Category: Progressive Center

Trump: The Anti-Conservative

tomkapostasy3 Comments

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/politics/trump-fake-reagan-quote-fact-check/index.html

In the 1970’s and 1980’s Ronald Reagan effectively knit together the various strands of “conservatism” under the umbrella term “conservative” within the Republican party, marking a big shift from FDR’s New Deal Democrats who had dominated US politics for two generations. Reagan’s assembly fit well within classical conservatism as outlined by Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.

Conservatism was originally a reaction to secular humanism, the enlightenment, scientific revolution, progressivism, individualism and classical liberalism. Buckley summarized it: “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” The key insight and rationale is that society is the result of trial and error, accumulated wisdom and demonstrated effectiveness. Change is to be considered, tried and adopted slowly. Society is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to science, philosophical and social science principles; analyzed, reformed and changed without great and irreversible risks. The institutions, lessons, wisdom and power of society must be honored for the benefits they provide, not treated as mere subject matter to be optimized.

This fits with social science research that says that “risk tolerance’ is the primary psychological dimension dividing conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are wary/skeptical about change, new situations, new solutions, “others” and mere ideas. Liberals welcome variety, change, ideas, possibilities, progress and ideals. Conservatives appeal to fears while liberals appeal to hopes. Conservatives embrace structures while liberals prefer flexibility. Conservatives are more pragmatic, incremental and results-oriented while Liberals value perfect ideals and honorable processes.

Philosophical conservatism is an umbrella that allows economic, social, international, religious, military and political conservatives to work together effectively despite the differences that exist in their more detailed views.

While Donald Trump promotes some policies that align with conservative principles, I will argue that most of his policies and actions are fundamentally opposed to classical conservatism. He is a radical, an extremist, a narcissist, a totalitarian who views the Republican party and “conservatism” as mere tools for achieving his personal goals which have no connection to the principles of conservatism. He is not seeking to promote the conservative agenda or preserve the best of American or Western civilization. He is not connected to liberalism either. Trump is a Nietzschean “superman” believing in himself, alone.

Culture/Civilization

Trump does not promote “Western Civilization”. No ringing words of inspiration and hope. Division between social and political groups. Neglect of history. No underlying principles like democracy, capitalism and globalism. Merely “might makes right”, realpolitik, leverage, “whatever it takes”, “the art of the deal”, “greed is good”, and “some very fine people on both sides”. The ideal Trump age is the 1970’s and 1980’s when he was making money, not the idyllic small-town, factory worker 1950’s. Universities are attacked. The “Lamestream media” is attacked. The Kennedy Center is acquired. The entertainment industry is criticized. Science is defunded and denied. Values are scorned. Allies are dumped. Europe, Canada, Mexico, NATO, Japan, South Korea, the UN and international agreements and organizations are disrespected. The accumulated wisdom and culture of the post-war era is disregarded. This is a nihilist view. Trump didn’t create it, so it must not be of value.

Citizenship

Trump promotes a “fake patriotism” that helps maintain his political support. He actively supports legislation to reduce “voting rights”. He undermines confidence in the voting process. He disputed and tried to overturn the 2020 presidential results. He never accepts the results of courts or legislative bodies that don’t agree with him. He interprets the constitution to meet his personal needs. He dishonors those who have served before as civil servants, military and political leaders. He sets no standards of excellence for his appointees to government office, merely loyalty. He issues no collective call to cooperation, sacrifice or common purpose even in the face of a global pandemic. He sees no obligation for those with greater resources and abilities to “serve their country”. He undermines the judicial system to meet his own needs. He considers Putin’s foreign policy to be the moral equal of America’s historical foreign policy.

Citizenship is a crucial role within philosophical conservatism. Society requires some form of government. That government must be seen as legitimate through the active participation of the citizens. Trump has promoted greater political participation through his polarized speech and actions. He has undercut the legitimacy of our government and citizenship.

Rule of Law

Conservatives embrace “the rule of law” because they distrust single individuals or mere ideas. Communities, property, firms, trade, organizations, governments, churches and families depend upon a stable background.

Trump completely disregards “the rule of law”. He has found that “might makes right” and money can purchase justice. He disrespects, challenges and undermines the courts, the department of justice, the FBI, Congress, contracts, agreements, allies, deals, rules, rulings, norms, relations, partners, legal counsel, professional associations, marriage vows, history, tradition, habits, judicial precedents, soft power, etc. He is amoral. He uses all tools and means to pursue his ends. Loopholes, appeals, distractions, bankruptcy, new loans, settlements. He lies, threatens, jokes, reverses course, denies, obfuscates, floods the zone, dog whistles, promises and reneges.

Community

Philosophical conservatives see culture and civilization transmitted, embodied and protected by actual communities; not individuals or abstract philosophical principles. Hence, communities of all kinds are essential: families, neighborhoods, churches, parishes, teams, scouts, civic organizations, professional and industry associations, social and sports organizations, social third places, special interest groups, political groups, fraternities. These are “the little platoons of society” that George W. Bush wanted to revive with his “compassionate conservatism.”

Trump offers only “individualism”, division and polarization. He is not a member or leader of other groups, aside from a few elite “clubs”. His life is focused on “deals”, transactions, not social relations. He shares no strategy to bind the country together, no ecumenicism, no third way, no civility project, no common good or purpose, no presidential volunteer program, no legislation to promote not for profits, no churchgoing example, no global idealism, no common morality, no “more effective” Congress, no international youth exchange/service program, no global warming cooperation, no next pandemic research, no cultural investment, no home team, no nonpartisan young Americans clubs, no long-term immigrants solution, no cultural discussion forums.

Class

Philosophical conservatives take a “realistic” view of society. Different people have different talents and capabilities, so they fill different roles for the overall benefit of society. “Birds of a feather flock together”. There are natural differences of experience and interests in different groups. There is no reason to fight this or to “equalize” groups. Hence, conservatives have generally supported the key roles and groups in their societies as being valuable and worthy of social support: landowners, farmers, capitalists, military leaders, priests, lawyers, doctors, bankers, entrepreneurs, scientists, political, government and business leaders.

Trump discounts all class groups except for a few exceptional billionaires and “the people”. He politically caters to factory and mine workers. He disparages corporate leaders, military leaders, bureaucrats, bankers, regulators, elected officials, judges, elites, media, technologists, unions, mayors, government employees, teachers, essential workers, civil servants, doctors, scientists and public health experts. He promotes a sense of “victimhood” in “the people” as he demonizes the various “elites”. The level of trust between individuals in our society continues to fall, undermining any sense of community, class or true national spirit.

Property

Conservatives tend to value property as the highest of individual rights. Without secure property rights, individuals cannot live a good life.

Trump supports tax cuts and deregulation which help to preserve property and wealth. But he also supports an “activist” economic public policy. Government actively manages international trade rules, tariffs and deals. Government maintains an active industrial policy. President directly controls independent agencies like the Federal Reserve Board. President uses all powers of the executive branch to force firms and individuals into cooperation, compliance and obedience. This is undeclared fascism, centralized control of economic power.

Institutions

Conservatives trust institutions, just like property and “the rule of law” because they are not subject to the whims of individuals, new ideas, and rapid change. Institutions develop in response to societies’ needs slowly through time. The political, economic and social elites lead institutions to balance goals, needs and interests.

Trump is an institutional wrecking ball. Every institution is weak, ineffective and suspect. None meet his standards or pursue his goals. Universities, public schools, performing arts, media, charities, hospitals, clinics, social workers, aid agencies, libraries, community centers.

Government

Trump goes beyond the traditional conservative desire for “limited government”. He wants to eliminate most government. He is actively dismantling the federal government. Even the military, research and state department. On the other hand, he wants to control the government for himself (FBI, DOJ, trade, tariffs). Classical conservatives see the government as the visible part of the political system, providing practical services to the citizens and a means for citizens to be heard. Its effectiveness helps to reinforce commitment to the political state. Trump actively undermines local governments as well, criticizing political leaders, teachers, librarians and essential workers.

Religion

Conservatives and the “classical liberal” founders of the US government system agree that governments are built upon the moral, social, cultural, ethical beliefs and commitments of the citizens. In a theocracy, the political and religious can be merged. In our system, the state cannot strongly define, dictate, educate, promote or enforce these values. We rely on individuals and families to choose and practice their own religion or beliefs. Conservatives emphasize the importance of this dimension of life.

Trump appointed judges to overturn “Roe v. Wade” and eliminate the “right” to abortion at the federal level. He then said that “abortion” is a state issue and he is done with it. Trump does not promote religion, philosophy, morality, community, dialogue, understanding, ecumenicism, prayer, civility, service, sacrifice, or cooperation. He promotes no religious values, only the rights of power. He provides no example of religious involvement.

Trump further divides the country into fundamentalist “social conservatives” and the enemy. He inflames the “culture wars” on libraries, public education, school choice, trans athletes, bathrooms, and DEI. He offers no solutions on how Americans can work together locally or nationally to find solutions, compromises and understanding. His policies are “tone deaf” to Christian teachings that call for attention to “the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger”. He used the Bible as a political prop.

Character

Conservatives have supported strong families, religions, and institutions so that they are able to transmit culture from generation to generation. “It takes a village to raise a child” is a conservative insight too. Society is based on individuals belonging to society and its institutions. Western societies have embraced individual freedom and liberty and so have had to find means to ensure the balance between the individual and society. We have defined, educated and promoted high character as an essential tool.

Trump displays and promotes no traditional character values. He is an extreme individualist. Truth does not exist. Complete subjectivity and moral relativity. He promotes victimhood rather than agency and responsibility. The end justifies the means. No sense of honor or commitment. Each day is a new day for negotiation. Only power really matters. Not family values. Not social justice. Not human rights, equality or equal opportunity. Strength matters. The courage to use power matters. Achieving and maintaining wealth matters. Social status matters. Achievement matters. No self-awareness or other awareness/empathy. No humility.

Stewardship

Conservatives generally accept an unequal distribution of talent, wealth, power and responsibilities as natural. Historically they have paired this situation with a focused responsibility to be effective stewards of society’s resources. “To those who are given much much is expected”. Noblesse oblige. Leaders care for the poor, widows and orphans. Social norms are used to assign and maintain this responsibility.

As western societies have tasked government with maintaining the “social safety net”, this typical responsibility of the upper and upper middle class has become fuzzier. In a more recent world of smaller government and no taxes, individuals and institutions are required to take up the slack. Trump provides no leadership on this matter. No expanded charitable giving tax deduction. No volunteer hour tax credit. No leading by example. No commitment or encouragement to “give it all away”.

Liberty

Conservatives have always embraced individual liberty for the governing classes. In the American tradition they have embraced liberty as a super value for a widening group of individuals. The US Bill of Rights has become part of the background of our existence. “Give me liberty of give me death”. The Tea Party.

Trump does not support individual liberties. Not “the rule of law” protections. Not freedom of speech. Not “freedom of expression”. Not “freedom of the press”. Not “checks and balances”. Not “due process of law”. Not human rights. Not the independent judiciary. Not civil service protections. Not freedom of religion. Not the right to vote. Not free trade. Not free travel. This looks like fascism, a very strong national state.

Summary

Trump is not a conservative. He sees himself as a Nietzschean superman. He believes in himself and that “might makes right”. He supported both political parties historically because it was helpful financially. He does not believe in “conservative values”. He is politically dispensable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

Some detailed policy areas where Trump is not conservative.

Not Your Father’s Oldsmobile: Trump

Facing Our Political Situation: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?

tomkapostasy8 Comments

BERTHE:
She climbs a tree
And scrapes her knee
Her dress has got a tear.

SOPHIA:
She waltzes on her way to mass
And whistles on the stair.

BERTHE:
And underneath her wimpole
She has curlers in her hair!

SOPHIA:
I ever hear her singing in the abbey.

BERTHE:
She’s always late for chapel,

MARGARETTA:
But her penitence is real.

BERTHE:
She’s always late for everything,
Except for every meal.

MOTHER ABBESS:
I hate to have to say it
But I very firmly feel

BERTHE AND SOPHIA:
Maria’s not an asset to the abbey!

MARGARETTA:
I’d like to say a word in her behalf.
Maria makes me laugh!

SOPHIA:
How do you solve a problem like Maria?

MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?

MARGARETTA:
How do you find a word that means Maria?

BERTHE:
A flibberti gibbet!

SOPHIA:
A willo’ the wisp!

MARGARETTA:
A clown!

MOTHER ABBESS:
Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her,
Many a thing she ought to understand.

MARGARETTA:
But how do you make her stay
And listen to all you say,

MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you keep a wave upon the sand?

MARGARETTA:
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?

MOTHER ABBESS:
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

MARGARETTA:
When I’m with her I’m confused,
Out of focus and bemused,
And I never know exactly where I am.

SOPHIA:
Unpredictable as weather,
She’s as flighty as a feather,

MARGARETTA:
She’s a darling,

BERTHE:
She’s a demon,

MARGARETTA:
She’s a lamb.

SOPHIA:
She’d out-pester any pest,
Drive a hornet from his nest,

BERTHE:
She can throw a whirling dervish
Out of whirl.

MARGARETTA:
She is gentle,
She is wild,

SOPHIA:
She’s a riddle.

MARGARETTA:
She’s a child.

BERTHE:
She’s a headache!

MARGARETTA:
She’s an angel!

MOTHER ABBESS:
She’s a girl.

ALL NUNS:
How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a clown and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibberti gibbet!
A willo’ the wisp!
A clown!
Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her,
Many a thing she ought to understand.
But how do you make her say,
And listen to all you say?
How do you keep a wave upon the sand?
Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?

Context

Our polarized political situation is just the tip of the iceberg. We have similar challenges with our communities, economics and philosophies. We have well-meaning groups of individuals with apparently incompatible views without obvious ways to build bridges. We are facing a self-reinforcing cycle of increasing polarization, threatening modern civilization.

I’ve been focusing on the “root causes” of our situation recently and concluded that there are 6 interacting features that must be understood and addressed.

  1. Radical individualism, which undermines “community” and self-awareness.
  2. Human nature. We are psychologically and morally imperfect. Largely analog creatures wrestling with a much more complex world of choices.
  3. Skepticism. We are good at criticizing, undermining and doubting. Not as good at problem solving, problem resolution, creativity, empathy and communication.
  4. Living in a Secular Age. The default, background, unchallenged Christian worldview is gone. Individuals know they must make conscious choices.
  5. Imperfect Myths. Religion, science, progress, romanticism, personal growth, libertarianism, populism, classic liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, postmodernism … None of the individual views or clusters of worldviews is fully adequate for many people.
  6. Insecurity. Science, technology, business, international trade, specialization, computers, communications, and information all grow and become more complex. We are insecure in our “selves”, our roles and our economic situations.
6 Root Causes of Our Situation

In each case, the simple “left versus right” analysis or viewpoints are inadequate, misleading and ineffective.

  1. Conservatives promote economic individualism. Liberals promote social and “human rights” individualism. We have jointly lost sight of the essential role played by community in all dimensions of life.
  2. Conservatives tend to emphasize the negative, limited, sinful nature of man while liberals focus on the goodness and potential. Scientists conclude that we are both. Politicians and analysts tend to use overly simple models of man when seeking to understand or improve our situation.
  3. Conservatives are skeptical about progress, change, risks and high ideals. Liberals are skeptical about power, wealth, interests, structure, and large organizations. Healthy skepticism has its place.
  4. Conservatives fight the coming of a “Secular Age” with no cultural consensus on important questions. Liberals tend to welcome continued change towards a purely secular, scientific world where religion and philosophy disappear. We seem to be “stuck” needing a hybrid situation.
  5. Conservatives tend to embrace “well-defined” philosophies, theologies and myths. Liberals tend to like more complex, dynamic, evolving, individually fine-tuned world views. Theologians, philosophers, politicians, scientists and real people have been unable to outline life paradigms that are “obviously true” to everyone. We have different views, and it looks like there is no single final answer that everyone welcomes.
Our Political Differences are NOT Going Away; And That’s OK

6. Conservatives emphasize a return to a culture with fixed answers on all dimensions thereby eliminating the difficult questions and uncertainties. Liberals emphasize a larger role for the state to buffer the real and mental anxieties of the modern world. Rather than finding a blended approach, the two groups shout louder and louder. Conservative means to liberal ends? More choice and more government options?

Analysis

What do we see in common here? There is no simple solution that is going to be embraced by everyone. The moral, social, political world does not work like the science and business world. We don’t see cumulative progress and increasing consensus. We struggle to find new or revised solutions to our old and new challenges of living a good life within community.

We know more about reality today on each of these 6 dimensions. We can rule out some bad ideas. We better understand trade-offs. We understand where religious and political views inherently cause disagreements. Our challenge is to use this better understanding to find better solutions.

We appear to have many unavoidable trade-offs and paired perspectives. The individual and community. Individual choice and shared community understanding. Analog and spiritual nature. Nature, nurture, chance and other. Certainty and doubt. Idealism and pragmatism. Logic and stories. Individual and universal/eternal. Either/or vs. both/and. Win/lose or win/win.

We have a deep need for certainty, understanding and purpose. We tend to press this too far and expect too much. The progress of science, technology, business and practical areas is so great. Our personal experiences of getting what we want is so common. We are unwilling to accept messy, imperfect, complex, fuzzy answers to important questions. We embrace the general progress of society, politics, science, business, human rights, medicine … and conclude that everything works this way. We look at Newton, classical physics, the scientific method, the ancient Greek model of the atom/materialism and Plato’s ideal “forms” and conclude that a very well-defined world is our birthright.

It’s time for a “revolution of expectations”. We can work with existing philosophies, theologies, worldviews, politics and social institutions and make them more effective. We can learn to embrace paradigms/myths that are imperfect. We can adjust our views and institutions to better support us in this new world.

In general, we need to become more comfortable with “both/and” solutions without falling into the trap of radical skepticism, relativity and subjectivity. We must look more deeply at the scientific method, science and the philosophy of science and understand how they are also imperfectly certain. Even mathematics is not perfectly certain. This is OK. Our political, cultural, social and religious views don’t need to be perfectly certain. We can embrace Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” as a gift, an insight, an experience rather than a curse.

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?

It’s 1965. Maria means well. She can’t easily fit into a classical religious organization. She is too human, too dynamic, too modern. The cat is out of the bag. The horse is out of the barn. The genie is out of the bottle. “How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?” Like the sisters, we need to embrace the tension, complexity, mystery, and potential of individuals, organizations and life. The classical answers are inadequate to the modern (or postmodern) situation. We have to understand our situation. We need to embrace the positive features. We should be optimistic and idealistic. We must work together on practical changes to make life better at all levels. This is not easy or trivial. We want simple answers. We want “either/or” style certainty. We want definitive rules and laws. We are “all in this together”. We can make progress. We can have a society with enough in common to work together and enough individual freedom to largely make our own choices.

High Level Solutions Strategy

First, we need to recognize where we are. We’re truly stuck “on the horns of a dilemma”. The historical conservative options of Christendom, nationalism, theocracy, libertarianism, laissez faire capitalism and totalitarianism ignore 500 years of Western culture and society. The liberal options of secular humanism, communism, progress, scientific materialism, romanticism, environmentalism, globalism, existentialism and postmodernism have not found broad public support [because they don’t fully meet human needs].

We seem to be “stuck in the middle” with a “classical liberal” form of representative government, a mixed market plus government form of capitalism and a mixed form of nationalism plus some internationalism for trade, defense and global issues. Our challenge is to refine, communicate and optimize the options and choices within the broad range of options here in the “middle”. We need to collectively reject the extreme views, so they don’t influence our debates. We need to define the essential elements of our middle view, wrap them in a story and constantly promote them as the key to historical, current and future success. The American “founding fathers” stories need to be updated for current use.

We need to address the 6 root causes of our current polarization and anxiety. We need to overhaul our political system to reflect what we have learned in 250 years. A brief outline of what is needed for each of the 6 root causes follows.

1. Radical Individualism and Community

We need leaders on the left and right to recognize the need for both the individual and community dimensions of life. First, limit the “rights” of individuals from becoming super values or God. Second, recognize and promote the critical roles of various communities in raising children, forming citizens, building trust, supporting institutions, trade, education and living a great life.

Our political, legal, educational and institutional systems must effectively support this balanced “both/and” view. We need to find ways to encourage and support “community” without allowing groups to impinge on individual liberties. Political parties must become refocused on their end-goals rather than “perfect” policies and means. Democrats need to provide more room for churches to express their views when it does not impact others. They need to embrace religious programs that deliver on Democratic ends. Republicans need to pursue cost reduction and earned benefits as separate policies aside from the core question of tax rates and zero taxes. Republicans need to find ways to reconcile the individualism of commercial capitalism with the community dimension of religion, family and institutions.

We need to review our tax and legal codes to promote not-for-profit organizations, political participation, volunteering and civility. Within the broad umbrella of “Western Culture” we have much in common that can be used to find solutions with broad public support.

Community Really Matters: Index

2. Human Nature

We need leading social scientists to prepare a curriculum that helps everyone to understand what we really known about human nature. The extreme philosophical and political views are not supported. It’s not simple nature or nurture. We’re not simply good or bad. We’re not purely materialistic creatures. Personal growth is essential and critical, but not the only thing. We are social and moral beings. We have limited abilities to be fully focused and fully rational. All of us. We need to embrace our natures, build upon them and use them to our fullest advantage. The challenges of living in modern society with so many important choices require this. This should not be a political issue. Everyone can benefit.

Personality dimensions, flexibility, self-awareness, problem solving, creativity, multiple intelligences, behavioral economics, counseling, leadership, management, mentoring, stages of development, education, evolutionary psychology, cognitive behavioral therapy, influence, communications. We have the knowledge. We must share it.

Modern Curriculum for Citizens
The World is Not Atomistic, Deterministic, Materialistic

3. Skepticism

Skepticism is a self-made trap. President Lincoln said “most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be”. Individuals can choose to be happy, positive, optimistic. Keep a diary, volunteer, join a group, engage in a task, use your talents, believe in something, reject negativity, speak with a friend, have fun, speak with a counselor.

Try recommendations from the other 5 root causes. Find your communities. Build positive habits. Look at the long-run progress of civilization. Try one of the major religions or worldviews on for size. Refuse to be a victim.

Take control of your information diet. Social media. News media. Distinguish news from opinion. Choose high quality sources.

Choose hope over fear. Be self-confident. Dream.

Dream the Impossible Dream

4. Embrace the Secular Age

We need some help understanding our history. It’s often presented as a linear movement forward, all progress, renaissance, scientific revolution, enlightenment, modernity and then OUCH postmodernity.

By 1875, Nietzsche, Darwin, Marx and Freud had proven that “God is dead”. Somehow, we have managed to hold on for another 150 years. We need to teach real history in secondary school, college and continuing education. The history needs to include religion, philosophy and politics.

We have learned to be tolerant of “other” people, religions and nations. We have opportunities to improve, but Protestants and Catholics no longer fight wars against each other. We practice a basic common morality even as we fight about politics.

We need help dealing with uncertainty. See root cause 6 for solutions. It is human nature to crave certainty. But we get to define certainty. We can reject Euclidean geometry, Aristotelian logic, materialistic physics and self-proving mathematics. We can reject a perfection standard for religion, philosophy and worldviews. Reject the tyranny of “either/or”. “Science and religion” is supported by the best scholars. Uncertainty is not the same as pure subjectivity or relativity.

We need help moving from skepticism to idealism. We need a new concept of idealism that cannot be undercut by radical skepticism. Existentialism, pragmatism, postmodernism and logical positivism are inadequate.

Invest time learning about the major competing world views. Great courses, Ted talks, college courses, church classes. Choose one and engage with others. Live it. Share it. Challenge it. Apply a variant of “Pascal’s Wager”. If radical skepticism is true and there is nothing but meaninglessness, what must you do? If skepticism is wrong and you believed it, what did you lose?

5. Better Myths, Paradigms, Philosophies, Theologies

We need leaders, thinkers, believers and communicators to do a better job of describing their world views. Especially within the context of our skeptical, uncertain secular age. What claims do they make? Why? Time for real apologetics. How do they apply today? How do we face death? Find a purpose beyond ourselves? Be deeply affirmed? Live in community?

Skepticism has won its battle. We can no longer be certain in a way we once thought was our due. How do we think about assurances, confidence, probability, weights, multiple dimensions, history, clarity, beauty, consistency, levels of meaning, unexpected results, effectiveness, feelings, insights, intuitions and faith as replacements for certainty? As with science and the scientific method, we have lost “absolute certainty”. How do we replace this and still feel great?

We need education on the role of paradigms/myths in history, science and cultures. We need to see how things fit together. We need them to fit together to have a society. Men have considered many religions and philosophies. We have built effective institutions. We once believed that some myth or paradigm would solve everything for us, now, perfectly. We elevated this to become a new God. We cannot give up hope. We have to step back and see our true history and progress. We have the knowledge, teachers and tools to provide the needed context.

Our paradigms need to recognize where they are weak, somewhat inconsistent, inadequate, fuzzy, unavoidably irreducible. There is no meta-paradigm for evaluating the paradigms. No paradigm is self-validating.

6. Personal Security

The other 5 “root cause” solutions can help. You are a member of many supportive communities. Join other communities and support others. Note that we are imperfect, complex, mysterious and still fully adequate. Reject victimhood. Be positive and constructive. Embrace your strengths and talents. Replace “absolute certainty” with OK and “good enough”. Choose and live a worldview that supports you as a person.

Take control of your life. Simplify. Set reasonable goals. Under promise and overperform. Learn about psychology, life skills, personal finance, careers, and government programs. Note that people usually “find a way” and that we do make economic and leisure progress through time. Save, hold assets, use insurance, limit debt. Engage in the political process. Make your voice heard.

Adopt some practical stoicism. Lynn Anderson – “I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden”.

Summary

In order to solve our political problems, we need to face and solve the 6 underlying root causes. They are interconnected. They can be addressed mostly outside of the political process. This is cause for great hope and optimism.

Common Moral Values

tomkapostasy4 Comments

https://www.sefiracreative.com/

Moral Shortcomings Are Noted Everywhere

Social conservatives have decried the decline of moral values since 1960.

Religious groups of all political views have done the same.

Robert Putnam has documented the loss of social capital in Bowling Alone, Our Kids, The Upswing and American Grace noting that morality, trust and institutions have declined at the same time.

Political scientists and pundits have noted the loss of civic virtue and wonder if a political system based on the “thin” virtues of “classical liberalism” can survive.

High schools, colleges and departments of education have begun to respond to the “crisis” but faced political challenges from both parties, educators and parents.

Corporations, universities, not for profits and military branches have attempted to define their core values as a way to build community, align resources and clarify direction. They note an absence of common values in their employees.

Personal growth advocates, even those emphasizing individual artistic expression, have increasingly noted that the community and spiritual dimensions of life are part of growth.

Big Disagreements

While social and political conservatives have pressed for moral reinforcements, both moderate and progressive liberals have pushed back on these efforts; wary of infringing on personal liberties and supporting community, cultural and institutional oppression. Economic conservatives and libertarians have not bemoaned the decline in community and shared values. Some “communitarian” philosophers and social scientists have begun to challenge the individualistic dogmas that have ruled universities since the Enlightenment. There is not a firm consensus that we need or can have on “shared values”. Many philosophers, theologians and social scientists are quite certain that this is a dead-end street.

Practically Speaking

A majority of citizens and leaders agree that the loss of a shared set of values is harming our country and society. We need to find some kind of solution. Promote religion. Educate students and adults. Conduct research. Create artistic vehicles for learning. Work together on teams. Join groups. Communicate better.

Let’s start by outlining the common moral values. We’ll ignore the experts. We’ll gloss over some inconsistencies. We won’t provide perfect definitions. We won’t outline an implementation strategy. We will provide a meaningful outline by combining the thoughts of some very different sources

Motivations

This is not a dead-end project. We live in “A Secular Age”. We’re not going to reach religious or political agreement on everything. Most people understand that we are forced to live together and that we have to “get along”. We have learned to be “tolerant” in most dimensions of life. We can learn to embrace a set of general moral principles that are self-evident. The principles cannot be proven or derived from core principles. They have to be “accepted”.

Individuals who learn these principles will do so for many reasons if they are presented well. They help the individual to live in a social world. Self-interest alone justifies developing these virtues, understanding and habits. These principles seem to be natural, widely seen across time, space and cultures. They may not be universal or “revealed” but they have proven their worth. Individuals are learning that extreme skepticism and subjectivity are inadequate. Every major worldview offers a set of moral principles like these. Individuals who strive to fulfill their potential understand that moral principles underlie “the good life”. These principles work together nicely in a logical, relatively succinct package.

Sources

Corporate “core values” experts trying to find the essences so they can be easily taught. Anthropologists looking for the most widely seen values. The evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Mid-century philosopher and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis claiming that all major civilizations share key ethical principles. Psychology Today advising us on how to best guide our behavior. The Boy Scout Oath. The Rotary 4-Way test.

Summary

Descriptions

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.

Home

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

Uncovering the Tao of C.S. Lewis

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.

Summary

We have a nice head start on outlining a set of common moral principles that could be used for education, civics, personal growth and community building. The core ideas fit with traditional and modern societies, secular and religious views, left and right politics. The key, as with our political system, is to agree to work within a framework of practical application. We cannot and will not resolve deeply felt religious, philosophical and political views. But we can agree on what it takes to work together and live good lives together.

Our Political Differences are NOT Going Away; And That’s OK
One Page: Liberalism and Its Discontents – Fukuyama (2022)
Moral Foundations Theory of Politics
Morality (2020) Jonathan Sacks
Modern Curriculum for Citizens
Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (2015)
Community Really Matters: Index
How (NOT) to be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor
All Things Shining: A Secular Age Solution?

Our Political Differences are NOT Going Away; And That’s OK

tomkapostasy6 Comments

https://www.history.com/news/whose-vision-of-america-won-out-hamiltons-or-jeffersons

  1. Jonathan Haidt’s “moral foundations” appear to be deeply rooted in human evolution. Democrats mostly embrace care, fairness and equality. Republicans emphasize the broader menu of loyalty, authority, purity, proportionality, honor, liberty, and ownership. Policy differences are unavoidable.
Home

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.

Uncovering the Tao of C.S. Lewis

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.

One Page: Liberalism and Its Discontents – Fukuyama (2022)
Liberalism and Its Discontents – Francis Fukuyama 2022

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.

What’s the Root Cause of Our Problems?: Human Nature

Summary

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.

What’s The Root Cause of Our Problems?: Skepticism

tomkapostasy6 Comments

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

Positive Historical Ideals

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.

History Undermining Total Confidence in Any Single, Simple Cultural, Religious or Political Worldview

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.

Major Options Today

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 Center Remains Missing

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.

Home

Summary

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.

What’s the Root Cause of Our Problems?: Our Secular Age

tomkapostasy8 Comments

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.

How (NOT) to be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor

https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx

Congregational Strategy: Presbyterian Church (USA) Membership
Presbyterian Church Decline and Recovery

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.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion – 2012 (Part 1)
The Righteous Mind – Part 2
Moral Foundations Theory of Politics

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.

The World is Not Atomistic, Deterministic, Materialistic

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!

A Religious Perspective (Index)

What’s the Root Cause of Our Problems?: Human Nature

tomkapostasy5 Comments

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

Non-stop Growth of Economic Prosperity

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.

Economic Satisfaction Stagnates

Consumer confidence rises with the economy and declines with recessions and polarized politics, but it has no upward trend to match real incomes!

Unlimited Wants, Limited Satisfactions

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.

Behavioral Economists Say That Human Nature is at Fault

Our happiness often is based on our perceptions of comparative social and economic status. There is always someone with more.

https://www.neuroscienceof.com/human-nature-blog/social-comparison-social-media-status-wealth-happiness-psychology

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

Reference Point

Summary

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.

Why We’re Polarized 2020
One Page: Why We’re Polarized – Klein (2020)

P.S.S. Positive view of economic and social progress.

Index of 100 Good News Posts

What’s The Root Cause of Our Problems?: Radical Individualism

tomkapostasy5 Comments
View at Medium.com

‘https://medium.com/for-everyone/the-dark-art-of-individualism-the-rise-of-the-individual-and-the-decline-of-the-collective-905d3e3afd72

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

We have embraced radical individualism.

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.

Only the Individual?

The Rolling Stones in 1969: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need.”

https://genius.com/The-rolling-stones-you-cant-always-get-what-you-want-lyrics

Queen in 1989: “I want it all, and I want it now”.

https://genius.com/Queen-i-want-it-all-lyrics

Summary

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.

Community Really Matters: Index

tomkapostasy5 Comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Market

I believe that “community” really matters in our modern world. Ten articles promoting my view. Just like the neighbors who have visited the Cleveland “West Side Market” for 175 years.

Community Articles Index
Our American Community
Taking Back Our Government: Candidate Appraisal Boards (CAB)
Civility Pledges
Critical Role for Community in American History
We Have More in Common Than You Think
Only the Individual?
Liberal Concerns; Community Solutions
Embracing Community: Overcoming Roadblocks on the Left
Civility: Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Community Organizations

Automobiles: Once Too Hard to Handle

tomkapostasy1 Comment

Humans have a deep-seated preference for simplicity, directness and logic. We are analog creatures built to manage the variability of the real world, yet whenever we think abstractly, we strongly desire straightforward tools and concepts. Greek atomism, materialism, Euclidean geometry, the whole is the sum of the parts, fixed Bible language and meaning, mechanical leverage, Aristotelian formal logic, Cartesian coordinates, Newtonian physics not crazy quantum mechanics, light as wave or particle but not both, the ether as background of space, simple Mendelian laws of genetics, fixed, detailed laws, train tracks, binary computer logic, simple voting rules, etc.

We struggle with grey, indeterminacy, probability, uncertainty, tension, and dynamics. I think the success of Newton and science; the whole Enlightenment and scientific method have reinforced this bias. We seek objective reality, science and morals and instinctively back away from relativity and subjectivity. We really like Jesus when he reduces the moral law to “love God, love neighbor” but struggle with the mystery of the trinity, the paradox of fully man/fully God and riddles like “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

My academic, career and personal background align with the deterministic view of the world. Degrees in economics, math and finance. Two professional accounting certifications. Presbyterian. Adjunct professor. Meyers-Briggs INTJ. Really strong thinking and judging. Moderate center-left politics. Library board member. Career experience in IT, quality control, process engineering, manufacturing, distribution, supply chain management, and logistics. Numbers guy. Back office.

According to F. Scott Fitzgerald, “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” I read this circa 1977 and “knew” it was pompous BS. I read Marx and his descriptions of “organic wholes” and “knew” they were simply a poor substitute for reason.

I have this same deep desire for order, clarity, directness, transparency, logic, understanding and control. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I have learned that the universe really doesn’t work like that. I’ve learned that God does not give us direct access to infinity or eternity or specific promises. I have learned that scientists, mathematicians and philosophers don’t believe in a deterministic world. I’ve learned that businesses leverage probability, processes, portfolios, projects, culture and flows that can’t be controlled.

I share this topic because I believe that most Americans unknowingly subscribe to a linear, direct, numerical, objective, deterministic, realistic view of the world. I think that politicians, advertisers, managers, preachers, teachers, counselors, neighbors and leaders share this view and reinforce it without knowing that there is an alternate view. The very best thinkers and doers embrace a world that allows for multiple views, multiple dimensions, uncertainty, grey, win/win, possibilities, art, music, religion, spirituality, love, community and neighbors to be real.

We have mostly embraced the single dimension, simplistic, polarized, right versus wrong, Manichean version of politics sold to us since 1990, to our combined detriment, IMHO.

My National FFA Organization colleague, Bill Stagg, advised me to always use automobile analogies when communicating complex ideas like this. Here we go!

Modern automobiles evolved from horse drawn carts, steamships and trains. Cars don’t look much like the trains or interurbans that dominated the US from 1900-40. They aren’t confined to predefined tracks! They have wheels that allow them to follow many roads. They have rubber tires, not wooden or steel wheels. This absorbs shocks, grips the road, and steers with slippage in dry and wet conditions. They have shock absorbers between the wheels and carriages. They have steering. The [power] steering has room to allow for “play”. They have bumpers. They have multiple gears for different speeds. They have clutches to buffer the force of the engine. They have differentials to buffer the power to each wheel. They have coiled springs in their seats. The brakes gently squeeze a metal plate. Windshield wipers are made of rubber to grip, but not too tightly. Engines are lubricated with oil. Transmissions are lubricated similarly. Braking systems are based on liquid pressure rather than mechanical devices.

This is aside from anti-lock braking, collision avoidance/lane warnings, air bags, cruise control, fuel systems, braking energy capture, etc.

The modern automobile uses buffers everywhere because they are most effective in the real world.

We should all follow this example. The very best “systems” provide for some slippage, buffering, shock absorbing, uncertainty, gearing, flexibility, gripping, and lubrication. They are never fully “direct”.

This principle applies to all systems, even our political system. The US political system is indirect. Checks and balances. House and Senate. Federalist. Electoral college. The “flexibility” is a planned feature, it is not a bug.

Happy motoring!