Civility is for Everyone!

https://www.slideserve.com/gaia/the-source-of-lake-wobegon

Critics of Civility

As Civility begins to be embraced as a vital answer to our challenges, we’re starting to hear from the skeptics, the professional critics, the haters, the perpetually ironic, special interests, politicians, media interests, fundraisers, political consultants, the powerful, influencers, extremists, technologists, literalists, nativists, nationalists, environmentalists, talking heads, artists, postmodernists, materialists, therapists and humanists. Some struggle with Civility’s claim to represent everyone in addressing core human challenges. Instead, they say that the modern Civility project is really for elites only, too soft and emotional, too far left, too righteous, too far right, too simple/surface or too impractical/abstract.

Civility attempts to define a set of values, skills and behaviors that are “fully adequate” to support the required economic, social, religious and political needs of our society. Civility addresses the eternal conflict between the individual and “the other”; between the individual and communities considering the “common good”. It provides a subset of moral values adequate to support these dimensions of life while allowing individuals and groups to debate and negotiate the remaining political, social, personal, religious and economic options. As such, it is a “classical liberal” approach, embracing individual freedom while necessarily tolerating others and their opinions.

Just for Elites?

Civility has a long history in America of being embraced by all. City and country. North and South. East and West. Religious diversity was a key driver historically. The Catholic versus Protestant wars in Europe were seen as ridiculous for modern people. The great diversity of Protestant denominations promoted religious tolerance.

Civility applies to all domains. Family, neighbors, unions, civic clubs, not-for-profits, schools, universities, professions, religious organizations, interest groups, small businesses, big businesses, cooperatives, political parties, candidates and community groups. There is no “elite” preference here.

Civility begins at the local level. Family, neighbors, friends, local commerce, HOA’s, block watches, parishes, local schools, local sports, civic organizations, libraries, community centers, social welfare services, third meeting places, pubs, porching, volunteering, block parties, volunteer fire fighters and emergency services. Rural, agricultural, expanding America was founded on these voluntary organizations. It was re-founded around 1900 with political reforms, social services, scouts, civic organizations, YMCA’s, Chautauqua institutes, civil rights, labor unions, temperance, public libraries, public secondary education, etc.

Civility is an eternal challenge. The individual faces other individuals and other groups, communities and society. We’re each wired to be fully individual oriented. “It takes a village” to civilize us and make us productive members of society. Civility applies to all social classes and geographies.

Civility focuses on human dignity, respect and empathy. These are universal human values and experiences. They represent a radical view of human equality, indifferent to rank. These values are anti-elite and countercultural. They support the needs of all and constrain the [alleged] tendency of elites to construct exploitative structures and philosophies.

Civility focuses on practical skills for interacting with others, communicating and making good decisions. It is applicable for everyone.

The Civility Project is purposely taking a “bottoms up” approach to recapturing our institutions as responsible to the people.

The current social, political and economic institutions [often] primarily serve the interests of the privileged (the 1% and the 20% professional classes). The “tea party” was founded to challenge this situation. This wise populist insight has been captured by one political party for its sole benefit. Civility attempts to make clear the benefits to any political group of effective institutional structures.

Civility’s focus on human dignity ensures that individual freedom will be preserved. It is a “classical liberal” approach that recognizes that humans are imperfect and that many will attempt to capture political, social and economic institutions for strictly personal benefits. [In modern America, this is considered a “conservative” insight]. It accepts that some constraints must be placed upon individual “rights” to preserve the “common good”. There is often no obvious solution to these competing interests. Every society must find “reasonable” ways to protect both individual rights AND the common good, while allowing representative democracy to wrestle with the issues in the middle. We’re stuck with an uncomfortable “both/and” rather than a more satisfying “either/or”.

Civility is a “public good” which benefits everyone. The more that civility is practiced, the more that everyone benefits. Non-elites, who have lesser assets, benefit disproportionately from increased civility.

Investments in improving civility create a “virtuous cycle” which benefits everyone.

Elites have a much greater share of assets, so they have a greater interest in establishing and maintaining civility in any society. They need a supermajority of society to buy into “the rules of the game”. They could once rely upon ideas like divine providence, tradition, kings’ rights, land rights, the ancient regime, property rights, class rights, papal infallibility, social Darwinism, eugenics, racial supremacy, national rights, etc. Modern history and communications undermine these crude approaches. Elites need Civility to underpin support for representative democracy, regulated capitalism and international trade.

Too Soft?

Critics argue that “Civility” is based solely on feelings, weakness and conflict avoidance.

Civility encourages individuals to be “dead serious” about their political and religious views. It does not take a position. It encourages individuals to engage in the political process and to develop deeply felt religious beliefs and practices [without becoming righteous and rejecting others’ rights].

Civility requires the “hard” virtues of respect and responsibility.

Civility requires the development of mature character in adults.

Civility promotes positive and constructive approaches to interpersonal relations and problem solving.

Civility is focused on results, not just ideas.

Project Civility is focused on actionable steps, not just a belief system.

Too Left?

Civility embraces the “little platoons” of classic and modern conservative thought. High commitment local organizations are essential for social life and forming moral character.

Civility is actively non-partisan. It requires no position on the historical debates. Central/decentral. Tradition/innovation. Risk/safety. Religious/secular. Individual/community.

Civility requires a limited moral foundation to support society. It rejects a purely individualistic basis for society. It rejects a purely community, organic, spiritual, religious basis for society.

Civility embraces the role of institutions, trust, productivity and growth in society.

The 8 civility values are nonpartisan. Respect, acceptance, public spiritedness and interactive lean left. Responsibility, intentionality and constructiveness lean right. Human dignity is equally left and right.

Too Right?

Human dignity is a radical idea opposed to domination by elites and structures.

Civility is inherently open, liberal and tolerant.

Civility does not embrace any dominant religious or cultural view.

Civility embraces positivity. It does not prioritize “no”.

Civility acknowledges conflict as an inherent part of life and embraces modern technologies.

Civility acknowledges power as a real force in life. It believes that personal and community beliefs are equally important.

Too Righteous?

Civility attempts to find the “common ground” of political debate. It tries to find the “least common denominator” or values, practices, beliefs and habits necessary for society to succeed, or at least muddle through.

Like all political, social, religious or philosophical belief systems, it tries to find the essence, the most important beliefs or assumptions needed for success.

It focuses on communications and interpersonal skills that are neutral.

It focuses on conflict resolution skills.

It promotes organizations like the “braver angels” that encourage interaction between individuals with different views.

It embraces the problem solving and personal growth results of cognitive behavioral therapy and modern organizational development.

Civility promoters believe that tolerance is essential.

Too Simple?

Critics say that civility is too simple, too surface, too obvious. Civility is an approach based upon 500 years of the Western modern era.

Civility accepts the complex validity of modern politics and religion.

Civility embraces a required subset of values in the Western religious, philosophical, economic and social traditions. It requires respect, human dignity, acceptance, responsibility, public spirit, intention, interactivity and constructiveness.

Civility requires thinking, feeling and doing.

Civility accepts that individuals have deeply felt individual perspectives that do not align easily.

Civility promotes the development of individual character based upon philosophical, religious and political perspectives.

Civility combines a set of values with a set of practical skills to be applied in all domains of life.

Civility actively rejects oversimplified versions that are just politeness, magic wands to end disagreement, purely emotional, utopian, partisan, overreaching or merely supporting the status quo.

Too Impractical?

One definition is that “civility is a set of behaviors that recognize differences and build mutual respect.”

Behaviors are the primary focus, even though they are based upon widely agreed-upon values.

Individuals recognize differences between individuals and groups, and seek to understand and bridge them. This is a level-headed approach to recognizing and managing reality.

Individuals constructively take actions to build mutual respect. They work in the right direction, even though the steps don’t always work to resolve differences, solve problems or build relationships. They take steps forward because this is hard, necessary work, not because it is destined to succeed.

The communications, problem-solving, interpersonal, change and personal management tools used in implementing civility are practical insights, techniques and habits that can be taught to everyone.

The Civility Project roll-out strategy is “bottoms-up”, relying upon a broad cross-section of our nation learning, perfecting, applying and sharing these tools and values.

The Civility Project emphasizes actionable steps: education, interactions, commitments, teaching, porching, greeting, encouraging, joining, volunteering and engaging politically.

Civility offers personal benefits such as conflict management, stress reduction, self-management, better relationships, improved image, influence, acceptance and productivity.

Civility undermines the attraction of extreme individualism by emphasizing the shared humanity of all individuals and the necessity of constructive interactions. It helps individuals to find a balanced perspective that includes others, communities and values as complements to the individual alone.

Civility is similar to approaches like the “golden mean” and the “golden rule”. It attempts to combine a small number of values and skills into a practical tool kit that can be used and improved.

Summary

Civility is easy to caricature and dismiss. Simplistic “straw man” versions are easy to attack. They are inadequate to be helpful or embraced as a shared community asset. But Civility defined as a set of behaviors that combines values and tools and strives to both build relationships and manage differences is not simplistic or ineffective. It is a critical set of habits needed to promote effective interactions, engagement, trust and results in a complex society.

It is a moderate and moderating approach, so some might call it conservative. It values interactions, feedback, process, learning and growth, so some might label it liberal. We think that the Civility values are nonpartisan and that the tools are clearly neutral ones that can be used to be more effective in all walks of life, irrespective of politics or values.

Civility can overpromise and become righteous. We think that these values and tools are a solid combination for delivering personal, interpersonal, process and community results. But they don’t work miracles. We have different sets of values, perspectives, experiences, habits, talents, personalities and expectations. We can learn to listen, empathize, seek the common good and compromise effectively. This will help, but it won’t make any of us perfect people or negotiators.

Our goal in the Civility Project is to re-establish community expectations that promote these kinds of interactions and personal growth. We are confident that creating new norms of expected and taboo behaviors will help individual lives and our communities. In the modern world of complexity, uncertainty, insecurity and skepticism we need some help. Civility offers a nonpartisan common framework to rebuild a constructive, trusting, productive background for all of our interactions. Imperfect, but very powerful.

Cross-References

Biden Presidency: Wins and Pinches

It’s time to evaluate the Biden presidency.

Economics

1 Reduced quarterly inflation rate (CPI) from peak 8.6% in 2Q, 2022 to 2.7% in 4Q, 2024.
2 Doubled the federal budget deficit from $0.75T to $1.5T per year.
3 Inflation grew to 9%, partly reflecting excess government spending initiated by the president.
4 Added 15M jobs; added jobs every month!!!!!!!
5 Cut the Black unemployment rate from 10.0% to 6.1%. Cut the Hispanic unemployment rate from 9.3% to 5.1%.
6 Increased per capita real disposable income by 5.6%.
7 Increased prime age labor force participation to near record 83.9%, last seen in 2001.
8 Reached pre-Covid employment in 28 months. Great Recession recovery took 3 times as long (77 months).
9 Real wages grew significantly in each year.
10 Record low unemployment rates quickly achieved and maintained after pandemic.
11 Reduced unemployment rate from starting 6.7% to 3.7% average for 2022-24. Pre-Covid 2017-19 was 4.0%.
12 Increased real GDP by $2.8T, 13.1% total, 3.2% annual. Trump pre-Covid gain was $1.7T, 2.8% annual.
13 Bloomberg reported a 26% increase in net household wealth between December 2020 and 2024.
14 Increased household wealth by 20%.
15 Recorded 24% increase in median home sales price from December 2020 to 2024.
16 Stockmarket value increased by 50% from December 2020 to 2024, building upon 50%+ rise in prior 4 years.

Outstanding economic results. The majority of inflation was due to pandemic and supply chain issues. Nonetheless, the growing budget deficits were an “own goal” that should have been avoided for economic and political reasons.

Governing

17 Appointed record number of federal judges, including record share of women and minority judges.
18 Postal Service Reform Act – reset reasonable debts, compensation and service levels.
19 Misevaluated and misresponded to declining personal health risks.
20 Democratic party exceeded expectations in 2022 midterm elections.
21 Negotiated spending limits in order to increase debt ceiling and avoid government shutdown.
22 Failed to overhaul Democratic party position as leaders of states and cities.
23 Failed to take advantage of the January 6, 2021 insurrection to remove Trump from politics.
24 Oversaw continued weakening of Democratic Party appeal to working class, minorities, men and independents.
25 Oversaw continued weakening of Democratic Party power, brand and results.
26 Promised to govern for all of the people but slipped into anti-MAGA politics.
27 Ran for second term and failed to withdraw in time for the party to field an effective platform and candidate.
28 Republicans were able to make DEI and wokeness a winning issue at all levels, without counter-leadership.
29 Unable to offer a new framework to reset politics outside of the win/lose polarization approach.
30 Increased IRS budget to reduce tax evasion and increase revenues.
31 Inflation Reduction Act – set minimum 15% corporate tax rate.
32 Electoral Count Reform Act – clarify presidential election processes.
33 Speech and legislation on threats to democracy, voting rights.
34 Support Voting Rights and Freedom to Vote legislation, enforced laws, opposed new state restrictions.
35 President and Democrats were unable to make progress on voting reforms despite opportunities.
36 American Rescue Plan – extra funding to cut child poverty in half.
37 Increased Pell Grant funding for lower income college attendees.
38 PACT Act – covers veterans exposure to toxic chemicals.
39 Provided new or lower cost internet access to 5M.
40 Provided student loan debt relief to 5 million borrowers.
41 American Rescue Plan – reduced medical insurance premiums

Some “good government” initiatives and results. Biden was unable to address the basic challenges of polarization, skepticism, social media, rule of law and personal integrity. He was elected as a “placeholder” to avoid Trump in 2020 and filled the “placeholder” role. He was unable to reframe the debates.

Public Health

42 Inflation Reduction Act – allows Medicare to negotiate top 10 drug prices,
43 Inflation Reduction Act – capped annual drug costs, reduces insurance costs
44 Negotiated agreement with pharmaceutical companies to reduce drug prices.
45 Doubled number enrolled in Affordable Health Care from 12M to 25M. 8% uninsured is record low.
46 Inflation Reduction Act – increases Affordable Care Act access to medical insurance.
47 American Rescue Plan – 500M covid vaccinations
48 American Rescue Plan – funding for individuals, businesses, governments and NFPs to survive pandemic.
49 Management of Covid-19 pandemic health care, communications and economic recovery strategy.
50 Failed to capitalize on his pandemic recovery and economic successes in the public eye.
51 Some pandemic decisions were overly restrictive, not based upon science, cost/benefit or value of freedoms.
52 Legislative, funding and regulatory changes to energize the Cancer Moonshot initiatives.
53 Rejoined the World Health Organization.

The pandemic mitigation and recovery should have been celebrated as a once in a century victory for the American people, science, business and government. And for the world! The results were amazing, if imperfect. Biden’s team was unable to stake out the high ground and frame the real results in this manner, allowing partisan politics to infect and undermine even this situation.

International Relations

54 Created QUAD security relations with Australia, India and Japan.
55 Facilitated improved relations between Japan and South Korea.
56 Increased support from citizens and leaders in NATO nations to the US.
57 Recommitted the US to NATO, encouraged defense investments, welcomed Finland and Sweden.
58 Signed AUKUS deal with the United Kingdom and Australia for Indo-Pacific security.
59 Unable to renegotiate new bargain with allies to pay for US defense, police, trade, shipping, legal umbrella.
60 Was unable to delivered principle leadership for the liberal international model on trade and global affairs.
61 Failed to reset US-China relations despite shared interests in global commerce, climate, security and health.
62 Supported Trump’s anti-free trade and anti-China actions without proposing effective alternatives.
63 Reduced US reliance of Chinese imports by 10%, increased US exports to China by 15%.
64 US dollar increased in value by 15%.
65 US inbound foreign investment averaged twice as high from 2021-24 versus 2020.
66 US outperformed other nations in achieiving pre-Covid levels of GDP and employment.
67 US stocks increased in value by 50%, more than in other markets.
68 Supported the bipartisan 2024 immigration reform bill that was rejected by candidate Trump and Republicans
69 Failed to take emergency action to secure the US-Mexico border, protect and process immigrants.
70 Responsible for 3 years of 175,000 monthly migrant apprehensions versus 25,000 baseline.
71 Ended Afghanistan war within negotiated plan.
72 Protected the US from terrorist attacks, authorized surgical anti-terrorist attacks.
73 Recorded zero domestic deaths from international terrorist activities during 2021-24.
74 Support for Israel after Hamas attack, ceasefires, prisoner exchanges and hostage releases.
75 Afghanistan withdrawal was poorly planned and executed, costing lives, equipment and US stature.
76 Hamas attacked Israel, killing 1,200 citizens and taking 300 hostages, confident of Israel/US limits.
77 Israel invasion of Gaza has continued without resolution, highlighting the US’s lack of influence/leadership.
78 Economic, intelligence and military support to Ukraine, which has stopped Russia’s invasion progress.
79 US and allies imposed sanctions on Russia for Ukraine war.
80 Russia invaded Ukraine, confident that the US and allies would not respond effectively.
81 Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has continued, without effective opposition or a negotiated solution.

Biden was able to mend relations with our allies and improve the strength of these alliances and the global power of the US economy. His team fumbled the Afghanistan withdrawal, failed to prevent the Russian and Hamas invasions and was unable to drive these situations to better solutions. US power has been undermined by these failures. The spike in illegal immigrants also portrayed the US and the Biden administration as a weak protector of our essential interests.

Resources

82 Inflation Reduction Act – $369B clean/green energy investment incentives.
83 Invested in wind, solar, battery and electical vehicle technologies.
84 US increased position as world’s largest oil producer and LNG exporter.
85 Expanded the US portfolio of national monuments.
86 Invested $4B in superfund environmental cleanup.
87 Rejoined Paris Agreement to address climate change.
88 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act – $1.2T.
89 New investments in domestic manufacturing, adding 750,000 jobs.
90 CHIPS and Science Act – incentives for domestic semi-conductor production.
91 Executive order on Artificial Intelligence outlines potential risks.

Big wins in managing energy, infrastructure and the environment.

Social Issues

92 20% reduction in violent crime rate after pandemic increases.
93 Renewed the Violence Against Women Act.
94 Repositioned marijuana classified substance rating, reduced federal criminal enforcement.
95 Respect for Marriage Act – required states to recognize the decisions of other states.
96 Responded to Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade with Executive Orders on reproductive health services.
97 Revised asylum seeker options, added green card options for spouses of US citizens.
98 Safer Communities Act – gun controls, screenings, red flags.

Some small wins for the left.

Wins and Pinches

3 wins for every pinch! A decent number of achievements for a one-term president in a very polarized age.

Overall

Public Health A

Economy A-

Resources B+

International C+

Social Issues C

Govern/Politics C-

Biden did an outstanding job on the “blocking and tackling” in a very difficult situation. He “treaded water” in the international arena. He did not advance liberal social causes effectively. He failed to effectively address the Trump/populist threat to our democracy. For this, the overall grade is a D. 😦

Left, Right and Center

Biden was a moderate. He only tilted far left on 4 of the 98 items. Student loan relief was for the university crowd. The failure to address border security administratively was due to minority and progressive politics. Doubling the budget deficit undercut 30 years of Democratic Party “fiscal discipline” following Clinton’s “third way”. Not trying to reposition Democratic politics as centrist, moderate, adult, opportunity, American, scientific, effective, growing, universal, creative, tolerant, professional, metropolitan, ecumenical, big tent, majority, community, emerging, aspirational, progressive, etc. for fear of displeasing the postmodernist crowd and/or special interests was a huge lost opportunity in a time that called for leadership.

His greatest success was in managing the pandemic threat and growing the economy. He managed crime and terrorists. He enhanced American global power. He was a moderate president, just like Obama and Clinton.

Trump

I’m not a fan of Trump. His first term delivered more results than expected, but his existential threat to our system was already very clear.

Civility is Nonpartisan

Our preferred definition of Civility is “a common values-based problem-solving process to make group decisions when individuals have differences”. A review of 5 dimensions indicates that Civility has no bias towards or against the left or the right.

Philosophically

Conservatism “conserves” history, culture, religion, norms, land, assets, classes, privileges, religion, power and institutions. It opposes risk-taking, conflict, rapid change and revolution. Civility is rooted in human dignity and concern for the “public good”.

Liberalism elevates the individual, rationality, progress, liberty, science and rights. It opposes unjustified power, wealth and cultural claims on the individual. Liberal political systems seek to balance individual rights with the “public good”.

Technically

Civility based problem-solving and relationship management emphasize the use of modern business, education and counseling techniques such as active listening, dialogue, objective evidence, separation of facts and values, common interests, devil’s advocate, process review, independent facilitators, strategic planning, values clarification, I/you statements, cognitive behavioral therapy, crucial conversations, shared accountability, win/win options, disclosed preferences, long-term perspective, walk-away option, rational incentives, aligned incentives, multiple rounds of negotiation, I’m OK/You’re OK, brainstorming, multiple intelligences, 6 thinking hats, supplier partnerships, shared administrative services, outsourced services, specific corporate culture, mission, vision and values. Corporate, not-for-profit, educational, counselling, government, religious and privately owned organizations have adopted these social science techniques because they are effective tools for translating resources into outputs in support of goals.

Different organizations emphasize different tools that best match their values, history and objectives. There is no clear left versus right emphasis. Solid tools help organizations manage their planning, workforce, resources, suppliers, customers and beneficiaries.

Values

  1. Respecting each other and our views. Respect for position and roles is a core conservative principle. Respect for individual freedom and agency has been a core conservative principle since the American Revolution. Liberals emphasize human rights, caring and fairness. Respect for each individual is central.
  2. Human dignity. Christian theology emphasizes the value of each person created by God in his image and called by name. Secular humanist philosophy takes a similarly very high view of the importance of each individual.
  3. Being open to understanding differences. Liberals have emphasized human rights, equality, care, progress and “others”. Religious conservatives embrace the Judeo-Christian call to protect the poor, the widow, the orphan and the alien. Most Americans support the American political system that limits centralized power and protects minority rights. Many conservatives recognize the diversity of religious denominations. Most Americans have learned to accept the legal and social rights of different groups, including many that were not accepted before. We have arguments about DEI today because it can be used as a political tool by the far left, even though large corporations have effectively used the nonpartisan core of DEI to be more effective firms for 25 years.
  4. Each individual’s choices matter. Liberals and conservatives in individualist America agree.
  5. We’re responsible for our choices and interactions. Conservatives emphasize responsibility, including responsibility to social groups and the state. Liberals focus on the individual, per se, and highlight their responsibility to society as essential for the public good determined by the political process.
  6. We consider the public good in our choices. Liberals tend to take the broader perspective today, sometimes to a fault. Classical conservatives naturally focus on the overall public good as the end goal of society, perhaps emphasizing the existing interests. As representatives of the wealthier and more powerful groups, conservatives look to the overall health of society, politics and the economy as vital.
  7. We share responsibility for our choices. Conservatives naturally see an organic society, based on tradition, norms, institutions and trust. Although elites influence decisions, true support from all of society is essential. All sectors must support the legitimacy of big choices. Liberals promote shared power as the fair way, in principle. They sometimes criticize decisions and processes when they don’t win.
  8. We think and act constructively. Liberals embrace modernity, science, progress, education and rationality. Conservatives embrace hard choices, reality, real politic, trade-offs, common sense, business methods, and balanced budgets.

Issues

19 issues have appeared in the “top 10” most important issues lists since 1948. Civility can be neutral on all of these issues.

  1. Inflation. Republicans emphasize this. OK.
  2. Jobs. Democrats emphasize this.
  3. Balanced budget. Republicans promote this. Democrats pursue this.
  4. The economy. Everyone favors expansion and growth.
  5. International aid/UN/global organizations. Democrats support this.
  6. Hot wars. Republicans favor more active strategies.
  7. War on terror. Republicans favor more active policies.
  8. Crime. Republicans favor greater investments.
  9. Gun rights. Republicans favor greater rights.
  10. Traditional culture. Republicans favor tradition.
  11. Drugs. Republicans favor greater enforcement and consequences.
  12. Education. Republicans favor local control and greater traditional values.
  13. Immigration. Republicans favor less legal and illegal immigration.
  14. Poverty. Democrats favor greater support.
  15. Health care. Democrats favor greater public support.
  16. Racial rights. Democrats favor greater actions for minority groups.
  17. Environment. Democrats favor greater public investment and regulation.
  18. Unifying the country/rule of law. Historically, Republicans emphasized this. In the Trump era, Democrats are more concerned.
  19. Role of government. Republicans favor less government, until recent Trump changes.

Moral Foundations Theory

  1. Care. Primary liberal value. Conservatives rate it highly too.
  2. Fairness. Primary liberal value, focusing on results. Conservatives emphasize process fairness.
  3. Loyalty. Conservative priority. Secondary liberal value. Civility emphasizes loyalty to society, the political system and the common good.
  4. Authority. Conservative priority. Liberals accept “legitimate” authority. Civility emphasizes the importance of each individual.
  5. Purity. Conservative priority supporting traditional values. Liberals emphasize different dimensions emphasizing individual rights.
  6. Equality. Equal treatment of individuals. Left and right agree.
  7. Proportionality. Conservatives emphasize proper rewards for efforts and results. Liberals accept this principle but give it lesser emphasis. Civility does not take a stance.

Summary

Civility is supported by left and right in America’s political history. Modern techniques for most effective group interactions and negotiations are neutral. The values that support Civility are neutral. Civility takes no stand on modern political issues. The latest attempt to define the “righteous” bases for politics provides no dimension opposed to civility. Civility can be used as a bipartisan base for our democracy and our day-to-day interactions.

Causes of Increased Political Polarization

Political polarization is one of the main causes of the decline in civility. There are structural and historical causes for the tremendous decline in civility from 1960 to 2025.

High Level Changes

  1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 obliterated the Democratic party and provided the Republican party with a growth strategy.
  2. The “cultural revolution” of the 1960’s contrasted traditional social practices with a tolerance or embrace of “anything goes” behavior. Politicians have continued to exploit these deeply felt divisions.
  3. Political parties embraced a single, simple right versus left, conservative versus liberal, framework as Ronald Reagan skillfully knit together the various “conservative” factions between 1968 and 1980. Republicans began to embrace the virtues of a “big tent” through the end of the century.
  4. The Republican party embraced fundamentalist Christians, and religion was merged with politics. Democrats increasingly became home for the secular, agnostic and “none of the above” religious affiliations.
  5. Ideology based parties are inherently more righteous, adopting right/wrong, good/evil views of the world.
  6. The American economy has continued to grow throughout the post WWII era, greatly increasing the value of politics for those with economic interests to protect.
  7. Americans have increasingly sorted by “rural versus urban” and “left versus right” residences. The rural counties are right, the urban counties are left, the suburban counties are mixed.
  8. The rise of individual expression as the premier life goal highlight’s individual identity. Political views reflect a person’s identity. There is pressure to “be” left or right.
  9. Structural changes like gerrymandering or restrictive changes in voting rules are used to control political power at the state level.
  10. Political parties have lost power. Historically, they were able to filter out extreme or risky candidates or issues. Voters, candidates and special interest groups have more power today.
  11. Our two-party system incentivizes extreme candidates, supporters and views on issues. This is a self-reinforcing tendency.
  12. Once individuals see the world as political, in a single ideological dimension, as right versus wrong, human nature reinforces the polarized views. Dislike of the other party becomes highly motivating. In-group biases grow. Fear of the “other” grows. Perceived harmful, unfair, disloyal, unspeakable, sacrilegious actions by the “other” party assume mythic evil status. This is also a self-reinforcing tendency.
  13. Experience with civil, constructive, problem-solving politicians and parties has declined, lowering expectations. This is also a self-reinforcing tendency.
  14. Polarization is in the interests of some politicians and the industries supported by political spending. It acts as an ethical and communications skills barrier to entry.

Media Changes

  1. Technological changes allowed journalism and opinion expression to be economically viable at the part-time individual level, down from financially stable organizations of at least 100 people.
  2. The “Fairness Doctrine” of 1949 was effectively ended in 1987, allowing political media to flourish.
  3. The merger of individual identity with politics and religion with politics created greater demand for political journalism.
  4. With television, perceptions of “presidential”, powerful, honest, effective, charismatic, leadership, common sense, relatability, etc. made media image more important than content, knowledge, experience or character.
  5. The internet allowed previously fringe groups to effectively organize and communicate.
  6. Cable TV and the internet created hundreds and thousands of broadcasting options, encouraging individuals to find exactly the content that they desire.
  7. Highly partisan commentators/entertainers began to provide the people with what they want. A simple reinforcement of their existing beliefs.
  8. The internet and social media provided the tools for content providers to find and feed their customers, even at very small scales.
  9. The loss of classified ads to the internet undermined local newspapers and radio. They lost their ability to effectively cover local news. This reinforced the trend to embracing partisan sources for all news and opinion.
  10. The growth of effective communications sources allowed national politicians to move the “center of gravity” in politics from “state and local” to the national level. All issues are now seen through the lens of ideological national politics.
  11. The increased number of channels on cable TV provided room for outlets that appealed to small fractions of the viewing audience. There was room for partisanship. There was room for sensationalism.
  12. Television and radio networks found ways to attract, reinforce and monetize polarization.
  13. In a world of hundreds or thousands of news and opinion sources, clear, consistent, emotional, effective branding became necessary for survival. Everyone is competing for clicks and eyeballs. Only the winners survive. Sources increasingly cater to the “least common denominator” of human interests.
  14. The internet and social media provide confidential cover for individuals to share their most negative thoughts without fear of being held accountable.
  15. The internet and social media avoid any filters for accuracy or legitimacy. Fake news spreads quickly.
  16. The “viral” nature of the internet and social media undercut traditional sources and views of objective, scientific, professional, mainstream legitimacy. Every fact becomes an opinion.
  17. Trust in objective journalism is undermined by the politically informed options, even as bias evaluators improve their effectiveness.
  18. The repeated claim of “fake news” undermines trust in any objective journalism.
  19. In a highly competitive media market, sensationalism wins. In-depth stories, human interest stories, good news, analysis and education lose.
  20. https://sites.bu.edu/pardeeatlas/research-and-policy/back2school/how-the-american-media-landscape-is-polarizing-the-country/#:~:text=The%20divisive%20tone%20of%20cable,in%20a%20less%20outrageous%20manner
  21. https://tomkapostasy.com/2023/07/15/one-page-why-were-polarized-klein-2020/
  22. https://tomkapostasy.com/2023/04/10/why-were-polarized-2020/

The Republican Party Moved Far Right

  1. Reagan provided “conservative” as a respectable term for a variety of political subgroups, ranging from moderate to extreme.
  2. Fundamentalist Christians, southerners and rural residents joined the party, angry about social and cultural changes.
  3. Buckley and Goldwater legitimized philosophical conservatives, including the extreme versions.
  4. Economic libertarians found a home in the party, as Austrian and supply side economics were adopted. Innovations like the Laffer Curve, monetarism and “rational expectations” were digested.
  5. “Free market” economics, descended from laissez faire, is intrinsically extreme, elevating markets as morally “good” and any opposition as “bad”. Analysis, judgment and compromise are discouraged.
  6. Economic growth is good. “Small is beautiful” is mere virtue signalling.
  7. Taxation is theft. Drown the government in a bathtub.
  8. Gun rights, taking your guns, weak on crime.
  9. Woke mob, cancel culture, fake news.
  10. Global warming is “fake news”; drill baby, drill.
  11. Communist, pink, socialist agenda, radical left.
  12. Christian nationalism; not separation of church and state.
  13. Anti-race, nationality, immigrant, religion, sexual orientation.
  14. Racial “dog whistles”, crime, security, welfare queens.
  15. Gingrich strategy of polarization, extreme positioning, framing, ends justifies the means.
  16. Patriotism, national purity, open borders, rapists and muggers, terrorists.
  17. RINO’s ejected from the party.
  18. Funding for more “conservative” candidates to challenge incumbents in primaries.
  19. Acceptance of extremist, militant, subversive, racist, conspiracist, radical supporters.

The Democratic Party Responded and Became Righteous

  1. Per Johnathan Haidt, only care and fairness matter to Democratic politicians. They disregard or criticize loyalty, authority, purity and liberty. Ouch.
  2. https://righteousmind.com/liberals-are-weirder-than-conservatives/
  3. Western culture is imperfect, maybe oppressive. Pure secularism is best.
  4. Religion is the opiate of the masses. Religious organizations are politically suspect.
  5. Affirmative action is more important than individual rights.
  6. Abortion rights are basic; no limits or compromises.
  7. Sexual orientation is personally defined aside from biological or cultural influences.
  8. Free speech is not as important as protecting feelings. Cancel culture.
  9. Environmental goals and policies disregard cost/benefit analyses.
  10. “Defund the police” because they are an illegitimate institution.
  11. Government employees, teachers, professors, media and artists leaned further left and lost the ability and interest to transmit neutral, broadly held social values.
  12. Extreme positions on free speech, assembly, press, religion, human rights and globalism.
  13. Oppressed group interests are primary. Not equal opportunity, safety net, fair taxes.
  14. Complete individual choice in consumption, production, expression, and relations.
  15. Opposition to school vouchers as an inherently unfair threat to public education.
  16. Reparations for historical injustices.
  17. Strictly global solutions without respect for national interests.
  18. Global warming is an immediate threat to the survival of humanity.
  19. Disregard of the “deplorables”.
  20. Loyalty oaths to institutional values.
  21. Virtue signaling as an art form.
  22. Postmodernist elevation of “powerful oppressors” as the only framework.
  23. Pure, certain support of John Rawls’ theory of justice, economic redistribution.
  24. Library rights to all books and programs for all ages.
  25. Superiority of abstract, global principles versus local interests.
  26. Individual creative expression as the supreme value; and tolerance; except for some views!
  27. Superiority of coastal culture, economics and politics versus sunbelt or “flyover country”.
  28. Protection of upper middle-class housing, education, safety, travel, professional, tax, networking, investment, trust, and administrative interests.
  29. Welcoming socialists, globalists, and intolerant interest groups in the party.
  30. The centrist pragmatism of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Clinton and Obama are dominated by the “far left” in the Democratic Party at the national level today. Partly by party programs and presidential positions (Biden), but mostly by “safe seat” politicians and the university, media and cultural influencers and thought leaders.
  31. These extreme left positions serve some Democratic politicians, their Republican opponents, and the globally dominant metro areas.
  32. Even though a majority of Democrats and Democratic leaning independents don’t support these “far left” positions or the caricatures wisely promoted by Republicans, the support by some Democrats and clever Republicans helps to position the Democratic party as much further left in the public mind. This reinforces the idea of a single ideological dimension for all issues and polarized yes/no, right/wrong. good/evil, win/loss positions by both parties.
  33. “The Squad” of far-left congresswomen is a convenient foil for the Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squad_(U.S._Congress)
  34. The lack of highly effective Democratic national leadership for 50 years has encouraged leftward leaning Gen X, millennials and Gen Z to adopt further left positions because the center-left version is apparently ineffective..

Summary

  1. A single ideological “left versus right” politics frame emerged after 1964.
  2. In 1995 Gingrich demonstrated that polarization is effective and good for incumbent politicians.
  3. Polarization is a self-reinforcing process. Consider the Irish Troubles or the Middle East.
  4. Politics, media and society also interact to grow polarization.
  5. Religion and identity have merged with politics, making it more ideological and polarized.
  6. The historical countervailing forces of the mainstream media, self-interested political parties, regional elites, the responsibility of noblesse oblige, business elites, religious elites, intellectuals, thought leaders, university presidents, military leaders, state leaders, global leaders, local politicians, civic group leaders, teachers’ unions, League of Women Voters, ABA and scouts have not found their moderating voice in the current media environment.
  7. The media facilitates polarization for profit.
  8. The Republican party moved right and then further right.
  9. The Democratic party “occupied the center” with Clinton and Obama, but this did not satisfy its further left supporters, and it convinced many Republicans that all Democrats are really “radical socialists”. The party has not found a new framework to effectively compete with Trump’s hybrid conservative/populist frame and policies.
  10. A wide variety of groups have attempted to reframe the center as a good political place to live. None have yet succeeded. Perhaps the Carmel civility project will win. https://www.projectcivility.com/

Reasons for Hope

https://www.projectcivility.com/

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

https://www.jimmycartertribute.org/index.html

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

https://www.amazon.com/The-Rational-Optimist-audiobook/dp/B003MY7RGG/?encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_w=lrR8k&content-id=amzn1.sym.a7785aa2-ac28-4769-b3eb-cff7b9738627&pf_rd_p=a7785aa2-ac28-4769-b3eb-cff7b9738627&pf_rd_r=140-0488079-4728935&pd_rd_wg=wdYs0&pd_rd_r=daf5c4ba-0e70-4878-9189-99eec5a73f79&ref=aufs_ap_sc_dsk

Causes of the Decline in Civility #2

In April, I summarized everything “I knew” about the causes of the decline in civility. Things have not improved in 4 months. I will try again.

Google AI says:

There’s a widespread belief that civility in the U.S. is declining, and several factors are frequently cited as contributing to this trend: 

Social media and the internet: Many Americans point to social media and the internet as primary drivers of eroding civility. The rapid spread of information, and the anonymity afforded by online interactions, can contribute to disrespectful behavior, according to Agility PR Solutions.

  • Media in general: The broader media landscape, encompassing traditional and online news sources, is also often blamed for contributing to incivility.
  • Public officials and political leaders: The behavior of public officials and political leaders is seen by many as influencing the overall level of civility in society. Incivility among elites can potentially trickle down and impact how citizens interact with one another.
  • Political polarization and partisan divides: The increasing polarization of political views and the tendency to demonize opposing viewpoints can foster an environment where civility is eroded. Focusing on judgment over curiosity in discourse can be particularly harmful.
  • Changes in societal values: Some suggest that a shift in values, emphasizing individualism and authentic self-expression over social conventions, may contribute to a decline in traditional politeness norms.
  • Weakening social norms and lack of education: A lack of emphasis on teaching and upholding civility, both within families and educational institutions, might contribute to its decline. 

Tom’s 6 Root Causes:

  1. Radical individualism

2. Human nature

3. Skepticism

4. Imperfect myths

5. Our secular age

6. Insecurity

Social media and the internet

2. Human nature is imperfect and selfish. Given anonymity, many individuals take advantage of that power to criticize others. Individuals seeking affirmation re-orient their lives to garner external praise, using all possible means. They seek groups and media to reinforce their views rather than promote true personal growth, which can be painful. Media organizations have an incentive to reinforce these behaviors in order to monetize them.

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

The Media’s Role in Increased Polarization: Google AI Summary

In the mid-20th century (approximately 1930s-1980s), a combination of factors encouraged media outlets, particularly newspapers and broadcast media, to adopt more centrist positions:

  • Professionalization of Journalism: The rise of journalism schools and the increasing emphasis on journalistic professionalism fostered a belief in objectivity and impartiality, according to In These Times. This meant a conscious effort to present news without overt partisan bias. The City University of New York notes that newspapers became gradually less partisan over this period, a trend that continued after the 1910s and through 1980.
  • The Fairness Doctrine: Enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Britannica adds that this required stations to provide adequate opportunities for opposing perspectives, particularly in news and public affairs programming, although it didn’t necessitate balance within individual programs. This forced broadcasters to consider a broader range of viewpoints than they might have otherwise.
  • Shifting Advertising Landscape and Commercial Interests: As the cost of publishing newspapers increased, they became less reliant on party subsidies and more dependent on advertising revenue, particularly from department stores and other retailers. These advertisers often preferred a less partisan approach to reach a wider audience, contributing to a move towards centrism in news coverage, according to the Center for Journalism Ethics.

Media Concentration: While media ownership consolidated during this period, particularly after World War II, the drive for broader audiences to attract advertisers also played a role in the push for more middle-of-the-road content, according to The Business History Conference

TK: We have returned to the more normal situation with highly partisan news media and opinion sources. Combined with the internet, individuals can tailor their media consumption.

Public officials and political leaders

Political polarization and partisan divides

From 1870-1970, America was largely run by a Republican, WASP, New England, Middle Atlantic and Midwest elite. They were very confident that their views were correct: religiously, socially, politically and economically. FDR was considered “a traitor to his class”. There were populist and reformer challenges, but the leaders knew they should and would lead (Bush, Sr.). The cultural revolution of the 1960’s, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Vietnam War, Watergate and the economic and population explosion of the Sunbelt upended the two parties. Republicans became conservative and Democrats became liberal. In a two-party system, this resulted in a simplistic “left versus right”, “red versus blue” framing and polarization.

The challenges of minority groups, women’s rights, environmental rights, human rights, international relations, individual rights, multiculturalism, immigrants, abortion rights, gay rights, crime, secularism, atheism, students’ rights, popular music, sexual freedom, international trade, foreign languages, new religions, urbanization, radical wealth, and pleasure on demand created a social and cultural polarization that eventually became much more important than the traditional (Marxist) class/economics division. Goldwater, Agnew, Nixon and Reagan saw the opportunities for political advantage. Democrats, guided by 4 mostly winning economic decades of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Carter, were slow to adjust to this reframing of political dimensions. Even Clinton, who successfully triangulated an economic “third way”, did not fully recognize this critical shift.

Weakening social norms and lack of education

5. our secular age and 4 imperfect myths. Secularization theory asserts that as societies become more advanced economically, scientifically and educationally they will naturally become less religious and more secular. The evidence does not support this theory at the society level. Societies become less or more “religious” at quite different rates. However, as societies become wealthier, they do have influential intellectuals who conclude that science, philosophy, art, creativity, economics, business, trade, politics and culture can advance more effectively without religion. This creates our “secular age”, where religious belief is merely one option among many that are socially acceptable.

This questioning, criticism, and destruction of the received Christian and Western Civilization values came late to the US. The 1950’s and first half of the 1960’s were a period of cultural conservatism and increased religious belief and participation. The US experienced very radical change in all dimensions from 1965-1970. Social norms were disrupted or destroyed for many.

In a world of “anything goes”, individuals choose their religion. They choose which religious, cultural and political beliefs to hold. They are not philosophers or scientists, so their beliefs are often polyglot, amalgams, pluralistic, hodge podge, syncretized, and logically inconsistent. They are often “least common denominator” views asking little from the individual. Hence, the weakening of social norms leads to a wide variety of informal social beliefs.

The 1950’s, following WWII, naturally reinforced an “America is best” history in schools. History classes, western civilization and American civics were very important. These subjects lost favor in the 1970’s and forward. Schools struggled to clearly define and teach the core lessons of the American and Western experience. Social responsibilities and civility lost ground.

Changes in societal values

For me, this is the most important category.

Classic Liberal Individualism/Democrats

Classical liberals emphasize the individual above the community or society. They value logic above tradition. They emphasize individual social rights. Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, is always nearby. Systems and structures are most important to ensuring a fair society without oppression by the powerful. John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” is important. It philosophically justifies a “fair” redistribution of resources. This group is deeply suspicious of the power of the wealthy to rule society. It is willing to have weaker overall results in order to minimize the chance of dominance by the ruling class or elites. Hence, the emphasis is on structures and legal rights. Not on responsibilities, opportunities, communities, or society, per se. This group values tolerance highly and is sometimes unwilling to impose its views on others. Critics argue that political structures and legal rights are not enough to support a real society. By this logic, Democrats as classical liberals simply don’t satisfy the human need for transcendence. They only offer “good enough”.

They offer only a “thin” philosophy that may be adequate for the political dimension but does not address other human claims. Professor Haidt calls this a historically unusual WEIRD view – Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. He notes that liberals typically emphasize just care and fairness as moral, political, and religious values.

Conservatives/Republicans

Modern Republicans support individual freedom in some cultural dimensions, but mostly economically. Republicans embrace the radical individualism of libertarians within their coalition. But mostly, they embrace the “free market” as a philosophical ally of their emphasis on personal liberty of commerce and the rights of property.

President Trump does not align with this tradition. He does not adopt their philosophical principles. He believes in “instrumental” negotiations, power, leverage and deals.

There is a risk that the Republican emphasis on “free markets” will result in the misapplication of economic principles to politics, ethics, commerce and society.

Daniel Bell argued in 1976 that free market extremism is inherently inconsistent with conservative cultural beliefs.

Michael Sandel offers case studies that show how “market thinking” expands into other areas where it is philosophically less relevant but still popular.

Charles Taylor argues that the “instrumental reasoning” of economics, business and science threatens to obliterate all other thinking approaches.

Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of supporting the preservation of historical powers or national leaders. It also has a history of criticizing the emerging secular options, Protestants, scientists and secularists for replacing God with some other human constructed principles. It developed liberation theology and currently advocates for democratic socialism.

Extremism

2. Human nature is simplistic. It does not support complicated win/win positions. 6. Insecurity. Fear leads to simplistic and highly righteous positions from left and right.

The Therapeutic Society

Constructively, modern upper middle-class society embraces secularism, stages of growth, individual growth, individual expression, self-actualization, creativity, possibilities, personal growth, arts, authenticity, depth psychology, psychoanalysis, myth, possibilities, Maslow, Montessori, Freud, Jung, Spock, Carnegie, Rogers, Rousseau, etc. The individual has unlimited potential and is encouraged to seek this potential. Philip Rieff cogently argues that man requires a connection to the transcendent to provide meaning. He says that modern secular society provides substitutes (therapists, self-help, self-expression) that simply don’t work.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/a-theological-sickness-unto-death-philip-rieff-prophetic-analysis/

The Culture of Narcissism

Christopher Lasch says that we have lost our connection with reality. Our soul requires validation. It seeks it but does not find it. This is a very convincing description of our current situation. Google AI summary follows:

Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (1979) argues that American society in the latter half of the 20th century was undergoing a shift from a character emphasizing individualism and contribution, to a more self-absorbed, narcissistic personality. This shift, he argued, was driven by a complex interplay of social, economic, and psychological factors

Key arguments and characteristics of the culture of narcissism

  • Reliance on external validation: The narcissistic individual, according to Lasch, craves admiration and approval from others to fuel their self-esteem, according to EBSCO. This dependence on external validation can lead to insecurity and a fear of not measuring up.
  • Emphasis on image and superficiality: Lasch observed a cultural preoccupation with appearances, image, and a focus on fleeting trends and celebrity, often prioritizing presentation over substance and achievement. The media plays a role in fostering this, according to Lasch, by promoting unrealistic images and fostering a desire for fame and celebrity.
  • Erosion of Traditional Authority Structures: Lasch argued that the decline of institutions like the family and community, coupled with the rising influence of external agencies and expert advice, weakened traditional sources of authority and guidance. This can leave individuals feeling disconnected and reliant on external sources for personal and societal guidance.
  • Impact of Consumer Culture: Consumerism plays a role in shaping narcissistic tendencies by creating an emphasis on instant gratification, personal desires, and the construction of identity through consumption, undermining community and social responsibility. Advertising, Lasch suggested, encourages insatiable appetites for both goods and personal fulfillment, ultimately leading to feelings of emptiness and dissatisfaction.
  • Decline of Political Engagement: The focus on personal fulfillment, according to Lasch, resulted in a neglect of broader social and political issues, leading to feelings of powerlessness and alienation. 

Impact and significance

The Culture of Narcissism became a bestseller and has had a lasting impact on American cultural criticism, according to SuperSummary. While some found his analysis insightful, highlighting the psychological impact of consumerism and social changes, others criticized his pessimism or disagreed with his interpretation of social trends. Some critics found his use of Freudian psychoanalysis outdated and viewed his arguments as potentially promoting patriarchal values. Despite the varied reception, Lasch’s work continues to be a point of discussion and reflection on American culture. 

Counterfactuals: Civility Should be Much Better Today

Many of the developments of the last 50, 100 or 500 years would lead one to predict that “civility” would be much better today than 50 years ago.

Measured IQ’s have improved by 10+ points.

Workers are 4-5 times more productive than they were in the WWII era.

Americans nearly all live in metropolitan areas where they interact with other races, ethnicities, classes, nationalities, religions and political views.

People make more choices and experience natural consequences of their decisions. Modern markets and society push individuals to interact in all dimensions of life.

More Americans work in large enterprises where they are required to interact with “others” effectively.

Human rights have been adopted for all. Nationalities, races, religions, genders, sexual preferences and abilities are protected and celebrated.

Regional, national and global trade, travel, sports teams and media are available to all.

Ecumenical religious groups thrive. Christian denominations work with each other and “world religions” in ways unimaginable in 1929.

“Tolerance” is elevated as an important cultural and moral value by liberals, Democrats, cultural elites, and business leaders.

Personality profiles, talents, multiple intelligences, gender differences, emotional intelligences, team building, toxic personalities, autism spectrum and other insights highlight the important differences between people and the need for those who wish to succeed to understand them and adapt appropriately.

The percentage of Americans who have completed a college degree has increased from 5% to 40% since WWII. The educational experience, social expectations and interactions all promote civility, seriously considered responses to life and people.

The data is sparse, but it looks like 15% of Americans today visit mental health professionals each year to deal with the challenges of life, up from 3-5% in the WWII era. Neighbors, elders, medical professionals, educators and religious leaders have always helped.

The information required to make decisions is easily available.

European nations (and Japan) were able to move past the horrors of the two world wars and establish tolerance for neighboring states as essential principles of modern democracies.

Global institutions were built from the experiences of the Great Depression and WWII. Other nations have rights, responsibilities and things to offer the world.

The colonial, imperial models were discredited along with fascism, Marxism and totalitarianism. The tolerant, “middle way” Western model of mixed capitalist economies, democracies and international trade and cooperation were validated in the 1992 “end of history” per Francis Fukuyama.

Artists and events have destroyed the notion that cultural, social, religious, political, and business leaders are somehow superior and worthy of unquestioning loyalty to single groups, institutions, parties or leaders. We are now all deeply and inherently skeptical.

These historical, social, economic, political, family, educational, and cultural forces say things should be getting better; much better. The forces against civility must be very strong. This points towards “human nature” as the most important factor.

Summary

The media is commercially incentivized to tear us apart. We are obligated to make wise choices for our media consumption. Political parties prefer to have simple, extreme contrasts. We can reject these nonproductive views. Political parties are often captured by their extreme supporters. We need to participate.

The choice of media sources for news and opinion is critical. We have an obligation to help our fellow citizens see that it is in their own best interest to separate news from opinion, to critically evaluate all messages, to value feedback and to seek personal growth.

Politics is a mess. “The inmates are running the asylum”. Individual politicians optimize their own results. Polarization. Communications. Brands. Techniques. Fundraising. Gerrymandering. We have to re-establish a level playing field, increase political participation, hold officials accountable, set character screens, etc.

Our culture is a mess. It is truly bipolar. Purely secular, scientific, utilitarian, classical liberal on one side. Fundamentalist religious and cultural certainty on the other side. Either/or. Win/lose. Political polarization has infected the culture. In a scientific, secular age we all demand certainty. Unfortunately, scientists, philosophers, political and religious leaders cannot deliver “certainty”. They can only provide useful tools, frameworks, paradigms, myths, stories, histories, prophets, songs, art, insights, components, and limits.

We deeply fear total relativism and pure subjectivity. This pushes us to “certainty” extremisms.

“Anything goes” in 1934 shocks the world. Cole Porter, Indiana legend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7NJ9ylAhos&list=RDr7NJ9ylAhos&start_radio=1

“is that all there is my friend, then let’s keep dancing”.

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold. A fear in all cultures. The great 1958 modern African novel.

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

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming

The 1970 “scientist priests all think” critique.

Soren Kierkegaard founded existentialism in 1843 by positing the “leap of faith”. Certainty, in classical logical terms, was impossible. The big questions could not be reduced to pure logic.

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

In Exodus 3:14 God tells Moses: “I am who I am”. Eternity, infinity, wisdom, pure light, spirit, truth, insight, goodness, righteousness, greatness, sovereignty, combination, sets, groups, ideal types, templates, harmony, forms, abstraction. We struggle to digest this, of course.

Civility is only possible when individuals are secure in their perceived existential situation.

80 Years of Global Economic Success

President Trump continues to peddle false stories of American economic failure. I’ve written 20 articles debunking these false assertions.

I’d like to focus today on US and global economic growth since 1945 guided by the new economic order of win/win free trade installed by the Bretton Woods conference.

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

The US economy has grown 11-fold since then in real economic terms. The US economy, which won the war, was just 9% as large as it is today! This is a little less than 3-fold population growth combined with 4-fold per capita production/income growth.

Visually, it is clear that US economic growth has been steady across these 80 years, only interrupted by a few severe recessions.

The US had already doubled its GDP between 1938 and 1945. So, the US economic growth was 22-fold from 1938 to 2025. Other leading countries showed flat total output in the war era.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-run

Global GDP growth essentially started in 1820. 80 year periods until 1940 yielded 3X economic growth. 11X or 22X was a “whole new ball game”.

Another data source confirms the 15X post war real economic growth.

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

Country level data confirms the global growth pattern.

Russia 8x

UK 8x

China 300x

India 150x

France 8x

Germany 9x

Italy 9x

Japan 21x

Canada 12x

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Maddison_statistics_of_the_ten_largest_economies_by_GDP_(PPP)

This chart shows that the US reached its apex as a share of global GDP right after WWII. I think that president Trump mistakenly believes that the US could have maintained its 28% global market share forever. In more realistic terms, the US reached 19% of global GDP in 1913 and properly maintained that share in 2008.

Summary

The post-WW II global institutions drove 11-fold growth for the US and 15-fold growth for the world. The historical benchmark in 3x. The US experienced an extra doubling of its economy from 1938-1945. The mercantilist views of 1880-1920 simply cannot compete with the post-war free trade regime.

Modern History: Philosophy and Politics

1597 – Nature, data, experiments, inductive reasoning and skepticism are good methods to find truth.

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

1637 – Radical doubt. No final ends. Just me. I think, therefore I am. How much can I logically derive from a few irrefutable “first principles”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes

1648 – We cannot settle religious conflicts by war. We’ll let princes choose for their subjects.

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

1689 – The individual exists as a free self to be created. A “social contract” to form a government must respect the individual.

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

1755 – The individual is born good, subjective and feeling. Society may threaten the individual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau

1781 – There is a reasonable moral structure like the “golden rule”. Reason is powerful but limited.

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

1783 – Self-government with limited power is possible and potentially effective.

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

1789 – “The people” can overthrow the ancient regime. Governing is a bigger challenge. The “nation” and ideals (liberty, equality, fraternity) are very, very powerful tools.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism

1790 – The accumulation of wisdom in society’s institutions and history should not be ignored. We should wisely and cautiously conserve these assets.

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

1800 – I am not a machine. Nature, feelings, imagination, creativity, art, supernatural, history, exotic, mysterious, unique, heroism, passion, intuition, chivalry, myth.

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

1807 – History is a separate world force. Thesis, antithesis and synthesis drive the world forward.

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

1843 – The modern individual living his daily life faces big existential challenges that cannot be resolved with certainty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard

1848 – Production techniques drive economic power relations. Revolution of the working class will necessarily occur, resulting in an ideal society.

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

1848 – Utilitarian emphasis on pain and pleasure. Liberty as the supreme value. Yet, government actions to reach valuable ends, including redistribution, are also needed.

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

1850 – The strong are “naturally” entitled to protect their assets against the claims of the weak.

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

1878- Practical results matter. Abstract philosophical systems cannot be evaluated in other ways.

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

1883 – God is dead. Christianity is a “slave religion”. A few can be the supermen, embracing their powers.

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

1890 – Governments, institutions and rational structures can address the challenges of modern civilization.

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

1890 – “The people” have high expectations that their “will” will be followed.

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

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

1906 – Government regulation is needed in some situations to overcome the shortcomings of “laissez faire” capitalism.

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

1913 – All of mathematics can be reduced to formal symbolic logic. Everything is logically consistent. All of science and politics and philosophy might also be so structured.

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

1915 – The nation is most important. Centralized power is necessary to fulfill the nation’s goals.

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

1920 – Women have the same political rights as men. Perhaps similar social status.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage

1933 – The government is ultimately responsible for the economic welfare of its people.

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

1935 – The government is responsible for insuring its citizens against poverty and disability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

1943 – Man freely exists in a universe lacking predetermined meaning. Man can define his own meaning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre

1948 – All humans are “born free and equal in dignity and rights” regardless of “nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status”.

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

1961 – Power is the ultimate guide to understanding the world. The powerful exploit others. Opposing this exploitation is the duty of those who understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism

1962 – Science is not inherently rational. Major paradigms are determined by groups of scientists.

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

1963 – Socially determined roles for women prevent true happiness.

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

1964 – The federal government actively prohibits racial, national and sex discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

1970 – The environment is recognized as a collective asset worthy of conservation.

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

1971 – “A Theory of Justice” justifies government actions to limit unfair results. Classical liberals cheer.

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

1974 – Only a minimal government libertarian state is justified. Touche!

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

1974 – A US president was forced out of office for his criminal activities. The transfer of power worked. Confidence in government and institutions was shaken.

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

1980 – A pro-market, socially conservative political party was elected by reframing the terms of the debate away from economic security and inequality.

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

2017 – The Republican Party increasingly appealed to a coalition of economic winners, social conservatives, libertarians and populists, embracing a transactional, common-sense patriotic nationalism.

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

Summary

“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back” – John Maynard Keynes

Bacon and Descartes provided early alternatives to the prevailing integrated religious worldview. Locke and others outlined the individual based “social contract” theory that provided a basis for the American and French revolutions. The American model continued to inspire while the French model both inspired and frightened. The rational Enlightenment view led to utilitarianism, pragmatism and progressivism plus the reactions of Romanticism, Marx and Nietzsche. Conservative reactions of Burke, Social Darwinism and Fascism also occurred. “Big government” was adopted as a potential positive force by the left as well. Individual rights were increasingly recognized in theory and practice. Post-war existentialism and postmodernism replaced discredited Marxism on the left. The Reagan/Thatcher revolution re-established pro-market and traditional social conservatism as a dominant force. Trump capitalized on the populist themes and media tools of the skeptical post-Watergate era.

Science versus religion. Church and state. Individual and community. Rich and poor. Liberty versus justice. Liberal versus conservative. Populists and elites. State and international politics. What should we do? Who should decide? What is the best structure? How do we protect minority rights? Protect the goose that lays the golden eggs.

The U.S. and Western system of government regulated capitalism, relatively free trade and democratically elected limited government dominated the second half of the twentieth century. In 1992 Francis Fukuyama proclaimed, “The End of History”. This “Western consensus” view is increasingly challenged today.

‘Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ – Winston Churchill

Palantir/Alexander Karp Speak

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

Palantir was founded in 2003. It has 4,000 employees and $3B of revenues using technology to make the military more effective. It is valued at more than $300B, the 30th most valuable company in the world! Yes, 100X revenues (not 8X or 25X) and $75M per employee (not $3M-10M). The founder, Alexander Karp, has written a book about what’s wrong with the US and what to do about it, in his spare time. The book jacket says he earned his doctorate in “social theory” from Goethe University in Frankfurt.

The 218-page book is rambling, with an extra 66 note pages. The bottom line is that everyone should be like the author, a hard charging owner engineer, focused on technical results AND deeply interested in the social, political and economic success of the nation. Hence, it crosses political boundaries!!!! A majority of the book castigates “the left”. About a quarter criticizes the shallow market right. However, the author raises great questions about what is required for success by the US that should not be discounted by either side of the political spectrum, IMO.

On specific policy questions, the author wants freedom for his firm to grow and succeed. Define some guardrails for AI. Don’t worry about personal freedom versus facial recognition. Invest in science. Prioritize science and technology. Honor leaders and leadership. Support the founder and ownership culture. Value science above finance and consulting. Adopt hard power, hawkish, deterrence foreign policies. Prioritize economic growth. Embrace best business practices. Validate rational trade-offs.

Crush “The Left”, It is Destroying Civilization

Karp claims that the “vampire squid” left is:

  1. Anti-nation, post-nation, completely, irrevocably, unapologetically.
  2. Without ideals, goals or ends.
  3. Skeptical, opposing any beliefs, deconstructing all.
  4. Opposing any national, community or political identity!
  5. Uninterested in defining “the good life”.
  6. Opposing the use of technology in support of the goals of the state or society.
  7. Opposing the legitimization of the state via economic growth.
  8. Uninterested in using the capabilities of technology for key industries.
  9. Promoting neutral, rudderless values in the nation’s elites.
  10. Prioritizing “woke” AI controls.
  11. Restricting free speech.
  12. Complacent about international threats.
  13. Seduced by the lure of global peace, values and organizations.
  14. Overly idealistic, unable to consider pragmatic trade-offs.
  15. Unwilling to hold allies accountable.
  16. Enamored with the role of trade alone in preventing national disputes.
  17. Lost in the controlling ideology of “the oppressor vs. oppressed”.
  18. Bereft of core values.
  19. Vindictive, punishing opponents.
  20. Unwisely emphasizing the pure moral character and actions of public office holders.
  21. Ignorant of the role of culture in managing society.
  22. Prioritizing individual rights at the expense of community.
  23. Anti-Western culture and civilization.
  24. Anti-community, of any kind.
  25. Anti-shared, objective values or morality, especially by society’s elites.
  26. Universalist, idealist, cosmopolitan opposed to practical and local values.
  27. Anti-religious.
  28. Unworried that the “separation of church and state” undermines belief.
  29. Promoting tolerance and pluralism in order to undermine any objective truth.
  30. Highlighting legal compliance and individual rights at the expense of “the good” and true justice.
  31. Defining a realm of acceptable “liberal” values and prohibiting other values.
  32. Opposing any benefits from historical civilizations.
  33. Mostly interested in reviewing the oppressive roles of colonial empires.
  34. Uninterested in objective physical or moral truths.
  35. Uninterested in problem solving.
  36. Certain of its moral superiority versus political and class opponents.
  37. Opposed to conventional, objective, scientific knowledge.
  38. OK with a “thin” moral world of market efficiency and legal freedoms.
  39. Mostly interested in “performative discourse” instead of critical thinking.
  40. Committed to a martyr’s idealism in political performance.
  41. Opposed to recognizing the key role of great leaders.
  42. Uninterested in the moral dimension of life.
  43. Actively opposed to the moral and practical advances of Western Civilization.
  44. Ambivalent regarding any objective notion of objective truth or beauty.
  45. Opposed to the “great man” concept of history, replacing it with social pressures alone.
  46. Committed to the self-evident progress of man through science, alone.

The extreme claims are mostly self-refuted by any neutral reader. Karp inappropriately commingles postmodernism, classical liberalism, liberal institutions, interest groups, the Democratic Party and its supporters. It is unclear whether he is an advocate employing the strawman technique or really doesn’t understand the differences between the many groups in the leftist coalition. He generally defines the most extreme, exaggerated, indefensible examples for criticism. He ignores the differences between philosophers and real people. He does quite a bit of name calling. He portrays his opponents as simpletons, unaware of tradeoffs. He generalizes leftists as pure feeling, intuitive beings rather than mixed constructive thinkers. He fails to recognize any of Jonathan Haidt’s morality flavors as being essentially important to left and right.

The Right is Not Blameless

  1. The market pays finance/consulting folks more than engineers.
  2. In the end, idealism is more important than pragmatism!
  3. The neoliberal philosophy that elevates the market above religion is clearly wrong.
  4. The pure market, pragmatic philosophy undermines any ultimate ends.
  5. The commercial world is uninterested in “the good life”.
  6. Criticism of “the state” undermines its valid role and what technology can do.
  7. The state must be perceived as legitimate. An extreme distribution of wealth and income must be addressed in the political process.
  8. A meritocratic, secular world alone cannot generate consensus values.
  9. Growing international trade alone is not enough to avoid conflicts.
  10. A commercial society does not require its managerial elites to engage in the political process.
  11. The “productization” of life, the rise of instrumental logic, places humanity at risk and threatens any sense of cultural community or values.
  12. The default hierarchical structure of large bureaucratic organizations is inherently less efficient and effective in the long run.
  13. The most valuable, effective employees require freedom from rules and obedience.
  14. Key government roles are valuable and should be compensated accordingly.
  15. Inclusivity is required for firm effectiveness.
  16. Firms are artificial entities. Like citizens, they should be obligated to support the nation.

Real Problems/Challenges/Opportunities

  1. As a nation, we don’t have generally agreed upon priorities, values, and ideals.
  2. Since we don’t have priorities, we don’t effectively apply our rich resources as a nation.
  3. We don’t have a consensus that other values trump market values.
  4. We don’t appreciate the critical role of the nation. We have lost our patriotism.
  5. We don’t have a dream, story, history, myth, image of a great nation. Without some constructive narrative we won’t have a civilization.
  6. Lacking a national identity, we are rootless, anxious, listless, worried, adrift.
  7. Nationalism is replaced by globalism or secularism as an organizing structure.
  8. In post-Vietnam, Watergate, 1960’s world, skepticism is the default world view, undercutting the development, acquisition, promotion or application of any serious moral, social, cultural, religious or political belief.
  9. Skepticism is a self-reinforcing worldview. The lack of “belief” undermines interpersonal trust, institutions, community, politics and patriotism.
  10. Skepticism undermines belief in objective moral, physical and aesthetic truths. A relativist, subjective philosophy elevates tolerance, social distance, safety, and conflict avoidance as leading social values.
  11. The neo-liberal market philosophy has resulted in economic efficiency, market values and instrumental logic quietly dominating moral, social, cultural, religious and political views for many. Results matter but can be overdone.
  12. Criticism of government roles and performance has undermined the core expectation and demand that government deliver results, respond to citizens and operate effectively and efficiently. Government and science are not enemies. Government and industry are not enemies.
  13. We observe the positive results that can be delivered by entrepreneurial, founder, owner, responsible organizations but have not found solid ways to ensure that this approach impacts all industries, especially the government sector. Results matter but can be overdone.
  14. The neoliberal “free market” political philosophy of Milton Friedman justifies corporations to ignore the nation or community as a valid stakeholder. It encourages corporations to treat all decisions as opportunities to maximize economic returns, undermining other valid political, social and moral responsibilities. Results matter but can be overdone.
  15. Effective organizations relentlessly focus on final results, structuring their plans, systems, and resources with reinforcing feedback loops and expectations. Less effective organizations and industries waste resources. Global or local market competition, anti-trust regulation, tax structures, industrial policy, education, effectiveness audits, best practices sharing, outsourcing, benchmarking, etc. can be used to improve. Results matter but can be overdone.
  16. All industries contribute to a healthy economy and society. None should be allowed to be ineffective.
  17. Lacking a national culture, mass media, effective political parties, or shared religious views, the socialization of students and young adults is critical. Education matters. In a meritocracy, the role of suburban high schools and leading universities is essential.
  18. Solid and exceptional talents and leadership matter to organizations and nations. Our political systems mostly fail to use these capabilities. We apply idealistic “oughts” to our political processes rather than reasonable incentives for participation and results.
  19. We apply unrealistic ideals to political candidates instead of evaluating their effectiveness. This attracts “talking heads” and repels effective candidates. We should judge politicians as we judge other professionals, managers and leaders. Politics and governing are messy businesses, like sales, purchasing, negotiations, mergers and acquisitions in business. We need to set proper expectations and ignore how the sausage is made.
  20. Cultural and social expectations matter. They should not be set by politicians. Historically, social, economic, intellectual and leadership elites informally shaped, refined and enforced these commonly held views. In our radically individualistic culture, we have not found an effective replacement for the old approaches.
  21. In national and international politics, we need to evaluate both hard and soft power approaches. We need to consider ideals and pragmatic factors. Trade-offs are often required.
  22. Leadership matters. In a complex world, firm and political leaders require great skills to be effective.

Karp’s Solutions

  1. A stronger central government to make better choices.
  2. Industrial policies and government funding.
  3. Overhaul political incentive systems to get better candidates.
  4. Revise laws to align corporations with national priorities.
  5. Provide incentives to better use the founder/ownership model for firms.
  6. Fund scientific research.
  7. Defeat the “far left” views and policies of “progressive”, new left, postmodernist Democrats.
  8. Elevate the nation as the primary social/community vehicle for society.
  9. Promote the Teddy Roosevelt “man in the arena” view of society, politics, institutions and leadership.
  10. Promote the Teddy Roosevelt “speak softly and carry a big stick” view of international relations. Increase hard power, especially for technological areas.
  11. Use the resources of science, technology, IT and business to improve society.

Summary

Karp argues that “the technological republic” can address the problems he has identified. His primary solutions are technocratic ones. I think that the “neutral” problems he has identified are important. I don’t think his “solutions” really fix them. The solutions are mainly focused on using firms and talents like his in supporting the government’s military capabilities.

Greater nationalism is one approach to the core problems, but strong nationalism has a mixed history and may not be a widely supported solution in the modern or postmodern world. Individualism is too strong. Religious and political views are diverse. Racial, ethnic, regional and class groups are diverse.

Trump in a Box

We’re still dealing with him. What box does he fit in?

Showman

Circus, PT Barnum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There%27s_a_sucker_born_every_minute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Time_Wrestling_(Detroit)

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

Schemer

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-level_marketing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glengarry_Glen_Ross_(film)

Cult Preacher

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmer_Gantry_(film)

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

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

Global Populist

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Per%C3%B3n

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan

American Populist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

Not a pretty picture. Trump is all about spin and sophistry. Plato, Huxley, Orwell and Eisenhower warned us. We have failed to invest in the education, regulation and leadership required for our complex civilization. Let’s get going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist_(dialogue)

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

Civility Crisis or Civilization Crisis?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Fall-of-the-Roman-Empire

There has been a groundswell of interest in addressing the loss of civility in modern society. Members of both parties, young and old, rural, urban and suburban have begun to engage on this important topic. Civility is treating others with respect, especially when you disagree. It is a mental attitude, a habit, a character trait, a set of actions. Civility is a key to effective life in community, especially for participating in a democratic government.

Yet, I will argue that the loss of civility is a symptom of much larger challenges rather than a root cause. We need to examine and address these challenges and their causes. Other symptoms of a civilization crisis include political polarization, declining trust, weakened institutions, less social capital, deep skepticism, increased pessimism about the future, anxiety, social isolation, lack of common morality, greater income inequality, personal insecurity, diminished global institutions, and a “secular age’ where religious belief is tentative, in tension with scientism, commercialism, postmodernism, pragmatism, libertarianism, materialism, progress, individualism and the classic liberal political state.

I have summarized the root causes as:

Radical Individualism

Human Nature

Skepticism

Imperfect Myths

Our Secular Age

Insecurity

Radical Individualism and Community

We have unintentionally become a society of individualists, failing to adequately invest in community. We prioritize individual rights, commercial rights, gun rights, abortion rights, property rights, human rights, individual choice, self-actualization, creative development and raise tolerance to a mega-virtue. We need to re-establish the balance between individuals and the community.

Poisonous Politics

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1992, Francis Fukuyama’s bold claim that we were seeing “the end of history” seemed plausible, even likely. Liberal democracy, mixed capitalist economies and deepening global trade looked like sure winners. Historic options had been completely discredited. People are not so easily satisfied. Politicians are more creative than expected. They have redefined, repackaged, reorganized and recommunicated. They have convinced us to merge our religious and political identities. We have “retreated to our corners”, embracing polarized politics because the other guy is most certainly awful.

Fukuyama says that pure liberal democracy depends upon a cultural, community, philosophical base to hold it together. We coasted on the tails of Western civilization and Christianity, but that common source is gone. We have become so concerned with defining and defending our identities that politics has become a matter of “ultimate concern”! Klein documents how we have moved into this mess and provides some practical solutions. Haidt outlines our built-in religious/political mental patterns and how politicians use them to craft seductive policies, parties and messages.

We have paths out of this polarized dead-end.

Religion

The breakdown of the “Christian consensus” undermines the certainty of religious belief, making any denomination, including “none of the above” simply one choice among many. Humans need answers to big challenges like:

  1. Facing death.
  2. Finding a purpose beyond self.
  3. Being affirmed.
  4. Living as a social being in community.

Our present solutions are imperfect. We have not developed a context or framework for living comfortably and confidently in “A Secular Age”. We have confronted big challenges before and have succeeded.

Morality

Scholars, intellectuals, historians, political scientists, philosophers and theologians mostly reject the idea of creating a common morality to hold together society, especially our political culture and processes. I say that we have no choice but to try. We have done this in our public schools for a century. We can define a common moral core just like the Boy Scouts and Rotary have done.

Insecurity

The loss of a solid religious base combined with a high rate of technological changes and a meritocratic economic system create deeply felt insecurity. We must create a context where “everyman” can rest, survive and thrive.

Solutions

We have many problems. We need many solutions. Some can be addressed through grass roots efforts to simply change the way we see the world and how we interact with each other. Some will require difficult political changes.

Summary

We have reached a point in US history and Western Civilization where individualism has overreached and eclipsed community, religion and morality. We see this everywhere. We need to recognize our difficult situation and build upon our historical strengths. We have made tremendous progress in all dimensions during the last 500 years around the world. We know how to get along even when we disagree. We need to refine and invest in those structures. We understand human nature much better today than we did in 1500, 1750 or 2000. We know we can’t create a “Tower of Babel” but we can create useful structures to manage our political and religious differences while offering everyone a good life.