elements of our middle view, wrap them in a story and constantly promote them as the key to historical, current and future success. The American “founding fathers” stories need to be updated for current use.
We need to address the 6 root causes of our current polarization and anxiety. We need to overhaul our political system to reflect what we have learned in 250 years. A brief outline of what is needed for each of the 6 root causes follows.
We need leaders on the left and right to recognize the need for both the individual and community dimensions of life. First, limit the “rights” of individuals from becoming super values or God. Second, recognize and promote the critical roles of various communities in raising children, forming citizens, building trust, supporting institutions, trade, education and living a great life.
Our political, legal, educational and institutional systems must effectively support this balanced “both/and” view. We need to find ways to encourage and support “community” without allowing groups to impinge on individual liberties. Political parties must become refocused on their end-goals rather than “perfect” policies and means. Democrats need to provide more room for churches to express their views when it does not impact others. They need to embrace religious programs that deliver on Democratic ends. Republicans need to pursue cost reduction and earned benefits as separate policies aside from the core question of tax rates and zero taxes. Republicans need to find ways to reconcile the individualism of commercial capitalism with the community dimension of religion, family and institutions.
We need to review our tax and legal codes to promote not-for-profit organizations, political participation, volunteering and civility. Within the broad umbrella of “Western Culture” we have much in common that can be used to find solutions with broad public support.
We need leading social scientists to prepare a curriculum that helps everyone to understand what we really known about human nature. The extreme philosophical and political views are not supported. It’s not simple nature or nurture. We’re not simply good or bad. We’re not purely materialistic creatures. Personal growth is essential and critical, but not the only thing. We are social and moral beings. We have limited abilities to be fully focused and fully rational. All of us. We need to embrace our natures, build upon them and use them to our fullest advantage. The challenges of living in modern society with so many important choices require this. This should not be a political issue. Everyone can benefit.
Personality dimensions, flexibility, self-awareness, problem solving, creativity, multiple intelligences, behavioral economics, counseling, leadership, management, mentoring, stages of development, education, evolutionary psychology, cognitive behavioral therapy, influence, communications. We have the knowledge. We must share it.
Skepticism is a self-made trap. President Lincoln said “most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be”. Individuals can choose to be happy, positive, optimistic. Keep a diary, volunteer, join a group, engage in a task, use your talents, believe in something, reject negativity, speak with a friend, have fun, speak with a counselor.
Try recommendations from the other 5 root causes. Find your communities. Build positive habits. Look at the long-run progress of civilization. Try one of the major religions or worldviews on for size. Refuse to be a victim.
Take control of your information diet. Social media. News media. Distinguish news from opinion. Choose high quality sources.
Choose hope over fear. Be self-confident. Dream.
We need some help understanding our history. It’s often presented as a linear movement forward, all progress, renaissance, scientific revolution, enlightenment, modernity and then OUCH postmodernity.
By 1875, Nietzsche, Darwin, Marx and Freud had proven that “God is dead”. Somehow, we have managed to hold on for another 150 years. We need to teach real history in secondary school, college and continuing education. The history needs to include religion, philosophy and politics.
We have learned to be tolerant of “other” people, religions and nations. We have opportunities to improve, but Protestants and Catholics no longer fight wars against each other. We practice a basic common morality even as we fight about politics.
We need help dealing with uncertainty. See root cause 6 for solutions. It is human nature to crave certainty. But we get to define certainty. We can reject Euclidean geometry, Aristotelian logic, materialistic physics and self-proving mathematics. We can reject a perfection standard for religion, philosophy and worldviews. Reject the tyranny of “either/or”. “Science and religion” is supported by the best scholars. Uncertainty is not the same as pure subjectivity or relativity.
We need help moving from skepticism to idealism. We need a new concept of idealism that cannot be undercut by radical skepticism. Existentialism, pragmatism, postmodernism and logical positivism are inadequate.
Invest time learning about the major competing world views. Great courses, Ted talks, college courses, church classes. Choose one and engage with others. Live it. Share it. Challenge it. Apply a variant of “Pascal’s Wager”. If radical skepticism is true and there is nothing but meaninglessness, what must you do? If skepticism is wrong and you believed it, what did you lose?
We need leaders, thinkers, believers and communicators to do a better job of describing their world views. Especially within the context of our skeptical, uncertain secular age. What claims do they make? Why? Time for real apologetics. How do they apply today? How do we face death? Find a purpose beyond ourselves? Be deeply affirmed? Live in community?
Skepticism has won its battle. We can no longer be certain in a way we once thought was our due. How do we think about assurances, confidence, probability, weights, multiple dimensions, history, clarity, beauty, consistency, levels of meaning, unexpected results, effectiveness, feelings, insights, intuitions and faith as replacements for certainty? As with science and the scientific method, we have lost “absolute certainty”. How do we replace this and still feel great?
We need education on the role of paradigms/myths in history, science and cultures. We need to see how things fit together. We need them to fit together to have a society. Men have considered many religions and philosophies. We have built effective institutions. We once believed that some myth or paradigm would solve everything for us, now, perfectly. We elevated this to become a new God. We cannot give up hope. We have to step back and see our true history and progress. We have the knowledge, teachers and tools to provide the needed context.
Our paradigms need to recognize where they are weak, somewhat inconsistent, inadequate, fuzzy, unavoidably irreducible. There is no meta-paradigm for evaluating the paradigms. No paradigm is self-validating.
The other 5 “root cause” solutions can help. You are a member of many supportive communities. Join other communities and support others. Note that we are imperfect, complex, mysterious and still fully adequate. Reject victimhood. Be positive and constructive. Embrace your strengths and talents. Replace “absolute certainty” with OK and “good enough”. Choose and live a worldview that supports you as a person.
Take control of your life. Simplify. Set reasonable goals. Under promise and overperform. Learn about psychology, life skills, personal finance, careers, and government programs. Note that people usually “find a way” and that we do make economic and leisure progress through time. Save, hold assets, use insurance, limit debt. Engage in the political process. Make your voice heard.
Adopt some practical stoicism. Lynn Anderson – “I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden”.
In order to solve our political problems, we need to face and solve the 6 underlying root causes. They are interconnected. They can be addressed mostly outside of the political process. This is cause for great hope and optimism.
https://www.sefiracreative.com/
Social conservatives have decried the decline of moral values since 1960.
Religious groups of all political views have done the same.
Robert Putnam has documented the loss of social capital in Bowling Alone, Our Kids, The Upswing and American Grace noting that morality, trust and institutions have declined at the same time.
Political scientists and pundits have noted the loss of civic virtue and wonder if a political system based on the “thin” virtues of “classical liberalism” can survive.
High schools, colleges and departments of education have begun to respond to the “crisis” but faced political challenges from both parties, educators and parents.
Corporations, universities, not for profits and military branches have attempted to define their core values as a way to build community, align resources and clarify direction. They note an absence of common values in their employees.
Personal growth advocates, even those emphasizing individual artistic expression, have increasingly noted that the community and spiritual dimensions of life are part of growth.
While social and political conservatives have pressed for moral reinforcements, both moderate and progressive liberals have pushed back on these efforts; wary of infringing on personal liberties and supporting community, cultural and institutional oppression. Economic conservatives and libertarians have not bemoaned the decline in community and shared values. Some “communitarian” philosophers and social scientists have begun to challenge the individualistic dogmas that have ruled universities since the Enlightenment. There is not a firm consensus that we need or can have on “shared values”. Many philosophers, theologians and social scientists are quite certain that this is a dead-end street.
A majority of citizens and leaders agree that the loss of a shared set of values is harming our country and society. We need to find some kind of solution. Promote religion. Educate students and adults. Conduct research. Create artistic vehicles for learning. Work together on teams. Join groups. Communicate better.
Let’s start by outlining the common moral values. We’ll ignore the experts. We’ll gloss over some inconsistencies. We won’t provide perfect definitions. We won’t outline an implementation strategy. We will provide a meaningful outline by combining the thoughts of some very different sources
This is not a dead-end project. We live in “A Secular Age”. We’re not going to reach religious or political agreement on everything. Most people understand that we are forced to live together and that we have to “get along”. We have learned to be “tolerant” in most dimensions of life. We can learn to embrace a set of general moral principles that are self-evident. The principles cannot be proven or derived from core principles. They have to be “accepted”.
Individuals who learn these principles will do so for many reasons if they are presented well. They help the individual to live in a social world. Self-interest alone justifies developing these virtues, understanding and habits. These principles seem to be natural, widely seen across time, space and cultures. They may not be universal or “revealed” but they have proven their worth. Individuals are learning that extreme skepticism and subjectivity are inadequate. Every major worldview offers a set of moral principles like these. Individuals who strive to fulfill their potential understand that moral principles underlie “the good life”. These principles work together nicely in a logical, relatively succinct package.
Corporate “core values” experts trying to find the essences so they can be easily taught. Anthropologists looking for the most widely seen values. The evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Mid-century philosopher and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis claiming that all major civilizations share key ethical principles. Psychology Today advising us on how to best guide our behavior. The Boy Scout Oath. The Rotary 4-Way test.
https://rootedindecency.com/blog/values/4-core-values-shared.html
4 self-evident clusters of Respect, Responsibility, Honesty and Compassion. We know what these are. We know they are good and useful. We know that it requires work for children to learn them and for us to put them into practice consistently and effectively.
Another author calls out Fairness as a fifth cluster.
https://docket.acc.com/harness-power-5-core-moral-values
A group of Oxford anthropologists has surveyed the vast literature on cultures and identified 7 universal principles that are almost always evident and never contradicted. They begin to add some second-level definitions to the 5 clusters.
Respect is shown both by “deferring to superiors” and “respecting property”. Responsibility is shown by “helping your family”, “helping your group” and “being brave”. Fairness is exhibited by “dividing fairly” and “returning favors”. This group didn’t see honesty and compassion as universal values.
Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” introduced the world to a set of moral flavors that varied between traditional and modern (WEIRD) societies and between left and right politicians. His team has added some flavors that have some plausible origin in the development of men from hunter-gatherers through farming and cities. For Respect, Haidt agrees that property ownership rights matter and that respect for authority is critical to holding together communities. Without it, the free rider problem undermines groups. He also argues that “liberty” is the “flip side” of authority. Individuals inherently feel the need to defend their individuality against potentially oppressive authority.
Haidt emphasizes the importance of family, kinship, honor and loyalty in traditional societies. He argues that these values are just as valid as the modern care, fairness and equality trio. He provides 3 flavors of fairness, adding proportionality and equality to the basic idea. He also skips “honesty” and emphasizes “care” as the result of compassion. He adds “Purity” as a separate factor reflecting both biological and religious forms of cleanliness for early men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Man
In 1943, C.S. Lewis had experienced enough modern analytic philosophy, subjectivity and intellectual progress and fired back with “The Abolition of Man”. He argued that without an objective moral framework, Western civilization was doomed. The Nazi and communist threats mattered. But the breakdown of common culture, values and beliefs within democracy was an equal threat. Lewis argued that a roughly common moral framework and principles existed in every thriving culture. His “natural law” view was not widely embraced at the time.
Lewis’s 8 components of the Tao, or “the way” fit nicely into the 5 clusters. His “duties to parents, elders and ancestors” fits with Respect. He filled out Responsibility with family duties, kinship feelings and magnanimity which emphasized the bravery of making the right decisions. His “law of general beneficence” fills out Fairness. He outlines Veracity as critical to honesty and expands it with the “Law of Justice”. He fills the Compassion group with his Mercy.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-school-walls/202305/10-core-values-to-guide-behavior
A recent Psychology Today article takes a more “personal growth” oriented view. The Respect drawer is empty, although “authenticity” could be seen as a form of self-respect. Dr. Koehler adds resilience to the Responsibility core value and includes Fairness. She adds 3 others to the Honesty cluster after Integrity. A growing individual needs to value authenticity, open-mindedness and lifelong learning. We start to see why there are differences at the second level, but I don’t think they are too great. The author embraces compassion, adding empathy and gratitude to this section.
https://www.scouting.org/about/faq/question10/
The Scout Oath was drafted in 1908. A Respectful scout is Obedient, reverent and Courteous. A Responsible scout is Thrifty, Helpful, Loyal and Brave. An Honest scout is Trustworthy. A Compassionate scout is Kind, Friendly and Cheerful. A scout is Clean.
https://my.rotary.org/en/guiding-principles
The Rotary 4-Way test was drafted in 1932. It fits into 4 of the 5 main categories.
We have a nice head start on outlining a set of common moral principles that could be used for education, civics, personal growth and community building. The core ideas fit with traditional and modern societies, secular and religious views, left and right politics. The key, as with our political system, is to agree to work within a framework of practical application. We cannot and will not resolve deeply felt religious, philosophical and political views. But we can agree on what it takes to work together and live good lives together.
https://www.history.com/news/whose-vision-of-america-won-out-hamiltons-or-jeffersons
2. Citizens have differing interests/views in all 4 broad domains of international relations, economics, politics and culture.
3. The basic left/liberal/progressive versus right/conservative/traditional divide has endured for 2 centuries.
4. Social scientists agree that some form of the psychological dimension of “openness” is an important driver of left versus right political views. Individuals who are more intuitive (N)/abstract/open on the second Meyers-Briggs dimension tend to take liberal views. Those with more concrete/specific/applied views tend to be conservatives. Similarly, those who are more Judging rather than Perceiving on the 4th dimension tend to be conservatives, seeing the world in an orderly, structured manner. Meyers-Briggs (T)hinkers tend to be conservative, and (F)eelers tend to be liberal, but this is a weaker statistical link.
https://personalityjunkie.com/08/personality-politics-liberals-conservatives-myers-briggs-big-five/
5. Philosophers and social scientists have worked intently for 2 centuries to find a “scientific”, objective, rational, modern view of how politics “ought” to be. Classical liberals, including Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, have proposed neutral, allegedly “value free” systems, but they have not been widely adopted.
6. Religious supporters have watched for a new “great awakening” or signs of the “end times” without success.
7. The progressive era of 1880-1920 overturned some of the political machines of the time and replaced them with scientific management style city managers and opposing political forces. “Good government” folks have since proposed and implemented city managers, commissions, outsourcing, sunset laws, zero based budgeting, process improvements and referendums but this has not removed politics from governing.
8. Philosophers have considered and combined pre-Socratic, Socratic, Neo-Platonian, Aristotelian, Augustinian, Aquinian, scholastic and modern views. They have discounted many views but not reached any true consensus on the important questions. We remain at a stalemate about the critical questions of the individual vs. community, objective vs. subjective reality, ideal/essential vs. existential/empirical world, natural and/or supernatural world, and a logical/designed vs. random/evolving world.
9. Philosophers and social scientists mostly agree that values, morality and character are inherently subjective. Some religious oriented people, philosophers and social scientists agree that a subset of core values is widely seen and shared, but this view has not gathered followers in the last half-century.
10. Classical liberals argue that the US system of democracy and representative government with “checks and balances” is fully adequate to guide society in making solid public choices. This group argues that the citizens can embrace the underlying required pluralistic political values without having to make further choices about broader cultural values. Conservatives and a growing number of moderates and liberals today complain that this approach offers a morality that is too “thin” to support a culture or a political system in the long run.
11. Perceived scarcity is not going to disappear soon, even with continued economic growth and 70 years’ worth of such predictions. Everyone remains interested in getting their fair share of the growing pie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society
12. Class interests have not been destroyed. If anything, the life experiences between the top 1%, 10%, 20% and the middle 60% or the bottom 20% have diverged even further apart in the last 75 years. Although we don’t discuss “class” as an organizing principle for politics in the US, it has grown to become more important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
13. Social scientists have a much better understanding of “human nature”. We are imperfect. We have personality preferences. We can flex and learn but only so much. Nature and nurture. Tremendous potential. Education and experience are insufficient to create “perfect” citizens who can easily overcome our inherent political differences.
Despite the great progress of Western Civilization, we do not have and are very unlikely to find a single solution to our political differences. As individuals we have deeply experienced, considered and felt views of how our community should best operate. They are mutually inconsistent. We can work together to resolve some differences and agree to compromise on others. The apparently valid and opposing views don’t have an obvious resolution. I recommend that we constructively work together to find reasonable, decent compromise solutions and at the same time accept our inability to find an ideal solution without allowing that to discourage us.
Journalists, artists, pundits, entertainers and politicians all scheme for our attention. Once upon a time … we briefly thought that the internet and social media might usher in a new age of information, selection, objectivity, useful filtering, wisdom and cooperation!!!! Unfortunately, we are now deluged by “least common denominator” communications skillfully targeted to lure us into a non-stop cycle of clicking on marketable links. These communications very effectively use every trick and technique to appeal to our emotions, prejudices, weak attention, surface thinking, fears, hopes, exaggerations, etc.
Politicians of all flavors have conspired to convince us that the whole world is comprised of “good versus evil” people, politicians, parties, religions, states, policies and institutions. Everything is “win/lose”. Disagreement is motivated by bad ideas and motives rather than differences of opinion or interests. Compromise is a sign of weakness. Every political actor is purely motivated by self-interest.
We each have a moral, political, social, religious and personal responsibility to evaluate these “conclusions”. Let’s start with overturning the idea that we have nothing in common, that we must rely upon politicians to define opposing policies, parties and philosophies and fight to the death for one or the other to finally win.
Biologically we are all the same.
We intuitively and rationally combine thinking, feeling and doing; conscious and unconscious drives.
We each think that we are “right”. As in Lake Wobegon, we are all “above average”. We struggle to maintain self-awareness, to consider the needs of others, to even pursue our own goals consistently and effectively. We are functionally and morally imperfect.
We have a variety of needs and desires that cannot be fully met. Safety, acceptance, achievement, agency, transcendence, control, familiarity, influence, consistency, love, health, growth, expression, authenticity, loyalty.
We are primarily “analog” beings.
We face death, evil, suffering, disappointments, violations, violence and pain. Random, irrational, unavoidable experiences. We often respond with fear, anxiety, cautiousness, anger and victimhood. We search for ways to “manage”.
We experience life through time, learning, relationships, lessons, goals, planning, dreams, hope, commitments, doing, feeling, thinking, feedback, taking risks, managing risks and opportunities, engaging, disengaging, focusing, relaxing, looking outward, looking inward. The journey is complex and the perspective changes.
We balance and prioritize. Limited resources. Unlimited desires. Personal, family, social, community, religious, financial, and health dimensions compete. At best, we fight the many demands to a “draw”.
We struggle to keep up in a world that becomes more complex every decade: personal choices, goods and services available, information available, technical complexity, political complexity, social choices, religious choices, communications options, philosophical choices, scientific results, business complexity, international options, cultural options. More options, more choices, greater expectations.
We live in a culture that prioritizes the economic dimension of production and consumption. We have embraced a meritocracy that offers great rewards to the winners and a modest “safety net” to those who are not winning. Economic and status anxiety are very high in the most economically successful nation in history. We promote an extreme personal responsibility that undermines those who don’t always achieve and sustain their highest goals.
We live in a world that has been labelled the “therapeutic society” or the world of “expressive individualism”, summarized by the US Army slogan of “Be all that you can be”. The individual is responsible for living and achieving a great life of personal expression reflecting their talents and possibilities. The individual has many coaches, advisors, mentors and therapists, but is alone in choosing their “destiny”. They cannot rely upon tradition, religion, culture, nation, village, parents, personality profiles, or skills assessments. This radical secular humanism view places the responsibility for identifying and achieving a “world changing” destiny upon each person. Wise individuals find some way to “balance” this personal responsibility with other influences, refusing to adopt a godlike stance. They avoid becoming like Icarus and flying too close to the sun.
We live in a world that highlights the individual above nature, community, culture or religion. Complete individual liberty, freedom and opportunity are desired. No trade-offs with the other dimensions of life. “Natural consequences” frustrate those who embrace this libertarian ideal.
Life is hard. So many advances in society, business, education and technology. The challenges to “living a good life” are greater than ever. The progressive promise is undermined. All individuals must now make choices that were once reserved for kings, priests, princes, monks, scientists, philosophers, artists, governors, generals, financiers, industrialists, explorers, entrepreneurs, and presidents.
We digest the beliefs, norms and values of our culture subconsciously. The legacy of Christian Western Civilization continues. The legacy of secular humanism continues. We live in a “secular age” where deep faith and unskeptical religious commitment is unusual for the highly educated one-third. We’re “neither fish nor fowl”. Culture really matters but is today a blend of two streams like “oil and vinegar”. There is much in common. There are some big differences. We generally share the political, economic, social, religious, scientific and literary history of Western Europe, even though parts of the intellectual community have promoted disturbing alternate views for almost 200 years.
Despite living in a “secular age” and an “individualistic age”, we all need to be connected to various communities. Although community participation frequency, manner and depth vary greatly across the decades, humans always need to be connected.
We share a legacy and currency of art, media, design, architecture, music and entertainment. High-brow and low-brow. Mass market and specialized. Push versus pull connectivity. We are connected.
The US remains an unusual Western society where the not-for-profit, religious, social, volunteer world performs major social welfare functions. We share our experiences of funding, volunteering, leading and consuming from these organizations. The individual and community experience of managing these organizations shapes our world view. Our individualistic bias combines with our social/religious obligations to create and support these organizations.
We share our experiences in pre-K, elementary, high school and college education. Mainly public schools. The content shapes our perspectives.
We have moved from 6 to 4 to 3 to 2 to 1.X children per family. We invest like never before in the growth, education, experiences, guidance, mentoring, support and direction of our children. Helicopter parents. Summer programs. Internships. International experiences. The youth orientation reigns supreme.
We continue to value the “social esteem” provided by others. We comply with social norms in every dimension of life. We seek approval. We consume good and services to signal our social status. We achieve, perform and consume based on social influences.
We adopt “tolerance” as a supreme moral value. We don’t advise, influence or interfere with others, even when we strongly disagree.
We continue to struggle with the idea of a “class structure” in America despite the obvious growth in economic, social and political influence of the wealthy (top 1%) and the professional class (top 10%).
We share the American “English language”. It dominates the whole world.
We share the mass media, local newspapers, industry and professional journals, scientific and academic journals, the entertainment industry, social media platforms, community forums and the internet.
We share modern communications and information technology. A “smart-phone” is in every pocket, instantly accessing the cumulative knowledge and information of mankind.
Americans are much more “religious” than “Europeans”. We mostly believe in God and spirituality and Christianity. We have seen that shared cultural/religious beliefs can be maintained in a religiously pluralistic society. We believe in objective “right and wrong”. We intuitively accept “the golden rule”. We see “America” as part of God’s plan and history. A place for the pilgrims. A land of religious diversity. The overturning of slavery. American victories in the 2 world wars and the cold war. The moral dimension of life matters.
We still live in the world that Adam Smith described in 1776. The degree of specialization is only limited by the extent of the market. Our world is extremely specialized. A bewildering variety of products are available. Outsourcing of many functions. Regional, national and international sourcing.
We all specialize in our most productive functions today. Profession, sub-profession and industry. We all have talents. There are most highly rewarded in their professional roles.
We are producers and consumers, investors and suppliers, professionals and managers, entrepreneurs and directors. We are deeply engaged in the financial system, markets for labor, money, trade, property, goods and services. We sometimes elevate this role to be “everything”, to our detriment.
We are interdependent. We rely upon “essential workers”, universities, governments, builders, contractors, consultants, bankers, utilities, media, lobbyists, politicians, unions, secondary markets, employment firms, lawyers, engineers, IT and communications folks, etc.
We rely upon the US macroeconomy. Budget deficits. Fiscal policy. The Federal Reserve Bank. Monetary policy. Federal banking and industry regulators. The bond markets. The credit rating agencies. Animal spirits. Wall Street. Mutual funds. Municipal bonds. Mortgage bonds.
We rely upon our commitment to the capitalist, free market, free enterprise system. Laissez faire. Limited government regulation. There are specific situations and metrics that warrant government intervention, but we lean towards allowing the natural incentives of the market to police the behavior of great firms.
We believe that economic growth provides the opportunity for the political system to effectively “redistribute income”, ensuring that the economic value added by scientific and business innovation through time does not all accrue to the owners.
The benefits from international trade are well understood and have been demonstrated for 75 years.
There are opportunities to engage all nations to manage diseases, food supplies, hunger, human rights, refugees, public health, travel, immigrants, trade, communications, and ocean resources.
There are global threats that must be managed: climate change, nuclear war, chemical and biological weapons, computer hacking, artificial intelligence, species loss, food production, energy production.
An objective physical reality exists. An objective moral reality exists.
The individual really, really matters. Human rights.
The scientific method applied to technical issues is great. It is not everything.
Instrumental logic is a tremendous asset for science, business and life.
Pragmatism is always worth considering. “Show me the money”. Does this theory produce measurable results?
We reject anarchy, atheism, pure commercialism, communism, fascism, necessary progress, libertarianism, national socialism, racism, sexism, totalitarianism, utopian socialism, white nationalism, Christian nationalism. In essence, we reject extreme views. We’re comfortable with a “checks and balances” political system that slows changes until they’re embraced by a solid majority.
The US is a world of skeptical politics. Less is more. Trust no one. Engage the local community to find a solution. Accept the individual bias in economic and social laws. America is a special place, worthy of patriotic respect.
Political participation is a sacred duty.
Despite the structural constraints on change, the US has generally been a positive, constructive, progressive supporter of political changes through time.
Americans are willing to sacrifice for the good of the nation.
The US constitution is framed by the rationalist enlightenment. We deeply believe in “the rule of law”.
Differences can be resolved, technically, rationally, politically.
We are comfortable with “suboptimal” results from our political system. We accept that the federal, bicameral, functionally divided system is designed to prevent the “worst case” outcomes of raw democracy or concentrated power.
In general, we strongly support our government institutions, especially at the state and local levels. Judges do their jobs. Political parties hold each other accountable. Citizens participate in the democratic process as voters, poll workers, jurors, donors, and volunteers.
We live as individuals in a complex, interdependent world. We have more opportunities but less authoritative guidance for our lives. We worry about our freedom and liberty. We make many choices. We do the best that we can. We agree on many things yet disagree on many others.
Today, we understand the world better than ever. We also understand ourselves better, our strengths and weaknesses, our possibilities and limits. We manage complex technology and institutions very effectively. We know that some political and economic options don’t work or pose unacceptable risks or threats. The U.S. and Europe developed “limited government” systems apart from religious authority because disagreements were inevitable. We need to relearn those lessons today. We’re going to have a “mixed” capitalist/government economic system. We’re not going to empower any religious denomination or secular group to impose its views on society. We can delegate issues to the states and learn from their experiences. We can compromise. We can “agree to disagree”. Ideally, we can accept that there are some intractable political differences in our society and focus on those areas where we can find agreement.
https://www.amazon.com/Janesville-American-Story-Amy-Goldstein/dp/1501102265
This 2017 bestseller was applauded by the WSJ, The Economist, Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam, JD Vance (as a complement to Hillbilly Elegy) and Barrack Obama. It tells the story of Janesville, Wisconsin as a General Motors assembly plant with 3,000 workers was permanently closed in the turmoil of the Great Recession. It focuses on the impact on real people and the community’s response. The author concludes that neither the liberal response of job training nor the conservative response of economic redevelopment incentives was adequate to meet the community’s needs. What could work?
The US economic and legal system protects the property rights of investors, corporations, and banks. It doesn’t protect or promote the property rights of the other actors in society quite so well: workers, suppliers, local governments, charities, retirees, and children. It is the fundamental discrepancy between different groups that is highlighted in this book, catalyzing the last 15 year’s populist reaction against our system, and begging for a practical solution.
Financial interests are flexible. They can be bought, sold and mortgaged. They are geographically mobile. Money and financial instruments are fungible. They can be exchanged with zero to small loss of value.
Other interests are much less flexible and mobile. Labor assets are tied to an individual. Individual labor assets may be tied to a specific situation OR broadly applicable. Real property is tied to a local and regional location. Local governments and charities are tied to a geography. Families are emotionally tied to a location.
The historical political conflict was between the wealthy and the non-wealthy. Landed aristocracy and peasants. Capitalists and workers.
Wealth still matters. The advantages of financial wealth have multiplied in the modern world. Financial rates of return are higher. International opportunities exist. Financial markets are effective and efficient. Risk can be managed through portfolios and derivatives. The shear amount of wealth, and wealth per person, is large enough to be scientifically managed. Generational wealth is preserved. Wealthy interests have effectively “captured” the political system to ensure they are not over-taxed or over-regulated. Network effects from neighborhoods and elite colleges accumulate. The network effects from large metropolitan areas accumulate.
As the advantages of financial wealth have compounded in our society, the distribution of income and wealth has become more and more unequal. For the good of our whole society, it’s time to take some steps to “level the playing field”. This is not strictly about protecting the poor or “fairly” taxing the rich. It is about providing “roughly” equal protection to the various property interests in our society.
In a meritocratic, capitalist society, there will be an unequal distribution of income and wealth. It is difficult to find an obvious “rule of thumb” to limit this dispersion. The higher income and wealth individuals are sure that they have “earned” their returns. Many libertarians and conservatives believe that the “job creators” and “value creators” in society are under rewarded, even before progressive taxation claims a greater share. Most working, middle and professional class earners are sure that they are underpaid compared to their value-added and that the tax system is designed to benefit “others”. Many vote for the conservative political party because they accept this as unavoidable, see disincentives and unintended consequences from attempts to change this, or aspire to become one of the winners. Economists and psychologists report that individuals are much more motivated by economic losses, taxes, risks or takeaways than gains. Hence, any kind of straightforward income or wealth redistribution system is difficult to achieve or maintain. The incentives to pull towards one end or the other are very strong. The philosopher John Rawls’ argument that everyone can, should, will agree to a set of reasonable policies pointing towards limiting income and wealth inequality has been applauded by the left, criticized by the right and ignored by most everyone. We need to find a different framework aside from the “tug of war”.
A dynamic capitalist economic system will include Schumpeterian “creative destruction”. There is enough new wealth to be made and captured that competitors will disrupt and compete with existing leaders in all markets. Firms will grow and die. New firms will be founded. Some will succeed. The real and financial capital within some firms at some times will be destroyed. For some firms this will be part of the portfolio of growing, stable and dying components. For some firms, this will be death. Capitalists will focus on the core goals of value creation, value capture and value preservation. They will do whatever is required to meet these goals. As Milton Friedman argued, at the extreme times they will not look out for the interests of other stakeholders. In good times, perhaps, a little. Based on social pressures, in good times, perhaps, a little. We need to clearly separate “what is” from “what should be”.
Financial investors do not have geographical responsibilities. They have financial responsibilities to owners and lenders. They have secondary interests in maintaining positive relations with suppliers, customers, key employees, key executives and regulators. Large organizations will close low performing assets as required, be they small stores or 3,000 employee factories. New and existing businesses locate plants, offices and distribution centers based on expected costs and benefits, risks and rewards. They are also guided by the convenience and views of their senior executives who generally prefer to live in cosmopolitan surroundings. Firms will decentralize and decentralize to meet various needs. For most firms, local economic incentives are a very minor factor.
Employees, suppliers, governments and charities are fundamentally local. They live real lives with a small number of interactions. They stay in place and appreciate the familiarity of their home, church, school and community. They might move when they finish college or before they have children in school or to meet an extreme need. The move from the east coast to the Midwest to the west took centuries. The move from the farms to the cities has continued for more than a century. The consolidation of the population into less than 100 metro areas has accelerated in the last 75 years. The move from the Midwest, northeast and Middle-Atlantic states to the sunbelt has continued for 75 years. Individuals move based on circumstances and incentives. A fair society provides support for individuals who do not wish to move because economic situations have changed.
Individuals who honestly review the growth of incomes, wealth and standards of living in the US for the last 75 years must celebrate the amazing 6-fold increase in real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Labor productivity and overall productivity have improved similarly. Median incomes rose with GDP and productivity until 1975, stalled for 25 years and have since slowly resumed their climb. Quality of life, including health, economic choices, economic security, leisure, safety, product quality, entertainment, and product choices has continued to improve, even when income growth lagged behind output growth. The US economic system produces great wealth and benefits. There is an inherent tendency for the owners of financial wealth to capture an increasing share. We need to find a balanced solution, not undermine the economic system through misguided taxation or regulation.
The US is an outlier in the developed world in not managing health care as a public good. Liberals see health care as a human right. A majority of Americans disagree. We will not soon adopt “socialized health care”. We can work together to adopt policies that reduce the total cost of health care, and which prevent health care costs from bankrupting our fellow citizens.
We live in a society that prefers to support communities locally and not rely upon government support. We can fine-tune our laws to encourage local support.
In our modern world we have to ensure that all individuals are financially prepared for 30 years of retirement. Early and constant savings. Wise investments. Good advisors. For everyone.
Lifetime employment is gone. Fixed benefits pensions are gone. We live 20 years longer. We need a more robust unemployment insurance system. Individuals may secure a position that pays 25% – 33% – 50% more than their “second best” alternatives. When individuals lose their jobs, we need to buffer their losses and nudge them towards their “next best” options in a timely manner.
In the modern world, consumers face sophisticated marketers and professional services firms. They can benefit from centralized support.
It looks like our economic system is going to require one-thirds college educated and two-thirds less than college degreed adults. Economically and socially, we need to support all individuals to serve in their roles and for all of us to support the various roles. Think “essential workers” during the pandemic.
The corporate world reduces costs and improves valued results by 1-2% year after year after year. We need to set the same expectations for local, state and federal governments.
I have separately proposed a set of constitutional amendments that limit taxation of the wealthy, allowing them to support steps like those above without fear of being fleeced.
Our society hasn’t found a clear organizing principle to guide it between the claims of the people and its leaders. We tend to lean towards the individual, liberty and freedom. This has led to a large number of modest initiatives. We have an opportunity to help our community embrace and support the political steps required to achieve our goals.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/amy-goldstein/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Bernie Staller – National FFA leader (my supervisor from 2000-2004) Janesville leader.
https://www.agrimarketing.com/show_story.php?id=25007
https://wisconsinagconnection.com/news/staller-inducted-into-alpha-gamma-rho-hall-of-fame
https://www.agrimarketing.com/show_story.php?id=25005
https://www.newswise.com/articles/bernie-staller-to-retire-from-the-national-ffa-organization
https://case.edu/ech/articles/d/diamond-shamrock-corp
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0504696
On a personal note, I grew up in Fairport Harbor, Ohio, a small village of 3-4,000 people. The Diamond Alkali chemical plant once employed 5,000 people. It shut down in 1976. My dad was a pipefitter and union leader. My uncle Joe was also an employee and a union and political leader. The negative community impact was very large. The negative impacts described by Amy Goldstein in Janesville were exactly the same in Painesville 40 years earlier.
The US economy continues its evolution from agriculture to manufacturing to services to information. President Trump was responsible for the US economy from February, 2017 through January, 2020. President Biden assumed responsibility in February, 2020. In order to compare the two presidents, let’s look at Trump for the 3 years of sustained growth deep in the business cycle before the pandemic. For Biden, let’s look at a comparable 3-year period from June 2021 through June 2024, after the post-Covid rebound. Trump benefitted from an 8-year long business cycle expansion. Biden had to deal with a once in a century pandemic driven economic depression.
The independent Federal Reserve Board responded to the pandemic by greatly increasing the money supply to ensure that profitable, well-run financial institutions would be able to survive the temporary disruptions in the real economy. The Fed increased the money supply by 4-5 times its prior level to ensure the economy did not collapse! The extra money supply had to end up somewhere. It drove up consumer prices and increased asset values in the stock market and for home prices.
Inflation grew by 2% per year with Trump. It grew by 5% per year, on average, with Biden. Overall prices are 9% higher with Biden. Trump’s economic policies extended the Obama recovery for 3 years without triggering an increase in inflation, despite a low unemployment labor market.
The largest cause of higher than usual inflation in Biden’s term was the 20% spike in US and global demand for durable goods. Factories shut down during the pandemic. Demand rebounded within 6 months as consumers chose to spend money on goods rather than in-person services. Consumer demand at the end of the Biden period is 50% higher than at the start of Trump’s term in office.
Corporations were able to capture and maintain a 50% profit increases due to market disruptions of the pandemic. Experts mostly reject Biden’s claims that corporate profits were the main driver of inflation, but they clearly aggravated the impact of the supply chain disruptions.
Obama was able to reduce federal budget deficits by two-thirds by the end of his presidency. Deficits doubled on Trump’s watch before the pandemic arrived. Biden cut deficits from their record highs during the pandemic, but they have been 50% higher than the pre-pandemic Trump era. Most economists consider the budget deficits to be the main cause of the continued higher than typical rates of inflation, accounting for 3%, 2% and 1% extra inflation in the 3-year Biden time we’re considering.
High profile gas prices remined flat during Trump’s period. Global supply and demand caused prices to increase from $2.50 per gallon to $3.50/gallon where they have remained for the last 3 years.
Trump enjoyed historically low 4% mortgage interest rates, a thin 2% above the inflation rate. The expansion of the money supply drive rates down to 3% during 2020 and 2021. They rose to 7% as inflation rose sharply and has stayed there. Inflation has fallen but markets typically require years of data to reset expectations of long-term inflation which drive mortgage rates. The Federal Reserve Bank has hesitated to cut its benchmark interest rates until inflation is clearly approaching its 2% target.
Trump reduced unemployment by 1%. Biden reduced it by 2%. Both presided over best in 50 years overall labor markets.
Layoffs have remained at historic lows, with Biden enjoying slightly lower rates.
Job openings in the Biden market have been 50% higher than the Trump market, reflecting a strong economy with growing labor demand, despite the impact of the pandemic.
The Biden economy recovered all 20 million jobs lost in the pandemic within 2 years, much faster than expected. Total employment has continued to grow at the trend rate to a record 159 million.
Core labor force participation is 1% higher with Biden than Trump. The current participation rate was last achieved in 2001.
Median real wages have been slightly higher during Biden’s tenure.
Despite the pandemic disruptions and losses, US firms are worth 70% more today than before the pandemic. This reflects the 50% profits increase and continued positive future prospects.
Home prices have nearly doubled since before the pandemic, reflecting the post Great Recession decline in home building, construction issues during the pandemic and general asset inflation caused by the rapid expansion of the money supply.
The US enjoyed a solid 7% savings rate before the pandemic, an extraordinary high 10% after the pandemic, falling to just 4% for the last 3 years.
https://educationdata.org/number-of-college-graduates
Human assets increased during Trump’s presidency and resumed growth after the pandemic. As college graduation rates have increased throughout the post WWII years, the cumulative number of college educated individuals continues to rise each year. The growth in masters and professional degrees is noteworthy.
Population growth has resumed after the pandemic.
The healthy US economy is able to support 3 million more retirees after the pandemic.
Real dollar GDP is 2 trillion dollars larger than before the pandemic disruption. That increase is the same size as the total GDP of Russia, Canada or Mexico. We added the Canada economy during Trump’s time and the Mexican economy during Biden’s time.
Real personal income grew a little bit faster during Trump’s time and more smoothly. Personal incomes jumped up during the pandemic but have been flat since that time with corporations capturing a greater share of the economy’s returns.
Workers have been 8-10% more productive in the Biden economy.
Farm income has doubled in the Biden economy.
Manufacturing employment grew by a surprising 3% in Trump’s term. It is slightly higher in the Biden era.
Real dollar exports increased during the Trump presidency and then again during Biden’s time despite a greatly stronger US dollar which hampers exports.
The world is willing to pay 10% more to hold US dollars in the Biden period, reflecting strong economic realities and prospects despite the risks of higher US inflation and budget deficits.
The US economy is very strong. Trump was able to extend the Obama recovery for longer than most expected, keeping inflation, interest rates and unemployment at low levels. Biden managed the recovery from the pandemic induced recession better than expected. The economy, asset prices and labor market have recovered very nicely. Inflation has remained the weak part of the Biden economy. It is lower than in comparable global economies and trending towards the 2% target in 2025. Critics point to excess government spending as an avoidable source of high inflation.
The Trump economy built upon the success of his predecessor. The Biden economy overcame the disruption of the pandemic to produce equal or greater results. Both presidents delivered solid results.
Good News 