1789 – “The people” can overthrow the ancient regime. Governing is a bigger challenge. The “nation” and ideals (liberty, equality, fraternity) are very, very powerful tools.
1848 – Utilitarian emphasis on pain and pleasure. Liberty as the supreme value. Yet, government actions to reach valuable ends, including redistribution, are also needed.
1913 – All of mathematics can be reduced to formal symbolic logic. Everything is logically consistent. All of science and politics and philosophy might also be so structured.
1948 – All humans are “born free and equal in dignity and rights” regardless of “nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status”.
1961 – Power is the ultimate guide to understanding the world. The powerful exploit others. Opposing this exploitation is the duty of those who understand.
1974 – A US president was forced out of office for his criminal activities. The transfer of power worked. Confidence in government and institutions was shaken.
1980 – A pro-market, socially conservative political party was elected by reframing the terms of the debate away from economic security and inequality.
2017 – The Republican Party increasingly appealed to a coalition of economic winners, social conservatives, libertarians and populists, embracing a transactional, common-sense patriotic nationalism.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back” – John Maynard Keynes
Bacon and Descartes provided early alternatives to the prevailing integrated religious worldview. Locke and others outlined the individual based “social contract” theory that provided a basis for the American and French revolutions. The American model continued to inspire while the French model both inspired and frightened. The rational Enlightenment view led to utilitarianism, pragmatism and progressivism plus the reactions of Romanticism, Marx and Nietzsche. Conservative reactions of Burke, Social Darwinism and Fascism also occurred. “Big government” was adopted as a potential positive force by the left as well. Individual rights were increasingly recognized in theory and practice. Post-war existentialism and postmodernism replaced discredited Marxism on the left. The Reagan/Thatcher revolution re-established pro-market and traditional social conservatism as a dominant force. Trump capitalized on the populist themes and media tools of the skeptical post-Watergate era.
Science versus religion. Church and state. Individual and community. Rich and poor. Liberty versus justice. Liberal versus conservative. Populists and elites. State and international politics. What should we do? Who should decide? What is the best structure? How do we protect minority rights? Protect the goose that lays the golden eggs.
The U.S. and Western system of government regulated capitalism, relatively free trade and democratically elected limited government dominated the second half of the twentieth century. In 1992 Francis Fukuyama proclaimed, “The End of History”. This “Western consensus” view is increasingly challenged today.
‘Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ – Winston Churchill
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.
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.
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:
Facing death.
Finding a purpose beyond self.
Being affirmed.
Living as a social being in community.
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.
The American two-party system has been captured by political extremists. Political parties no longer play their historical function of vetting candidates for broad acceptance, electability and support of party platforms. Parties are dominated by highly motivated extremists as staffers and volunteers. In the post-Gingrich era clever politicians use wedge issues and polarized positions to attract supporters. A majority of states are dominated by single parties and have gerrymandered 80% of the districts to be solidly single party. Majority party politicians are sure to win the general election, so they only worry about competitors from the wings. Special interest groups and large dollar donors support the extreme views in each party. Modern social media tends to reinforce the views of extremists, effectively connecting voters with simplistic answers.
National level politicians devote all of their time to winning elections and being re-elected. Few are interested in the hard work of crafting compromises or finding innovative solutions to the nation’s problems. Voters are frustrated by the lack of progress and responsiveness. They join the anti-Washington chorus. Politicians respond with empty rhetoric.
One solution is to “throw the bums out”. Require all candidates to demonstrate basic levels of character. Require them to actively look for solutions that meet the needs of a solid majority of citizens. Reward those who pursue middle solutions and who avoid the easy populist solutions and rhetoric.
In general elections, if your party’s candidate does not meet these basic requirements, cast a write-in ballot. Vote for Ronald Reagan if you cannot support an extremist Republican. Vote for Barrack Obama if you cannot support an extremist Democrat.
The US political system does not provide 5-7 real choices in general elections. We don’t have Green, socialist, regional, separatist, religious, racial, ethnic, libertarian or liberal democratic options. The Democratic party is split between center-left (moderate) and progressive wings. The Republican party was once split between center-right (moderate) and extremist wings. It is now all extremist, no RINOs allowed. The extremists found a true champion in Goldwater and lost. They recovered with Reagan 40. They tolerated Bush 41 and 43. They embraced Sarah Palin and then Trump 45 and 47.
Moderate, Main Street, Wall Street, philosophical conservatives have no political party home today. Moderate Democrats have little in common with the New Left, the progressive left, environmentalists, postmodernists, socialists, social Democrats.
The TRUE moral majority, real America is in the center. We are conservative, individualistic, practical, American, skeptical, historical, community loving, institution supporting, trusting, classic liberals. We ALSO believe in the liberal American ideals of human rights, liberty, social justice, equal rights, equal opportunity, and international solutions. We are multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious. We intuitively respect diverse religious and political views. Not because we think that others are “right”, but because we accept different individual views as possibly valid. We think there is an objective physical and moral reality but are not confident that we alone possess the truth.
This is the “American genius”. We lean left or right. We think that we are right. But, we accept that our good neighbors have different views. We work together to find solutions for all, solutions that are accepted by a solid majority, not just what a political party can force through.
This requires us to vote against our own side on the simple “left to right” spectrum when candidates fail to meet the basic standards of character or promoting the common good.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s Ronald Reagan effectively knit together the various strands of “conservatism” under the umbrella term “conservative” within the Republican party, marking a big shift from FDR’s New Deal Democrats who had dominated US politics for two generations. Reagan’s assembly fit well within classical conservatism as outlined by Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr.
Conservatism was originally a reaction to secular humanism, the enlightenment, scientific revolution, progressivism, individualism and classical liberalism. Buckley summarized it: “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” The key insight and rationale is that society is the result of trial and error, accumulated wisdom and demonstrated effectiveness. Change is to be considered, tried and adopted slowly. Society is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to science, philosophical and social science principles; analyzed, reformed and changed without great and irreversible risks. The institutions, lessons, wisdom and power of society must be honored for the benefits they provide, not treated as mere subject matter to be optimized.
This fits with social science research that says that “risk tolerance’ is the primary psychological dimension dividing conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are wary/skeptical about change, new situations, new solutions, “others” and mere ideas. Liberals welcome variety, change, ideas, possibilities, progress and ideals. Conservatives appeal to fears while liberals appeal to hopes. Conservatives embrace structures while liberals prefer flexibility. Conservatives are more pragmatic, incremental and results-oriented while Liberals value perfect ideals and honorable processes.
Philosophical conservatism is an umbrella that allows economic, social, international, religious, military and political conservatives to work together effectively despite the differences that exist in their more detailed views.
While Donald Trump promotes some policies that align with conservative principles, I will argue that most of his policies and actions are fundamentally opposed to classical conservatism. He is a radical, an extremist, a narcissist, a totalitarian who views the Republican party and “conservatism” as mere tools for achieving his personal goals which have no connection to the principles of conservatism. He is not seeking to promote the conservative agenda or preserve the best of American or Western civilization. He is not connected to liberalism either. Trump is a Nietzschean “superman” believing in himself, alone.
Culture/Civilization
Trump does not promote “Western Civilization”. No ringing words of inspiration and hope. Division between social and political groups. Neglect of history. No underlying principles like democracy, capitalism and globalism. Merely “might makes right”, realpolitik, leverage, “whatever it takes”, “the art of the deal”, “greed is good”, and “some very fine people on both sides”. The ideal Trump age is the 1970’s and 1980’s when he was making money, not the idyllic small-town, factory worker 1950’s. Universities are attacked. The “Lamestream media” is attacked. The Kennedy Center is acquired. The entertainment industry is criticized. Science is defunded and denied. Values are scorned. Allies are dumped. Europe, Canada, Mexico, NATO, Japan, South Korea, the UN and international agreements and organizations are disrespected. The accumulated wisdom and culture of the post-war era is disregarded. This is a nihilist view. Trump didn’t create it, so it must not be of value.
Citizenship
Trump promotes a “fake patriotism” that helps maintain his political support. He actively supports legislation to reduce “voting rights”. He undermines confidence in the voting process. He disputed and tried to overturn the 2020 presidential results. He never accepts the results of courts or legislative bodies that don’t agree with him. He interprets the constitution to meet his personal needs. He dishonors those who have served before as civil servants, military and political leaders. He sets no standards of excellence for his appointees to government office, merely loyalty. He issues no collective call to cooperation, sacrifice or common purpose even in the face of a global pandemic. He sees no obligation for those with greater resources and abilities to “serve their country”. He undermines the judicial system to meet his own needs. He considers Putin’s foreign policy to be the moral equal of America’s historical foreign policy.
Citizenship is a crucial role within philosophical conservatism. Society requires some form of government. That government must be seen as legitimate through the active participation of the citizens. Trump has promoted greater political participation through his polarized speech and actions. He has undercut the legitimacy of our government and citizenship.
Rule of Law
Conservatives embrace “the rule of law” because they distrust single individuals or mere ideas. Communities, property, firms, trade, organizations, governments, churches and families depend upon a stable background.
Trump completely disregards “the rule of law”. He has found that “might makes right” and money can purchase justice. He disrespects, challenges and undermines the courts, the department of justice, the FBI, Congress, contracts, agreements, allies, deals, rules, rulings, norms, relations, partners, legal counsel, professional associations, marriage vows, history, tradition, habits, judicial precedents, soft power, etc. He is amoral. He uses all tools and means to pursue his ends. Loopholes, appeals, distractions, bankruptcy, new loans, settlements. He lies, threatens, jokes, reverses course, denies, obfuscates, floods the zone, dog whistles, promises and reneges.
Community
Philosophical conservatives see culture and civilization transmitted, embodied and protected by actual communities; not individuals or abstract philosophical principles. Hence, communities of all kinds are essential: families, neighborhoods, churches, parishes, teams, scouts, civic organizations, professional and industry associations, social and sports organizations, social third places, special interest groups, political groups, fraternities. These are “the little platoons of society” that George W. Bush wanted to revive with his “compassionate conservatism.”
Trump offers only “individualism”, division and polarization. He is not a member or leader of other groups, aside from a few elite “clubs”. His life is focused on “deals”, transactions, not social relations. He shares no strategy to bind the country together, no ecumenicism, no third way, no civility project, no common good or purpose, no presidential volunteer program, no legislation to promote not for profits, no churchgoing example, no global idealism, no common morality, no “more effective” Congress, no international youth exchange/service program, no global warming cooperation, no next pandemic research, no cultural investment, no home team, no nonpartisan young Americans clubs, no long-term immigrants solution, no cultural discussion forums.
Class
Philosophical conservatives take a “realistic” view of society. Different people have different talents and capabilities, so they fill different roles for the overall benefit of society. “Birds of a feather flock together”. There are natural differences of experience and interests in different groups. There is no reason to fight this or to “equalize” groups. Hence, conservatives have generally supported the key roles and groups in their societies as being valuable and worthy of social support: landowners, farmers, capitalists, military leaders, priests, lawyers, doctors, bankers, entrepreneurs, scientists, political, government and business leaders.
Trump discounts all class groups except for a few exceptional billionaires and “the people”. He politically caters to factory and mine workers. He disparages corporate leaders, military leaders, bureaucrats, bankers, regulators, elected officials, judges, elites, media, technologists, unions, mayors, government employees, teachers, essential workers, civil servants, doctors, scientists and public health experts. He promotes a sense of “victimhood” in “the people” as he demonizes the various “elites”. The level of trust between individuals in our society continues to fall, undermining any sense of community, class or true national spirit.
Property
Conservatives tend to value property as the highest of individual rights. Without secure property rights, individuals cannot live a good life.
Trump supports tax cuts and deregulation which help to preserve property and wealth. But he also supports an “activist” economic public policy. Government actively manages international trade rules, tariffs and deals. Government maintains an active industrial policy. President directly controls independent agencies like the Federal Reserve Board. President uses all powers of the executive branch to force firms and individuals into cooperation, compliance and obedience. This is undeclared fascism, centralized control of economic power.
Institutions
Conservatives trust institutions, just like property and “the rule of law” because they are not subject to the whims of individuals, new ideas, and rapid change. Institutions develop in response to societies’ needs slowly through time. The political, economic and social elites lead institutions to balance goals, needs and interests.
Trump is an institutional wrecking ball. Every institution is weak, ineffective and suspect. None meet his standards or pursue his goals. Universities, public schools, performing arts, media, charities, hospitals, clinics, social workers, aid agencies, libraries, community centers.
Government
Trump goes beyond the traditional conservative desire for “limited government”. He wants to eliminate most government. He is actively dismantling the federal government. Even the military, research and state department. On the other hand, he wants to control the government for himself (FBI, DOJ, trade, tariffs). Classical conservatives see the government as the visible part of the political system, providing practical services to the citizens and a means for citizens to be heard. Its effectiveness helps to reinforce commitment to the political state. Trump actively undermines local governments as well, criticizing political leaders, teachers, librarians and essential workers.
Religion
Conservatives and the “classical liberal” founders of the US government system agree that governments are built upon the moral, social, cultural, ethical beliefs and commitments of the citizens. In a theocracy, the political and religious can be merged. In our system, the state cannot strongly define, dictate, educate, promote or enforce these values. We rely on individuals and families to choose and practice their own religion or beliefs. Conservatives emphasize the importance of this dimension of life.
Trump appointed judges to overturn “Roe v. Wade” and eliminate the “right” to abortion at the federal level. He then said that “abortion” is a state issue and he is done with it. Trump does not promote religion, philosophy, morality, community, dialogue, understanding, ecumenicism, prayer, civility, service, sacrifice, or cooperation. He promotes no religious values, only the rights of power. He provides no example of religious involvement.
Trump further divides the country into fundamentalist “social conservatives” and the enemy. He inflames the “culture wars” on libraries, public education, school choice, trans athletes, bathrooms, and DEI. He offers no solutions on how Americans can work together locally or nationally to find solutions, compromises and understanding. His policies are “tone deaf” to Christian teachings that call for attention to “the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger”. He used the Bible as a political prop.
Character
Conservatives have supported strong families, religions, and institutions so that they are able to transmit culture from generation to generation. “It takes a village to raise a child” is a conservative insight too. Society is based on individuals belonging to society and its institutions. Western societies have embraced individual freedom and liberty and so have had to find means to ensure the balance between the individual and society. We have defined, educated and promoted high character as an essential tool.
Trump displays and promotes no traditional character values. He is an extreme individualist. Truth does not exist. Complete subjectivity and moral relativity. He promotes victimhood rather than agency and responsibility. The end justifies the means. No sense of honor or commitment. Each day is a new day for negotiation. Only power really matters. Not family values. Not social justice. Not human rights, equality or equal opportunity. Strength matters. The courage to use power matters. Achieving and maintaining wealth matters. Social status matters. Achievement matters. No self-awareness or other awareness/empathy. No humility.
Stewardship
Conservatives generally accept an unequal distribution of talent, wealth, power and responsibilities as natural. Historically they have paired this situation with a focused responsibility to be effective stewards of society’s resources. “To those who are given much much is expected”. Noblesse oblige. Leaders care for the poor, widows and orphans. Social norms are used to assign and maintain this responsibility.
As western societies have tasked government with maintaining the “social safety net”, this typical responsibility of the upper and upper middle class has become fuzzier. In a more recent world of smaller government and no taxes, individuals and institutions are required to take up the slack. Trump provides no leadership on this matter. No expanded charitable giving tax deduction. No volunteer hour tax credit. No leading by example. No commitment or encouragement to “give it all away”.
Liberty
Conservatives have always embraced individual liberty for the governing classes. In the American tradition they have embraced liberty as a super value for a widening group of individuals. The US Bill of Rights has become part of the background of our existence. “Give me liberty of give me death”. The Tea Party.
Trump does not support individual liberties. Not “the rule of law” protections. Not freedom of speech. Not “freedom of expression”. Not “freedom of the press”. Not “checks and balances”. Not “due process of law”. Not human rights. Not the independent judiciary. Not civil service protections. Not freedom of religion. Not the right to vote. Not free trade. Not free travel. This looks like fascism, a very strong national state.
Summary
Trump is not a conservative. He sees himself as a Nietzschean superman. He believes in himself and that “might makes right”. He supported both political parties historically because it was helpful financially. He does not believe in “conservative values”. He is politically dispensable.
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?
Context
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.
Radical individualism, which undermines “community” and self-awareness.
Human nature. We are psychologically and morally imperfect. Largely analog creatures wrestling with a much more complex world of choices.
Skepticism. We are good at criticizing, undermining and doubting. Not as good at problem solving, problem resolution, creativity, empathy and communication.
Living in a Secular Age. The default, background, unchallenged Christian worldview is gone. Individuals know they must make conscious choices.
Imperfect Myths. Religion, science, progress, romanticism, personal growth, libertarianism, populism, classic liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, postmodernism … None of the individual views or clusters of worldviews is fully adequate for many people.
Insecurity. Science, technology, business, international trade, specialization, computers, communications, and information all grow and become more complex. We are insecure in our “selves”, our roles and our economic situations.
In each case, the simple “left versus right” analysis or viewpoints are inadequate, misleading and ineffective.
Conservatives promote economic individualism. Liberals promote social and “human rights” individualism. We have jointly lost sight of the essential role played by community in all dimensions of life.
Conservatives tend to emphasize the negative, limited, sinful nature of man while liberals focus on the goodness and potential. Scientists conclude that we are both. Politicians and analysts tend to use overly simple models of man when seeking to understand or improve our situation.
Conservatives are skeptical about progress, change, risks and high ideals. Liberals are skeptical about power, wealth, interests, structure, and large organizations. Healthy skepticism has its place.
Conservatives fight the coming of a “Secular Age” with no cultural consensus on important questions. Liberals tend to welcome continued change towards a purely secular, scientific world where religion and philosophy disappear. We seem to be “stuck” needing a hybrid situation.
Conservatives tend to embrace “well-defined” philosophies, theologies and myths. Liberals tend to like more complex, dynamic, evolving, individually fine-tuned world views. Theologians, philosophers, politicians, scientists and real people have been unable to outline life paradigms that are “obviously true” to everyone. We have different views, and it looks like there is no single final answer that everyone welcomes.
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?
Analysis
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.
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?
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.
High Level Solutions Strategy
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.
1. Radical Individualism and Community
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.
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.
6. Personal Security
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”.
Summary
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.
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.
Big Disagreements
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.
Practically Speaking
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
Motivations
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.
Sources
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Rotary 4-Way test was drafted in 1932. It fits into 4 of the 5 main categories.
Summary
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.
Especially in these challenging times we have to be idealistic and believe in possibilities.
Jim Nabors’ rendition of “The Impossible Dream” on the 1965 Gomer Pyle, USMC show is a great place to start. We’ve become too practical, skeptical, secular and cool to consider this or any similar view on life, derived from the classic 1615 novel Don Quixote. Enjoy!
Jonathan Haidt’s “moral foundations” appear to be deeply rooted in human evolution. Democrats mostly embrace care, fairness and equality. Republicans emphasize the broader menu of loyalty, authority, purity, proportionality, honor, liberty, and ownership. Policy differences are unavoidable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good News 