Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues have developed a set of 9 intuitive moral values that are consistent with evolutionary psychology insights. Amateur psychologists appreciate the Myers-Briggs model while professionals promote the “Big 5” personality traits. Google AI allows us to relatively quickly check our intuitive sense of how the moral values connect with the personality traits.
Professor Haidt’s work emphasizes that moral values are part of our internal makeup based upon evolution, especially recent evolution into a social and cultural species. His team promotes the “rider and elephant” model that asserts that we acquire and reflect deep-seated moral, political and religious views in an intuitive fashion. We only use our rider/rational character to defend/explain our choices from time to time. This was developed independently of Daniel Kahneman’s system 1, system 2 “thinking fast and slow model”. We mostly think fast/intuitively but are able to think slow/rationally as required. The “Moral Foundations Theory” team says that we are 90% selfish chimp and 10% cooperative bee. We are now a hybrid species.
Dr. Haidt is an intuitive, experiential liberal whose academic/scientific work forced him to re-examine his moral beliefs and biases, and those of the left-leaning social sciences. His team documented that there are traditional moral values widely held throughout history and across cultures that do not comply with the dominant WEIRD model of western, educated, industrial, rich and democratic. They took the usual modern experimental psychologist steps and defined 5 moral values. They later expanded their model to 9 values, breaking fairing/no cheating into equality and proportionality and adding liberty/oppression, ownership and honor.
Their team was widely criticized from the left for challenging/undermining the prevailing views of modern moral values (stage-based development, ala Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Lawrence Kohlberg) and opposing the “conventional wisdom” of inevitable moral and cultural progress towards a liberal ideal. At an early stage, they determined that liberal individuals and politicians had a limited moral palate of just care/harm and fairness while conservative individuals and politicians appreciated care/harm and fairness and many traditional moral values. Circa 2013 they tried to convince Democrats that they were playing politics “with one arm tied behind their backs”. The team must have thought “in for a dime, in for a dollar” when they later added ownership and honor to the traditional values of loyalty, authority and purity as valid, universal, historical moral intuitions.
I will take a first pass at how moral intuitions relate to personality traits and then to political views.
Introversion versus extraversion has a limited connection with moral intuitions or politics. Both parties and philosophies attract introverts and extroverts.
Abstract, intellectual individuals emphasize care/harm and fairness/equality as their main moral virtues. Haidt and others criticize this dominant academy view as “thin morality”, inadequate for the real world of community and politics. More concrete/specific/sensing/experiential/practical people tend to also support the conservative values of ownership, loyalty, honor, authority and purity.
Open-minded “perceiving” individuals support care, equality and liberty. Their “judging” counterparts support the 5 clearly conservative values listed above and proportionality as important principles for equity.
High “feeling” individuals tend to adopt the care and equality moral possibilities. They also tend to support the more conservative value of group loyalty. High “thinking” individuals like the structure provided by proportionality, authority and honor. They also tend to be more sensitive to liberty/oppression.
The “Big 5” personality value of “openness” to new experiences is considered the most important predictor of political views by political scientists and psychologists. High openness drives moral intuitions of care and equality. Low openness leads to a preference for ownership, loyalty, honor, authority and purity.
Conscientiousness is affiliated with the conservative values of ownership, loyalty, authority and purity. Proportionality is more neutral for politics, but clearly connected here.
Agreeableness does not align with the other factors. Friendly, high feeling individuals predictably support care and equality. But they also support conservative leaning proportionality and honor. Non-agreeable individuals are more sensitive to oppression, a relatively neutral value. Non-agreeable individuals are more interested in the conservative value of property ownership.
Neuroticism is an equal opportunity offender. Tightly wound, sensitive individuals tend to support the liberal core of care and equality. They are also attracted to the “conservative” values of ownership, honor and purity.
Summary
There is a clear left-right, liberal-conservative divide in some moral intuitions and personalities. There are statistical trends and tendencies. But real individuals are more complicated. Modern individuals are more likely to consider themselves independents with a portfolio of liberal and conservative views on specific topics. Many personality dimensions are unrelated to political views. Humans have different personalities, moral intuitions and political views. There is no clear “right and wrong” view. We are stuck with each other.
I encourage all partisans to deeply consider this result. Politicians are incentivized to win. They look for the “least common denominator”, the most effective words to assemble and maintain a voting coalition. In the modern world of politically and religiously low-engagement citizens, this is a rational and winning approach. Polarization and win/lose positioning are also logical means to election and re-election.
I think that we inherently hold different moral intuitions and political views based upon our personalities and life experiences. We are stuck with each other. We need to invest in Civility to make our political systems work. We need to embrace compromise and “good enough” political results.
In 2013, Jonathan Haidt summarized a decade of research on what values make man tick. What moral intuitions are widely held across time and cultures? Which ones are consistent with evolutionary psychology? How do people think about moral values? The researchers identified and validated 5 values, which have been expanded and refined into 9. People are born with the ability to develop certain moral intuitions. They adopt them subconsciously from experience, family and culture. They hold them deeply and defend/rationalize them as needed. We can change our moral values, politics and religions, but we usually don’t.
(1) Care/Harm
Don’t harm others, take care of people, relieve suffering, empathize. Leads to the virtues of kindness, gentleness and nurturance.
(2) Fairness/Cheating/Equality
Treat people fairly. Reciprocal altruism. Impulse to impose rules that apply equally to all and avoid cheating. Intuitions about equal treatment and equal outcomes for individuals. Generates ideas of justice, rights and autonomy.
(3) Liberty/Oppression
Feelings of reactance and resentment people feel towards those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Seek liberation from constraints and fight oppression. Motivation to assemble to oppose invalid authority. Promotes equal rights, individual freedom and freedom from oppression.
(4) Fairness/Cheating/Proportionality
Intuitions about individuals getting rewarded in proportion to their merit or contribution.
(5) Ownership
Intuition about possession rights in society, similar to territoriality, which reduce conflict.
(6) In-Group Loyalty/Betrayal
Instinct to affirm the value of groups you identify with, including family and country. Leads to the obligations of self-sacrifice, vigilance, patriotism and punishing betrayal of the group.
(7) Honor/Self-Worth
Basing one’s self-worth upon reputation, including family and kin reputation.
(8) Authority/Subversion
Stable social order based upon the obligations of hierarchical relationships, including obedience, respect and fulfilment of role-based duties. Prevent/oppose/punish subversion. Leads to the virtues of leadership, followership, deference to authority figures and respect for traditions.
(9) Purity/Sanctity/Degradation
Intuitions of physical and spiritual contamination and disgust elevate the value of purity in thought, word and deed. Leads to the virtues of self-discipline, self-improvement, naturalness and spirituality.
Criticisms of the Liberal Values Approach
Liberals are attracted to the first 3 of the 9 values, while conservatives find all 9 to be appealing, including the traditional ones that liberals tend to avoid. This provides conservative politicians with the advantage of having 9 moral flavors to attract and inspire followers, while liberals make do with just 3.
Contrary to the self-image of most liberals, holding just 3 values can make us (me) intolerant, limited, uninformed, less caring/empathetic, disrespectful, proud, faithful, rigid, narrow, critical, uncivil, elitist, divisive, polarizing, righteous, close-minded, controlling, unsophisticated, Manichean, and unscientific!
Haidt and others criticize liberals for taking a simplistic “march of progress” view of history. C.S. Lewis called this “chronological snobbery” and “the spirit of the age” in comparison with universal views. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s quote “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” fits into this determinist historical view. Hegel provided a philosophical basis for historical progress. World War I ended the naive view of unstoppable progress in all dimensions of life. The critics don’t discount the relative importance of the first 3 values but reject the elimination of the other 6.
Critics argue that liberals have applied “Occam’s Razor” to trim the list of important, experienced, valuable virtues to just 3 in order to make a political philosophy appear scientific. This is inconsistent with the historical liberal support for pluralism; the recognition of multiple, irreducible values needed for political, religious, economic and community life.
They argue that the short-list elevates the individual while removing any sense of community from the core values of man. They consider this nonsense. The history of philosophy, religion and social science focuses on the critical relationships between the individual and the community, universe, nature, church, city/polity, family/kin group, the many, and the whole.
They say that the strong liberal view is overly rational, elevating formal, scientific, instrumental logic above other forms of logic, feelings, intuitions, group logic, experience, habit, creativity, development, insight, values or spirit.
They say that the liberal view is overly formal, legalistic, individual rights based, administrative, measured, enforced, guaranteed, state based, centralized, bureaucratic, literal, detailed, and inflexible. It is based upon exact fulfilment of idealistic principles without regard to the realities of people or life. It falls into the trap of “the perfect is the enemy of the good” voiced by Voltaire. This approach mirrors that of the Pharisees in the New Testament. It attempts to formally implement utopian goals.
Critics say that care, equality and liberty are collectively very inadequate bases to support a social, political or spiritual philosophy. Too individual, ideal, abstract and emotional. Not balanced with community, spirit, and practicalities.
Critics argue that this approach undermines the essence of the liberal democratic model which recognizes that political differences of all kinds are inherent and offers a structure that limits the risks of worst cases while promoting the development of large majority support for compromise positions.
They say that elevating 3 values and discounting the inherent validity of other values leads to polarization. Caring is good. Trade-offs, qualifications, clarifications, competing values are bad. Equality of opportunity and results is good. Self-interest, group interest, access and preparation costs, excellence, risk-taking, creativity, perseverance, natural abilities, teaching, technology, self-discipline, and diet are bad. Liberty is good. Community, responsibility, duty, honor, hierarchy, wealth, power, feedback, and rewards are bad. There is an inherent limit to raising up any one or few values to be the “creme de la creme”. It doesn’t work. In reality, we are stuck with a messy, indeterminate set of values. Historically, liberals were more comfortable with complexity, change, and emerging perspectives; a reforming, organic, and evolving world.
Critics note that liberals have historically promoted a subjective world view, with individuals happily pursuing different newly created views. They have emphasized tolerance and welcomed paradoxes. They have embraced the arts. They have promoted F. Scott Fitzgerald’s view that “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function“. The recent liberal perspective is much more fixed.
Critics charge liberals with elitism for believing that their set of values is “obviously” superior to others. They argue that their discounting of others’ values is disrespectful. They say that it ignores their inherent value as worthy individuals.
Rebuttal
Conservatives are creating a “strawman” opponent. Some liberals DO believe that the first 3 values are most important and sufficient for supporting our social, political, spiritual and economic worlds. Very few hold this extreme position.
“Liberal versus conservative” is a simplifying intellectual construct. Liberal leaning individuals show great diversity in their beliefs. Individuals increasingly hold a portfolio of left, right and center views. Different interest groups within the liberal family emphasize different values.
“Liberals” do not live in ivory towers. They are engaged in their communities with individuals of varying political views. They are practical. They agree that good is better than perfect.
Tolerance and respect for individual views is a strongly held liberal value.
Politicians, volunteers, donors and thought leaders tend to be more divisive but they are a small share of “liberals”.
Recent survey research confirms significant differences from left to right in making explicit choices, but lab experiments and observational studies show that liberals also respond to situations based on all potential values.
Both conservatives and liberals tend to overexaggerate the depth of support for values or positions held by their opponents. The true differences in moral intuitions and values are not so extreme.
Politicians, strategists and communicators have learned from Haidt’s work. They better understand that humans are motivated in a variety of ways and seek to offer all 9 flavors.
Perception is Reality
Clever politicians live in the world of framing, soundbites, community building, targeted messages, fake news, impressions, smears, reinforcement, enemies, actions drive beliefs, brand is everything, share of mind, emotions, exaggerations, polarization, lies, click-bait, etc.
The so-called “liberal” positions described above do not have to be real, substantial, significant, constant, priorities, enduring, deeply held, common, important, material, central, core, logical, widely held, or consistent. They only have to be plausible or believable. Modern communicators have very few personal filters. Most listeners employ few critical thinking skills. They consume political news and commentary as entertainment and personal validation.
Hence, the views of the most extreme, true-believing, progressive, new left, far left, green, environmental, globalist, utopian, socialist, pro-labor, postmodernist, dada, creative, anti-privilege, defund the police, community activist, radical, intellectual, legalistic, disadvantaged, oppressed citizen, immigrant, politician, intellectual, influencer or local neighbor can be used to portray liberals as extremists, radicals, and severe threats to the American way of life.
Few of us write or act with an eye or ear cocked towards avoiding caricature. In the modern world we all need to become much more disciplined: individually, in our local politics and in holding state and national politicians to a new gold standard of support by the broad American public.
(1) Care/Harm
Surveys indicate that liberals and conservatives equally support this critical value. Because conservatives trade-off Care with other values in their policies, decisions and communications, some liberals accuse them of being cold, heartless or unfeeling. They reject this characterization and question the wisdom and character of their accusers, creating another cycle of polarization. In parallel, some liberals hold Care for the weak, poor, widowed, immigrants, imprisoned, disabled, or unlucky as the supreme value which does not allow for trade-offs to be made. Practical, balanced conservatives reject this utopian, idealistic approach and view it as proof of liberal extremism.
(2) Fairness/Cheating/Equality
Haidt and his team were required to separate 2 Equality from 4 Proportionality as they learned that different people defined fairness in quite different ways. The moral intuition that “cheating is wrong and basic fairness is right” prompts a variety of beliefs. Even when defined as “equality” it covers equal opportunity, equal treatment, equal rights, roughly equal outcomes and equal outcomes. Conservatives have “middling” support for 2 equality. Liberals show very strong support for “equality” of all kinds, broadly applied, often in its strongest form. The response to a violation can be so strong that it looks like (9) Purity/Sanctity/Degradation. Conservatives who don’t have this strong experience can see liberals as over-reacting, thin-skinned, woke, virtue signaling, overly protective, or bleeding hearts. Some liberals who watch conservatives dismiss differences, treatments and systems as relatively unimportant cannot understand why they don’t see the deep violation of human dignity as intolerable on all levels and not subject to context, materiality or trade-offs. This difference of relative weighting, intensity and perspective is difficult to bridge but both sides could start with recognizing it as differences rather than an ultimate “right versus wrong”.
(3) Liberty/Oppression
American liberals and conservatives both rank this as very important. They apply it to different situations. Liberals worry about powerful businesses, multinationals, banks, individuals, churches, courts, militaries, systems, processes and traditional institutions. Conservatives worry about the government, criminals, immigrants, foreigners, militaries and non-traditional institutions.
(4) Fairness/Cheating/Proportionality
Liberals give this a “middle” priority. They value logic and reason. Some support our meritocratic economic and social systems. Conservatives give this a much higher value. They worry about being cheated by governments, bosses, suppliers, welfare beneficiaries, immigrants, tenured faculty, free riders, criminals, storekeepers, retailers, foreign governments, international agencies, and self-dealing charities. (9) Purity/Sanctity/Degradation feelings arise as individuals monitor and prevent attempts to violate this deep sense of fairness. In a mirror image to (2) Fairness/Cheating/Equality, some liberals criticize conservatives for overreacting to remote, infrequent, low impact or nonexistent threats. They encourage others to make rational economic decisions to reduce but not eliminate such actions. Conservatives see this as a non-tradable value and wonder why liberals can be flexible on a truly essential human right – to not be violated.
(5) Ownership
This recently added moral intuition clearly resonates with the conservative values of fairness/proportionality, authority, and liberty/oppression. “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours” is obvious. Conservative support for property rights has a long history. Liberals have weaker support for Ownership as a core intuition or value. They worry about powerful actors oppressing the weak by depriving them of property directly or indirectly [(2) Equality and (3) Oppression]. Some liberals argue that property is an agreed upon legal necessity subject to community definition and control. This view is unintelligible to many conservatives as we saw in the Obama “you didn’t build this” debate about the relative source of value/rights of property ownership between government infrastructure and business owners. Many conservatives today take the opposing view that “taxation is theft” because property ownership is seen as the supreme human right or value in society, befuddling their liberal neighbors. Liberals can benefit from gaining an intuitive sense of ownership as deeply felt and influential. Conservatives can benefit from seeing the government/economic systems perspective as being valuable just like the cultural/social norms perspective.
(6) In-Group Loyalty/Betrayal
Conservatives appreciate this value. Liberals give it weak support or oppose it as being contrary to the individual and a possible tool of oppression by powerful institutions like churches, political parties, fraternities and governments. Conservatives value community and individuals. All communities require forces to bind members. This infringes on perfect individual freedom but is unavoidable. Liberals remain concerned about the long history of powerful institutions doing “whatever it takes” to assume and maintain power, including taking away member’s rights. Liberals want to always emphasize the need for individual choice in making decisions to join, support and follow an organization. As conservatives worry about (4) being cheated in many dimensions of life, liberals worry about losing their individual rights and voice when they join any organization. This is a gut level, nagging concern. Yet, liberals do form strong group attachments to institutions, universities, sports teams, neighborhoods, professions, civic organizations, political parties, interest groups and churches in the lived world. Once again, greater self-awareness combined with better observation and understanding of “others” could reduce the perceived gap about what is important.
(7) Honor/Self-Worth
Another recently added moral intuition. Conservative honor is based on duty, hierarchy, and group integrity; Liberal honor is based on compassion, rights, and individual fairness. Conservatives highly value loyalty to the group and respect for authority, which are core components of traditional, collectivist “honor”. Liberal honor is less about group loyalty and more about universal human rights and compassion.
Liberals develop feelings of self-worth largely through individual achievement rather than their status as part of a family, profession, role, nation or group. Conservatives value communities more highly so see honor in the group, role or self as more important.
(8) Authority/Subversion
Conservatives greatly value a stable social order and the tools needed to build and maintain it. Liberals tend to fear oppression from powerful collective organizations, so minimize this value. This value is closest to the “essence” of liberal versus conservative views as measured by political scientists. Liberals seek new experiences while conservatives avoid unnecessary risks. Liberals could benefit from distinguishing (3) Liberty/Oppression from this value. Conservatives argue that social organizations, institutions and norms are required for any society. Proper authority must be respected to make this work. Liberals support authority for some organizations such as the government, so should be able to see the proper role of authority elsewhere.
(9) Purity/Sanctity/Degradation
Conservatives support this value, considering it obvious and universal. Liberals tend to consider it relatively unimportant. They often see conservative concerns about sex and sexual differences, racial interaction, criminals, religious beliefs and practices, flags, patriotism, foreign languages and “others” as overreactions to weak or nonexistent risks. Liberals have their own sacred items/threats such as children, abuse, animals, pollution, organic foods, fascism, locally handcrafted goods, mass transit, prejudice, microaggressions, and personal identities. Conservatives see the lack of liberal support for traditional social norms and institutions as a lack of human decency; an extreme point of view. Some liberals criticize the deeply felt support for these institutions, their leaders and symbols as being unfounded. Conservatives feel the sting of disrespect.
Summary
Humans have sets of moral intuitions that are deeply felt and often unconscious. There is a “liberal versus conservative”, “modern versus traditional” dimension that groups together sets of values. There is a long history of Western societies adopting more liberal values and fewer conservative values but there is no evidence that conservative values will disappear someday as society becomes more informed, intelligent, urban, secular, cosmopolitan, scientific and rational. Anyone who invests time studying all of these values will see that they are heartfelt, prewired intuitions. Some humans will hold each of them and consider them important.
Liberals and conservatives can both benefit from studying these values and recognizing their intrinsic validity. Individuals choose and/or hold different sets of values. They prioritize or weigh them differently. Most people acquire values informally by living life, not through explicit political, religious or philosophical choices. They have and defend their values. We will continue to hold different values. We can be civil. We can use our political system to manage these differences. Liberals, who claim to take the broader perspective and seek to find new solutions for problems, are obligated to invest in self-awareness and better understanding how others think about the world and what they can do to help everyone understand and connect.
Rose Colored Glasses; Man Bites Dog; If it Bleeds it Leads.
Politicians, journalists and influencers of all stripes emphasize the bad, the emotional and the unusual. This burdens us and our society. Allegedly, “it’s bad now, and it was MUCH better in the past”. This eternal NOSTALGIA is a big problem for our society today, leading many people to turn to populists, idealists, authoritarians and charlatans for salvation.
I will outline how much better the United States of America is TODAY than it was in the mid-1970’s. I graduated from high school with the class of 1974. I watched the emotionally mixed American bicentennial celebrations in 1976. I remember Jimmy Carter’s 1979 “malaise” speech in which he said that we, the people, needed to face our challenges directly, especially at a moral level. He was briefly cheered but then criticized for being too negative and pessimistic; an uninspiring leader!
Modern life in the USA is immeasurably better than it was in the 1970’s. It is certainly not perfect. The country has not achieved all that it could have or should have in the last half century. It still faces large global and moral challenges and wonders where it can possibly find the leadership, consensus and engagement to resolve them.
The sheer magnitude of changes in daily life across 50 years is difficult to describe but I hope that my outline will collectively communicate the great scale of improvements we have experienced and the resulting hope and expectation that the next 50 years will deliver the same kinds of positive growth. When we consider the last 50, 100 or 150 years of American life, we should be very optimistic.
Global Threats and Opportunities
The Cold War ended in 1989, relieving the pressure of 4 decades of imminent nuclear destruction. This was a miracle. No war. No revolution. No territories seized. No leaders executed. A quiet end to the threat. The US managed the threat of nuclear terrorism. West Germany embraced East Germany. The European Union welcomed new members. The global economy thrived.
The US established relations with China in 1979, beginning the country’s path to economic prosperity, trade and global influence. The growing trade between China and the world has acted to reduce the threat of conflicts while reducing the cost of goods for all.
The US welcomed the growth of Japan plus the “four tigers” of Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, as Asian nations embraced the “Western consensus” of mixed market capitalism, global trade and liberal democracy.
European nations also left behind histories of authoritarian governments or too much socialism to embrace the “Western consensus” and thicken ties through the European Union. Francis Fukuyama prematurely declared “the end of history” but the attractiveness of these successful choices was clear.
The US joined international efforts to reduce tariffs and increase trade leading to a doubling of imports and exports as a share of GDP.
The US adopted a less internationalist position after 9/11/2001, declaring a war on terror, defining the axis of evil, revoking treaty commitments, justifying preemptive war and invading Iraq without UN support. Even with this change, the US largely avoided major military conflicts and losses.
Total immigration to the US grew during this period from 2.3% to 2.9% of the population per decade. Many immigrant groups successfully joined American society.
The US welcomed foreign students to its universities. International tourists increased from 15 to 75 million per year.
The US attempted to resolve the Middle East conflicts with some success, avoiding large scale wars.
The US participated in talks to define and address the threat and impact of global warming. It has taken steps to reduce US carbon emissions.
Politics
Presidents Ford and Carter helped to rebuild confidence in the government after Vietnam and Watergate.
Ronald Reagan established “Conservatism” as a broad political philosophy for the Republican party.
Bill Clinton repositioned Democrats more to the center on economics with his “third way” approach.
Both parties increasingly used wedge issues and either/or choices to polarize parties and choices; although the share of independent voters has grown from 30 to 45%, with the rest evenly split between the two dominant parties.
Perot, Buchannon, Palin and Trump provided social and economic populists with a choice.
The country increasingly accepted racial minorities, women, gays, religious minorities, and immigrants; but the conflict between traditional and modern views was politicized as some could not tolerate the changes and others sought to embed the changes as universal human and legal rights accompanied by social pressures to comply with the dominant “tolerant” view.
Federal government employment was reduced from 5 to 4 million in 50 years, while the population grew by 50%. After Reagan, “government” solutions were inherently suspect. Even Bill Clinton declared “the era of big government” is over.
Total federal, state and local government activities grew a little faster than the economy, with the ratio of tax receipts to GDP inching up from 29% to 32%. The ongoing pressure to “cut spending, taxes and regulations” could not defeat the pressures to address social, political and economic issues and interests.
The top marginal income tax rate was reduced from 70% in 1982 and has remained just under 40% since 1987. Neither party has proposed widespread tax increases.
The Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, helping to bring the share of Americans without health insurance down from 20% in 1975 to 8% today.
The US safety net/welfare system has remained intact during this period driving the supplemental poverty rate down from 20% to 15%, while the official poverty rate has declined by just 1%. The share of the elderly (65+) in poverty has fallen from 16% to 8%.
The Economy
Real dollar GDP is 4 times larger at $24 trillion.
US real per capita GDP has remained the highest of all major countries for a century. Continued leadership reflects a dynamically successful economy.
Real per capita GDP has increased by 250% to $70,000.
US fiscal and monetary policy has repeatedly been effective in taming the business cycle and recovering from shocks like the housing crisis and the pandemic.
Industrial production, including energy, is up by 250%.
The number of business establishments has doubled to 8.6M, providing ownership and employment opportunities in a more specialized, globally traded world.
The number of franchise businesses has grown from 375,000 to 800,000+, employing more than 10 million people.
The rate of new business formation and success increased throughout the period, with a new boost after the pandemic.
Businesses responded to the 1970’s “Japanese invasion” and became strategically more focused, measured more effectively, focused on cost reduction, invested in R&D, and applied information technology and process improvement tools. Foreign and domestic competition led businesses to be more cost effective, improve product quality and offer products better tailored to diverse customer wants and needs.
Firms experimented with factory robots by 1975. They now use 380,000 robots, adding 10% more annually.
Auto production in the US has increased from 8 to 10 million units per year.
Farms produce twice as much using 20% less land and 40% less labor.
Businesses adapted to the world of greater international trade by growing or shrinking facilities, markets, products and product lines. They adapted to the new power of consumers and retailers and reduced power of manufacturers. They divested units and rejected the conglomerate model. They rejected vertical integration, learning to outsource all functions where they did not have a competitive advantage.
Firms embraced more effective banking, equity and bond markets to fund their activities. They tapped global sources and private equity. They learned by use financial leverage to increase net earnings and acquire other less dynamic competitors.
Firms changed organizational structures to have fewer layers, less positional power, more staff experts and the ability to use cross-functional (matrix) approaches to core operations, projects and joint ventures.
Education
Preschool/Kindergarten enrollment up from 5 to 9 million. Nearly all part-time in 1975 and mostly full-time in 2025.
High school graduation rate is up from 75% to 85%.
Intelligence test scores have increased by more than 10 points.
Share of young adults who have earned college degrees has doubled from 20% to 40%.
Share of adults with college degrees has more than tripled from 12% to 38%.
Share of young women with a college degree is up from 17% to 45%; shares for men up from 27% to 37%.
Share of degrees in STEM disciplines has grown from 11% to 19%.
Number of college students studying abroad is up by 5 times.
Law school first-year enrollment remains at 40,000, while the population has grown by 50%.
US holds 18 of top 30 global university spots.
The number of annually earned doctorates has doubled.
US accounts for 50% of Nobel prize winners, up from 40% in 1975.
Transportation
22% of new cars are electric. Self-driving cars are widely deployed.
Fuel milage has doubled from 13 to 27 miles per gallon.
New car defects have dropped by two-thirds.
Air travel miles are up by 5 times.
FedEx 2-pound overnight service was introduced in 1975 for $75. Service is widespread today at $55.
Same day and next day delivery services are available today, making Amazon.com, grocery and restaurant deliveries common. Catalog mail order lead times were 6-8 weeks in 1975.
Energy
The US faced energy crises in 1973 and 1979 that disrupted businesses, emptied filling stations and led to recessions.
The US imported 35% of its petroleum products in the 1970’s. It is a net exporter today.
Energy intensity, the ratio of energy used to GDP, has fallen by 60% since the 1970’s.
LED bulbs last 10 times longer. Lithium-ion batteries last 4 times longer.
Wind power is 10% of electricity generation. Solar is 10% of electricity generation. Solar is the lowest cost source today, accounting for two-thirds of new generating capacity added.
Coal production is the same today as in 1975, down 50% from its 2007 peak. It is declining rapidly.
Environment
Toxic air pollution measures are lower by 65-90%.
The world resolved the threat to the ozone layer.
Percentage of US homes in communities with treated wastewater has increased from 50% to 80%.
State parks acreage has doubled. Federal parks acreage has tripled. Land trust additions are equal to the state parks area.
Total US forest land area has increased from 750 to 800 million acres, while the US population has grown by 50%.
Nesting pairs of American bald eagles have grown 100-fold, from 700 to 70,000.
US (1976) and global (2014) birth rates are half of historical levels, reducing environmental demands.
US is on track to reach 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Health
Life expectancy has increased from 73 to 78 years.
Infant mortality rate has dropped by two-thirds.
Smallpox has been eradicated. Polio remains eliminated. Other diseases close to zero.
Smoking rate is two-thirds lower, down from 37% to 12% of adults.
Death rates down: Strokes 67%. Cancer 25%. Flu/pneumonia 67%. Heart disease 50%+. Liver disease 25%.
US governments, medical industry, businesses and people responded to the Covid-19 pandemic resulting in a death rate that was half of the 1917 Spanish flu. Novel vaccine development and flexible delivery resources limited the death toll.
Abortion rates have fallen by 50% since 1980.
Medical research continues to develop new science and solutions. Cloning and human genome mapping.
In vitro fertilization births have grown from 0 to 100,000 per year.
Modern anti-depression drugs (SSRI-Prozac) are much safer and more effective than their predecessors.
Kidney dialysis extends lives for 550,000 today versus 25,000 in 1975.
Americans have 40 million MRI scans done on 13,000 machines, up from zero.
Laser eyer surgery has grown from an experimental procedure to 800,000 annually.
50,000 organs are transplanted each year, up from just a few experiments.
Safety
Property crime rate is down by more than 50%. Violent crime rate is one-third lower.
Both the workplace fatality and injury rates are down by two-thirds.
Traffic fatalities per driven mile are three-fourths lower.
Fire incidents have been cut in half while the population grew by half.
Emergency medical services have grown from 2% to 90% of counties; employing 300,000 people, 50,000 ambulances and 1,300 helicopters.
Consumer
Firms have offered consumers much wider options for products in all industries. A typical Walmart Supercenter has 125,000 different SKU’s.
We enjoy year-round availability of most fruits and vegetables today rather than shopping by season.
Clothing and durable goods prices have been cut by half.
The average automobile is 13 years old versus 6, reflecting massive quality improvements.
Car buyers can choose from 15 major manufacturers instead of just 4.
Appliances in more homes: Washing machines (70-85%), dryers (45-82%), dish washers (28-54%), microwave ovens (4-95%). Refrigerators are 25% larger, half price and 75% more energy efficient.
Median new home square footage has increased by half, from 1,500 to 2,200 square feet.
Mortgage loan rates have declined from 8-14% to 4-7%. Real rates are just 2% today.
Total debt service payments (home, car, credit card, student loan) as a percentage of disposable income have declined from 11% to 10%.
Air-conditioned homes have grown from a hot 55% to a cool 95%.
Away from home food spending has more than doubled from 28% to 59% of total food spending.
Household consumption is up from 87% to 92% of disposable income. Savings is down from 13% to 8%.
Leisure
Many television program options. Top 4 network share down from 90% to 30%. Recording and streaming options exist today.
Cable or satellite TV access has grown from 14% to 100%.
The number of feature films released each year has bloomed from 100 to 700.
Music singles are effectively free today. They cost $7.50 each in current dollars in 1975. The transistor radio has been replaced with portable, wearable devices served by playlists, suggestions and feeds.
Real consumer electronics prices have declined by 80-95%. A 21-25 inch color console was $2-3,000 in 1975 in current dollars. A 50-inch tv is available for $500 today.
A 1982 IBM PC cost $10,000 in current dollars. For $2-3,000 today you get 1,000 times the processor speed, 10,000 times the memory and 100,000 times the storage space.
Video rentals boomed in the 1980’s and 1990’s growing into a digital $100 billion industry.
The $5 billion pinball machine sector evolved into the $50 billion handheld and online gaming industry.
Virtual reality equipment is increasingly popular.
Passports are held by half of US citizens, up from 5% in 1975.
Following deregulation, the real price of air travel per mile has glided down by 40-60%.
Hotel room capacity has doubled from 2.4 to 5.3 million.
Pet food consumption has tripled.
American wine production has increased from 250 to 700 million gallons, along with quality.
American brewery count has increased from 150 to 7,000, along with quality.
Wealth
Mutual funds, index funds and 401K’s offer investing to everyone. Percentage of stockholders has grown from 12% to 60%.
The number of retirement plan participants has grown by 250%.
Real dollar retirement plan assets have grown thirty-fold, from $1.6 to $48 trillion.
Homeownership rate increased from 64% to peak of 69% before falling back to 66%.
Family wealth more than doubled for those in the 1st-25th, 26th-50th, and 51st-90th percentiles between 1989 and 2022. Summary data for 1975 to 1989 is not readily available. Real home prices increased by 20% and the real dollar S&P 500 increased by 75% during this period, overall.
Labor
Compounded labor productivity has increased by 150%, more than 2% per year!
Manufacturing, administrative and farm jobs were reduced by 20% of the total during these 50 years. They were replaced by STEM/analysis, management and health care jobs.
Prime age labor force participation increased from 74% to 84%.
Typical unemployment rate declined from 6.5% to 5%.
Share of self-employed workers increased from 9% to 11%.
According to the Gallup Organization, the share of “engaged” workers has increased greatly in the last 20 years.
Real median family income increased by 40% from 1984 to 2024.
There are dozens of expert calculations of real incomes, adjusted for taxes, government benefits, charity, fringe benefits, hours, etc. Most show that 1975-1990 was flat and that 2000-20 showed modest increases.
Society
The US continues to lead the world in charitable giving as a percentage of income, double the nearest country, Canada.
US migration and population growth in the “Sunbelt” impacted local and national economies, politics and society. Texas (13-31M), California (21-39M) and Florida (8-23M) showed the greatest growth and national influence.
Share of adults cohabiting has increased from 1% to 13%.
Teen pregnancy rate has been cut in half.
The share of married couples has declined from 83% to 67% of households.
Parents now invest 20 hours per week caring for children, up from 12 hours in 1975.
Same sex marriage was legalized by the US Supreme Court in 2015.
Female labor force participation rate has increased from 46% to 57%.
The female to male wage discount has been reduced from 35% to 10%.
The number of congresswomen increased from 19 to 155 (7X).
Women today have access to credit and credit cards in their own names.
Black unemployment declined from 15% to 7%, with the excess above whites falling from 7% to 2%.
Black poverty rate has declined from 30% to 18%.
The Black to White income ratio has improved from 60% to 67%.
The share of interracial marriages has increased from less than 1% to 10%.
Percentage of Americans moving per year has declined from 20% to 12%. Interstate moves have declined from 3% to 2%.
Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” shows a 40% decrease in social participation during this time.
Awareness, tolerance and support for “differences” is higher by an order of magnitude: races, nationality, immigration status, physical or mental disability, gender identity, mental health, autism, obesity, and personality.
Hispanic Americans have increased from 6% to 20% of the population.
The percentage of non-Christians, including religiously unaffiliated, has increased from 12% to 35% of the population.
The share of 40-year-olds never married has increased from 6% to 25%.
Computers
Personal computer software and phone apps provide tools for email, calendars, word processing and spreadsheets to everyone today.
Personal computers are in 95% of homes versus 0% in 1975.
More than 90% of jobs today require computer skills.
Home internet access is 92%.
Digital cameras, music, videos, sound and storage make everything portable.
Voice controlled devices and instant language translation.
Today’s 10-day weather forecasts are as reliable as next day forecasts in 1975.
Google search and artificial intelligence provide access to all of man’s writings and promise thought, itself.
Communications
Internet structure and web browser provide access to everything and everyone.
Smartphones integrate computing and communications. 90% ownership rate. Provides photo, filming and navigating capabilities.
Mobile/cellular phone networks and wifi routers offer universal access to the internet and phones.
Social media networks combine the input of many to build and use networks.
Internet allows for open-source software and information creation.
Video conferencing and internet enabled phone/video calls are common.
Voice mail, answering machines, caller ID and 911 were invented.
Digital books have grown to 25% market share.
Annual first class mail per person increased from 240 to a peak of 360 in 2000 before falling to 130 today.
Daily newspaper subscriptions have plunged from 60 to 20 million.
Share of homes with landlines has fallen from 90% to 30%.
A 3-minute long distance call in 1975 cost $8.70 in current dollars. An international Skye call today is 77 cents.
Summary
The world is a better, richer and safer place. Politics has evolved. The economy is 4 times larger. Businesses and education are more effective. Energy is cheaper. Transportation is better. The environment is much better. Health is much better. Safety is much better. The consumer is king. Leisure options and quality can’t even be compared with 1975. Wealth is up. Incomes are up. Society is digesting many large changes. The computer and communications revolutions have delivered miracles and promise more.
We face social, political and environmental challenges. We have more resources than ever before. Based on American history we should be very confident about solving our challenges.
Civility is a set of behaviors based upon the seven commonly held values of: human dignity, respect, acceptance, intentionality, responsibility, constructiveness and public-spiritedness. A social, political and economic society must have some core beliefs, norms and behaviors. The modern renaissance of Civility attempts to define the beliefs, norms and behaviors so they can be shared and promoted. We need to be confident that we know what Civility is, how we should behave, how/why we should influence others and why the underlying principles make sense.
Public Spiritedness
The quality of caring about community welfare. Altruism is considering the public good rather than just personal interests. A sense of duty to consider the community good. Willingness to act on behalf of the community.
Communities of all sizes require individual members to value community interests, not just personal interests. They require individuals to internalize this idea, belief and value in order to make it a habit. Humans have evolved to be able to take and hold this perspective.
The key is for individuals to consider the common, public or greater good, not to be completely selfless. Public spiritedness is not a partisan value. Classical, moderate and progressive liberals promote this value. Classic and modern conservatives promote this value.
Some liberals and conservatives reject this principle. They rely on purely individual self-interest or religious, state or philosophical systems that do not require individual choices. I argue that this “radical individualism” is one of the 6 root causes of our current dysfunctional cultural situation.
Public-spiritedness is strongly supported by all religious and philosophical systems.
Judaism [Google AI]
Christianity
Islam
Buddhism
Hinduism
Taoism
Shintoism
Confucianism
Secular Humanism
Summary
The World Religions say :
The universe exists. We must harmonize with the fixed, structured, unchanging, known universe.
Community precedes the individual.
We are interdependent.
Community provides context for life.
We are obligated to participate in community.
We must serve our communities.
We must build our communities.
We should worship in community.
We must be loyal to our communities.
We should love our neighbors, follow the golden rule.
We should be compassionate towards others.
We should be charitable and generous towards others.
Reason matters.
Justice and social justice are logical requirements.
Peace and nonviolence are important within and between communities.
Truth, honesty and integrity are crucial virtues.
Ethical intent and behavior matter.
Individuals have clear duties and responsibilities to principles and communities.
Individuals should invest in their personal ethical growth.
Public-spiritedness is a universal value, virtue and principle. Reasonable people can wrestle with the trade-offs of personal and community interests. They should all agree that the public interest matters and must be considered. This is a universal value that society can use its power to impose upon members of society. This is very difficult for our ultra-individualist society to accept or embrace. Nonetheless, it is required. We should not hesitate to educate our children, set and enforce standards in our organizations, and promote this value throughout our society. It is required for “society”. We must not apologize.
Overall, at the same core 2.5% growth rate seen for the last decade.
Labor productivity growth down a bit from the pandemic recovery bump.
Median wage growth remains at 2%, down a bit from pre-pandemic 2.5%.
Job growth is very weak. Typically, this indicates a coming recession, but the reduction of the immigration labor supply makes historical comparisons difficult.
Unemployment rate remains at historically low 4.5% but it has been increasing for more than 2 years.
The “underemployed” rate shows the same relative level and trend.
Labor force participation hit record levels after the pandemic and has remained there.
The personal savings rate is low, a bit below the pandemic and trending slightly downward.
Mortgage rates remain elevated, around 6.5%.
New home sales are pretty stable, at pre-pandemic level.
Housing prices jumped from $320,000 to $440,000 after the pandemic. They have fallen back by 5% in 4 years.
The US stock market continues to climb.
Corporate profits have roughly doubled since before the pandemic.
Manufacturing employment continues to decline.
Exports are up 50% and still growing slowly.
Imports also increased by 50%.
Businesses continue to invest.
Business confidence remains weak.
Businesses have maintained their target inventory to sales ratios.
Consumer confidence is down and weak.
Federal debt % of GDP remains at 120%, up from 105%.
Value of the US dollar increased by 10-12% after the pandemic, but has retreated by 6%.
The Federal Reserve Board has reduced interest rates by 1.5%.
Core inflation rate has levelled off near 3%.
The GDP Price deflator measure of inflation is a little better, approaching 2.5%, but also level or growing.
Misery index is up a bit at 7.5%.
Summary
Stock market is solidly up together with corporate profits and business investment.
Inflation and unemployment are up. Budget deficits and debt remain high. Dollar value is down. Manufacturing employment is down. Business and consumer confidence is down.
Other measures are comparable to the 2023-2024 Biden economy base; not improving as often claimed.
The US economy is increasingly resilient and not easily changed by small policy choices or “jawboning”.
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat says he began crafting this 2020/2021 book in 2014. He argues that we are stuck in a stagnant society that has lost its ability to reach for the future. Technological, space, business, economics, politics, ideologies, and cultural achievements in the arts, film and music have lost their dynamism. We are pictured as a weak shadow of 1945, 1965 or 1975.
He argues that stagnation eventually leads to decline or disaster. His preferred future contains “growth, innovation, aesthetic reinvention and religious ferment”. Any solution must contain “zeal, coherence, mysticism and futurism”. He outlines several possible paths to decline and further stagnation.
He also describes some potential routes to a renaissance. Modified Islam. African Christianity. Expanded Chinese influence. Massive African migration and impact on Europe. Illiberal democracies like Russia gain favor. Populism governs pragmatically. Local communities flourish in the communitarian model promoted by Patrick Deneen. Nationalism recovers its power. A revised global socialism. Pure scientism. Updated paganism or polytheism. A paradigm shift that makes religion a real option for educated elites, displacing the “materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature”. A religious “great awakening” or new delivery mechanism. A merger of scientific and religious sensibilities that recognize our unique position as self-aware humans on planet earth.
Our columnist and critic evaluates the modern world much too negatively in my view. Despite challenges, the US and global economy is doing very well. It overcame the Great Recession and the Covid Pandemic. It is adjusting to Trump’s “tariff wars”. Growth is solid, trade is growing, employment is up. The business cycle is effectively managed. Productivity growth continues. These economies are resilient, reflected in stock market values. There are greater inequality and rent-seeking, which can be addressed politically.
Europe and other US allies are adjusting to Trump’s “America first” approach. They are adjusting to Russia’s threats and invasion of Ukraine.
Science progresses. Covid solutions. Weight control. Driverless cars. Smart phone capabilities. Artificial intelligence. Robotics. Modern satellite communications. Medicines. Fracking. Nanotechnologies. Green power. Electric cars. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies.
The ongoing integration of race, class, region and immigrants in the US continues. It’s not perfect but a solid majority embraces the multicultural US. Young Americans only know this positive world.
Many critics agree with Mr. Douthat that the arts and culture have stagnated. I’m not sure that marks “the end of civilization”. Today I have quick access to everything that has been offered for 100 years. We are culturally blessed.
The author invests several pages in analyzing Francis Fukuyama’s 1992 “end of history” claim. He agrees that the Western liberal democracies have fended off the BIG challenges of fascism and communism but notes that new and old critics have returned. He gives Fukuyama a fair treatment and notes his more recent focus on the role of “identity” in shaping political views.
Unfortunately, Mr. Douthat is not interested in refining “liberal democracy” as a solution to our alleged stagnation. He is critical of managerialism, technocracy and modern meritocracy. He sees it as inherently self-interested and narrow. I think that we have no choice but to invest in improving our historical “liberal democracy” framework.
I think the gap between science and the humanities remains even wider than it was in 1959 when CP Snow called out his educated colleagues. We need a way to connect science and religion, politics and people. The “structural” advantages of strong political, social and economic systems are not inherently opposed to human values. We should invest in closing this gap in our universities.
My followers know that I have become a “true believer” in the potential of “civility” to become formally defined and promoted as a shared cultural norm to support our political, social and economic institutions.
I wholeheartedly agree with his two real religious solutions. The default paradigm today is “science versus religion” and “science alone is real”. There is significant scientific and philosophical evidence to overturn this current worldview.
Many of our current challenges exist because we have not revised our laws and political structures to adapt to modern wealth, amoral political actors and media capabilities.
We could choose to invest in economic and breakthrough scientific progress by making political choices.
We could choose to support the modern “therapeutic society” approach of encouraging every child to “live a great life today” in pursuit of their self-actualizing possibilities.
We could invest in improving the productivity of our lagging economic sectors: government, education, health care and not for profits.
We could revise our goals to emphasize quality as equal to quantity.
We could invest in promoting communities of all kinds, not just those local, total communities suggested by Patrick Deneen.
We could do a better job of outlining. defining and communicating to everyone our 5-part political spectrum of left, center-left, independent, center-right and right. Individuals rarely change. We are stuck with each other. How do we effectively structure our political, social and economic systems to accommodate these different views?
Douthat argues that we have stagnated on all dimensions. We need to find a way forward. I agree with 2 of his options and offer a few more possibilities.
The national Republican Party was radicalized or very extreme by 2012. It is MUCH worse today.
Barrels of ink have been spilled describing and analyzing the “Trump phenomenon”. We were collectively shocked in 2016 when he won the presidency. The changes toward extremism, radicalism and the loss of our democratic system have continued. Like the proverbial frogs, we have become accustomed to the onslaught of change. I’ll try to outline and make sense of the mind-boggling transformation of the “party of Lincoln” in my lifetime from Dwight Eisenhower, Dick Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller, Ronald Reagan and the Bushes to Newt Gingrich, Arthur Laffer, Grover Norquist, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Charles and David Koch, Sheldon Adelson, Steve Wynn, Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk and Donald Trump. 😦
Context
Pundits blamed the Trump 2016 election on a variety of false or half-true causes. Trump’s brand image and magnetic personality. His direct approach and truthfulness. A victory for the “Tea Party” after the slow Obama economic recovery. Renewed racism triggered by Obama in the White House. A normal left to right political swing. Hillary Clinton’s poor campaign and connecting skills. Clinton karma. The lure of the “authoritarian personality” in American culture.
I generally agree with the 2022 authors of American Psychosis. There have always been extreme groups attracted to and allied with the Republican Party. The party tolerated them, used them and then welcomed them. Their numbers and influence grew compared with that of the Main Street, Wall Street, moderate and New England wings of the party. They completed the hostile takeover of the party with Trump in 2016. [There have also been extreme groups affiliated with the Democratic Party].
I also agree with Edmund Fawcett’s long-term analysis. Conservatism was founded as a political perspective in opposition to ALL of the changes of modernity.
1500. New religion. New economics. Urbanization. Industrialization. Trade. Property rights. Individual rights. Skepticism. Science. Change. Loss of authority. Loss of history and tradition. Cultural challenges.
For most people, modernity was a very scary set of changes. For more than 1,000 years the rules of life were fixed. They were consistent in all dimensions. The religious, political, military, social and economic dimensions were aligned. Then changes occurred. A new paradigm called “liberalism” arose in opposition. Change is good. The individual is supreme and has rights. The dimensions of life can/must be separated. Certainty is gone. Social power is flexible. Competition and meritocracy are welcomed. Rationality and scientific proof are valued. Innovation and commercial success matter. “Anything goes”!
Conservatism emerged to provide a needed counterweight. History, tradition, community, values, virtues, nobility, safety, family, familiarity, neighbors, culture, language, experience, religion, race, stability, trust, and property.
Opposition to rapid change is a core conservative value. The emergence of a capitalist, commercial, scientific, university, secular class in competition with the landholding nobility and its religious and political allies was a founding perspective of conservatism. Today, we think of the Republican Party as the party of “big business”, capitalism, laissez faire, competition, social Darwinism, libertarianism and meritocracy. Yet, conservatism looks back to culture, community, religion, institutions, family, and morality. Economic and social conservatism are not fully or easily aligned.
The Republican Party has slowly, increasingly and then overwhelmingly become the party of social conservatism end economic populism. The trend was growing. Trump saw it and formalized it. The US experience is not unique. Other western countries have had the same recent experience. We have seen these tensions for two centuries or more.
A Slippery Slope
Many American conservatives have never truly embraced modernity, urbanization, industrialization, cosmopolitanism, equal rights, racial equality, trade, capitalism, global trade, international alliances, international treaties, religious denominations, ecumenicism, tolerance, immigration, etc. A secure life based upon familiar experience and community is great. The opportunities of progress are small, risky and filled with temptations and unintended consequences.
Successful politicians have two main talents. They deeply understand human nature, and they communicate very well. Conservative leaning politicians have mined the fear dimension of human nature for centuries. With the emergence of the mass media and modern advertising and persuasion tools circa 1920 they have become increasingly more powerful.
They set out to capitalize on the lack of deep political knowledge, skills and interests of the populace. The have moved down the slippery slope of skepticism, cynicism, fear, distrust and victimhood to hate.
They discovered that humans are naturally attracted to the Manichaean opposites of good and evil. They learned to define issues as yes and no, right and wrong, us versus them. Polarization is a very effective communications technique. Newt Gingrich demonstrated its value in 1992.
They learned to frame, highlight, emphasize and communicate effectively. Both parties’ leaders and supporters have always thought that they were morally right, and their opponents mistaken, misguided or much worse.
The Democrats have mainly been stuck in the 1800’s forward class wars occasioned by capitalism and the rise of manufacturing. Labor versus capital. Poor versus rich. Exploited versus exploiters. Rural farmers and laborers versus bankers and cities. Their issues and messaging matched.
Since 1960, the Democrats have adjusted to also become the party of “human rights” on a legal basis. Civil, women’s, disabled, LGBTQ, environmental, global, animal and earth rights on top of economic rights. The messaging has mostly remained the same, contrasting the exploited with the exploiters.
The Republican Party has offered a much more diverse, richer and expanded set of political messages. The messages are all about fear. The ideas, people and threats to fear have diversified and accelerated. THE IDEAS, PEOPLE AND THREATS TO FEAR HAVE DIVERSIFIED AND ACCELERATED. This very negatively biased view threatens our democracy.
Defense and Security
The Cold War. Reds under the bed. Pinko commies.
Korean War. “The loss of China”.
Vietnam War. The domino theory. All or nothing.
Hawks versus doves. Patriots.
Cuba.
Middle east “Arabs” versus Israel.
War on terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Isis.
Axis of Evil.
Bomb, baby, bomb.
China.
Trump has added Venezuela, narcoterrorists, Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Greenland, Panama, Africa and Europe to those who cannot be trusted.
Eisenhower warned us about the “military-industrial complex”. It has managed to ensure that we are always at war with someone. Republicans have been the main hawks.
International Affairs
The US unilaterally defined the postwar rules at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire and joined the United Nations in San Francisco. The “America First” protectionists and unilateralists never really agreed. However, both parties supported the international system that cost-effectively protected American interests for more than 80 years.
Opposition to “foreign aid” was the first crack in the united front with politicians greatly exaggerating the amount of money invested and its ineffective usage. Foreign aid and health support levels fluctuated through time. Bush II was a proponent.
Historically, opposition to “free trade” was mostly a Democratic position. Alleged unfair power, rules, labor and environmental regulations. Republican global corporations were “all in”. Japanese, Asian, European and other third world competition offered higher quality and lower price goods to Americans who bought them in the 1970’s forward. Manufacturing job losses became a Republican issue as working-class Americans moved to the Republican Party from 1970-2020.
The US rejected the League of Nations. It tolerated the United Nations. The UN added a wide variety of international organizations. Republicans positioned the UN and these agencies as a waste of money supporting individuals, countries and organizations opposed to America. Trump defunded these organizations even as the World Health Organization played a key role in resolving the Covid pandemic.
The Paris Accords on climate change were another international agreement rejected by Trump, like the multilateral Iran nuclear proliferation limits.
NATO prospered for 70 years. Trump has questioned the rationale and his commitment to supporting our allies. He has badgered NATO and other allies to pay a greater amount for their defense. Trump renegotiated NAFTA with marginal changes. He has unilaterally applied tariffs to our neighbors and threatened to disband his own agreement.
Trump has threatened to invade Venezuela, Panama and Greenland because they allegedly threaten our security. He has removed many career foreign service staff members and politicized this vital national function.
The Economy
All politicians have criticized the opposition because inflation and unemployment are too high. Republicans claim that they are “the party of business” and more effective in managing the economy although the data says the opposite.
Republicans have claimed that Democrats wish to “socialize” the economy with the government owning and controlling all industries. No nationalization has occurred for more than a century. Deregulation of transportation in the 1970’s was a bipartisan initiative.
Republicans have exaggerated the size, scale, impact, employment and percentage of federal government activities for more than a century. Federal government activities DID increase very significantly during the Great Depression, WWII and the 1960’s Great Society initiatives. They have roughly remained at the same percentage of GDP since 1980.
Republicans have emphasized the “common sense” need to balance the federal budget and bemoaned the growing federal debt and its impact on future generations and “crowding out” of productive borrowing and investing. Their criticism rises when Democrats control the government and quiets when Republicans are in control as we have learned that 1-2-3% budget deficits seem to have no short or long-term deleterious effects. President Trump has no problem with running record budget deficits.
Republicans claimed that tax cuts would spur economic growth to offset the loss of revenue. The theoretical “Laffer Curve” has never been demonstrated to hold for the US. Republicans claimed that very high marginal income tax rates disincentivized highly productive Americans from working. Top marginal tax rates were cut from WWII 90% to 70% in 1965. Then lowered to 50% in 1981 and 37% or lower from 1986 forward. Grover Norquist and others after 1986 tried to “drown government in the bathtub” because “taxation is theft”. Bush I lost his reelection bid because of his “read my lips” reneged promise to not raise taxes.
Republicans claim that government regulations strangle businesses, cost money, reduce employment, stifle innovation, reduce R&D, and reduce investments. This is mostly a distraction. Regulations do require compliance costs for administration and reduced commercial activities. Corporations benefit from most drafted laws which provide opportunities for evasion and negotiation rather than strict compliance. If “clean” regulations were better they would ensure they were/are enacted.
Culture Wars / Wedge Issues
Civil rights legislation was supported by Democrats and Republicans. LBJ said “we may have lost the south for a generation”. He was right. The American South struggled with the aftermath of the Civil War, reconstruction and civil rights legislation. The belief that African-Americans should not mix with Whites died very slowly. New private schools were built to “solve the problem”. Court ordered busing to ensure equal racial opportunities in northern cities antagonized other Whites. Affirmative action court rulings divided the country, moving many Democrats to the Republican side.
Republicans made crime and drugs national issues. Directly and indirectly focusing on African-American communities.
Republicans made welfare a racial issue instead of a class, age or fairness issue.
The 1965 immigration act opened the door for poor immigrants from around the world.
President Reagan and congress agreed upon an amnesty and enforcement bill in 1986.
Bipartisan efforts to control migration were unsuccessful for the next 30 years. Trump pressured Congress to not approve a compromise bill in 2024. Trump has made immigration the center of his politics.
Education became a national political issue after the passage of the civil rights bills. Republicans advocated for “states’ rights” and the elimination of the federal “Department of Education”. The enforcement of equal racial access to public education drove these changes. The establishment of private Christian schools and the use of vouchers to fund them became a political issue.
Institutions
Historically, Republicans controlled all of the major institutions of the US. After “Brown vs. Board of Education”, they decided that institutions were not always perfect. The move of southerners from the “solid South” of Democrats to the Republican Party was a huge swing. Federal courts might not be trusted. Federal DOE might not be trusted.
The federal government was generally viewed as a positive entity based upon its activities during the Great Depression and WWII. Post-war investments in infrastructure were welcomed. The growth of federal employment, funding and power led to opposition by Republicans, claiming waste and inefficiency. Opposition to all federal staff and functions grew during the 1970’s and 1980’s.
Reagan framed it as “I think you all know that I’ve always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” In 1996, President Clinton said “the era of big government is over”.
Support for American institutions began to decline after Nixon’s presidency. His acts showed that it was possible that previously trusted institutions were no longer definitely trustworthy.
Republicans positioned “government versus business”. Business was trustworthy, subject to the iron laws of the market. Government was subject to the incentives of politicians and bureaucrats.
Entrepreneurs were positioned as wealth and job-creators. They were crafted as makers versus takers. Obama’s claim in 2012 for an equal role for the public sector sparked much political debate.
Republicans applied this negative theory to everyone. Bureaucrats were subject to the incentives of lobbying, influence, bribery and career advancement. Inherently untrustworthy. Regulators were subject to regulatory capture. Teachers were self-absorbed and union captured. Same with police and fire fighters.
Spiro Agnew began the attack on the broader cultural elites as the “nattering nabobs of negativism”. The attack on the supposed cultural elites in the university, arts, media, communications and not for profit space has continued.
Trump and his acolytes have used DEI as a wedge to force organizations to comply with his political wishes.
Republicans use the term “elites” to drive fear. Political officials, bureaucrats, professors, journalists, commentators, executives, bankers, media influencers, actors, musicians, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and public health officials. Where does this end? What about the Republican elites?
Trump has undercut any faith in institutions. DOJ and FBI politicized. All federal agencies politicized.
We no longer rely upon trust or principles. Everything is based on power and transactions. The conservative economic view seems to Trump the conservative social view in the end.
Individuals
Republicans have positioned the political world to help voters see themselves as victims or potential victims of the opposition. The evil opposition is ready to take away your: guns, religion, parental rights, language, teams, history, culture, music, voting power, flag, patriotism, money, house, medical care and rights. They have demonized the opposition as “radical leftists”. Democrats have responded with the same level of name calling. Republican leaders have chased the RINOS (Republicans in Name Only) out of the party.
Summary
Republicans have increasingly chosen fear to build and maintain their political support for 70 years. It appeals to the lowest common denominator of those motivated by fear alone. It is unsustainable. We will either have a major breakdown of our society/culture or a rejection of this negative worldview very soon.
Civility is a set of behaviors based upon a set of values. It is adopted and grown by individuals based upon their conscious and unconscious experiences. The practice of Civility tends to promote Civility in others. Unchecked incivility tends to destroy Civility. The practice of Civility depends upon a communications, interaction and problem-solving process. The social commitment to Civility depends upon the rate and intensity of practice and the frequency and impact of responses to incivility. Civility is a social value that is partly conscious and partly unconscious.
Chaos Theory
OK!!! Once we start to investigate dynamic systems, the words and concepts get abstract and “questionable” pretty quickly. Complex systems are unstable. Small changes can cause large impacts. I share this because I think that Civility is a social system subject to this kind of dynamic, nonlinear change.
Emergent Systems
OK!!! Civility is an emergent property of people interacting. Simple, positive interactions promote more positive interactions. AI is trying to describe the idea of virtuous cycles and vicious cycles on a knife’s edge. Civility is a fragile concept and practice.
Managing Incivility
We have mixed advice. Some uncivil behaviors are so toxic they must be opposed. Yet, limiting free speech is against the core beliefs of Civility.
Civility, like other cultural norms, does not disappear quickly, it persists.
Tipping Point
Civility is positioned to survive. There are many individuals and groups with the incentive and capability to defend and promote Civility.
Summary
Overall, I am optimistic about the survival and progress of Civility today, December 15, 2025.
POST SCRIPT
In the process of using Google AI today, I am now EXTREMELY CONCERNED THAT THE SINGULARITY IS ABOUT TO OCCUR SOON. The responses to my complex questions are at least an order of magnitude more insightful than they were just a few days ago!
Civility is a set of behaviors that recognizes differences and builds mutual respect: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship management, communications, growth and problem solving.
It is based on 7 nonpartisan values: human dignity, respect, acceptance, responsibility, intentionality, constructiveness and public-spiritedness.
Civility is required for a representative democracy to thrive. Citizens must practice and embrace these habitual behaviors. Social norms must press individuals to adopt these beliefs and improve their behaviors, despite the call of opposing forces.
Civility has declined in the United States of America since the 1960’s cultural revolution and the 1980’s Reagan revolution. Individualism has ascended [perhaps too far]. Religion and culture have lost influence. Many today are working to rekindle Civility as a core set of values and behaviors necessary for a society of free individuals to succeed.
In broad terms, I have identified 6 threats to our society. I’d like to outline how Civility can be used to address these challenges. Civility alone cannot save our society, but it has the ability to prevent us from spiraling down in a vicious cycle. Civility has the ability to trigger a virtuous cycle. It is a catalyzing and leveraging force.
Radical individualism dispenses with community, society, religion, morality and philosophy. ONLY the individual now matters. Many of us have unintentionally adopted this faulty worldview: in whole or in part.
Civility begins with the claim that every person possesses INFINITE human dignity.
This is an individualistic start. But it is paired with the logical complements of respect and acceptance. If I have infinite human dignity, then all others must also have infinite human dignity. They MUST be respected. They MUST be accepted. They are not perfect, faultless, better or good. But they have the same potential for good and excellence that I enjoy.
This insight requires me to try to be self-aware, to manage myself, to be aware of others and to responsibly and intentionally manage my relationships with others. “I’m OK, You’re OK”.
Civility calls on us to be positive and constructive, not as a weak Pollyanna view but as individuals who are hopeful, who seek to find the greatest possible results.
Civility embraces public-spiritedness. It acknowledges that we live in community at all times and are responsible to consider our community obligations. We are not called to blindly accept community views, norms or decisions. But we always consider our civic and community duties and responsibilities.
Humans are never satisfied with what they have. We compare themselves to others and come up short. Our logical reasoning is imperfect. We focus on losses, the short-term, concrete items and anchors.
Civility accepts our weaknesses. It encourages us to look outwards to our neighbors to really evaluate ourselves. It promotes the “rough and tumble” of interpersonal engagement in informal and formal life. Civility guides us to be self-aware and self-managing. Civility recognizes that personal growth is an ongoing process. We cannot simply digest best practices intellectually; we must experience them.
Skepticism
Healthy scientific skepticism is fine. Unfortunately, we have often come to reject everyone and every fixed idea. Political polarization has undermined any sense of the “common good” or objective reality.
Civility embraces positivity and constructiveness. We should always pursue and consider positive opportunities.
Responsibility and intentionality require us to step above the situation and assess it objectively. We cannot take the shortcut of simplistic naive kneejerk skepticism.
Civility embraces modern behavioral and cognitive science. It uses rational modern decision-making tools. We have much stronger insights into true human nature. It is imperfect but we are better positioned to purposely lead great lives.
Despite the intellectual attraction of skepticism, America has prospered economically for 250 years. It has demonstrated that a democratic republic can succeed. The US has overcome two world wars, the Great Depression, the Vietnam War, the cultural revolution of the 1960’s, the Cold War, the Great Recession, the Covid pandemic and populism.
Religion has not died. Utilitarianism is barely remembered. Atheism is mostly rejected. Simplistic philosophies are inadequate. Scientific progress marches forward. Pure scientific rationalism loses support as a philosophy of life. Nietzsche and existentialism forced men to face the prospect of meaninglessness and we have survived. Self-awareness and social awareness help us to understand the complexity, contradictions, inconsistencies and mysteries of real life.
Imperfect Myths
Modern worldviews generally fail to replace the peace and answers of the ideals of Christendom. Civility offers a set of values and behaviors that support the practical operation of modern life with its greatly enhanced diversity.
Civility supports the 4 deep challenges of: facing death, finding a purpose beyond self, being affirmed and living as a social being in community. The commitment to human dignity, respect and acceptance help with the need to be affirmed. I’m OK, You’re OK. Civility promotes the social, interactive, growing, dynamic person. It offers a safe environment where individuals can pursue religious perspectives. It emphasizes the role that the “other” can play in personal growth.
Civility does NOT replace any of the religious, historical, cultural and national myths that have addressed human needs in the past. Civility is a set of values and behaviors that allows for constructive interactions in all areas and levels of society despite our differences. It does not choose sides in religious, political and philosophical debates. It is a necessary, but insufficient basis for modern life.
Our Secular Age
Civility accepts that we cannot easily find final deterministic solutions to the great questions of life. We have experienced 600 years of modernity without finding rational, objective, scientific, secular answers. Civility provides a social platform that supports religious belief. It supports debate on difficult subjects. It focuses on how we can live together, accept and overcome our real differences.
Our Secular Age is one in which the biggest questions – about God, man and meaning – don’t have consensus answers. No single denomination or ecumenical group holds a dominant worldview. Atheists, agnostics and “none of the above’s” are a large and fast-growing group, especially among younger age cohorts.
The loss of certainty creates existential angst for citizens. Civility responds with “human dignity” as a core belief that elevates individuals and the human condition to something of importance, a matter of ultimate concern for all. Civility offers “acceptance” as a central value, acknowledging that different backgrounds, experiences and beliefs are to be expected and welcomed. Civility encourages a positive, constructive approach to our lack of consensus on political, religious and philosophical topics. Civility promotes the virtues of responsibility, respect and initiative as tools for the required interactions with others – on topics large and small.
Finally, Civility focuses on behaviors, habits and norms of practical interaction as being most effective in living actual lives in a Secular Age. The Protestant Reformation triggered centuries of religious conflict. The principles of Civility were used to heal this divide and can apply to our differences today.
Insecurity
Modern man is surrounded by uncertainty as he is forced to make more decisions in more areas with more choices than ever before. Most of us try to ignore the surrounding forces and live our lives day to day as best as we can. We implicitly adopt some kind of philosophy of life. We stay busy. We pursue goals. We consider the changes in our worlds. But the underlying tensions make life difficult. Economic and personal striving are a cultural norm. Polarized politics is hard to avoid. It’s difficult to relax, center and fully engage in life. We treasure peace and certainty. We’re still looking for answers that work well in a world filled with options and choices.
Civility’s focus on human dignity, respect and acceptance of each person and others serves to build a strong sense of self-worth. The self-awareness and self-management skills reinforce this central validation of each person.
The values of responsibility, intentionality and constructiveness reinforce the solid self with positive real-world experience and reinforcement. The social awareness, communications and relationship management skills operationalize this good intent.
Collectively, the Civility values and behaviors provide personal assets to be successful in a challenging world. They address the need for frequent interactions with “others”. They provide confidence that individuals have the capabilities and experience to thrive in difficult situations because they have managed them before.
Summary
Civilization and daily life are guided by unspoken norms and beliefs. We have experienced significant changes in the past century that undermined the consensus view and now requires individuals to consciously consider a greater share of their daily lives. We have not reached a new consensus and may not do so anytime soon. As we work through these differences we need to reinvest in Civility skills, habits and understanding. Civility helps us individually, in groups and as a society to interact effectively despite our differences. We don’t need perfection or infinite improvement, but we need to invest in Civility and use its power as a self-reinforcing system or virtuous cycle to guide us into the future.
Good News 