By 1992 politicians learned that black/white, good/bad, right/wrong framing of political issues was most effective. No more late-night sessions in a “smoke filled room”. No more compromises. No more earmarks or logrolling. Political parties must be philosophically consistent. No personal relations among congresspeople. No great existential threat, country, philosophy or doctrine to oppose together. Modern marketing and psychology provided the insights and tools to truly manipulate the public. Emotions are more powerful than logic. Hate and fear are stronger than hope. Compromise is immoral. Framing the discussion and providing the right language is most effective.
Republicans learned much faster than Democrats who held onto their historical successes, clung to rationality, facts and experts, embraced progressive trends, worshipped ideals above results, were slow to leverage modern political technologies, and truly believed they would prevail simply because they were right.
In hindsight, the path forward was obvious. Find issues that are emotionally charged. Define them as good versus evil. Manage the conceptual frames to make your position appear reasonable and the opponents extreme or radical. Use actions, political activity and the media to focus attention on the issues that are most favorable to your party at any point in time. The ends justify the means. “Winning is the only thing”. I have to respond to my opponents. Fight against evil doers. Enable victimhood. We have experienced 40 years of the downward spiral.
Situation
We are polarized. We have lost trust. We are skeptical and pessimistic. Does this make any sense? We live in the greatest country in the greatest time in history. Our parents and grandparents defeated fascism, nationalism, totalitarianism and communism. They learned to tame business cycles. They tripled international trade for mutual benefit. They established global alliances and organizations to solve problems and reduce the risks of conflicts. They quadrupled real output per person. They reduced global poverty by 80%. They extended human lifespans by two decades. I want to argue that the apparent political conflicts in the US today are a “grand illusion”. First, let’s outline the 5 main dimensions of politics.
The main dimensions of American politics over the last 250 years center on federal power, economic control, civil rights, foreign policy, and cultural change.
Federal Power (National vs. State)
The Debate: How much control the central government has over individual states.
Early Years: Fought over whether the nation was a loose union of states or a strong single country (culminating in the Civil War).
Modern Era: Focuses on federal laws versus state laws regarding healthcare, education, and public safety.
The Economy (Free Market vs. Government Role)
The Debate: How much the government should regulate business and help the poor.
Early Years: Promoted a mostly free market with low taxes and little regulation.
Modern Era: Includes social safety programs like Social Security and government rules for banks and corporations.
Civil Rights (Equality vs. Exclusion)
The Debate: Who gets full rights and protections under the law.
Early Years: Limited rights mostly to white, property-owning men.
Modern Era: Fought for and expanded the rights of enslaved people, women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Foreign Policy (Isolationism vs. Global Action)
The Debate: How much America should get involved in world affairs.
Early Years: Avoided permanent foreign alliances and focused on North America.
Modern Era: Led global organizations and fought in world wars and international conflicts.
Culture and Society (Tradition vs. Progress)
The Debate: How social traditions and moral values shape laws.
Early Years: Tied heavily to religious foundations and agrarian lifestyles.
Modern Era: Centers on shifting social norms, family structures, and individual freedoms.
Analysis and Hope
Conservatives have won the financial battle since LBJ’s “Great Society” proposals to increase the role of the federal government with Reagan’s election and re-election. Political battles, inertia, convenience and special interests have since increased the power of the federal government, especially the presidency. Democrats can now see the dangers of centralized federal power and cooperate with the remaining moderate Republicans to “accept” a reasonable compromise. Fiscal conservatives can join with Democrats to address the federal budget deficit and national debt.
Americans remain committed to a “mixed economy” that is primarily capitalist with relatively limited regulation compared with other “advanced” economies. Again, Republicans won this war with Reagan. They have tried to further deregulate and cut taxes with some results. However, the Trump Republican party is a populist party that mistrusts big business. This is a “tug of war” area, not an existential battle, despite it being positioned this way by both parties.
Democrats (and historical Republicans) won the civil rights war. Some elements of the Trump Republican party oppose the more extreme expression of “civil rights” application and have politically leveraged alleged Democratic overreach. As a country, we have a basic consensus of the 80%.
The struggle between isolationism and global engagement has been rekindled by Trumpian Republicans, overturning more than 50 years of Republican economic globalism. Democrats accepted this approach with the Clinton “third way” of the 1990’s. Trump has made this an emotional “us versus them” issue, conflating defense, economics and immigration. Big business and Wall Street have not fought back. Most Americans don’t want to give up the benefits of cheap imports, NATO, alliances and lower wage service, farm and construction workers. Both parties can limit the real risks of globalization.
Until recently, Democrats had “won” the so-called “culture wars”. Science, progress and secular society would grow forever. A balance with religion, tradition, community, spirituality, and local cultures was not needed. We now have a consensus that the cultural pendulum has swung too far in some ways and that we all have a need to accept a pluralistic society as we did at the nation’s founding. At that time, it was many denominations. Now it is many spiritual and cultural views. The “cultural conservative” base of the Republican Party, IMHO, has rightfully opposed the extinction of traditional cultural views. The Democratic party and its thought leaders can return to its history of both pushing for progress and embracing a diversity of views on how best to live one’s life.
Summary
Americans prefer a moderate role for the federal government. A little less than today. We are not a statist France. Delegate as much as possible to the states. Re-establish “checks and balances” and “the rule of law”.
Americans prefer a mixed economy with relatively low government control and taxes. There is no consensus for radical change.
Americans embrace civil rights for historic categories. They mostly don’t support affirmative action or expansion of categories or perspectives.
Americans prefer the benefits of global engagement AND want their country to be protected. The failure of the Trumpian win/lose approach is increasingly clear.
Americans prefer progress and embrace individual rights to choose religious and cultural beliefs and practices. Most can strongly agree on that.
There are not existential threats on any of these 5 dimensions for two-thirds of Americans. We have to reject politicians, parties and influencers who try to frame extreme conflict when it does not exist.
70% of Americans oppose the construction of large-scale data centers locally. More Democrats oppose building, but this is a rare bipartisan topic that all politicians are digesting and turning into a campaign issue. Why do so many Americans oppose this? Is the opposition well-founded? The most recent Gallup poll identified more than 25 reasons for opposition.
Negative views on AI. Government regulation of AI is inadequate versus its existential threats to humanity. Stop it locally. Like the atomic bomb, nuclear power, chemical and biological weapons, bioengineering, and GMOs people cannot assess the cost/benefit ratio or assess the threats to jobs, white collar jobs, service jobs, manufacturing jobs, health care jobs, society, democracy, working class, etc. The undefined and unlimited risk is so large it must be stopped. Is this logical? Given the lack of congressional, professional, business, university, church or high-tech deep understanding, pausing AI is reasonable. Stopping data center construction is something that local citizens and politicians can do because they don’t have confidence in national leaders. There is a Frankenstein and Godzilla dimension to this.
Excess water usage. Local government approvals should consider water usage. Data centers should be built in places with adequate water supplies. Many have been built or proposed in areas without surplus water supplies. Developers develop. That’s what they do. Local regulators must consider all factors for zoning and development deals. Citizens are not confident that politicians or regulators will make wise decisions. Data centers don’t consume large quantities of water. Local governments can require them to use closed loop system that greatly reduce water usage.
Electricity consumption increases electricity rates.Public utility regulators are charged with spreading costs across all uses. New usage should not increase rates. Regulators can force very large users, like data centers, to pay for some extra costs of start-up and operation.
Electricity consumption threatens grid reliability. States and regions plan 20-30 years in advance. The recent increase in electricity demand and the addition of greater wind/solar power sources makes grid management more challenging. Data centers are not a major threat.
Electricity consumption undermines the transition to green energy sources. Again, this is a state regulatory issue. The blend of fossil versus green energy is a power company and state regulation choice. Wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and tide sources are increasingly competitive. Natural gas is the “swing” source and coal is uncompetitive.
Data center is an imperfect local land use. From the local community perspective, land could/should be used for farming, parks, nature, community centers, higher tax value uses, greater employment uses, greater total economic value uses, etc. Again, local zoning/regulation should shape this decision. Are local politicians accountable for their decisions?
Data centers are ugly, like cell phone towers, only huge. Another local zoning issue. Does this fit within “light industrial” zoning? It looks like a huge warehouse, without all of the doors and traffic.
NIMBY. I don’t want this locally. Let someone else host it. With proper zoning, data centers don’t harm property values. After construction, traffic is minimal.
Taxpayer subsidies are too high. Probably. Press local politicians. No subsidies are required.
Data center zoning/development/subsidy deals are hidden. Increased transparency is called for today.
Data centers generate local pollution. Another regulation issue. Noise limits for AC and backup generators. This is a minor issue.
Water and electricity usage requires capital investments. Regulated utilities are empowered to set rates to all users based upon total lifetime costs. In general, utility capacity can be added at lower than legacy capacity costs through time. It cannot be grown quickly without rate increases or rate setting that penalizes new users such as data centers or that requires new users to fund/subsidize construction and rates for a while.
Summary
Data center construction is opposed because citizens have lost trust in government, regulators, bureaucrats, politicians, big business, technology, promises, experts and deals. Ouch.
Historically, leaders found ways to work “behind the scenes” to resolve, compromise or guide issues to acceptable conclusions. Perhaps not optimal, wise or representing the people, but reasonable.
We have a crisis of governance. The polarized political parties, legislative gridlock, dueling lawsuits, complex issues, undermining of experts, data and rationality have left us angry and uninterested in problem solving.
As Thomas Paine said during the American Revolution, “these are the times that try men’s souls.” Are the differences insurmountable?
Political Dimensions – Google AI 8/24/2026
The main dimensions of American politics over the last 250 years center on federal power, economic control, civil rights, foreign policy, and cultural change.
Federal Power (National vs. State)
The Debate: How much control the central government has over individual states.
Early Years: Fought over whether the nation was a loose union of states or a strong single country (culminating in the Civil War).
Modern Era: Focuses on federal laws versus state laws regarding healthcare, education, and public safety.
The Economy (Free Market vs. Government Role)
The Debate: How much the government should regulate business and help the poor.
Early Years: Promoted a mostly free market with low taxes and little regulation.
Modern Era: Includes social safety programs like Social Security and government rules for banks and corporations.
Civil Rights (Equality vs. Exclusion)
The Debate: Who gets full rights and protections under the law.
Early Years: Limited rights mostly to white, property-owning men.
Modern Era: Fought for and expanded the rights of enslaved people, women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Foreign Policy (Isolationism vs. Global Action)
The Debate: How much America should get involved in world affairs.
Early Years: Avoided permanent foreign alliances and focused on North America.
Modern Era: Led global organizations and fought in world wars and international conflicts.
Culture and Society (Tradition vs. Progress)
The Debate: How social traditions and moral values shape laws.
Early Years: Tied heavily to religious foundations and agrarian lifestyles.
Modern Era: Centers on shifting social norms, family structures, and individual freedoms.
Analysis and Hope
Our challenges today are mainly political. We, the best educated, wealthiest, most productive and knowledgeable citizens of all time, have allowed politics to be framed as existential battles. They are not. Citizens must step up to oppose the politics of demonization and division.
Conservatives have won the financial battle since LBJ’s “Great Society” proposals to increase the role of the federal government with Reagan’s election and re-election. Political battles, inertia, convenience and special interests have since increased the power of the federal government, especially the presidency. Democrats can now see the dangers of centralized federal power and cooperate with the remaining moderate Republicans to “accept” a reasonable compromise. Fiscal conservatives can join with Democrats to address the federal budget deficit and national debt.
Americans remain committed to a “mixed economy” that is primarily capitalist with relatively limited regulation compared with other “advanced” economies. Again, Republicans won this war with Reagan. They have tried to further deregulate and cut taxes with some results. However, the Trump Republican party is a populist party that mistrusts big business. This is a “tug of war” area, not an existential battle, despite it being positioned this way by both parties.
Democrats (and historical Republicans) won the civil rights war. Some elements of the Trump Republican party oppose the more extreme expression of “civil rights” application and have politically leveraged alleged Democratic overreach. As a country, we have a basic consensus of the 80%.
The struggle between isolationism and global engagement has been rekindled by Trumpian Republicans, overturning more than 50 years of Republican economic globalism. Democrats accepted this approach with the Clinton “third way” of the 1990’s. Trump has made this an emotional “us versus them” issue, conflating defense, economics and immigration. Big business and Wall Street have not fought back. Most Americans don’t want to give up the benefits of cheap imports, NATO, alliances and lower wage service, farm and construction workers. Both parties can limit the real risks of globalization.
Until recently, Democrats had “won” the so-called “culture wars”. Science, progress and secular society would grow forever. A balance with religion, tradition, community, spirituality, and local cultures was not needed. We now have a consensus that the cultural pendulum has swung too far in some ways and that we all have a need to accept a pluralistic society as we did at the nation’s founding. At that time, it was many denominations. Now it is many spiritual and cultural views. The “cultural conservative” base of the Republican Party, IMHO, has rightfully opposed the extinction of traditional cultural views. The Democratic party and its thought leaders can return to its history of both pushing for progress and embracing a diversity of views on how best to live one’s life.
Summary 2
Americans prefer a moderate role for the federal government. A little less than today.
Americans prefer a mixed economy with relatively low government control and taxes. There is no consensus for radical change.
Americans embrace civil rights for historic categories. They mostly don’t support affirmative action or expansion of categories or perspectives.
Americans prefer the benefits of global engagement AND want their country to be protected. The failure of the Trumpian win/lose approach is increasingly clear.
Americans prefer progress and embrace individual rights to choose religious and cultural beliefs and practices. Most can strongly agree on that.
There are not existential threats on any of these 5 dimensions for two-thirds of Americans. We have to reject politicians, parties and influencers who try to frame extreme conflict when it does not exist.
People are driven by their background thoughts which they absorb from our culture. (Freud, Jung, Campbell, Kuhn, Kahneman, Haidt).
We have moved from a Christian/Western Civilization mental background to “A Secular Age” (Taylor, Smith).
It is “possible” that there is no God, no spirit, no meaning, no hope (Existentialism, Postmodernism). We have culturally concluded that this is “true” in some sense despite tremendous evidence to the contrary. (Science and Religion).
The main replacement ideology is one of “expressive individualism” (Bellah, Rieff, Lasch, Taylor, Sacks, Fukuyama). Each individual lives his best life by defining and living by his nature, talents, creative destiny to build an identity. “Be all that you can be”. “Authenticity” becomes the supreme moral value.
This is the world we live in, the one that our children and grandchildren inhabit.
In such a world, community, religion, institutions, idealism, morals, trust and character are much less important.
It is only “individual”, skeptical, insecure, purely materialist “turtles all the way up and all the way down”.
Religion must adapt to this cultural reality.
People still know there is something else, something more to life. Meaning, beauty, love, art. (Esp. James KA Smith)
Each local congregation must find ways to meet these needs.
We meet these needs by living good lives despite these challenges. We live our faith. We actively address the philosophical/theological void and confusion.
We welcome others to join us in our real-world activities, not just or primarily worship service. (be missional)
A revolution of thought, priorities and activities is required to share “the good news” with our brothers and sisters.
A. – Build bridges, not walls A. – Celebrate differences A. – Respect every story, welcome every voice A. – See the person, not the label B. – Be civil B. – Civility is the golden rule in action B. – Civility: pass it on C. – A house divided cannot stand C. – Different branches, common roots C. – Liberty for one, liberty for all C. – More alike than different C. – Out of many, one. C. – Stronger together. C. – There is more than enough to go around C. – We have much in common C. – We’re all in this together D. – Dialogue delivers D. – Listen to understand, speak to connect D. – One conversation at a time D. – Quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger D. – Speak to connect, not to correct D. – Use your inside voice E. – Look on the bright side E. – Naturally positive E. – Think win-win F. – Bold hearts, kind minds F. – Courageously engaged F. – Dare to disagree with dignity G. – Civility: pay it forward G. – Give respect. Get respect. G. – Kindness breeds kindness G. – Respect reaps respect H. – Infinite human value I. – Be kind I. – Blessed are the peacemakers I. – Kindness is our common language I. – Politeness is free J. – Be proactive J. – Begin with the end in mind J. – Choose your battles J. – Living by design K. – Democracy thrives on respect K. – I cherish my civic duties K. – Influence is power K. – Stronger arguments, kinder words L. – Be the neighbor you want to have L. – Build up each other L. – Can’t we all just get along? L. – Criticize acts, compliment people L. – Disagree better: respect is a choice L. – Every interaction matters. L. – Excuse me, did you drop your civility? L. – I’m OK. You’re OK. L. – Plays nicely with others L. – We grow together L. – What you do speaks so loudly, I can’t hear what you say. M. – A little respect goes a long way M. – I am my brother’s keeper M. – Love your enemy M. – Mutual respect M. – Respect despite disagreement. M. – Results and respect N. – Choose to be accountable N. – Do the right thing N. – I can always choose N. – My choices, my impact. N. – Take care of yourself O. – Character counts O. – Civility is always welcome O. – Cool heads, warm hearts O. – Trust is earned O. – Your reputation precedes you P. – Address incivility
In 2015, the Fishers Rotary Club created a quarter acre vegetable garden on the Fishers Christ the Savior Lutheran Church property. It’s members and the church drilled wells, installed sprinkler systems, built a shed, acquired equipment, installed access paths, established relations with local partners and food pantries to grow and distribute more than 4,000 pounds of fresh produce each year. Praise be to God!
In 2023 the Hamilton County Master Gardeners Association assumed the lead role for this community garden. The group has expanded to serving 5 local food pantries. It works with Volunteer Fishers to provide opportunities for citizens to help. The group delivers more than 3,000 pounds of produce to the food pantries. It raises $3,000 from supporters and $3,000 from HCMGA to fund expenses. It employs 2,000 volunteer hours annually. It serves the food pantries for the 6 months of May through October. The group plants 60 different crops each year in 3 planting cycles. It plants a half-dozen companion crops/flowers, rotates its 9 gardens and plants 3 cover crops each year. The group supports bee hives, hosts open houses and employs scout volunteers.
One-quarter acre is 120 18-foot long, 4-foot wide rows of 1-2-3-4 plantings.
3-4,000 pounds of fresh produce serves 8-10,000 people/servings. The retail value is roughly $15,000.
Why bother?
30 recurring volunteers have an opportunity to serve their neighbors.
20 “random” youth and community volunteers visit once, contribute and serve their community.
3-4 organizations invest $3,000 with a 5X return to serve their community.
400 local “master gardeners” have an opportunity to learn about vegetable gardening.
5 food pantries have dependable supporters for their valuable work.
Most importantly, food pantry clients have fresh, organic produce as part of their weekly visit. They greatly value fresh produce. They know that the local community invested time, talent and treasurer to make this happen. They are welcomed, truly welcomed into our community.
The history of modern Western intellectual life is not very comforting. We end up with Nietzsche’s superman which led to Nazism. We have Marx’s views which lead to totalitarian communist states. We have Freud’s view of mental repression and the impossibility of civilization. We have the next “scientific” view of psychology with Pavlov’s “stimulus and response”. We have Darwin’s principle of evolution which led to “social Darwinism” and its winner apologetics and eugenics. We have Darwin’s principle of evolution which led to scientific materialism, the rejection of any possible spiritual or non-material dimension to life. We have truly modern physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics and philosophy of science which undermine any possibility of a Newtonian certainty about science or nature, despite Einstein’s pursuit of a grand unifying theory and belief that “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”. We have existentialism which embraces the skeptics’ worst intuitions. We have professional philosophy which rejects metaphysics (fundamental nature, big picture approach) and adopts a purely analytical approach which reduces questions to precise language and logic. We have postmodernist philosophers who reject any structure other than the certainty that powerful forces will abuse their powers.
Modern History: Progress and Disintegration
Charles Taylor’s 2007 book “Our Secular Age” attempts to place all of this in perspective.
A “Secular Age” is one in which most individuals “know” that there may or may not be God, purpose, meaning or transcendence in life. A person’s life may be meaningless. The “next best” approach may only be to optimize the individual’s potential. There is “no exit”.
Doubt, skepticism and uncertainty are very powerful forces. Taylor argues that we all live based on implicit paradigms, beliefs, worldviews, assumptions, experiences, intuitions, etc. We are intuitive, social, historical beings. We absorb the beliefs of our culture. We don’t rationally evaluate and choose. About 4 million people are born in the US each year. 9,000 people earn philosophy degrees while 27,000 earn religion degrees annually. 1% of our citizens seriously pursue these questions.
In 1500, Western society was organic, with economics, politics, society and religion integrated into a well understood and accepted whole. Aristotle was “the philosopher”. St. Thomas Aquinas and the scholastics were applying logic to religious topics. History and tradition mattered. Morality and ethics were clearly defined and accepted. The spiritual dimension of nature and life was obvious. The personal Christian God was actively at work in the world. Priests and religious orders pursued perfection. Ordinary people supported the clergy and lived adequate Christian lives.
Modernity changed the Christian church. Luther elevated the role of the individual’s relationship with God, unmediated by clergy, in their local language. Each Church had to manage local politics to survive. Deism evolved as a scientific/rational form of religion.
The roles of economics, politics, society and religion were separated from each other. Social institutions evolved and learned to stand alone. Education, commerce and travel became more important.
Science became a driving force in understanding and controlling nature. It became commercially and politically important.
Individualistic philosophies developed. The “social contract” theory of politics was adopted and implemented.
Secular institutions were defined and provided services that replaced the role of the Church.
Today
We live in a world of skepticism, fear/insecurity, political polarization, subjectivity, tolerance, productivity, consumption, identity, searching, and striving.
The dominant approach of the professional class is deemed “the therapeutic society”. The individual reigns supreme. The individual is created to pursue his destiny, capabilities, potential or goal. The goal of the individual is to find/define and pursue this potential. Creativity, self-expression and authenticity are highly valued.
Taylor says that individuals seeking to pursue their capabilities still need feedback from their communities to validate their choices and results. They attempt to be radically independent but cannot do so.
There is a “tipping point” phenomenon at work. As science/technology became more insightful/effective, it became the default explanation for everything. In 1802 the mathematician Laplace replied to Napoleon’s question about the role of God in his latest book, “I have no need for that hypothesis”. The myth of the brave/heroic scientist/thinker overcoming social conventions and religious authorities was created and effectively employed. The false opposition of “science versus religion” was promoted.
The reduction in church attendance, membership and participation that occurred in Western countries along with education, urbanization and economic growth was deemed the “secularization hypothesis”: individuals automatically lost religion as civilization developed.
Our society promotes personal freedom, liberty and individual choice as the highest values. Our politicians and leaders encourage individualism. Economic production, success and consumption are elevated. The “free market” system becomes the model for social choices. Personal choices without limits are promoted. Government or social restrictions on individual choices are considered intrusions into sacred personal spaces.
Analysis and Hope
Taylor outlines the history of how our default worldview has changed. There has been continued growth and success of “instrumental logic” in science/technology and business/economics. The power of efficient causes alone in shaping and improving material well-being and possibilities is obvious. Individualism has grown to become a new God, with identity becoming all important. The possibility of “science” and “logic” explaining more and more and more has grown.
Taylor argues that we have assumed away the spiritual dimension of life. The progress of science has no bearing on important religious or philosophical questions. What is the meaning of life? Where did the world come from? Does the world have a purpose? How do scientific laws really work? How do I live a good life? How do I live in community? What is a good form of government? Why am I conscious? Why can I comprehend how the world works? What is beauty? What is religious feeling? Where does love come from?
Taylor argues that the scientific revolution lured us into believing that there are answers like Newton’s law of gravity and Euclid’s proofs of geometry that apply to all questions. We “rationalized” Christianity to make it “respectable”, creating Deism, but more importantly assuming that scientific rationality and logical proof is the only valid measure of success. Christian apologists sought to “prove” God and religious teachings. Religious leaders sought to modernize religion, stripping it of “irrational” content, deconstructing its content, evaluating it through literary and historical analysis, proving its merit through its application to social needs. Taylor says that this was a centuries long diversion.
Taylor highlights the failure of science and philosophy to be “fully rationalized”. Modern science cannot be reduced to a simplistic logical system beginning with a few assumptions and logically developing all results. Science is rational but not logically bullet-proof. It includes many features that are not “logical”. Science at very small and very large scales is strange and mysterious. Scientific disciplines use different methods and are sometimes incompatible. Emergent systems can be described but not in classic logical terms. Philosophy is used to analyze and deconstruct but it has failed to construct better answers.
Taylor and his popularizer, James K.A. Smith, emphasize that the spiritual dimension continues to “intrude” into everyday life for believers, skeptics, agnostics and atheists. Despite the progress of science, the secularization of society and the powerful influence of a “secular age” background worldview, spiritual experiences, ideas, thoughts, insights, longings, perceptions and behaviors don’t “go away”. They seem to be an intrinsic part of human life.
Like many modern Christian apologists, Taylor recommends that we reject the scientific method, logical proof, and Occam’s razor reductionist bias as the measure of religious/philosophical ideas, systems, processes, experiences and communities. He proposes that we consider “all available evidence”. What theory best matches the evidence? No theory is objectively true or fully comprehensive. Theories provide insights and answers to both common and difficult religious/philosophical questions. They are imperfect. Philosophical criticism indicates that there are trade-offs and shortcomings in all such systems. Taylor notes that it is only with the success of the scientific revolution that we have the audacity to expect to understand and explain everything about the universe including our religious/philosophical questions.
For many, Taylor’s conclusions seem like lukewarm apologetics. There is no certainty. We can’t trust science. We experience religion, so it must exist.
Taylor and his supporters argue that he is incorporating the best of human history and thought into his analysis and framework. We mistakenly believed that we could find reductionist answers to our questions. After 500 years of truly amazing scientific and economic progress we now know that this is impossible or very unlikely. We still have our religious/philosophical questions and experiences. They won’t go away. As with C.S. Lewis, he defines these explanations as myths or stories using human tools to provide insights into systems beyond our direct comprehension. The difference is that Christianity is a “true myth”.
We can choose to pursue a rational, reductionist, materialistic, non-spiritual solution. We can embrace a fully defined, literalist religious faith. Or, we can engage with a mysterious Christianity that provides essential answers that seem imperfect according to our modern conceptions of logic and rationality.
Exodus 3:14 New International Version
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
Carmel, Indiana is a 46 square mile city of 105,000 people a dozen miles north of downtown Indianapolis.
As 28-year mayor Jim Brainerd once quipped, “We don’t have mountains, valleys or an ocean, but neither does Paris”. How could an Indiana city create such a natural reputation for success?
Carmel is a suburb of Indianapolis, so it has benefitted from suburban growth since the 1950’s.
Indianapolis, like Columbus, Nashville, and Minneapolis, has been a heartland growth winner.
Indiana is a low cost of living location, benefitting from being the “Crossroads of America”.
Indiana is a low tax and low government services state, with expectations that government needs are best addressed at the lowest possible level.
Indianapolis has no natural geographical constraints to growth or limits that raise the cost of living. The Northwest Territory’s 6×6 mile townships expand in all directions.
Most metro areas have a preferred direction for wealth and growth. Indianapolis chose to develop straight north along Meridian Street across the Marion County border into Carmel by the 1950’s.
This branding and “first mover” advantage is common among America’s 50 large metro areas. Carmel benefitted from competitors in NW Zionsville limiting development to preserve the small village character, NE Geist having limited lakefront property and NNE Fishers limited main highway access.
While Indiana today is considered a deeply red state, historically it was more purple, with heavy manufacturing/worker counties balanced by rural/farming counties. Indianapolis was a local government innovator, creating county wide Unigov in 1970 to combine the city and county, preserving Republican dominance. Indianapolis has elected centrist mayors for 6 decades: Lugar, Hudnut, Goldsmith, Peterson, Ballard and Hogsett.
Jim Brainerd served as mayor from 1996-2024 as a centrist/practical Republican in the Governor Daniels mode, focusing on local economic issues and needs, without being distracted by national wedge issues.
Carmel understood the power of zoning and used this to adopt overlay zones to guide denser and higher quality development in the Meridian corridor, Range Line Road, Arts & Design District and Midtown areas. Politicians understood that Carmel was a valuable place for developers and set limits to ensure that the community would also benefit from growth.
Mayor Brainerd used the powers of the Indiana strong-mayor system to create tax increment finance (TIF) districts to capture the future property tax values of areas to allow for leveraged government investments in infrastructure.
Mayor Brainerd and the city council also allowed the city to borrow at advantageous interest rates to finance other investments to promote the city’s growth.
Like many governments, Carmel offered tax incentives to attract corporate developments.
Mayor Brainerd found that roundabouts were a local, traffic, aesthetic, environmental, safety, time, and cost winner. He prodded the city the install 150 roundabouts.
Mayor Brainerd incorporated a small investment into the arts and not-for-profits into the annual budgeting cycle. Local citizens applauded.
Mayor Brainerd chose to invest in community art, statues downtown and in the roundabouts. Again, the community applauded.
Journalistic histories emphasize the role of Mayor Brainerd in “transforming” the sleepy suburb into a new urbanist “edge city” and nationally recognized place to live. Mayor Brainerd deserves credit as a visionary and catalytic leader who delivered the goods for 3 decades. Yet the Carmel story begins before him and continues today. It relies upon political, government, community and volunteer leaders who believed that Carmel could deliver the highest possible quality of life for its residents and neighbors. I point to a few representative leaders who deserve credit.
Carmel has invested resources in making it a safe city. School safety officers requiring a separately approved levy. Formal quality standards for police and fire departments. County level emergency preparedness investments.
Carmel public schools are consistently rated among the best in Indiana. Critics say this reflects the wealthy socioeconomic status of the community. “The proof is in the pudding”.
Indiana schools are mainly funded through a statewide formula. Indiana property taxes are capped as a percentage of value. Carmel residents have chosen since 2010 to approve property tax levies to exceed the formula and the standard maximums. Recent state tax, budget and formula changes are driving new requests.
Carmel library has moved twice, expanded its main location and added a branch location. Carmel library has been nationally ranked for its activity, circulation, programs and financial investments.
Carmel aspires to be a diverse community. It has been a primary corporate transfer and health care professional destination, welcoming non-Hoosiers and preparing residents and students for national and global roles.
Carmel has more economic diversity than some expect, with many middle-class and young adult neighborhoods south of 116th Street and within the boundaries of Keystone Parkway and Meridian/US 31.
Density is good. Commercial property tax base is good. Employers are good. These 3 statements seem trivial and obvious, but many “professional class” suburbs reject them, wishing to live in an idyllic rural paradise. Carmel has always embraced manufacturing, offices, retail, and apartments.
The Meridian Corridor overlay district promoted dense development and prevented strip malls. The Range Line Road overlay district required dense and multi-use development. The early overall zoning plan encouraged economic development in the central 8 square miles of the city, within the 46 square mile footprint.
Carmel employed TIF districts and public borrowing to attract investors to its central city developments.
It employed the usual tax abatement tools to encourage major corporations to locate within Carmel.
By decade, Carmel’s population grew from 1950 to 2026 in thousands as 2, 10, 20, 33, 43, 65, 83, 99, 105. 4 decades of 10,000 population growth followed by 4 decades of 15,000 population growth. Growth may slam shut in 2030-2035. Growth provides advantages to utilities, realtors, developers, construction firms, media, and governments.
Lacking mountains or oceans, the community has developed events for every month of the year to celebrate. Many events were created, grown and managed by small groups of individuals with background support from the city government.
Carmel has leveraged its existing natural neighborhoods to develop a sense of place. Real estate developers have built traditional 50-300 home subdevelopments and filled in spaces. The city focused on the central city neighborhoods to define the “arts & design district” and midtown. The parks district has built and enhanced regional and neighborhood assets.
Carmel began with advantages as a growing suburb north of Indianapolis’s historic Meridian-Kessler neighborhood. Political leaders made wise decisions for several decades. Carmel’s measures of success have gained national recognition. However, the character of the community and quality of life is driven by the personal responsibility that citizens take for themselves and their neighbors as symbolized by the moms who built the first park and the dads who started the youth athletics programs.
A set of behaviors that recognize differences and build mutual respect.
A tool to deliver productive results through Civil discourse.
Comprised of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship management, communications, growth and problem-solving skills and behaviors.
A habit.
A choice (intentional).
Based on the universal values of human dignity, respect, acceptance, responsibility, constructiveness, intentionality and public-spiritedness.
A moral system but not a replacement for religious, philosophical or political systems.
Viral; a virtuous/vicious cycle.
Nonpartisan.
Ecumenical.
Teachable.
A blend of thinking, feeling and doing.
A social norm.
Consistent with human nature.
Actionable.
An aspirational ideal, never fully achieved.
A builder of trust, community, common good and institutions.
A self-maintaining social system.
Supported by world religions and secular humanism.
Informed by modern social science.
Practiced in personal, work, play, church, sports, media, union, culture, service, government and political environments.
Required for democracy.
Inspired by self-interest, situations, personality, identity, civic duty, patriotic duty, cultural duty, religious duty and philosophical duty.
NOT too simple, complex, moderate, extreme, soft, hard, liberal or conservative.
A solution to our challenges of political polarization, selfish media, radical individualism, limits of human nature, skepticism, our secular age, imperfect myths and insecurity.
Civility is based upon 7 values: human dignity, respect, acceptance, responsibility, constructiveness, intentionality and public-spiritedness. These values have been identified as the foundation of Civility because they work together with the 7 Civility behaviors to deliver results while recognizing differences and building mutual respect through civil discourse.
Deliver Results
The values strongly drive the 7 sets of behaviors.
The values and behaviors produce the desired results.
Society is more productive.
Civility behaviors become habits, valuable assets.
People are engaged, their capabilities employed.
Creative and cooperative solutions are generated.
Build Relations
Build communications skills.
Provides a safe environment which encourages interactions.
Creates a positive climate and expectations.
Promotes positive expectations and attitudes.
Reduces social tensions and anxiety.
Promotes trust in people, groups and institutions.
Builds a sense of teamwork, community and common purpose.
Adequate
Addresses real differences of experiences, interests, power and views.
Sustainable
Encourages consideration of long-term consequences.
Emphasizes the nature of repeated conversations and negotiations.
Inserts the common good as a meaningful objective and factor to consider.
Invests in the process.
Supports the needs of all participants.
Reduce Costs
Minimizes lost participation, ideas, solutions, compromises.
Reduces overall communications, legal and transaction costs.
Discourages destructive discourse, threats and behaviors.
Avoid and resolve conflicts.
Broadly Supported
Historically used by many cultures and traditions.
Consistent with lists of common moral values.
Commonly described by popular and academic writers.
Generally supported by the average person.
Nonpartisan.
Ecumenical, not promoting one religion or denomination.
Broadly Applied
Values and behaviors in family, neighborhood, work, play, church and civic situations.
Support Democracy
Provide moral/community basis for political participation, engagement, voting, funding, service, and legal compliance.
Actionable
Mutually consistent, supportive, connected values and behaviors.
Limited set of values with clear definitions and complementary taboos.
Consistent with human nature, even if requiring education and moral effort.
Values and behaviors can be taught, practiced and improved.
Consistent with the findings of modern social sciences.
Powerful
Values are deeply felt, motivating their adoption, cultivation and application.
Consistent with the virtuous cycle of reinforcement through social interactions.
Intuitive definition and connection with practical and moral life.
Connected with the religious and philosophical vertical dimension of life.
Good News 