Our preferred definition of Civility is “a common values-based problem-solving process to make group decisions when individuals have differences”. A review of 5 dimensions indicates that Civility has no bias towards or against the left or the right.
Philosophically
Conservatism “conserves” history, culture, religion, norms, land, assets, classes, privileges, religion, power and institutions. It opposes risk-taking, conflict, rapid change and revolution. Civility is rooted in human dignity and concern for the “public good”.
Liberalism elevates the individual, rationality, progress, liberty, science and rights. It opposes unjustified power, wealth and cultural claims on the individual. Liberal political systems seek to balance individual rights with the “public good”.
Technically
Civility based problem-solving and relationship management emphasize the use of modern business, education and counseling techniques such as active listening, dialogue, objective evidence, separation of facts and values, common interests, devil’s advocate, process review, independent facilitators, strategic planning, values clarification, I/you statements, cognitive behavioral therapy, crucial conversations, shared accountability, win/win options, disclosed preferences, long-term perspective, walk-away option, rational incentives, aligned incentives, multiple rounds of negotiation, I’m OK/You’re OK, brainstorming, multiple intelligences, 6 thinking hats, supplier partnerships, shared administrative services, outsourced services, specific corporate culture, mission, vision and values. Corporate, not-for-profit, educational, counselling, government, religious and privately owned organizations have adopted these social science techniques because they are effective tools for translating resources into outputs in support of goals.
Different organizations emphasize different tools that best match their values, history and objectives. There is no clear left versus right emphasis. Solid tools help organizations manage their planning, workforce, resources, suppliers, customers and beneficiaries.
Values
Respecting each other and our views. Respect for position and roles is a core conservative principle. Respect for individual freedom and agency has been a core conservative principle since the American Revolution. Liberals emphasize human rights, caring and fairness. Respect for each individual is central.
Human dignity. Christian theology emphasizes the value of each person created by God in his image and called by name. Secular humanist philosophy takes a similarly very high view of the importance of each individual.
Being open to understanding differences. Liberals have emphasized human rights, equality, care, progress and “others”. Religious conservatives embrace the Judeo-Christian call to protect the poor, the widow, the orphan and the alien. Most Americans support the American political system that limits centralized power and protects minority rights. Many conservatives recognize the diversity of religious denominations. Most Americans have learned to accept the legal and social rights of different groups, including many that were not accepted before. We have arguments about DEI today because it can be used as a political tool by the far left, even though large corporations have effectively used the nonpartisan core of DEI to be more effective firms for 25 years.
Each individual’s choices matter. Liberals and conservatives in individualist America agree.
We’re responsible for our choices and interactions. Conservatives emphasize responsibility, including responsibility to social groups and the state. Liberals focus on the individual, per se, and highlight their responsibility to society as essential for the public good determined by the political process.
We consider the public good in our choices. Liberals tend to take the broader perspective today, sometimes to a fault. Classical conservatives naturally focus on the overall public good as the end goal of society, perhaps emphasizing the existing interests. As representatives of the wealthier and more powerful groups, conservatives look to the overall health of society, politics and the economy as vital.
We share responsibility for our choices. Conservatives naturally see an organic society, based on tradition, norms, institutions and trust. Although elites influence decisions, true support from all of society is essential. All sectors must support the legitimacy of big choices. Liberals promote shared power as the fair way, in principle. They sometimes criticize decisions and processes when they don’t win.
We think and act constructively. Liberals embrace modernity, science, progress, education and rationality. Conservatives embrace hard choices, reality, real politic, trade-offs, common sense, business methods, and balanced budgets.
Issues
19 issues have appeared in the “top 10” most important issues lists since 1948. Civility can be neutral on all of these issues.
Care. Primary liberal value. Conservatives rate it highly too.
Fairness. Primary liberal value, focusing on results. Conservatives emphasize process fairness.
Loyalty. Conservative priority. Secondary liberal value. Civility emphasizes loyalty to society, the political system and the common good.
Authority. Conservative priority. Liberals accept “legitimate” authority. Civility emphasizes the importance of each individual.
Purity. Conservative priority supporting traditional values. Liberals emphasize different dimensions emphasizing individual rights.
Equality. Equal treatment of individuals. Left and right agree.
Proportionality. Conservatives emphasize proper rewards for efforts and results. Liberals accept this principle but give it lesser emphasis. Civility does not take a stance.
Civility is supported by left and right in America’s political history. Modern techniques for most effective group interactions and negotiations are neutral. The values that support Civility are neutral. Civility takes no stand on modern political issues. The latest attempt to define the “righteous” bases for politics provides no dimension opposed to civility. Civility can be used as a bipartisan base for our democracy and our day-to-day interactions.
Political polarization is one of the main causes of the decline in civility. There are structural and historical causes for the tremendous decline in civility from 1960 to 2025.
High Level Changes
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 obliterated the Democratic party and provided the Republican party with a growth strategy.
The “cultural revolution” of the 1960’s contrasted traditional social practices with a tolerance or embrace of “anything goes” behavior. Politicians have continued to exploit these deeply felt divisions.
Political parties embraced a single, simple right versus left, conservative versus liberal, framework as Ronald Reagan skillfully knit together the various “conservative” factions between 1968 and 1980. Republicans began to embrace the virtues of a “big tent” through the end of the century.
The Republican party embraced fundamentalist Christians, and religion was merged with politics. Democrats increasingly became home for the secular, agnostic and “none of the above” religious affiliations.
Ideology based parties are inherently more righteous, adopting right/wrong, good/evil views of the world.
The American economy has continued to grow throughout the post WWII era, greatly increasing the value of politics for those with economic interests to protect.
Americans have increasingly sorted by “rural versus urban” and “left versus right” residences. The rural counties are right, the urban counties are left, the suburban counties are mixed.
The rise of individual expression as the premier life goal highlight’s individual identity. Political views reflect a person’s identity. There is pressure to “be” left or right.
Structural changes like gerrymandering or restrictive changes in voting rules are used to control political power at the state level.
Political parties have lost power. Historically, they were able to filter out extreme or risky candidates or issues. Voters, candidates and special interest groups have more power today.
Our two-party system incentivizes extreme candidates, supporters and views on issues. This is a self-reinforcing tendency.
Once individuals see the world as political, in a single ideological dimension, as right versus wrong, human nature reinforces the polarized views. Dislike of the other party becomes highly motivating. In-group biases grow. Fear of the “other” grows. Perceived harmful, unfair, disloyal, unspeakable, sacrilegious actions by the “other” party assume mythic evil status. This is also a self-reinforcing tendency.
Experience with civil, constructive, problem-solving politicians and parties has declined, lowering expectations. This is also a self-reinforcing tendency.
Polarization is in the interests of some politicians and the industries supported by political spending. It acts as an ethical and communications skills barrier to entry.
Media Changes
Technological changes allowed journalism and opinion expression to be economically viable at the part-time individual level, down from financially stable organizations of at least 100 people.
The “Fairness Doctrine” of 1949 was effectively ended in 1987, allowing political media to flourish.
The merger of individual identity with politics and religion with politics created greater demand for political journalism.
With television, perceptions of “presidential”, powerful, honest, effective, charismatic, leadership, common sense, relatability, etc. made media image more important than content, knowledge, experience or character.
The internet allowed previously fringe groups to effectively organize and communicate.
Cable TV and the internet created hundreds and thousands of broadcasting options, encouraging individuals to find exactly the content that they desire.
Highly partisan commentators/entertainers began to provide the people with what they want. A simple reinforcement of their existing beliefs.
The internet and social media provided the tools for content providers to find and feed their customers, even at very small scales.
The loss of classified ads to the internet undermined local newspapers and radio. They lost their ability to effectively cover local news. This reinforced the trend to embracing partisan sources for all news and opinion.
The growth of effective communications sources allowed national politicians to move the “center of gravity” in politics from “state and local” to the national level. All issues are now seen through the lens of ideological national politics.
The increased number of channels on cable TV provided room for outlets that appealed to small fractions of the viewing audience. There was room for partisanship. There was room for sensationalism.
Television and radio networks found ways to attract, reinforce and monetize polarization.
In a world of hundreds or thousands of news and opinion sources, clear, consistent, emotional, effective branding became necessary for survival. Everyone is competing for clicks and eyeballs. Only the winners survive. Sources increasingly cater to the “least common denominator” of human interests.
The internet and social media provide confidential cover for individuals to share their most negative thoughts without fear of being held accountable.
The internet and social media avoid any filters for accuracy or legitimacy. Fake news spreads quickly.
The “viral” nature of the internet and social media undercut traditional sources and views of objective, scientific, professional, mainstream legitimacy. Every fact becomes an opinion.
Trust in objective journalism is undermined by the politically informed options, even as bias evaluators improve their effectiveness.
The repeated claim of “fake news” undermines trust in any objective journalism.
In a highly competitive media market, sensationalism wins. In-depth stories, human interest stories, good news, analysis and education lose.
Reagan provided “conservative” as a respectable term for a variety of political subgroups, ranging from moderate to extreme.
Fundamentalist Christians, southerners and rural residents joined the party, angry about social and cultural changes.
Buckley and Goldwater legitimized philosophical conservatives, including the extreme versions.
Economic libertarians found a home in the party, as Austrian and supply side economics were adopted. Innovations like the Laffer Curve, monetarism and “rational expectations” were digested.
“Free market” economics, descended from laissez faire, is intrinsically extreme, elevating markets as morally “good” and any opposition as “bad”. Analysis, judgment and compromise are discouraged.
Economic growth is good. “Small is beautiful” is mere virtue signalling.
Taxation is theft. Drown the government in a bathtub.
Gun rights, taking your guns, weak on crime.
Woke mob, cancel culture, fake news.
Global warming is “fake news”; drill baby, drill.
Communist, pink, socialist agenda, radical left.
Christian nationalism; not separation of church and state.
Anti-race, nationality, immigrant, religion, sexual orientation.
Gingrich strategy of polarization, extreme positioning, framing, ends justifies the means.
Patriotism, national purity, open borders, rapists and muggers, terrorists.
RINO’s ejected from the party.
Funding for more “conservative” candidates to challenge incumbents in primaries.
Acceptance of extremist, militant, subversive, racist, conspiracist, radical supporters.
The Democratic Party Responded and Became Righteous
Per Johnathan Haidt, only care and fairness matter to Democratic politicians. They disregard or criticize loyalty, authority, purity and liberty. Ouch.
Western culture is imperfect, maybe oppressive. Pure secularism is best.
Religion is the opiate of the masses. Religious organizations are politically suspect.
Affirmative action is more important than individual rights.
Abortion rights are basic; no limits or compromises.
Sexual orientation is personally defined aside from biological or cultural influences.
Free speech is not as important as protecting feelings. Cancel culture.
Environmental goals and policies disregard cost/benefit analyses.
“Defund the police” because they are an illegitimate institution.
Government employees, teachers, professors, media and artists leaned further left and lost the ability and interest to transmit neutral, broadly held social values.
Extreme positions on free speech, assembly, press, religion, human rights and globalism.
Oppressed group interests are primary. Not equal opportunity, safety net, fair taxes.
Complete individual choice in consumption, production, expression, and relations.
Opposition to school vouchers as an inherently unfair threat to public education.
Reparations for historical injustices.
Strictly global solutions without respect for national interests.
Global warming is an immediate threat to the survival of humanity.
Disregard of the “deplorables”.
Loyalty oaths to institutional values.
Virtue signaling as an art form.
Postmodernist elevation of “powerful oppressors” as the only framework.
Pure, certain support of John Rawls’ theory of justice, economic redistribution.
Library rights to all books and programs for all ages.
Superiority of abstract, global principles versus local interests.
Individual creative expression as the supreme value; and tolerance; except for some views!
Superiority of coastal culture, economics and politics versus sunbelt or “flyover country”.
Protection of upper middle-class housing, education, safety, travel, professional, tax, networking, investment, trust, and administrative interests.
Welcoming socialists, globalists, and intolerant interest groups in the party.
The centrist pragmatism of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton and Obama are dominated by the “far left” in the Democratic Party at the national level today. Partly by party programs and presidential positions (Biden), but mostly by “safe seat” politicians and the university, media and cultural influencers and thought leaders.
These extreme left positions serve some Democratic politicians, their Republican opponents, and the globally dominant metro areas.
Even though a majority of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents don’t support these “far left” positions or the caricatures wisely promoted by Republicans, the support by some Democrats and clever Republicans helps to position the Democratic party as much further left in the public mind. This reinforces the idea of a single ideological dimension for all issues and polarized yes/no, right/wrong. good/evil, win/loss positions by both parties.
The lack of highly effective Democratic national leadership for 50 years has encouraged leftward leaning Gen X, millennials and Gen Z to adopt further left positions because the center-left version is apparently ineffective..
Summary
A single ideological “left versus right” politics frame emerged after 1964.
In 1995 Gingrich demonstrated that polarization is effective and good for incumbent politicians.
Polarization is a self-reinforcing process. Consider the Irish Troubles or the Middle East.
Politics, media and society also interact to grow polarization.
Religion and identity have merged with politics, making it more ideological and polarized.
The historical countervailing forces of the mainstream media, self-interested political parties, regional elites, the responsibility of noblesse oblige, business elites, religious elites, intellectuals, thought leaders, university presidents, military leaders, state leaders, global leaders, local politicians, civic group leaders, teachers’ unions, League of Women Voters, ABA and scouts have not found their moderating voice in the current media environment.
The media facilitates polarization for profit.
The Republican party moved right and then further right.
The Democratic party “occupied the center” with Clinton and Obama, but this did not satisfy its further left supporters, and it convinced many Republicans that all Democrats are really “radical socialists”. The party has not found a new framework to effectively compete with Trump’s hybrid conservative/populist frame and policies.
A wide variety of groups have attempted to reframe the center as a good political place to live. None have yet succeeded. Perhaps the Carmel civility project will win. https://www.projectcivility.com/
In April, I summarized everything “I knew” about the causes of the decline in civility. Things have not improved in 4 months. I will try again.
Google AI says:
There’s a widespread belief that civility in the U.S. is declining, and several factors are frequently cited as contributing to this trend:
Social media and the internet: Many Americans point to social media and the internet as primary drivers of eroding civility. The rapid spread of information, and the anonymity afforded by online interactions, can contribute to disrespectful behavior, according to Agility PR Solutions.
Media in general: The broader media landscape, encompassing traditional and online news sources, is also often blamed for contributing to incivility.
Public officials and political leaders: The behavior of public officials and political leaders is seen by many as influencing the overall level of civility in society. Incivility among elites can potentially trickle down and impact how citizens interact with one another.
Political polarization and partisan divides: The increasing polarization of political views and the tendency to demonize opposing viewpoints can foster an environment where civility is eroded. Focusing on judgment over curiosity in discourse can be particularly harmful.
Changes in societal values: Some suggest that a shift in values, emphasizing individualism and authentic self-expression over social conventions, may contribute to a decline in traditional politeness norms.
Weakening social norms and lack of education: A lack of emphasis on teaching and upholding civility, both within families and educational institutions, might contribute to its decline.
2. Human nature is imperfect and selfish. Given anonymity, many individuals take advantage of that power to criticize others. Individuals seeking affirmation re-orient their lives to garner external praise, using all possible means. They seek groups and media to reinforce their views rather than promote true personal growth, which can be painful. Media organizations have an incentive to reinforce these behaviors in order to monetize them.
The Media’s Role in Increased Polarization: Google AI Summary
In the mid-20th century (approximately 1930s-1980s), a combination of factors encouraged media outlets, particularly newspapers and broadcast media, to adopt more centrist positions:
Professionalization of Journalism: The rise of journalism schools and the increasing emphasis on journalistic professionalism fostered a belief in objectivity and impartiality, according to In These Times. This meant a conscious effort to present news without overt partisan bias. The City University of New York notes that newspapers became gradually less partisan over this period, a trend that continued after the 1910s and through 1980.
The Fairness Doctrine: Enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Britannica adds that this required stations to provide adequate opportunities for opposing perspectives, particularly in news and public affairs programming, although it didn’t necessitate balance within individual programs. This forced broadcasters to consider a broader range of viewpoints than they might have otherwise.
Shifting Advertising Landscape and Commercial Interests: As the cost of publishing newspapers increased, they became less reliant on party subsidies and more dependent on advertising revenue, particularly from department stores and other retailers. These advertisers often preferred a less partisan approach to reach a wider audience, contributing to a move towards centrism in news coverage, according to the Center for Journalism Ethics.
Media Concentration: While media ownership consolidated during this period, particularly after World War II, the drive for broader audiences to attract advertisers also played a role in the push for more middle-of-the-road content, according to The Business History Conference.
TK: We have returned to the more normal situation with highly partisan news media and opinion sources. Combined with the internet, individuals can tailor their media consumption.
Public officials and political leaders
Political polarization and partisan divides
From 1870-1970, America was largely run by a Republican, WASP, New England, Middle Atlantic and Midwest elite. They were very confident that their views were correct: religiously, socially, politically and economically. FDR was considered “a traitor to his class”. There were populist and reformer challenges, but the leaders knew they should and would lead (Bush, Sr.). The cultural revolution of the 1960’s, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Vietnam War, Watergate and the economic and population explosion of the Sunbelt upended the two parties. Republicans became conservative and Democrats became liberal. In a two-party system, this resulted in a simplistic “left versus right”, “red versus blue” framing and polarization.
The challenges of minority groups, women’s rights, environmental rights, human rights, international relations, individual rights, multiculturalism, immigrants, abortion rights, gay rights, crime, secularism, atheism, students’ rights, popular music, sexual freedom, international trade, foreign languages, new religions, urbanization, radical wealth, and pleasure on demand created a social and cultural polarization that eventually became much more important than the traditional (Marxist) class/economics division. Goldwater, Agnew, Nixon and Reagan saw the opportunities for political advantage. Democrats, guided by 4 mostly winning economic decades of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Carter, were slow to adjust to this reframing of political dimensions. Even Clinton, who successfully triangulated an economic “third way”, did not fully recognize this critical shift.
Weakening social norms and lack of education
5. our secular age and 4 imperfect myths. Secularization theory asserts that as societies become more advanced economically, scientifically and educationally they will naturally become less religious and more secular. The evidence does not support this theory at the society level. Societies become less or more “religious” at quite different rates. However, as societies become wealthier, they do have influential intellectuals who conclude that science, philosophy, art, creativity, economics, business, trade, politics and culture can advance more effectively without religion. This creates our “secular age”, where religious belief is merely one option among many that are socially acceptable.
This questioning, criticism, and destruction of the received Christian and Western Civilization values came late to the US. The 1950’s and first half of the 1960’s were a period of cultural conservatism and increased religious belief and participation. The US experienced very radical change in all dimensions from 1965-1970. Social norms were disrupted or destroyed for many.
In a world of “anything goes”, individuals choose their religion. They choose which religious, cultural and political beliefs to hold. They are not philosophers or scientists, so their beliefs are often polyglot, amalgams, pluralistic, hodge podge, syncretized, and logically inconsistent. They are often “least common denominator” views asking little from the individual. Hence, the weakening of social norms leads to a wide variety of informal social beliefs.
The 1950’s, following WWII, naturally reinforced an “America is best” history in schools. History classes, western civilization and American civics were very important. These subjects lost favor in the 1970’s and forward. Schools struggled to clearly define and teach the core lessons of the American and Western experience. Social responsibilities and civility lost ground.
Classical liberals emphasize the individual above the community or society. They value logic above tradition. They emphasize individual social rights. Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, is always nearby. Systems and structures are most important to ensuring a fair society without oppression by the powerful. John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” is important. It philosophically justifies a “fair” redistribution of resources. This group is deeply suspicious of the power of the wealthy to rule society. It is willing to have weaker overall results in order to minimize the chance of dominance by the ruling class or elites. Hence, the emphasis is on structures and legal rights. Not on responsibilities, opportunities, communities, or society, per se. This group values tolerance highly and is sometimes unwilling to impose its views on others. Critics argue that political structures and legal rights are not enough to support a real society. By this logic, Democrats as classical liberals simply don’t satisfy the human need for transcendence. They only offer “good enough”.
They offer only a “thin” philosophy that may be adequate for the political dimension but does not address other human claims. Professor Haidt calls this a historically unusual WEIRD view – Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. He notes that liberals typically emphasize just care and fairness as moral, political, and religious values.
Modern Republicans support individual freedom in some cultural dimensions, but mostly economically. Republicans embrace the radical individualism of libertarians within their coalition. But mostly, they embrace the “free market” as a philosophical ally of their emphasis on personal liberty of commerce and the rights of property.
President Trump does not align with this tradition. He does not adopt their philosophical principles. He believes in “instrumental” negotiations, power, leverage and deals.
There is a risk that the Republican emphasis on “free markets” will result in the misapplication of economic principles to politics, ethics, commerce and society.
Daniel Bell argued in 1976 that free market extremism is inherently inconsistent with conservative cultural beliefs.
Michael Sandel offers case studies that show how “market thinking” expands into other areas where it is philosophically less relevant but still popular.
Charles Taylor argues that the “instrumental reasoning” of economics, business and science threatens to obliterate all other thinking approaches.
The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of supporting the preservation of historical powers or national leaders. It also has a history of criticizing the emerging secular options, Protestants, scientists and secularists for replacing God with some other human constructed principles. It developed liberation theology and currently advocates for democratic socialism.
Extremism
2. Human nature is simplistic. It does not support complicated win/win positions. 6. Insecurity. Fear leads to simplistic and highly righteous positions from left and right.
Constructively, modern upper middle-class society embraces secularism, stages of growth, individual growth, individual expression, self-actualization, creativity, possibilities, personal growth, arts, authenticity, depth psychology, psychoanalysis, myth, possibilities, Maslow, Montessori, Freud, Jung, Spock, Carnegie, Rogers, Rousseau, etc. The individual has unlimited potential and is encouraged to seek this potential. Philip Rieff cogently argues that man requires a connection to the transcendent to provide meaning. He says that modern secular society provides substitutes (therapists, self-help, self-expression) that simply don’t work.
Christopher Lasch says that we have lost our connection with reality. Our soul requires validation. It seeks it but does not find it. This is a very convincing description of our current situation. Google AI summary follows:
Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (1979) argues that American society in the latter half of the 20th century was undergoing a shift from a character emphasizing individualism and contribution, to a more self-absorbed, narcissistic personality. This shift, he argued, was driven by a complex interplay of social, economic, and psychological factors.
Key arguments and characteristics of the culture of narcissism
Reliance on external validation: The narcissistic individual, according to Lasch, craves admiration and approval from others to fuel their self-esteem, according to EBSCO. This dependence on external validation can lead to insecurity and a fear of not measuring up.
Emphasis on image and superficiality: Lasch observed a cultural preoccupation with appearances, image, and a focus on fleeting trends and celebrity, often prioritizing presentation over substance and achievement. The media plays a role in fostering this, according to Lasch, by promoting unrealistic images and fostering a desire for fame and celebrity.
Erosion of Traditional Authority Structures: Lasch argued that the decline of institutions like the family and community, coupled with the rising influence of external agencies and expert advice, weakened traditional sources of authority and guidance. This can leave individuals feeling disconnected and reliant on external sources for personal and societal guidance.
Impact of Consumer Culture: Consumerism plays a role in shaping narcissistic tendencies by creating an emphasis on instant gratification, personal desires, and the construction of identity through consumption, undermining community and social responsibility. Advertising, Lasch suggested, encourages insatiable appetites for both goods and personal fulfillment, ultimately leading to feelings of emptiness and dissatisfaction.
Decline of Political Engagement: The focus on personal fulfillment, according to Lasch, resulted in a neglect of broader social and political issues, leading to feelings of powerlessness and alienation.
Impact and significance
The Culture of Narcissism became a bestseller and has had a lasting impact on American cultural criticism, according to SuperSummary. While some found his analysis insightful, highlighting the psychological impact of consumerism and social changes, others criticized his pessimism or disagreed with his interpretation of social trends. Some critics found his use of Freudian psychoanalysis outdated and viewed his arguments as potentially promoting patriarchal values. Despite the varied reception, Lasch’s work continues to be a point of discussion and reflection on American culture.
Counterfactuals: Civility Should be Much Better Today
Many of the developments of the last 50, 100 or 500 years would lead one to predict that “civility” would be much better today than 50 years ago.
Measured IQ’s have improved by 10+ points.
Workers are 4-5 times more productive than they were in the WWII era.
Americans nearly all live in metropolitan areas where they interact with other races, ethnicities, classes, nationalities, religions and political views.
People make more choices and experience natural consequences of their decisions. Modern markets and society push individuals to interact in all dimensions of life.
More Americans work in large enterprises where they are required to interact with “others” effectively.
Human rights have been adopted for all. Nationalities, races, religions, genders, sexual preferences and abilities are protected and celebrated.
Regional, national and global trade, travel, sports teams and media are available to all.
Ecumenical religious groups thrive. Christian denominations work with each other and “world religions” in ways unimaginable in 1929.
“Tolerance” is elevated as an important cultural and moral value by liberals, Democrats, cultural elites, and business leaders.
Personality profiles, talents, multiple intelligences, gender differences, emotional intelligences, team building, toxic personalities, autism spectrum and other insights highlight the important differences between people and the need for those who wish to succeed to understand them and adapt appropriately.
The percentage of Americans who have completed a college degree has increased from 5% to 40% since WWII. The educational experience, social expectations and interactions all promote civility, seriously considered responses to life and people.
The data is sparse, but it looks like 15% of Americans today visit mental health professionals each year to deal with the challenges of life, up from 3-5% in the WWII era. Neighbors, elders, medical professionals, educators and religious leaders have always helped.
The information required to make decisions is easily available.
European nations (and Japan) were able to move past the horrors of the two world wars and establish tolerance for neighboring states as essential principles of modern democracies.
Global institutions were built from the experiences of the Great Depression and WWII. Other nations have rights, responsibilities and things to offer the world.
The colonial, imperial models were discredited along with fascism, Marxism and totalitarianism. The tolerant, “middle way” Western model of mixed capitalist economies, democracies and international trade and cooperation were validated in the 1992 “end of history” per Francis Fukuyama.
Artists and events have destroyed the notion that cultural, social, religious, political, and business leaders are somehow superior and worthy of unquestioning loyalty to single groups, institutions, parties or leaders. We are now all deeply and inherently skeptical.
These historical, social, economic, political, family, educational, and cultural forces say things should be getting better; much better. The forces against civility must be very strong. This points towards “human nature” as the most important factor.
Summary
The media is commercially incentivized to tear us apart. We are obligated to make wise choices for our media consumption. Political parties prefer to have simple, extreme contrasts. We can reject these nonproductive views. Political parties are often captured by their extreme supporters. We need to participate.
The choice of media sources for news and opinion is critical. We have an obligation to help our fellow citizens see that it is in their own best interest to separate news from opinion, to critically evaluate all messages, to value feedback and to seek personal growth.
Politics is a mess. “The inmates are running the asylum”. Individual politicians optimize their own results. Polarization. Communications. Brands. Techniques. Fundraising. Gerrymandering. We have to re-establish a level playing field, increase political participation, hold officials accountable, set character screens, etc.
Our culture is a mess. It is truly bipolar. Purely secular, scientific, utilitarian, classical liberal on one side. Fundamentalist religious and cultural certainty on the other side. Either/or. Win/lose. Political polarization has infected the culture. In a scientific, secular age we all demand certainty. Unfortunately, scientists, philosophers, political and religious leaders cannot deliver “certainty”. They can only provide useful tools, frameworks, paradigms, myths, stories, histories, prophets, songs, art, insights, components, and limits.
We deeply fear total relativism and pure subjectivity. This pushes us to “certainty” extremisms.
“Anything goes” in 1934 shocks the world. Cole Porter, Indiana legend.
Soren Kierkegaard founded existentialism in 1843 by positing the “leap of faith”. Certainty, in classical logical terms, was impossible. The big questions could not be reduced to pure logic.
In Exodus 3:14 God tells Moses: “I am who I am”. Eternity, infinity, wisdom, pure light, spirit, truth, insight, goodness, righteousness, greatness, sovereignty, combination, sets, groups, ideal types, templates, harmony, forms, abstraction. We struggle to digest this, of course.
Civility is only possible when individuals are secure in their perceived existential situation.
I’d like to focus today on US and global economic growth since 1945 guided by the new economic order of win/win free trade installed by the Bretton Woods conference.
The US economy has grown 11-fold since then in real economic terms. The US economy, which won the war, was just 9% as large as it is today! This is a little less than 3-fold population growth combined with 4-fold per capita production/income growth.
Visually, it is clear that US economic growth has been steady across these 80 years, only interrupted by a few severe recessions.
The US had already doubled its GDP between 1938 and 1945. So, the US economic growth was 22-fold from 1938 to 2025. Other leading countries showed flat total output in the war era.
This chart shows that the US reached its apex as a share of global GDP right after WWII. I think that president Trump mistakenly believes that the US could have maintained its 28% global market share forever. In more realistic terms, the US reached 19% of global GDP in 1913 and properly maintained that share in 2008.
Summary
The post-WW II global institutions drove 11-fold growth for the US and 15-fold growth for the world. The historical benchmark in 3x. The US experienced an extra doubling of its economy from 1938-1945. The mercantilist views of 1880-1920 simply cannot compete with the post-war free trade regime.
I believe that Charles Taylor is correct about the critical role which our background worldview plays in shaping our lives. Our unconscious mind has views of the world and uses them to influence us “all night and all day”. I think that major events and ideas find their way into our paradigms about life, science, religion, philosophy, politics, morality, character, careers, recreation, and communities. Maslow argued that safety and security are at the base of our pyramid of psychological needs. If fear and insecurity is a main feature of modern life, we need to understand why this is so. In a world of educated/acculturated individuals and mass media communications, the abbreviated “history of the world” drills deeply into our minds, shaping its categories, structure and evaluations.
I’ve reviewed dozens of lists about the most important events overall and within various categories of modern (post 1400’s) life. I documented 257 (!) greatest events with Wikipedia references. I’ll use this database to analyze their impact on fear/insecurity today.
The events are roughly equally divided between those which make the world riskier (92), safer (83) or do not have a clear, significant impact (82)
Using 40-year periods to summarize the events, there is no clear trend toward riskier or safer events. From a current perspective, the 1820-1859 period was negative with 7 riskier to 4 safer events. The 1848 revolutions threatened the integrated worldview. Spencerian Social Darwinism, even before Darwin, pointed to “scientific” national, racial and class divides. The “dismal Dane” Kierkegaard defined an existential perspective as an alternative to a confident belief in God. The western powers essentially conquered proud China in the “Opium wars”. Lyell summarized geology as the scientific study of changes in the earth, itself. Marx invoked a Hegelian, materialistic, historical, “scientific” philosophy of class division and revolution required by capitalist ownership of the means of production. Darwin’s “theory of evolution” rocked a world that was deeply invested in a deterministic, structured, certain, law based, deeply unchanging, yet socially, politically and economically changing world, philosophy and religion.
The next 1860-1899 period was also negative with 13 riskier to 9 safer events. Nietzsche’s “God is dead” and William Jennings Bryan’s populist “crucified on a cross of Gold” confronted the progressive spirit of the age. The US Civil War showcased the terrors of modern military technology. Famines, urbanization, agricultural productivity improvements, and religious wars drove millions of young Europeans to leave home for other nations like the USA. Art became abstract and individualistic, disconnected from citizens. New forms of popular music arose from the cultural melting pot of the USA. Nationalism grew. The US became an imperial power. Japan engaged with the West and decided to imitate it. The European powers discovered Africa as a new continent to colonize. These events impacted the nineteenth century and still impact all of us today.
The period from 1980 to today is also more negative, with 15 riskier events to 11 safer events. Populist politicians, including far-right partners and supporters are succeeding. Greater legal and illegal immigration from non-European countries to the US concern many citizens. The economic growth of Asia threatened American factories and workers. The transition from European to local power in South Africa raised concerns. The 9/11 terrorist attacks frightened Westerners. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatened the modern military world order. Innovations like “junk bonds” increased the risks in the increasingly integrated global financial system. The Great Recession was triggered by “financial innovations”. Michael Porter’s “competitive advantage” theories caused the most powerful corporations to more ruthlessly pursue success. The Reagan/Thatcher revolution undercut unions as a counterbalance for workers versus owners. ChatGPT passed the “Turing test”, indicating that computers are indistinguishable from men.
By Category
Philosophy/Politics riskier 16, safer 13, neutral 9. The breakdown of the nicely integrated “ancien regime” with certain answers for everything is a major and an ongoing source of insecurity. You either have total belief, or you don’t. Kierkegaard defined the need for a “leap of faith” in the modern world. Fundamentalist Christians redefined a world that maintains the historical certainty.
Society/Religion riskier 14, safer 9, neutral 7. Change is the dominant theme.
International relations riskier 27, safer 7 and neutral 2. WWI, WWII, Cold War dominate.
Business/economics riskier 12, safer 13, neutral 15. Process and efficiency make the world safer, while the unequal distribution of income and wealth drive political conflicts.
Physics/Mathematics riskier 9, safer 7, neutral 8. Scientific rules can be defined numerically. But they change!
Technology riskier 2, safer 12, neutral 15. The world benefits from a series of energy and agricultural revolutions.
Computers/Communications riskier 1, safer 6, neutral 24. Tools are mostly neutral, able to be used for good or bad.
Biology/health riskier 11, safer 16, neutral 2. Medical advances accumulate and promise more in the future. We better understand the concerning true risks of microorganisms, evolution, public health, adaptive threats, pandemics, human changes to genetics, and human impacts on the environment.
Science and technology have a very nice 41 safer to 23 riskier ratio. The social areas unfortunately show a 69 riskier to 42 safer profile. The social sciences, arts, philosophy and religion are not winning the war.
Highest Priorities
Ignoring the 82 neutral events, there are 36 items that are most influential/important within the 92 riskier and 83 safer events.
The 16 most important “riskier” items are not evenly distributed among the 8 categories. 4 philosophical items. Rene Descartes’s radical doubt opened the way to complete skepticism. Karl Marx defined a necessary utopian solution to class conflict. The Russian revolution and Chinese Mao revolution followed. Friedrich Nietzsche explored the logical possibilities of “God is dead”. Fascism was defined as a reasonable form of nationalism. The western cultural revolution of the 1960’s provided a fully secular option where religion and culture do not control the individual. WWI, WWII, the cold war, the atomic bomb, Nazism, and the holocaust. The Great Depression. Darwin’s theory of evolution. The Spanish flu and the 2019 global pandemic. “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold”. These important events point toward a meaningless, self-destructive world.
On the other hand, there are 20 much more positive events in the modern world that surely shape our subconscious thoughts. The progressive era of 1880-1920 created governmental reforms and new non-governmental organizations to meet human needs. The post-WWII set of international institutions thrived for 80 years growing global real dollar GDP 40-fold and preventing WW III. The Cold War ended without a hot war! John Maynard Keynes invented the effective discipline of macroeconomics, allowing nations to roughly control their economies and minimize the damages of the business cycle. Scientists demonstrated that the universe is “regular”. Newton, Pascal and von Neumann defined definite, probabilistic and dynamic laws. Edison made commercial electricity practical. The second and third agricultural revolutions transformed production, society and trade. The internet and Google’s search engine made all information easily accessible. Modern surgery, pharmaceuticals, public health, DNA insights, vaccines and social medical insurance have boosted life expectancies far above 70 years.
Summary
Why do we live in such a fearful, insecure time, despite the 83 big events that make our world permanently safer?
The mass media highlights negative, emotional stories.
Politicians use negative, emotional stories to gain and retain support.
Human nature discounts solved problems and historical events. It focuses on today’s challenges. In a sense, we’re always on a treadmill.
The meritocratic, late capitalist, Schumpeterian “creative destruction” economic system leaves everyone without true financial security.
Individualistic Americans don’t really believe in a safety net or welfare state. Politicians have destroyed rather than upgraded or enhanced the welfare System to deal with the modern challenges.
Religion, a critical source of understanding reality, is losing the war against secularism. It has not found a new structure, motif, concept, killer app, theme, bridge, attraction, rationale, argument, or appeal.
Skepticism is a very powerful worldview. It feeds on the human desire for certainty, authenticity, rationality, explanation, and perfection. It celebrates superior knowledge, history, logic, insights, contrarianism, irony, modernity, and progress.
I think that the misguided belief in scientific certainty in all arenas is also to blame. People misunderstand Newton. He discovered physical laws and mathematics that described the world like no one had done before. Yet, he did not abandon the gods, Christianity or alchemy. He was not a materialist reductionist. He knew better. He recognized Aristotle’s “final causes” as deeply important and accepted that he had no idea how or why gravity functioned.
The “orange one” does not “hold all of the cards”. He is critically threatened by his foreign handlers and the US justice system. He was not elected to promote a trade war. No one expected a trade war. He merely “shadow boxed” during his first term on trade. He has made the “trade war” his first priority because it is a “sure win” politically, in the short-run. He first bluffed exaggerated 50% and 100% tariffs, and the media duly reported these crazy claims that anchor or outline the story. He now claims HUGE victories with 15% tariffs. The self-described GOAT negotiator thereby proves his standing. He claims victory. He uses this temporary bump in support to take over the government.
Citizens need to recognize that this is clearly not a “win” for the country. Import tariffs are simply taxes. They get split between the foreign exporter, the importer and the retail customer. At 15%, the typical payment split is 25%, 25% and 50%. Exporters still want to sell goods and maintain market share. They have fixed costs. They have profits. They can reduce prices in the short-term. Importers still want to sell goods and maintain market share. They can limit price increases in the short-term. Most markets are “sticky”. Brands, supply chains, habits, marketing and convenience matter. Import costs are half to three-quarters of retail prices. The consumer price increase is 5-8%. Some consumers switch to lower priced options, some don’t. The “next best” low price option for an imported good is probably another imported good. The “Trump tariffs” distort markets. They don’t deliver a “victory” for American consumers, producers, labor, finance or government. They merely “gum up the works”.
The “orange one” understands leverage, populism and persuasion. He really doesn’t understand markets, as demonstrated by his dozens of business failures. A 15% import tariff will cause pain for foreign exporters, US importers and consumers. It’s not large enough to cause a domestic firm to invest in expanded capacity. They will use all of their existing capacity and even cut prices a little to win market share. Manufacturing investments require 20-30-40 year timeframes to be viable. They require confidence in government policies on trade, regulations, antitrust, labor, environment, intellectual property, lobbying, property taxes, inventory taxes, corporate income taxes, international taxes, international finance, transportation, supply chains, labor costs, etc. Trump’s policies strongly work against such investments.
US industries don’t import goods to save just 10%. They import goods because the total cost of imports is at least 20% lower and trending in the right direction. Importing always has extra costs for transportation, communications, delays, coordination, property risks, quality control, product development, supplier management, flexibility, tariff risks on both ends, legal risks, capital controls, financial transactions, inventory, obsolescence, etc. There is a “step function” involved here. US firms from 1970-2000 only relinquished their domestic manufacturing because when they completely ignored all fixed costs and only looked at short-term variable costs, they had to outsource production. There will be no overall manufacturing renaissance. There will be some very low labor cost manufacturing that returns to the states. That is, only where labor costs are a small percentage of the total production cost. Hence the “job creation” impact will be tiny, impossible to measure.
So … if they won’t build new factories, what will be the leading responses of domestic importers? They will find ways to import/reroute goods from lowest tariff countries. They will find ways to reclassify goods and avoid tariffs. They will lobby for exemptions. They will import only key components and do “final assembly” locally in highly automated factories. They will hold imported goods in a Free Trade Zone. They will split physical products from services and intellectual property to minimize tariffs. They will lobby for domestic government subsidies. They will offer “service hour models” to customers as in aircraft engines and never sell the physical goods and incur the tariffs.
Will the import tariffs reduce the federal budget deficit? Yes. The US imports 15% of GDP. Tariffs will be applied to about half of the imports. Imports will be reduced and replaced by domestic production, a little. 15% of 5% is about 0.75% of GDP. The federal budget deficit is 6.5% and climbing. This will help a little. Consumers will pay for half of this as in a sales tax.
What are the secondary impacts of the tariffs? Domestic firms will invest management time and money in managing the system instead of developing better goods and services. Lower import competition often leads to higher prices overall. Domestic producers experience higher input costs and attempt to pass them along to consumers. Foreign countries will increase their tariff and non-tariff barriers to US exporters. The US loses its moral advantage as a promoter of “free trade”. The US loses opportunities to reduce trade barriers through global and regional “free trade” agreements. The US loses the opportunity to drive global labor and environmental standards. The US loses the opportunity to expand free trade in services, the industries of the future. The US’s “unfair advantage” as the manager of the US dollar as the global currency will be challenged. The US’s soft power in language, arts, education, language, culture, and global leadership will be questioned. The US’s role as a stalwart ally will be undermined, leading to merely costlier and unreliable transactional relations with former allies. Foreign citizens will choose to not consume US goods and services. The US will have to pay directly for its global military bases. The US will have to pay for allies’ support on the “war on terror”. The US will have to pay for all global initiatives. The US will have to directly control “rogue states”. The indirect costs are HUGE and unappreciated.
Why did the US pursue the post WW II new world order? Ending imperialism and colonies. Forming the United Nations and trying to use it to manage some conflicts. Principles of political self-determination and human rights. Global bodies for better health. Investments in Germany, Italy, Japan and Europe instead of reparations. International Monetary Foundation and World Bank to support developing nations and manage currencies. GATT and WTO to promote lower trade barriers and multilateral deals. NATO and other alliances rather than colonies and protectorates. The win/lose approach of the 1800’s, WWI and WWII had failed. The world was ready to try a win/win approach. The US, with its history of isolationism, exceptionalism and national independence, chose to not pursue “world dominance”. The post- WWII institutions were not perfect, but they demonstrated that they were much better than those that had governed international relations for the prior 500 years.
Again, put everything in perspective. The US imports 15% of GDP. 15% import tariffs on half of goods. Consumers adjust and substitute domestic and lower total price imports. US consumers pay a 1% sales tax on imported goods. US military and influence costs rise by much more than 1% of GDP. Consumers pay higher prices. The US has less global influence. Where is the win? Marginal manufacturing plants and jobs are not returning to the US, no matter what the “orange one” says unless they are subsidized by the local, state or national government.
This is just another “con” by the “orange one”. We want to believe that American jobs have been unfairly stolen by government subsidized factories and low-cost labor without environmental protections in foreign countries. There is a grain of truth in each claim. Foreign governments do subsidize export firms. They try to maintain low currency values to support exports. They accept low total labor costs and environmental damages. Every country tries to be globally competitive.
No “magic wand” exists to force or entice everyone into embracing win/win institutions or deals naively. There is always an incentive to be a “free rider”, taking advantage of the global deals and quietly not really complying, just like some oil producers in OPEC. There is always an advantage for a single country with enough power to “hold out” or bluff or play “chicken” to extract a better deal for that country than for the others. This is the real world of bargaining, negotiations and deal-making. No system, philosophy, institutions, social pressure, or trump card easily delivers win/win results without overcoming the win/lose incentives of the game’s players.
There was a time when “Republicans” were supposedly the party of realism, pragmatism, common sense, business, efficiency, logic, finance, trade, capitalism, science, industry, proof, objectivity, best practices, and elite opinion. “Democrats” allegedly appealed to emotions, wishes, utopias, fairness, justice, perspectives, hopes, possibilities, oppression, victimhood, persuasion, popular opinion, populism, and ideals. The post-WWII institutions were supported on a bipartisan basis for more than 50 years. In 1992, President Clinton and the Democratic party embraced the “third way”, fully supporting these policies, capitalism and limited government, despite criticisms from the progressive, new, far left. The post – WWII system of international institutions has been criticized as “globalism” and “neo-liberalism” by the left wing of the Democratic party.
The post-WWII institutions were not perfect for Democrats, Republicans, the USA or the global community. But they worked incredibly well. Real global GDP has increased by 40 times since 1945, from $2.5 trillion to $100 trillion!!!!! That is 4.72% real growth compounded year after year after year for 80 years, coming out of a world war, encompassing a cold war, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, a global pandemic, the collapse of birth rates, business cycles, financial panics, energy crises, Middle East wars, and terrorism.
A comparable 80-year period before the Great Depression shows just 4-fold global real GDP growth, not 40-fold. Of course, much of this difference is due to differences other than the post-WWII institutions. This was a time of 1.75% annual growth rather than the modern 4.72%. The 3% annual difference compounded across 80 years delivers 10 times greater growth. This is not a marginal advantage. This is an UNBELIEVABLE advantage. This is difficult to communicate. Small percentage differences across a lifetime.
The “bottom line” is that the “orange one” only believes in “win/lose” and rejects any form of “win/win”. The post-WWII institutions are win/win, so they must be rejected. Capitalism, alliances, partnerships, joint ventures, corporations, modern supplier relations, families, communities, nations, treaties, fraternities, sororities, ecosystems, clubs, cooperatives, unions, study partners, mentors/mentees, credit unions, mutual insurance companies, social enterprises, not-for-profits, churches, service organizations and many others are win/win. The “win/lose” framework supports the “orange one’s” desired position as a great leader needed to save the people.
Free trade has provided truly amazing benefits for the US and the world. The post-WWII cooperative institutions have reduced wars and conflicts. The “Trump tariffs” will slow global economic growth. They will not provide any material benefits for the US.
The US has enough economic, social, political and military power to force country by country “deals” that appear to benefit the US, when considered in a short-term win/lose framework. These deals will harm the US and the global economy.
From 1945-2000 “free trade” was Republican economic orthodoxy. “Free trade” benefitted US multi-national corporations which had the ability to take advantage of global markets. The US economy and labor markets were flexible enough to manage the changes. Capitalism was supported as the best economic system versus communism, fascism, socialism, protectionism, imperialism, colonialism or mercantilism. US financial institutions were well positioned to facilitate trade. US universities were ready to educate the world. Imported goods and immigrant labor drove lower US wages.
Trump is appealing to his populist base to oppose the “others” of immigrants, non-whites, non-fundamentalist Christians, criminals, thieves, rapists, sweat shops, subsidized factories, polluters, underpaid workers, etc. “We should produce everything we need in America. We have the factory capacity, finances and skills to do so.” He appeals to nationalism while ignoring the critical principle of comparative advantage. Countries export only what they are very best at growing, producing or serving. They do not produce everything themselves just like states, firms and individuals that are not fully self-sufficient.
1984 – Eli Goldratt offers a “theory of constraints” as a way to understand and manage complex systems effectively, leading to true “lean manufacturing” and “lean operations”.
Process standardization. Financial innovation. Highly focused strategies. New business forms. Markets and international trade deliver desired products, lower prices and competition. A role for government regulation remains. The macroeconomy can be managed to reduce the impact of business cycles and shocks.
Colonization and de-colonization. Opening of Asia. World Wars. Nuclear threats. International integration. Economic progress. Bipolar, superpower, multipolar world.
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
Good News 