It’s difficult to describe the complete revolution in the behavioral sciences that occurred around 1956 as practitioners began to experience a “paradigm shift” 6 years before Thomas Kuhn’s wildly influential “philosophy of science” description of this phenomenon.
Psychology was dominated by the behaviorist approach of BF Skinner. Only observable scientific results mattered. In second place were Freud’s insights into the differences between the conscious mind and the unconscious struggles between the id, ego and superego. Psychologists, social psychologists, communications theorists, philosophers, linguists, and computer scientists rejected BOTH the philosophy-free behaviorist approach and the philosophy-entangled Freudian approaches. The “cognitive scientists” recognized that the mind, mental, consciousness, rationality, perception, memory, attention, will, drives, social influences, choice, morality, feelings, fears, instincts and many other constructs were “real” in some sense. Non-material concepts and structures were important complements to the material and observable world.
They embraced the scientific method to investigate these concepts. They began to combine experimental psychology, information theory and biology. Their work led to many breakthroughs in theory and in practical advice for how humans behave, where they fail/struggle and what they can do to improve. These scientifically based theories have accumulated to the great benefit of mankind in the last 70 years.
I want to highlight the key cognitive science / behavioral science breakthroughs that are relevant to practicing civility. I will limit references to a single work for each category.
This above list only scratches the surface. Consider corporate organizational development, counseling, cognitive behavioral theory, college residential life, community development, neutral DEI programs, listening, peer counseling, couples counseling, co-dependency, adult children of alcoholics, anxiety, negotiating, facilitation skills, strategic planning, game theory, risk management, project management, influence, thinking hats, personality styles, talents, etc. The list is almost endless.
We now understand how humans behave. We are imperfect and amazing. We have the ability to balance the individual and the other, the individual and the community, the individual and spirit/God.
Civility is based upon the human dignity of each individual. The modern “cognitive science” approach embraces this insight. It offers tools to make our lives more effective, meaningful and satisfying. Civil individuals should invest time to master these subjects.
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.
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.
Our preferred definition of Civility is “a common values-based problem-solving process to make group decisions when individuals have differences”. A review of 5 dimensions indicates that Civility has no bias towards or against the left or the right.
Philosophically
Conservatism “conserves” history, culture, religion, norms, land, assets, classes, privileges, religion, power and institutions. It opposes risk-taking, conflict, rapid change and revolution. Civility is rooted in human dignity and concern for the “public good”.
Liberalism elevates the individual, rationality, progress, liberty, science and rights. It opposes unjustified power, wealth and cultural claims on the individual. Liberal political systems seek to balance individual rights with the “public good”.
Technically
Civility based problem-solving and relationship management emphasize the use of modern business, education and counseling techniques such as active listening, dialogue, objective evidence, separation of facts and values, common interests, devil’s advocate, process review, independent facilitators, strategic planning, values clarification, I/you statements, cognitive behavioral therapy, crucial conversations, shared accountability, win/win options, disclosed preferences, long-term perspective, walk-away option, rational incentives, aligned incentives, multiple rounds of negotiation, I’m OK/You’re OK, brainstorming, multiple intelligences, 6 thinking hats, supplier partnerships, shared administrative services, outsourced services, specific corporate culture, mission, vision and values. Corporate, not-for-profit, educational, counselling, government, religious and privately owned organizations have adopted these social science techniques because they are effective tools for translating resources into outputs in support of goals.
Different organizations emphasize different tools that best match their values, history and objectives. There is no clear left versus right emphasis. Solid tools help organizations manage their planning, workforce, resources, suppliers, customers and beneficiaries.
Values
Respecting each other and our views. Respect for position and roles is a core conservative principle. Respect for individual freedom and agency has been a core conservative principle since the American Revolution. Liberals emphasize human rights, caring and fairness. Respect for each individual is central.
Human dignity. Christian theology emphasizes the value of each person created by God in his image and called by name. Secular humanist philosophy takes a similarly very high view of the importance of each individual.
Being open to understanding differences. Liberals have emphasized human rights, equality, care, progress and “others”. Religious conservatives embrace the Judeo-Christian call to protect the poor, the widow, the orphan and the alien. Most Americans support the American political system that limits centralized power and protects minority rights. Many conservatives recognize the diversity of religious denominations. Most Americans have learned to accept the legal and social rights of different groups, including many that were not accepted before. We have arguments about DEI today because it can be used as a political tool by the far left, even though large corporations have effectively used the nonpartisan core of DEI to be more effective firms for 25 years.
Each individual’s choices matter. Liberals and conservatives in individualist America agree.
We’re responsible for our choices and interactions. Conservatives emphasize responsibility, including responsibility to social groups and the state. Liberals focus on the individual, per se, and highlight their responsibility to society as essential for the public good determined by the political process.
We consider the public good in our choices. Liberals tend to take the broader perspective today, sometimes to a fault. Classical conservatives naturally focus on the overall public good as the end goal of society, perhaps emphasizing the existing interests. As representatives of the wealthier and more powerful groups, conservatives look to the overall health of society, politics and the economy as vital.
We share responsibility for our choices. Conservatives naturally see an organic society, based on tradition, norms, institutions and trust. Although elites influence decisions, true support from all of society is essential. All sectors must support the legitimacy of big choices. Liberals promote shared power as the fair way, in principle. They sometimes criticize decisions and processes when they don’t win.
We think and act constructively. Liberals embrace modernity, science, progress, education and rationality. Conservatives embrace hard choices, reality, real politic, trade-offs, common sense, business methods, and balanced budgets.
Issues
19 issues have appeared in the “top 10” most important issues lists since 1948. Civility can be neutral on all of these issues.
Care. Primary liberal value. Conservatives rate it highly too.
Fairness. Primary liberal value, focusing on results. Conservatives emphasize process fairness.
Loyalty. Conservative priority. Secondary liberal value. Civility emphasizes loyalty to society, the political system and the common good.
Authority. Conservative priority. Liberals accept “legitimate” authority. Civility emphasizes the importance of each individual.
Purity. Conservative priority supporting traditional values. Liberals emphasize different dimensions emphasizing individual rights.
Equality. Equal treatment of individuals. Left and right agree.
Proportionality. Conservatives emphasize proper rewards for efforts and results. Liberals accept this principle but give it lesser emphasis. Civility does not take a stance.
Civility is supported by left and right in America’s political history. Modern techniques for most effective group interactions and negotiations are neutral. The values that support Civility are neutral. Civility takes no stand on modern political issues. The latest attempt to define the “righteous” bases for politics provides no dimension opposed to civility. Civility can be used as a bipartisan base for our democracy and our day-to-day interactions.
In April, I summarized everything “I knew” about the causes of the decline in civility. Things have not improved in 4 months. I will try again.
Google AI says:
There’s a widespread belief that civility in the U.S. is declining, and several factors are frequently cited as contributing to this trend:
Social media and the internet: Many Americans point to social media and the internet as primary drivers of eroding civility. The rapid spread of information, and the anonymity afforded by online interactions, can contribute to disrespectful behavior, according to Agility PR Solutions.
Media in general: The broader media landscape, encompassing traditional and online news sources, is also often blamed for contributing to incivility.
Public officials and political leaders: The behavior of public officials and political leaders is seen by many as influencing the overall level of civility in society. Incivility among elites can potentially trickle down and impact how citizens interact with one another.
Political polarization and partisan divides: The increasing polarization of political views and the tendency to demonize opposing viewpoints can foster an environment where civility is eroded. Focusing on judgment over curiosity in discourse can be particularly harmful.
Changes in societal values: Some suggest that a shift in values, emphasizing individualism and authentic self-expression over social conventions, may contribute to a decline in traditional politeness norms.
Weakening social norms and lack of education: A lack of emphasis on teaching and upholding civility, both within families and educational institutions, might contribute to its decline.
2. Human nature is imperfect and selfish. Given anonymity, many individuals take advantage of that power to criticize others. Individuals seeking affirmation re-orient their lives to garner external praise, using all possible means. They seek groups and media to reinforce their views rather than promote true personal growth, which can be painful. Media organizations have an incentive to reinforce these behaviors in order to monetize them.
The Media’s Role in Increased Polarization: Google AI Summary
In the mid-20th century (approximately 1930s-1980s), a combination of factors encouraged media outlets, particularly newspapers and broadcast media, to adopt more centrist positions:
Professionalization of Journalism: The rise of journalism schools and the increasing emphasis on journalistic professionalism fostered a belief in objectivity and impartiality, according to In These Times. This meant a conscious effort to present news without overt partisan bias. The City University of New York notes that newspapers became gradually less partisan over this period, a trend that continued after the 1910s and through 1980.
The Fairness Doctrine: Enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 1949 to 1987, the Fairness Doctrine mandated that broadcast networks devote time to contrasting views on issues of public importance. Britannica adds that this required stations to provide adequate opportunities for opposing perspectives, particularly in news and public affairs programming, although it didn’t necessitate balance within individual programs. This forced broadcasters to consider a broader range of viewpoints than they might have otherwise.
Shifting Advertising Landscape and Commercial Interests: As the cost of publishing newspapers increased, they became less reliant on party subsidies and more dependent on advertising revenue, particularly from department stores and other retailers. These advertisers often preferred a less partisan approach to reach a wider audience, contributing to a move towards centrism in news coverage, according to the Center for Journalism Ethics.
Media Concentration: While media ownership consolidated during this period, particularly after World War II, the drive for broader audiences to attract advertisers also played a role in the push for more middle-of-the-road content, according to The Business History Conference.
TK: We have returned to the more normal situation with highly partisan news media and opinion sources. Combined with the internet, individuals can tailor their media consumption.
Public officials and political leaders
Political polarization and partisan divides
From 1870-1970, America was largely run by a Republican, WASP, New England, Middle Atlantic and Midwest elite. They were very confident that their views were correct: religiously, socially, politically and economically. FDR was considered “a traitor to his class”. There were populist and reformer challenges, but the leaders knew they should and would lead (Bush, Sr.). The cultural revolution of the 1960’s, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Vietnam War, Watergate and the economic and population explosion of the Sunbelt upended the two parties. Republicans became conservative and Democrats became liberal. In a two-party system, this resulted in a simplistic “left versus right”, “red versus blue” framing and polarization.
The challenges of minority groups, women’s rights, environmental rights, human rights, international relations, individual rights, multiculturalism, immigrants, abortion rights, gay rights, crime, secularism, atheism, students’ rights, popular music, sexual freedom, international trade, foreign languages, new religions, urbanization, radical wealth, and pleasure on demand created a social and cultural polarization that eventually became much more important than the traditional (Marxist) class/economics division. Goldwater, Agnew, Nixon and Reagan saw the opportunities for political advantage. Democrats, guided by 4 mostly winning economic decades of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Carter, were slow to adjust to this reframing of political dimensions. Even Clinton, who successfully triangulated an economic “third way”, did not fully recognize this critical shift.
Weakening social norms and lack of education
5. our secular age and 4 imperfect myths. Secularization theory asserts that as societies become more advanced economically, scientifically and educationally they will naturally become less religious and more secular. The evidence does not support this theory at the society level. Societies become less or more “religious” at quite different rates. However, as societies become wealthier, they do have influential intellectuals who conclude that science, philosophy, art, creativity, economics, business, trade, politics and culture can advance more effectively without religion. This creates our “secular age”, where religious belief is merely one option among many that are socially acceptable.
This questioning, criticism, and destruction of the received Christian and Western Civilization values came late to the US. The 1950’s and first half of the 1960’s were a period of cultural conservatism and increased religious belief and participation. The US experienced very radical change in all dimensions from 1965-1970. Social norms were disrupted or destroyed for many.
In a world of “anything goes”, individuals choose their religion. They choose which religious, cultural and political beliefs to hold. They are not philosophers or scientists, so their beliefs are often polyglot, amalgams, pluralistic, hodge podge, syncretized, and logically inconsistent. They are often “least common denominator” views asking little from the individual. Hence, the weakening of social norms leads to a wide variety of informal social beliefs.
The 1950’s, following WWII, naturally reinforced an “America is best” history in schools. History classes, western civilization and American civics were very important. These subjects lost favor in the 1970’s and forward. Schools struggled to clearly define and teach the core lessons of the American and Western experience. Social responsibilities and civility lost ground.
Classical liberals emphasize the individual above the community or society. They value logic above tradition. They emphasize individual social rights. Utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number, is always nearby. Systems and structures are most important to ensuring a fair society without oppression by the powerful. John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” is important. It philosophically justifies a “fair” redistribution of resources. This group is deeply suspicious of the power of the wealthy to rule society. It is willing to have weaker overall results in order to minimize the chance of dominance by the ruling class or elites. Hence, the emphasis is on structures and legal rights. Not on responsibilities, opportunities, communities, or society, per se. This group values tolerance highly and is sometimes unwilling to impose its views on others. Critics argue that political structures and legal rights are not enough to support a real society. By this logic, Democrats as classical liberals simply don’t satisfy the human need for transcendence. They only offer “good enough”.
They offer only a “thin” philosophy that may be adequate for the political dimension but does not address other human claims. Professor Haidt calls this a historically unusual WEIRD view – Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. He notes that liberals typically emphasize just care and fairness as moral, political, and religious values.
Modern Republicans support individual freedom in some cultural dimensions, but mostly economically. Republicans embrace the radical individualism of libertarians within their coalition. But mostly, they embrace the “free market” as a philosophical ally of their emphasis on personal liberty of commerce and the rights of property.
President Trump does not align with this tradition. He does not adopt their philosophical principles. He believes in “instrumental” negotiations, power, leverage and deals.
There is a risk that the Republican emphasis on “free markets” will result in the misapplication of economic principles to politics, ethics, commerce and society.
Daniel Bell argued in 1976 that free market extremism is inherently inconsistent with conservative cultural beliefs.
Michael Sandel offers case studies that show how “market thinking” expands into other areas where it is philosophically less relevant but still popular.
Charles Taylor argues that the “instrumental reasoning” of economics, business and science threatens to obliterate all other thinking approaches.
The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of supporting the preservation of historical powers or national leaders. It also has a history of criticizing the emerging secular options, Protestants, scientists and secularists for replacing God with some other human constructed principles. It developed liberation theology and currently advocates for democratic socialism.
Extremism
2. Human nature is simplistic. It does not support complicated win/win positions. 6. Insecurity. Fear leads to simplistic and highly righteous positions from left and right.
Constructively, modern upper middle-class society embraces secularism, stages of growth, individual growth, individual expression, self-actualization, creativity, possibilities, personal growth, arts, authenticity, depth psychology, psychoanalysis, myth, possibilities, Maslow, Montessori, Freud, Jung, Spock, Carnegie, Rogers, Rousseau, etc. The individual has unlimited potential and is encouraged to seek this potential. Philip Rieff cogently argues that man requires a connection to the transcendent to provide meaning. He says that modern secular society provides substitutes (therapists, self-help, self-expression) that simply don’t work.
Christopher Lasch says that we have lost our connection with reality. Our soul requires validation. It seeks it but does not find it. This is a very convincing description of our current situation. Google AI summary follows:
Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (1979) argues that American society in the latter half of the 20th century was undergoing a shift from a character emphasizing individualism and contribution, to a more self-absorbed, narcissistic personality. This shift, he argued, was driven by a complex interplay of social, economic, and psychological factors.
Key arguments and characteristics of the culture of narcissism
Reliance on external validation: The narcissistic individual, according to Lasch, craves admiration and approval from others to fuel their self-esteem, according to EBSCO. This dependence on external validation can lead to insecurity and a fear of not measuring up.
Emphasis on image and superficiality: Lasch observed a cultural preoccupation with appearances, image, and a focus on fleeting trends and celebrity, often prioritizing presentation over substance and achievement. The media plays a role in fostering this, according to Lasch, by promoting unrealistic images and fostering a desire for fame and celebrity.
Erosion of Traditional Authority Structures: Lasch argued that the decline of institutions like the family and community, coupled with the rising influence of external agencies and expert advice, weakened traditional sources of authority and guidance. This can leave individuals feeling disconnected and reliant on external sources for personal and societal guidance.
Impact of Consumer Culture: Consumerism plays a role in shaping narcissistic tendencies by creating an emphasis on instant gratification, personal desires, and the construction of identity through consumption, undermining community and social responsibility. Advertising, Lasch suggested, encourages insatiable appetites for both goods and personal fulfillment, ultimately leading to feelings of emptiness and dissatisfaction.
Decline of Political Engagement: The focus on personal fulfillment, according to Lasch, resulted in a neglect of broader social and political issues, leading to feelings of powerlessness and alienation.
Impact and significance
The Culture of Narcissism became a bestseller and has had a lasting impact on American cultural criticism, according to SuperSummary. While some found his analysis insightful, highlighting the psychological impact of consumerism and social changes, others criticized his pessimism or disagreed with his interpretation of social trends. Some critics found his use of Freudian psychoanalysis outdated and viewed his arguments as potentially promoting patriarchal values. Despite the varied reception, Lasch’s work continues to be a point of discussion and reflection on American culture.
Counterfactuals: Civility Should be Much Better Today
Many of the developments of the last 50, 100 or 500 years would lead one to predict that “civility” would be much better today than 50 years ago.
Measured IQ’s have improved by 10+ points.
Workers are 4-5 times more productive than they were in the WWII era.
Americans nearly all live in metropolitan areas where they interact with other races, ethnicities, classes, nationalities, religions and political views.
People make more choices and experience natural consequences of their decisions. Modern markets and society push individuals to interact in all dimensions of life.
More Americans work in large enterprises where they are required to interact with “others” effectively.
Human rights have been adopted for all. Nationalities, races, religions, genders, sexual preferences and abilities are protected and celebrated.
Regional, national and global trade, travel, sports teams and media are available to all.
Ecumenical religious groups thrive. Christian denominations work with each other and “world religions” in ways unimaginable in 1929.
“Tolerance” is elevated as an important cultural and moral value by liberals, Democrats, cultural elites, and business leaders.
Personality profiles, talents, multiple intelligences, gender differences, emotional intelligences, team building, toxic personalities, autism spectrum and other insights highlight the important differences between people and the need for those who wish to succeed to understand them and adapt appropriately.
The percentage of Americans who have completed a college degree has increased from 5% to 40% since WWII. The educational experience, social expectations and interactions all promote civility, seriously considered responses to life and people.
The data is sparse, but it looks like 15% of Americans today visit mental health professionals each year to deal with the challenges of life, up from 3-5% in the WWII era. Neighbors, elders, medical professionals, educators and religious leaders have always helped.
The information required to make decisions is easily available.
European nations (and Japan) were able to move past the horrors of the two world wars and establish tolerance for neighboring states as essential principles of modern democracies.
Global institutions were built from the experiences of the Great Depression and WWII. Other nations have rights, responsibilities and things to offer the world.
The colonial, imperial models were discredited along with fascism, Marxism and totalitarianism. The tolerant, “middle way” Western model of mixed capitalist economies, democracies and international trade and cooperation were validated in the 1992 “end of history” per Francis Fukuyama.
Artists and events have destroyed the notion that cultural, social, religious, political, and business leaders are somehow superior and worthy of unquestioning loyalty to single groups, institutions, parties or leaders. We are now all deeply and inherently skeptical.
These historical, social, economic, political, family, educational, and cultural forces say things should be getting better; much better. The forces against civility must be very strong. This points towards “human nature” as the most important factor.
Summary
The media is commercially incentivized to tear us apart. We are obligated to make wise choices for our media consumption. Political parties prefer to have simple, extreme contrasts. We can reject these nonproductive views. Political parties are often captured by their extreme supporters. We need to participate.
The choice of media sources for news and opinion is critical. We have an obligation to help our fellow citizens see that it is in their own best interest to separate news from opinion, to critically evaluate all messages, to value feedback and to seek personal growth.
Politics is a mess. “The inmates are running the asylum”. Individual politicians optimize their own results. Polarization. Communications. Brands. Techniques. Fundraising. Gerrymandering. We have to re-establish a level playing field, increase political participation, hold officials accountable, set character screens, etc.
Our culture is a mess. It is truly bipolar. Purely secular, scientific, utilitarian, classical liberal on one side. Fundamentalist religious and cultural certainty on the other side. Either/or. Win/lose. Political polarization has infected the culture. In a scientific, secular age we all demand certainty. Unfortunately, scientists, philosophers, political and religious leaders cannot deliver “certainty”. They can only provide useful tools, frameworks, paradigms, myths, stories, histories, prophets, songs, art, insights, components, and limits.
We deeply fear total relativism and pure subjectivity. This pushes us to “certainty” extremisms.
“Anything goes” in 1934 shocks the world. Cole Porter, Indiana legend.
Soren Kierkegaard founded existentialism in 1843 by positing the “leap of faith”. Certainty, in classical logical terms, was impossible. The big questions could not be reduced to pure logic.
In Exodus 3:14 God tells Moses: “I am who I am”. Eternity, infinity, wisdom, pure light, spirit, truth, insight, goodness, righteousness, greatness, sovereignty, combination, sets, groups, ideal types, templates, harmony, forms, abstraction. We struggle to digest this, of course.
Civility is only possible when individuals are secure in their perceived existential situation.
I’d like to focus today on US and global economic growth since 1945 guided by the new economic order of win/win free trade installed by the Bretton Woods conference.
The US economy has grown 11-fold since then in real economic terms. The US economy, which won the war, was just 9% as large as it is today! This is a little less than 3-fold population growth combined with 4-fold per capita production/income growth.
Visually, it is clear that US economic growth has been steady across these 80 years, only interrupted by a few severe recessions.
The US had already doubled its GDP between 1938 and 1945. So, the US economic growth was 22-fold from 1938 to 2025. Other leading countries showed flat total output in the war era.
This chart shows that the US reached its apex as a share of global GDP right after WWII. I think that president Trump mistakenly believes that the US could have maintained its 28% global market share forever. In more realistic terms, the US reached 19% of global GDP in 1913 and properly maintained that share in 2008.
Summary
The post-WW II global institutions drove 11-fold growth for the US and 15-fold growth for the world. The historical benchmark in 3x. The US experienced an extra doubling of its economy from 1938-1945. The mercantilist views of 1880-1920 simply cannot compete with the post-war free trade regime.
The “orange one” does not “hold all of the cards”. He is critically threatened by his foreign handlers and the US justice system. He was not elected to promote a trade war. No one expected a trade war. He merely “shadow boxed” during his first term on trade. He has made the “trade war” his first priority because it is a “sure win” politically, in the short-run. He first bluffed exaggerated 50% and 100% tariffs, and the media duly reported these crazy claims that anchor or outline the story. He now claims HUGE victories with 15% tariffs. The self-described GOAT negotiator thereby proves his standing. He claims victory. He uses this temporary bump in support to take over the government.
Citizens need to recognize that this is clearly not a “win” for the country. Import tariffs are simply taxes. They get split between the foreign exporter, the importer and the retail customer. At 15%, the typical payment split is 25%, 25% and 50%. Exporters still want to sell goods and maintain market share. They have fixed costs. They have profits. They can reduce prices in the short-term. Importers still want to sell goods and maintain market share. They can limit price increases in the short-term. Most markets are “sticky”. Brands, supply chains, habits, marketing and convenience matter. Import costs are half to three-quarters of retail prices. The consumer price increase is 5-8%. Some consumers switch to lower priced options, some don’t. The “next best” low price option for an imported good is probably another imported good. The “Trump tariffs” distort markets. They don’t deliver a “victory” for American consumers, producers, labor, finance or government. They merely “gum up the works”.
The “orange one” understands leverage, populism and persuasion. He really doesn’t understand markets, as demonstrated by his dozens of business failures. A 15% import tariff will cause pain for foreign exporters, US importers and consumers. It’s not large enough to cause a domestic firm to invest in expanded capacity. They will use all of their existing capacity and even cut prices a little to win market share. Manufacturing investments require 20-30-40 year timeframes to be viable. They require confidence in government policies on trade, regulations, antitrust, labor, environment, intellectual property, lobbying, property taxes, inventory taxes, corporate income taxes, international taxes, international finance, transportation, supply chains, labor costs, etc. Trump’s policies strongly work against such investments.
US industries don’t import goods to save just 10%. They import goods because the total cost of imports is at least 20% lower and trending in the right direction. Importing always has extra costs for transportation, communications, delays, coordination, property risks, quality control, product development, supplier management, flexibility, tariff risks on both ends, legal risks, capital controls, financial transactions, inventory, obsolescence, etc. There is a “step function” involved here. US firms from 1970-2000 only relinquished their domestic manufacturing because when they completely ignored all fixed costs and only looked at short-term variable costs, they had to outsource production. There will be no overall manufacturing renaissance. There will be some very low labor cost manufacturing that returns to the states. That is, only where labor costs are a small percentage of the total production cost. Hence the “job creation” impact will be tiny, impossible to measure.
So … if they won’t build new factories, what will be the leading responses of domestic importers? They will find ways to import/reroute goods from lowest tariff countries. They will find ways to reclassify goods and avoid tariffs. They will lobby for exemptions. They will import only key components and do “final assembly” locally in highly automated factories. They will hold imported goods in a Free Trade Zone. They will split physical products from services and intellectual property to minimize tariffs. They will lobby for domestic government subsidies. They will offer “service hour models” to customers as in aircraft engines and never sell the physical goods and incur the tariffs.
Will the import tariffs reduce the federal budget deficit? Yes. The US imports 15% of GDP. Tariffs will be applied to about half of the imports. Imports will be reduced and replaced by domestic production, a little. 15% of 5% is about 0.75% of GDP. The federal budget deficit is 6.5% and climbing. This will help a little. Consumers will pay for half of this as in a sales tax.
What are the secondary impacts of the tariffs? Domestic firms will invest management time and money in managing the system instead of developing better goods and services. Lower import competition often leads to higher prices overall. Domestic producers experience higher input costs and attempt to pass them along to consumers. Foreign countries will increase their tariff and non-tariff barriers to US exporters. The US loses its moral advantage as a promoter of “free trade”. The US loses opportunities to reduce trade barriers through global and regional “free trade” agreements. The US loses the opportunity to drive global labor and environmental standards. The US loses the opportunity to expand free trade in services, the industries of the future. The US’s “unfair advantage” as the manager of the US dollar as the global currency will be challenged. The US’s soft power in language, arts, education, language, culture, and global leadership will be questioned. The US’s role as a stalwart ally will be undermined, leading to merely costlier and unreliable transactional relations with former allies. Foreign citizens will choose to not consume US goods and services. The US will have to pay directly for its global military bases. The US will have to pay for allies’ support on the “war on terror”. The US will have to pay for all global initiatives. The US will have to directly control “rogue states”. The indirect costs are HUGE and unappreciated.
Why did the US pursue the post WW II new world order? Ending imperialism and colonies. Forming the United Nations and trying to use it to manage some conflicts. Principles of political self-determination and human rights. Global bodies for better health. Investments in Germany, Italy, Japan and Europe instead of reparations. International Monetary Foundation and World Bank to support developing nations and manage currencies. GATT and WTO to promote lower trade barriers and multilateral deals. NATO and other alliances rather than colonies and protectorates. The win/lose approach of the 1800’s, WWI and WWII had failed. The world was ready to try a win/win approach. The US, with its history of isolationism, exceptionalism and national independence, chose to not pursue “world dominance”. The post- WWII institutions were not perfect, but they demonstrated that they were much better than those that had governed international relations for the prior 500 years.
Again, put everything in perspective. The US imports 15% of GDP. 15% import tariffs on half of goods. Consumers adjust and substitute domestic and lower total price imports. US consumers pay a 1% sales tax on imported goods. US military and influence costs rise by much more than 1% of GDP. Consumers pay higher prices. The US has less global influence. Where is the win? Marginal manufacturing plants and jobs are not returning to the US, no matter what the “orange one” says unless they are subsidized by the local, state or national government.
This is just another “con” by the “orange one”. We want to believe that American jobs have been unfairly stolen by government subsidized factories and low-cost labor without environmental protections in foreign countries. There is a grain of truth in each claim. Foreign governments do subsidize export firms. They try to maintain low currency values to support exports. They accept low total labor costs and environmental damages. Every country tries to be globally competitive.
No “magic wand” exists to force or entice everyone into embracing win/win institutions or deals naively. There is always an incentive to be a “free rider”, taking advantage of the global deals and quietly not really complying, just like some oil producers in OPEC. There is always an advantage for a single country with enough power to “hold out” or bluff or play “chicken” to extract a better deal for that country than for the others. This is the real world of bargaining, negotiations and deal-making. No system, philosophy, institutions, social pressure, or trump card easily delivers win/win results without overcoming the win/lose incentives of the game’s players.
There was a time when “Republicans” were supposedly the party of realism, pragmatism, common sense, business, efficiency, logic, finance, trade, capitalism, science, industry, proof, objectivity, best practices, and elite opinion. “Democrats” allegedly appealed to emotions, wishes, utopias, fairness, justice, perspectives, hopes, possibilities, oppression, victimhood, persuasion, popular opinion, populism, and ideals. The post-WWII institutions were supported on a bipartisan basis for more than 50 years. In 1992, President Clinton and the Democratic party embraced the “third way”, fully supporting these policies, capitalism and limited government, despite criticisms from the progressive, new, far left. The post – WWII system of international institutions has been criticized as “globalism” and “neo-liberalism” by the left wing of the Democratic party.
The post-WWII institutions were not perfect for Democrats, Republicans, the USA or the global community. But they worked incredibly well. Real global GDP has increased by 40 times since 1945, from $2.5 trillion to $100 trillion!!!!! That is 4.72% real growth compounded year after year after year for 80 years, coming out of a world war, encompassing a cold war, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, a global pandemic, the collapse of birth rates, business cycles, financial panics, energy crises, Middle East wars, and terrorism.
A comparable 80-year period before the Great Depression shows just 4-fold global real GDP growth, not 40-fold. Of course, much of this difference is due to differences other than the post-WWII institutions. This was a time of 1.75% annual growth rather than the modern 4.72%. The 3% annual difference compounded across 80 years delivers 10 times greater growth. This is not a marginal advantage. This is an UNBELIEVABLE advantage. This is difficult to communicate. Small percentage differences across a lifetime.
The “bottom line” is that the “orange one” only believes in “win/lose” and rejects any form of “win/win”. The post-WWII institutions are win/win, so they must be rejected. Capitalism, alliances, partnerships, joint ventures, corporations, modern supplier relations, families, communities, nations, treaties, fraternities, sororities, ecosystems, clubs, cooperatives, unions, study partners, mentors/mentees, credit unions, mutual insurance companies, social enterprises, not-for-profits, churches, service organizations and many others are win/win. The “win/lose” framework supports the “orange one’s” desired position as a great leader needed to save the people.
Free trade has provided truly amazing benefits for the US and the world. The post-WWII cooperative institutions have reduced wars and conflicts. The “Trump tariffs” will slow global economic growth. They will not provide any material benefits for the US.
The US has enough economic, social, political and military power to force country by country “deals” that appear to benefit the US, when considered in a short-term win/lose framework. These deals will harm the US and the global economy.
From 1945-2000 “free trade” was Republican economic orthodoxy. “Free trade” benefitted US multi-national corporations which had the ability to take advantage of global markets. The US economy and labor markets were flexible enough to manage the changes. Capitalism was supported as the best economic system versus communism, fascism, socialism, protectionism, imperialism, colonialism or mercantilism. US financial institutions were well positioned to facilitate trade. US universities were ready to educate the world. Imported goods and immigrant labor drove lower US wages.
Trump is appealing to his populist base to oppose the “others” of immigrants, non-whites, non-fundamentalist Christians, criminals, thieves, rapists, sweat shops, subsidized factories, polluters, underpaid workers, etc. “We should produce everything we need in America. We have the factory capacity, finances and skills to do so.” He appeals to nationalism while ignoring the critical principle of comparative advantage. Countries export only what they are very best at growing, producing or serving. They do not produce everything themselves just like states, firms and individuals that are not fully self-sufficient.
1637 – The world can be described mathematically, in 3 clear dimensions. We can convert geometry into algebra. We can “know” everything. And in my spare time I will revolutionize philosophy too.
1654 – We can use algebra to fully describe uncertain, probable events. In my spare time, I will contribute to mathematics, physics, chemistry, theology and the scientific method.
1673 – The world can be understood. Calculus, philosophy, politics, law, library science, music, biology. Newton was greater. Leibniz gets second billing then and now.
1687 – The world can be understood. Calculus, physics, astronomy, theology, optics, scientific method, alchemy. The reduction of physical forces to a simple equation is the highlight of all science. His legacy is largely misunderstood. He remained religious. He was a mystic and an alchemist. Describing events mathematically did not “explain” them. Aristotle’s emphasis on “final” causes still mattered.
1734 – The world is dynamic and complex. Yet, we can still describe it mathematically. Let’s describe sets of differential equations. Defining several fields of mathematics. Showing how math can be applied to physics. Perhaps the greatest mathematician of all time.
1821 – Carl Gauss competes for the greatest mathematician of all time. Algebra, geometry, connections between subfields, many challenges solved, analysis, topology, non-Euclidean geometry, astronomy, calendars, advances in probability theory, maps, magnetism, optics and mechanics.
1862 – Electricity and magnetism can be described by a set of equations, more complex, but similar to those of Newton describing gravity. We barely understand these phenomena, but the equations can predict how they function. Math and physics.
1895 – We can describe an abstract mathematics called “set theory” which describes how individual components relate to the whole. This approach can describe all formal logic. It can potentially serve as the basis for all of mathematics. It begins to fully address the idea of infinity.
1895 – The world is mainly comprised of waves of various lengths. Some wave lengths can be used to “see” within physical objects. We’ll call them X-rays.
1911 – The atom is much more complicated than we thought. It has a center of protons and neutrons. It has multiple shells of probabilistically present tiny electrons. Atomic particles “disappear” as radioactive decay based on probabilities.
1915 – Everything you thought you knew about the world is false! The speed of light is fixed. There is no physical background space “ether”. Speed of light is a rare constant. Energy and matter are interchangeable. Time and space interact. Time is relative. Space is warped by matter (gravity). In essence, several dimensions of reality cluster, pull, interact, interrelate together in mathematically describable ways. Everything is very connected. I worked the rest of my life to combine the laws of physics, but they did not comply.
1925 – We’ve digested all of the new theories and experimental results. Everything in the universe is unavoidably probabilistic. Light is wave and particle. Space is relative. Electrons are probably in SPDF circuits. Particles are probably there! Measurements impact reality. Schrodinger’s cat can be dead or live. Spooky action at a distance. We can never really know “for sure”. This is before the exploration of sub-atomic particles which raises many more very difficult questions.
1931 – We cannot reduce any “robust” mathematics to simple formal logic or set theory. Infinity and other non-reductionist components stand in the way.
Our universe has a well-defined structure. Observer perspective really matters. Mathematical equations are amazingly powerful. There is no simple deterministic universe. It is probabilistic “turtles all the way down”. Perspective is relative. New mathematical perspectives are impossible to predict and difficult to comprehend.
Colonization and de-colonization. Opening of Asia. World Wars. Nuclear threats. International integration. Economic progress. Bipolar, superpower, multipolar world.
1789 – “The people” can overthrow the ancient regime. Governing is a bigger challenge. The “nation” and ideals (liberty, equality, fraternity) are very, very powerful tools.
1848 – Utilitarian emphasis on pain and pleasure. Liberty as the supreme value. Yet, government actions to reach valuable ends, including redistribution, are also needed.
1913 – All of mathematics can be reduced to formal symbolic logic. Everything is logically consistent. All of science and politics and philosophy might also be so structured.
1948 – All humans are “born free and equal in dignity and rights” regardless of “nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status”.
1961 – Power is the ultimate guide to understanding the world. The powerful exploit others. Opposing this exploitation is the duty of those who understand.
1974 – A US president was forced out of office for his criminal activities. The transfer of power worked. Confidence in government and institutions was shaken.
1980 – A pro-market, socially conservative political party was elected by reframing the terms of the debate away from economic security and inequality.
2017 – The Republican Party increasingly appealed to a coalition of economic winners, social conservatives, libertarians and populists, embracing a transactional, common-sense patriotic nationalism.
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back” – John Maynard Keynes
Bacon and Descartes provided early alternatives to the prevailing integrated religious worldview. Locke and others outlined the individual based “social contract” theory that provided a basis for the American and French revolutions. The American model continued to inspire while the French model both inspired and frightened. The rational Enlightenment view led to utilitarianism, pragmatism and progressivism plus the reactions of Romanticism, Marx and Nietzsche. Conservative reactions of Burke, Social Darwinism and Fascism also occurred. “Big government” was adopted as a potential positive force by the left as well. Individual rights were increasingly recognized in theory and practice. Post-war existentialism and postmodernism replaced discredited Marxism on the left. The Reagan/Thatcher revolution re-established pro-market and traditional social conservatism as a dominant force. Trump capitalized on the populist themes and media tools of the skeptical post-Watergate era.
Science versus religion. Church and state. Individual and community. Rich and poor. Liberty versus justice. Liberal versus conservative. Populists and elites. State and international politics. What should we do? Who should decide? What is the best structure? How do we protect minority rights? Protect the goose that lays the golden eggs.
The U.S. and Western system of government regulated capitalism, relatively free trade and democratically elected limited government dominated the second half of the twentieth century. In 1992 Francis Fukuyama proclaimed, “The End of History”. This “Western consensus” view is increasingly challenged today.
‘Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’ – Winston Churchill
Good News 