.
https://www.roa.org/blogpost/1650035/500905/Commemorating-Victory-in-Europe-Day
Our political, economic, international and cultural worlds are all at risk of breaking down. How did we get here? 6 answers. No finger pointing.
I’ll be sharing general purpose and political solutions in the next 2 months.
https://www.sefiracreative.com/
Social conservatives have decried the decline of moral values since 1960.
Religious groups of all political views have done the same.
Robert Putnam has documented the loss of social capital in Bowling Alone, Our Kids, The Upswing and American Grace noting that morality, trust and institutions have declined at the same time.
Political scientists and pundits have noted the loss of civic virtue and wonder if a political system based on the “thin” virtues of “classical liberalism” can survive.
High schools, colleges and departments of education have begun to respond to the “crisis” but faced political challenges from both parties, educators and parents.
Corporations, universities, not for profits and military branches have attempted to define their core values as a way to build community, align resources and clarify direction. They note an absence of common values in their employees.
Personal growth advocates, even those emphasizing individual artistic expression, have increasingly noted that the community and spiritual dimensions of life are part of growth.
While social and political conservatives have pressed for moral reinforcements, both moderate and progressive liberals have pushed back on these efforts; wary of infringing on personal liberties and supporting community, cultural and institutional oppression. Economic conservatives and libertarians have not bemoaned the decline in community and shared values. Some “communitarian” philosophers and social scientists have begun to challenge the individualistic dogmas that have ruled universities since the Enlightenment. There is not a firm consensus that we need or can have on “shared values”. Many philosophers, theologians and social scientists are quite certain that this is a dead-end street.
A majority of citizens and leaders agree that the loss of a shared set of values is harming our country and society. We need to find some kind of solution. Promote religion. Educate students and adults. Conduct research. Create artistic vehicles for learning. Work together on teams. Join groups. Communicate better.
Let’s start by outlining the common moral values. We’ll ignore the experts. We’ll gloss over some inconsistencies. We won’t provide perfect definitions. We won’t outline an implementation strategy. We will provide a meaningful outline by combining the thoughts of some very different sources
This is not a dead-end project. We live in “A Secular Age”. We’re not going to reach religious or political agreement on everything. Most people understand that we are forced to live together and that we have to “get along”. We have learned to be “tolerant” in most dimensions of life. We can learn to embrace a set of general moral principles that are self-evident. The principles cannot be proven or derived from core principles. They have to be “accepted”.
Individuals who learn these principles will do so for many reasons if they are presented well. They help the individual to live in a social world. Self-interest alone justifies developing these virtues, understanding and habits. These principles seem to be natural, widely seen across time, space and cultures. They may not be universal or “revealed” but they have proven their worth. Individuals are learning that extreme skepticism and subjectivity are inadequate. Every major worldview offers a set of moral principles like these. Individuals who strive to fulfill their potential understand that moral principles underlie “the good life”. These principles work together nicely in a logical, relatively succinct package.
Corporate “core values” experts trying to find the essences so they can be easily taught. Anthropologists looking for the most widely seen values. The evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Mid-century philosopher and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis claiming that all major civilizations share key ethical principles. Psychology Today advising us on how to best guide our behavior. The Boy Scout Oath. The Rotary 4-Way test.
https://rootedindecency.com/blog/values/4-core-values-shared.html
4 self-evident clusters of Respect, Responsibility, Honesty and Compassion. We know what these are. We know they are good and useful. We know that it requires work for children to learn them and for us to put them into practice consistently and effectively.
Another author calls out Fairness as a fifth cluster.
https://docket.acc.com/harness-power-5-core-moral-values
A group of Oxford anthropologists has surveyed the vast literature on cultures and identified 7 universal principles that are almost always evident and never contradicted. They begin to add some second-level definitions to the 5 clusters.
Respect is shown both by “deferring to superiors” and “respecting property”. Responsibility is shown by “helping your family”, “helping your group” and “being brave”. Fairness is exhibited by “dividing fairly” and “returning favors”. This group didn’t see honesty and compassion as universal values.
Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” introduced the world to a set of moral flavors that varied between traditional and modern (WEIRD) societies and between left and right politicians. His team has added some flavors that have some plausible origin in the development of men from hunter-gatherers through farming and cities. For Respect, Haidt agrees that property ownership rights matter and that respect for authority is critical to holding together communities. Without it, the free rider problem undermines groups. He also argues that “liberty” is the “flip side” of authority. Individuals inherently feel the need to defend their individuality against potentially oppressive authority.
Haidt emphasizes the importance of family, kinship, honor and loyalty in traditional societies. He argues that these values are just as valid as the modern care, fairness and equality trio. He provides 3 flavors of fairness, adding proportionality and equality to the basic idea. He also skips “honesty” and emphasizes “care” as the result of compassion. He adds “Purity” as a separate factor reflecting both biological and religious forms of cleanliness for early men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Man
In 1943, C.S. Lewis had experienced enough modern analytic philosophy, subjectivity and intellectual progress and fired back with “The Abolition of Man”. He argued that without an objective moral framework, Western civilization was doomed. The Nazi and communist threats mattered. But the breakdown of common culture, values and beliefs within democracy was an equal threat. Lewis argued that a roughly common moral framework and principles existed in every thriving culture. His “natural law” view was not widely embraced at the time.
Lewis’s 8 components of the Tao, or “the way” fit nicely into the 5 clusters. His “duties to parents, elders and ancestors” fits with Respect. He filled out Responsibility with family duties, kinship feelings and magnanimity which emphasized the bravery of making the right decisions. His “law of general beneficence” fills out Fairness. He outlines Veracity as critical to honesty and expands it with the “Law of Justice”. He fills the Compassion group with his Mercy.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-school-walls/202305/10-core-values-to-guide-behavior
A recent Psychology Today article takes a more “personal growth” oriented view. The Respect drawer is empty, although “authenticity” could be seen as a form of self-respect. Dr. Koehler adds resilience to the Responsibility core value and includes Fairness. She adds 3 others to the Honesty cluster after Integrity. A growing individual needs to value authenticity, open-mindedness and lifelong learning. We start to see why there are differences at the second level, but I don’t think they are too great. The author embraces compassion, adding empathy and gratitude to this section.
https://www.scouting.org/about/faq/question10/
The Scout Oath was drafted in 1908. A Respectful scout is Obedient, reverent and Courteous. A Responsible scout is Thrifty, Helpful, Loyal and Brave. An Honest scout is Trustworthy. A Compassionate scout is Kind, Friendly and Cheerful. A scout is Clean.
https://my.rotary.org/en/guiding-principles
The Rotary 4-Way test was drafted in 1932. It fits into 4 of the 5 main categories.
We have a nice head start on outlining a set of common moral principles that could be used for education, civics, personal growth and community building. The core ideas fit with traditional and modern societies, secular and religious views, left and right politics. The key, as with our political system, is to agree to work within a framework of practical application. We cannot and will not resolve deeply felt religious, philosophical and political views. But we can agree on what it takes to work together and live good lives together.
https://www.history.com/news/whose-vision-of-america-won-out-hamiltons-or-jeffersons
2. Citizens have differing interests/views in all 4 broad domains of international relations, economics, politics and culture.
3. The basic left/liberal/progressive versus right/conservative/traditional divide has endured for 2 centuries.
4. Social scientists agree that some form of the psychological dimension of “openness” is an important driver of left versus right political views. Individuals who are more intuitive (N)/abstract/open on the second Meyers-Briggs dimension tend to take liberal views. Those with more concrete/specific/applied views tend to be conservatives. Similarly, those who are more Judging rather than Perceiving on the 4th dimension tend to be conservatives, seeing the world in an orderly, structured manner. Meyers-Briggs (T)hinkers tend to be conservative, and (F)eelers tend to be liberal, but this is a weaker statistical link.
https://personalityjunkie.com/08/personality-politics-liberals-conservatives-myers-briggs-big-five/
5. Philosophers and social scientists have worked intently for 2 centuries to find a “scientific”, objective, rational, modern view of how politics “ought” to be. Classical liberals, including Immanuel Kant and John Rawls, have proposed neutral, allegedly “value free” systems, but they have not been widely adopted.
6. Religious supporters have watched for a new “great awakening” or signs of the “end times” without success.
7. The progressive era of 1880-1920 overturned some of the political machines of the time and replaced them with scientific management style city managers and opposing political forces. “Good government” folks have since proposed and implemented city managers, commissions, outsourcing, sunset laws, zero based budgeting, process improvements and referendums but this has not removed politics from governing.
8. Philosophers have considered and combined pre-Socratic, Socratic, Neo-Platonian, Aristotelian, Augustinian, Aquinian, scholastic and modern views. They have discounted many views but not reached any true consensus on the important questions. We remain at a stalemate about the critical questions of the individual vs. community, objective vs. subjective reality, ideal/essential vs. existential/empirical world, natural and/or supernatural world, and a logical/designed vs. random/evolving world.
9. Philosophers and social scientists mostly agree that values, morality and character are inherently subjective. Some religious oriented people, philosophers and social scientists agree that a subset of core values is widely seen and shared, but this view has not gathered followers in the last half-century.
10. Classical liberals argue that the US system of democracy and representative government with “checks and balances” is fully adequate to guide society in making solid public choices. This group argues that the citizens can embrace the underlying required pluralistic political values without having to make further choices about broader cultural values. Conservatives and a growing number of moderates and liberals today complain that this approach offers a morality that is too “thin” to support a culture or a political system in the long run.
11. Perceived scarcity is not going to disappear soon, even with continued economic growth and 70 years’ worth of such predictions. Everyone remains interested in getting their fair share of the growing pie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society
12. Class interests have not been destroyed. If anything, the life experiences between the top 1%, 10%, 20% and the middle 60% or the bottom 20% have diverged even further apart in the last 75 years. Although we don’t discuss “class” as an organizing principle for politics in the US, it has grown to become more important.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
13. Social scientists have a much better understanding of “human nature”. We are imperfect. We have personality preferences. We can flex and learn but only so much. Nature and nurture. Tremendous potential. Education and experience are insufficient to create “perfect” citizens who can easily overcome our inherent political differences.
Despite the great progress of Western Civilization, we do not have and are very unlikely to find a single solution to our political differences. As individuals we have deeply experienced, considered and felt views of how our community should best operate. They are mutually inconsistent. We can work together to resolve some differences and agree to compromise on others. The apparently valid and opposing views don’t have an obvious resolution. I recommend that we constructively work together to find reasonable, decent compromise solutions and at the same time accept our inability to find an ideal solution without allowing that to discourage us.
https://www.yourobserver.com/news/2023/dec/01/construction-begins-legacy-trail-overpasses/
From 1945 through 1985 the US economy regularly accelerated its growth, reached a peak, fell back and then recovered. Businesses, economists, politicians and the public expected that this 3-5 year business cycle would continue forever.
Looking back, it seems like the business cycle was broken by 1985. All of the subsequent downturns have been prompted by extraneous, outside of the system, shocks. In 1990 a second global oil shortage shock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession_in_the_United_States
In 2000-2001, a stock market bubble popped.
In 2007, a mortgage lending bubble popped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession
In 2020, a pandemic driven recession, followed by a very unexpected rapid recovery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_recession
40 years without a classic business cycle recession is long enough to claim victory.
How could this happen? The independent Federal Reserve Bank has maintained a neutral monetary policy. We have not “shot ourselves in the foot” and we have implemented reasonable policies to offset external shocks. The federal government budget deficit has generally returned towards zero following depression periods. Automatic stabilizers and congressional action have addressed recessionary periods with enough stimulus to stop economic decline and restart recovery.
More importantly, the structure of the US economy has changed. The share of high fixed cost manufacturing has declined as “services” has increased as a share of the total economy. The share of international trade (imports and exports) less directly connected to the domestic economy alone, has increased. The power of labor (unionized or not) has fallen, allowing firms to reduce hours and real wages during a downturn. In most recent times, firms better recognize the cost of attracting and developing highly skilled labor in a complex production world, so they retain key staff even during downturns. Vertical integration has been reduced, allowing firms to respond to minor demand changes more effectively. Based upon the quality revolution, major firms have reset their capacity utilization targets to 80% rather than 95%, providing firms with greater flexibility in managing variable demand and not reaching the point where internal costs increase and the need to increase prices occurs.
Financial leverage has also decreased. US firms have access to deep bond markets so are they able to incur only necessary levels of indebtedness.
Even with a much greater level of imported goods, retailers hold lower levels of inventory, allowing them to not overreact to changes in demand. Firms have more effective supply chain management processes.
The unemployment rate also shows this structural change. When it was pushed below 5% in the 1960’s, inflation increased and was not permanently checked for 20 years. By 2000 the economy was able to expand and keep unemployment below 5% for extended periods of time without triggering “cost-push” inflation. Unemployment still increases during an economic downturn, but low unemployment does not seem to trigger a recession.
From the 1950’s through the 1980’s inflation tended to increase as the economy overheated before a reduction in credit availability would slow the overall economy. Aside from the Covid pandemic shortages, we no longer see major inflation increases.
The business cycle caused firms to underinvest because the best available forecast was always that the boom period would be interrupted in 1-5 years. Sales, margins and profits could not be assumed to increase forever.
The business cycle caused firms to follow a stop-start pattern for capital investment projects, process improvement, research & development, new product introduction, new markets, new channels and mergers & acquisitions. Seeing a downturn, firms would cancel existing initiatives, even at a significant cost, in order to conserve cash and signal to stakeholders that management was actively managing the business. Projects would slowly resume after it was clear that the business cycle recovery was under way 2 years later.
For individuals, the “last hired, first fired” cycle applied. Firms froze open position hiring. They released interns and summer workers. They prohibited overtime. They cancel contracts with temporary labor firms. Less experienced workers and minority groups suffered. Labor intensive industries, especially construction, were hard hit. Smaller firms closed. The hiring cycle would resume 2 years later.
Historically, stock market values also followed the pattern of the business cycle closely. Stock market declines were seen as an “early warning” indicator by forecasters. Since stock market values are theoretically determined by a risk-adjusted discount rate, the reduction of business cycle variability allows investors to use a lower interest/discount rate and value future earnings at a higher net present value.
The business cycle appears to be gone. The modern economy does not have the same high fixed costs it once had. Firms are able to increase their sales, profits and capacities in tandem without greatly overshooting the mark. Our national institutions help to keep growth at a sustainable level. Workers, firms, investors and society all benefit from this great advance, even if it is not publicly celebrated.
We have lost control of our political system and confidence in our institutions. I offer some root cause reasons for this situation in a series of posts. Sixth and final post in the series.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-mostly-flat-police.aspx
In 1943, Abraham Maslow outlined a theory of human motivation that argued that some factors are so important that they must be “satisfied” in order for individuals to pursue other human needs. “Safety and security” was the second layer, just above meeting physiological needs. When I review my first five attempts to get at the “root cause” of our challenging current situation and my remaining list of important factors, I conclude that insecurity may be THE root cause. If we are truly insecure, we will do “whatever it takes” to find security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
Let’s start at the highest level. Following the “progress” of the last 500 years, we are now expected to make important and consequential choices for ourselves in all areas of life: religion, politics, career, retirement, investing, insurance, health, recreation, leisure, marriage, parenting, sexuality, personal finance, consumption, travel, experiences, education, goals, personal expression, arts, branding, friends, community, communications, entertainment, media, social networks, privacy, tolerance, philosophy, clothing, transportation, food, hobbies, housing, banking, OMG! Today, we also have many more options within each category. We have better information and tools, but conflicting priority perspectives and uncertainty about how to find shortcuts. In total, we’re overwhelmed with no solution in sight [maybe AI]. This ongoing situation undercuts any basis for feeling deep security.
Think of science as an expanding sphere or globe. The more we know, the more there is to add to our knowledge. By 1800, we had reached the limit of any man or woman “knowing everything”.
https://www.eoht.info/page/Last%20person%20to%20know%20everything
This does not trouble most people directly. Scientific advances since 1800 are estimated to have doubled every 15 years. That’s 15 more doublings or 32,768 times more knowledge since we first reached the limits of human understanding! Implicitly, this must trouble most people greatly. We are overwhelmed by a complex world that we cannot comprehend.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-00903-w
So … science provides us with better understanding and tools. It provides structure and some certainty. It also provides unexpected uncertainty. Modern science bears little resemblance to Newtonian classical mechanics. It is all probability, complexity, and unavoidable uncertainty. About one-third of high school students complete a basic physics course. Perhaps 5% of Americans complete a single college physics course. We tend to think of the world in simple, materialist terms, but scientists since Einstein’s 1910 results do not support this world view. We want certainty, but scientists no longer provide it.
War, pandemics, plague, nuclear war, food shortages, water pollution, air pollution, food processing contamination, cancer, thalidomide, vaccines, hexavalent chromium, sarin gas, fluoride, extinctions, global warming, sea level rise, climate extremes, solar flares, electrical outages, runaway thermonuclear reactions, ozone layer thinning, acid rain, global government agencies, multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations. So many threats, highlighted by the media and various interest groups. Great uncertainty for all.
Economic scale grows. Specialization increases. Everyone must engage with the system. We all become cogs in the machine. We are dehumanized.
Economic stability is weak. Greater economic competition and change. International competition. Loss of large company support for employees. Increased technological changes and disruptions. Administrative, engineering, process and legal changes. Regulatory changes.
Corporate competition. Mergers & acquisitions. Outsourcing. Work automation and obsolescence. Job insecurity.
Weakened effective safety net from government.
Meritocracy focuses the minds of parents, children and adults on careers only. We worry.
Consolidation of income and wealth leading to further power consolidation through economic, social and political channels.
Increased financial leverage through availability of credit. More individuals have high fixed payment requirements and the risk of bankruptcy in hard times.
Capitalism continues to offer diverse goods and services to meet every need and desire. The commercial mindset pervades society.
Technological innovation offers an unlimited supply of new goods and services.
We have generally embraced Rousseau’s perspective on life. Each individual is born with infinite potential. Our job is to help each child achieve their potential and destiny, leveraging their talents. They have the capacity to “be, all that you can be”. Unfortunately, the individual needs to be validated by someone. They don’t have direct access to a transcendent religion or philosophy or community. Hence, they have to reach out to “society” for validation. They create a personal brand. They gain clicks. It is never enough. They are insecure.
We live in a secular age where all belief is insecure.
Skepticism rules.
Our attempts to find a single, clear, direct, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect solution beyond religion have failed. Nationalism, fascism, socialism, romanticism, pragmatism, rationalism, utilitarianism, unitarianism, Deism, communism, globalism, environmentalism, existentialism, postmodernism, conservatism, liberalism, neo-liberalism.
We have a great diversity of theological and experiential religious perspectives. This helps some and undermines faith for many others.
Western society has considered “progress” as a substitute for religion for 4 centuries. The economic, political, scientific, and communications advances provide a background for the belief that there is a “pattern” to history and it is inevitably heading in the right direction. The backlash in the 20th century has been strong based upon the world wars, Great Depression and the horrors of totalitarianism and technology.
We experienced some return to faith in progress in the post – WW II period and at the end of the Cold War. However, “the end of history” marked by the permanent victory of democracy, capitalism and globalism was very short-lived.
Our political parties are fluid. The civil rights act of 1964 shattered the Democratic party. The Vietnam War, riots, the counterculture and Kent State shootings reoriented the parties. By 1981 Reagan consolidated conservatives of national, Main Street, Wall Street, philosophy. libertarianism, religious, cultural, and international flavors to form a new enduring majority to replace the previous FDR majority. By 1994 Newt Gingrich installed an oppositional view against President Clinton. The polarization of politics grew from there. A black and white, right versus wrong, good versus evil view grew upon the singular yardstick of left versus right, conservative versus liberal. The mass media splintered into politicized pundits. Politicians embraced a world where perception is reality. The ends soon justified the means. A simple “red versus blue” perspective was promoted and adopted. Civility, trust, consensus, reason, fairness, tradition, and the American way declined. The 2008 mortgage debt meltdown created the populist “tea party”. The Republican party absorbed this populist group and revised its policies, accelerating towards populist and nationalist views with candidate Trump in 2016. Some citizens find security in their political party, but a vast majority decry the polarized situation.
The majority of cultures through time and around the world have been “traditional”. European civilization since 1700 is the outlier, deemed WEIRD by Johnathan Haidt. Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. Traditional cultures emphasize group-oriented loyalty, authority and sanctity more than the individual-oriented care and fairness factors.
During the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, the common Christian cultural background allowed European and American societies to explore and embrace this individualistic dimension without abandoning the group-oriented values, traditions or Christianity. After WWII and especially after the countercultural 1960’s, the loose consensus on culture has been shattered. Many historical norms have been challenged or overturned in the areas of marriage, sexuality, gender, race, parenting, government authority, male authority, church authority, institutional authority, music, art, drugs, religious belief, history, tolerance, human rights, life, relativism, subjectivism and objective morality. The cultural changes were broad, deep and disorienting. They have been celebrated, accepted or opposed. Culture, religion and politics have become aligned in a secular versus religious, liberal versus conservative, traditional versus modern/postmodern way.
We have multiple cultures based on this major split, but also based upon age, social/professional class, and geography (rural/urban/suburban) (coastal, Midwest, Sunbelt). Some people find security in their smaller culture. Many are disoriented by the multiple options and the conflicts between the cultures. Modern media capabilities allow us to live in isolated ways or to engage in fighting to promote our culture and oppose other cultures.
The changes since WWII have reduced our participation in communities of all types while increasing our focus on the individual. Many people no longer have the support of meaningful community ties.
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 treasurer peace and certainty. We’re still looking for answers that work well in a world filled with options and choices.
https://www.ship-technology.com/features/the-top-10-largest-container-ships-in-the-world/?cf-view
The US imports and exports about 1/8th (12%) of its Gross Domestic Product. Argentina, Brazil and Pakistan have a similar level of trade to GDP. China and Russia are closer to 1/5th (20%). The world imports and exports 30% of it’s GDP. European countries import and export 45% of GDP. The US is the most self-sufficient country in the world. It imports select commodities, labor intensive goods and luxury products. It exports high value-added goods and services supported by its high value-added and compensated workforce. As the US president threatens the large benefits of global trade to the US and the world, it’s very important to place the US within this context. U.S. trade may be less advantageous than someone’s vision of ideal, but based on size alone, international trade is clearly not a first-class priority for the country, its firms or citizens.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/oct/24/hemlock-cup-bettany-hughes-review
We have lost control of our political system and confidence in our institutions. I offer some root cause reasons for this situation in a series of posts. Fourth post in the series.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-mostly-flat-police.aspx
Greek democracy, citizenship, virtue
Roman empire, law, stability, character, citizenship, the state
Christendom, stability, salvation, order, community, tradition
Renaissance, enlightenment, Protestant revolution, individual liberty, human rights, progress
Scientific revolution, understanding, technical control, economic progress
Classic liberal state, individual rights, liberty, freedom, fairness, justice
No era of human history has been perfect but “Western civilization” experienced net cumulative progress in its self-understanding, capabilities, confidence, positivity, justice and use of effective institutions for several centuries.
Natural disasters, plagues, wars, evil and oppression.
Religious conflicts, denominations, global religions, secular humanism, Deism, institutional failures.
Promise and obvious experienced shortcomings of utopian solutions such as socialism, communism, fascism, globalism, romanticism, environmentalism, and eugenics.
Rise of the modern nation state as an effective context for community, government, commerce, loyalty and security, followed by its totalitarian abuse, demonization of others and splintering into smaller geographic, religious and ethnic states.
The amazing, sustained progress of science and technology to “solve” all problems, followed by the realization that it cannot solve moral, political and social problems and that it creates many new ethical, commercial, and political challenges.
The sustained global economic progress driven by urbanization, industrialization, finance, administration, capitalism, government regulation and trade raising living standards, offering opportunity, improving health and reducing poverty, without reaching a clear consensus on how to capture the benefits of economic progress without being overwhelmed by the exploitative, unequal, monopolistic, political capture, environmental and cultural downsides.
The shock of the Great Depression and the 2 world wars to the popular, business and elite confidence that economic, social, global, military, political, educational, scientific and cultural progress was inevitable. The global successes of the post-war era and the collapse of the Soviet Union provided a very brief renewal in faith in progress and “the end of history”.
Philosophy worked very hard to keep up with the progress of science but has ultimately failed. Most of philosophy has been absorbed by science and social science. It provided some support for modern religion, science, arts and politics in the early modern period. It also offered deep skepticism about religion, objectivity, causality, and language. It didn’t solve “nature versus nurture”. It didn’t resolve idealism, essentialism, rationalism versus empiricism, pragmatism, existentialism. It provided us with several flavors of individualism, including Rousseau’s positive view of man outside of society. It served up Hegel’s historical/dynamic view, Marx’s insights and nonsense, Nietzsche’s replacement of God with Superman and the final retreat to logical positivism, materialism and postmodernism.
The expansion of individual rights has been a signature strength of the last 500 years. The true essential equality of individuals is broadly embraced. Race, gender, ethnicity, religion, class, social status, wealth, property, profession, sexuality, customs, appearance, and education are generally respected. Yet, we humans discriminate and prejudge upon such categories. Efforts by idealistic and minority groups to offset such shortcomings are hotly contested.
Religious belief. The default secular worldview limits this approach to understanding the world and making important choices. Fundamentalist right to progressive left.
Personal growth. Design your life and your children’s lives to “be all that you can be”. You will have to look outside for validation of your progress. You may not find guidance by looking inward. You may find that you need community and links to eternity and the universe.
Libertarianism. Free market capitalism. Anti-government. Liberty. Freedom. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises developed a positive version of this worldview. It is embraced by a large share of the Republican party today. It is fundamentally anti-community and anti-religion. It elevates a single dimension of philosophy and morality above all others: economic liberty.
Populism. The “little guy” is exploited by “the elites”. A victim perspective. Farmers, peasants, factory workers, and small business owners take this perspective. In our individualistic, opportunistic, competitive, meritocratic, commercial, secular world all people need to justify their progress. We all “know” that we are “above average”, like the inhabitants of Garrison Keillor’s Lake Wobegon. If we don’t reach our goals, someone or something else must be to blame.
Authoritarianism. The world is too complex. We need a “great leader”.
Postmodernism. The powerful use every possible tool to oppress others. All minority groups are victims of the “ruling class”. Most modern philosophies, institutions and language are tools. Enlightened professors in the humanities and social sciences are waiting to lead the next revolution.
The Republican party has moved far right, embracing libertarianism, free markets, cultural conservatism and populism. The Democratic party and other cultural elites have been tempted by postmodernism, expected demographic trends and special interest groups. They have failed to provide a compelling mainstream alternative to the Republican party since Reagan and Gingrich. Socialists like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez win headlines. Democrats have consistently lost the framing battle, competing on shifting terms favorable to Republicans. They have failed to find a positive core message like opportunity, progress, pluralism, balance, rule of law, will of the people, decency, justice, reasonable fairness, shared winnings, sustained growth, win/win, security, or mutual interests.
I would also argue that a simple proposal to maintain the benefits of our historical political systems could be compelling and adequate for a supermajority of citizens and voters.
I return to Jonathan Haidt’s work on the moral foundations of politics and religion. The BIG change in human history is from a broad portfolio of factors in most historical and global societies to the WEIRD perspectives supported in part of the Western world: care, fairness and equality alone. “Liberals” now mostly ignore loyalty, authority, purity, proportionality, liberty, honor and ownership while “conservatives” wisely appeal to all of these moral flavors.
Western civilization has embraced rationality, science, and individualism. It has gone too far, forgetting about community and eternity/universality. Skepticism has grown as we have learned that no single, simple perspective is adequate to explain our world. There is now a risk that we reject all structured knowledge. There is also a risk that we embrace intuitive world views and leave rationality and criticism behind. The Republican party has managed to keep the various flavors of conservatism aligned in a far-right view. Democrats are unable to offer a compelling alternative to the general public.
https://karsh.org/kurt-vonnegut-2/
The United States maintained a strong religious worldview among its people and its elites for generations longer than Europe. The U.S. saw a surge in religious belief, membership and participation as the baby boomers left behind WWII and the Great Depression and formed new families. The supermajority consensus allowed the country to be nominally secular but effectively Christian. Most individuals did not have to make religious choices. They followed their parents’ choices and adjusted their degree of engagement.
The mid-century counterculture, birth control, liberal theology, higher education experience, arts, music, jazz, women’s rights, war protests, civil rights, abortion rights, sexual revolution, films, globalization, rejection of authority, individual expression, riots, child rearing beliefs, therapeutic psychology, personal growth, commercialism, advertising, drugs, divorce laws, urbanization, anonymity, health, medicine, drive-ins, car access, mass media, common experiences, etc. provided and validated many new options for most life decisions, including religious beliefs and activities.
As Charles Taylor documented in his “A Secular Age”, the possibility of non-belief became possible, then plausible and then the default option among some highly educated people. The “none of the above” option spread throughout society. Religious belief became one choice among many. Each succeeding generation, allowed to choose, became less religious.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx
Societies, cultures and civilizations work best when citizens hold common beliefs unconsciously. When the default worldview is shared, “life is good”. Religious and philosophical beliefs matter greatly, even if most people don’t consciously address them. The breakdown of a shared worldview triggers several actions. Many “double down” on the historical choices, validating, refining, formalizing, justifying and supporting them. Others search for alternatives. Some look to modify their beliefs to preserve the past and address the new challenges or situation. Others simply “check out”.
We’re living in one of those transition periods. These responses to changes in religion and philosophy play out in all other areas of life: careers, family, interests, leisure, education, arts, community, volunteering, trust, confidence, interactions, dialogue, civics, politics, dress, socialization, health, communications, sports, games, participation, risk-taking, creativity, exploration, myths, history, commitments, lifestyles, experimentation, conformity, skepticism, certainty, ethnicity, nationalism, patriotism, language, the list continues.
https://genius.com/The-5th-dimension-aquarius-let-the-sunshine-in-lyrics
Everything becomes fluid and relative or fixed, static and fundamental. Some embrace change and possibilities. Others fight, fight, fight. “Things fall apart, the center cannot hold”. Ouch.
As much as we praise the individual and individual choice as the best expression of human experience, most people are not made for so many choices.
In the US this challenge is exacerbated by the availability of new options for religious belief. Many non-Christian options are available in my community. Is this an opportunity or a threat?
Humans have a strong preference for certainty. “Cognitive consistency” is essential. We look for evidence to confirm our beliefs and ignore conflicting evidence. Radical skepticism and serious relativism are quite unwelcome. We “know we are right”. Yet, we need to be validated by our neighbors and our peers. We need to live our lives based upon our habits. We simply can’t be pursuing the “5 why’s” technique every minute. We have lives to lead. As Jonathan Haidt says, the elephant leads, the rider occasionally influences the elephant.
Daniel Kahneman has the same insight. Our conscious mind simply cannot address everything “logically”. It must use shortcuts, habits and heuristics. It can only rationally address a very small portion of life.
We don’t know what to believe, if we’re honest with ourselves. Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” still applies but does not satisfy. Skepticism and subjectivism have undermined us. The “rational” Enlightenment and the advances of science have reinforced the expectation of certainty. A perfectly materialistic worldview is deemed possible and promoted by some. The philosophers rejected any supernatural belief, pursued positive, analytical philosophy, saw it was a dead-end, pursued existentialism, saw it was a dead-end, considered postmodernism, saw it was a dead-end.
The scientists continue to move ahead with their highly effective techniques. The philosophers of science and the “science and religion” experts have undermined any proof of materialism or scientism. Science cannot replace religion. They overlap. They work in different dimensions. Oh boy!
Scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have “proved” that we cannot have a deterministic description of the world supported by facts and logic. Ouch! Probability, mystery, uncertainty, perspectives, paradigms, infinities, dimensions, indeterminacy, descriptions, measures, fractal dimensions, imaginary numbers, duality, quantum uncertainty, and artificial intelligence.
We are grasping for a new form of certainty. It has not arrived. [Waiting for Godot?] Red and blue politics are trying to fill the gap, quite poorly. We’re looking for a religious, cultural or artistic break-through. Science alone is clearly inadequate.
We’re looking for a “both/and” solution. Yin/Yang. A toroidal field that supports nuclear fusion. Bittersweet. Sweet and sour. Some new version of Hegel’s thesis, antithesis, synthesis, repeat process. Some version of Hofstadter’s eternal golden braid. Practical/analog and mystical/eternal at the same time.
A double helix that provides a new 3-dimensional structure. A bootstrapping theory that creates life from chemicals. A mechanical or other “explanation” of consciousness.
This ultimate exhaustion of alternatives may lead us back to Christianity!
We have lost control of our political system and confidence in our institutions. I offer some root cause reasons for this situation in a series of posts. Second post in the series.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-mostly-flat-police.aspx
Real, inflation adjusted, gross domestic product (GDP) is up 4 and 1/2 times since WWII when the American economy was the savior of Western Civilization and about to invest in the recovery of Europe and Japan. In this long-term perspective, growth is very constant. Critics can point to the capture of a greater share by the wealthy. Optimists can point to the radical improvement in quality not captured by GDP, increased consumer choices available and a larger share of retirees in the population.
Consumer confidence rises with the economy and declines with recessions and polarized politics, but it has no upward trend to match real incomes!
Economists assume that people have unlimited wants. Most research and common-sense experience show that this is true.
http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco211/lectures/microch1-17.htm
Post-war economists have persistently claimed that Americans “now” have everything they need materially to be happy, but they have been persistently wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society
Other research shows that beyond a certain level of income, more money doesn’t make people happier.
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/does-more-money-correlate-greater-happiness-Penn-Princeton-research
Real people, at all levels of income, report that they would be happy, satisfied and secure if they only earned 50% more.
Our happiness often is based on our perceptions of comparative social and economic status. There is always someone with more.
We focus on our most recent experience rather than seeing the big picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_bias
Once we have an idea in mind, we tend to consume information that confirms the idea and avoid or deny challenges. Positive, constructive people will be optimists. Others will be pessimists and follow the bad news media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
When we do try to rationally assess our current situation, we compare it with something obvious. It’s usually something prominent, recent, large, and shiny. We compare today with our best ever experience or situation. We reset our expectations to compare with something prominent in our experience. We don’t plot graphs of our real annual earnings, wealth and leisure. Our expectations are anchored in our best experiences. Current expectations tend to move back to a neutral evaluation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect
Humans want more. We are rarely satisfied. That means we are easily distracted in the modern world by marketers, influencers, journalists, bloggers and politicians. Human nature has not changed. Our true economic condition has improved with little impact. Our access to information, education, knowledge and wisdom has increased with minor impact. The ability of communicators to influence our perceptions of the world has greatly increased and we have generally not improved our defenses. “We have much, much work to do today” – Mr. Thoburn Dunlap, 1970, Fairport Harbor, Ohio high school teacher.
P.S. Focus on how the media works.
P.S.S. Positive view of economic and social progress.
We have lost control of our political system and confidence in our institutions. I offer some root cause reasons for this situation in this series of posts.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-mostly-flat-police.aspx
Republicans have driven economic individual extremism, and Democrats have driven social individual extremism. We are unable to balance the individual with the community, morality, culture or religion.
https://genius.com/The-rolling-stones-you-cant-always-get-what-you-want-lyrics
https://genius.com/Queen-i-want-it-all-lyrics
After WWII our leaders worried greatly about the extinguishment of the individual by our culture, religion, businesses, government and universities. These large organizations were so large, effective and results-oriented that they could not encourage or allow individual freedom. They would necessarily enforce social conformity, even in a capitalist democracy. The 20th century’s totalitarian societies, George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World greatly disturbed thought leaders. Liberals and conservatives worried about different aspects, but the core concern was universal. Consider The Organization Man, The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit, The Hidden Persuaders, The Road to Serfdom, Atlas Shrugged and The Lonely Crowd. Very surprisingly, the “individual” was unleashed in the next half century and became God.
Mick Jagger struggled with the conflict between competing powers. He embraced the tension and moved ahead. Freddie Mercury simply declared victory. Complete victory.
The individual alone as God is not a solid base for our society or any society.
We are polarized because we all “know” that we are right. We don’t have solid experience working with others in community or government to resolve differences. We don’t reach our goals, and then we look to blame someone else or claim victim status. We lock into media sources that reinforce our views. We only connect with individuals just like ourselves. We pursue only individual goals and are frustrated they are not affirmed. We emphasize consumer and producer goals and complain about “the rat race”. We don’t participate in civic life, complain that politics is ineffective and look for someone to solve our problems. We are not experienced managing complex situations, so we look for simple answers to complex questions about politics and the meaning of life.
Good News 