The American two-party system has been captured by political extremists. Political parties no longer play their historical function of vetting candidates for broad acceptance, electability and support of party platforms. Parties are dominated by highly motivated extremists as staffers and volunteers. In the post-Gingrich era clever politicians use wedge issues and polarized positions to attract supporters. A majority of states are dominated by single parties and have gerrymandered 80% of the districts to be solidly single party. Majority party politicians are sure to win the general election, so they only worry about competitors from the wings. Special interest groups and large dollar donors support the extreme views in each party. Modern social media tends to reinforce the views of extremists, effectively connecting voters with simplistic answers.
National level politicians devote all of their time to winning elections and being re-elected. Few are interested in the hard work of crafting compromises or finding innovative solutions to the nation’s problems. Voters are frustrated by the lack of progress and responsiveness. They join the anti-Washington chorus. Politicians respond with empty rhetoric.
One solution is to “throw the bums out”. Require all candidates to demonstrate basic levels of character. Require them to actively look for solutions that meet the needs of a solid majority of citizens. Reward those who pursue middle solutions and who avoid the easy populist solutions and rhetoric.
In general elections, if your party’s candidate does not meet these basic requirements, cast a write-in ballot. Vote for Ronald Reagan if you cannot support an extremist Republican. Vote for Barrack Obama if you cannot support an extremist Democrat.
The US political system does not provide 5-7 real choices in general elections. We don’t have Green, socialist, regional, separatist, religious, racial, ethnic, libertarian or liberal democratic options. The Democratic party is split between center-left (moderate) and progressive wings. The Republican party was once split between center-right (moderate) and extremist wings. It is now all extremist, no RINOs allowed. The extremists found a true champion in Goldwater and lost. They recovered with Reagan 40. They tolerated Bush 41 and 43. They embraced Sarah Palin and then Trump 45 and 47.
Moderate, Main Street, Wall Street, philosophical conservatives have no political party home today. Moderate Democrats have little in common with the New Left, the progressive left, environmentalists, postmodernists, socialists, social Democrats.
The TRUE moral majority, real America is in the center. We are conservative, individualistic, practical, American, skeptical, historical, community loving, institution supporting, trusting, classic liberals. We ALSO believe in the liberal American ideals of human rights, liberty, social justice, equal rights, equal opportunity, and international solutions. We are multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multi-religious. We intuitively respect diverse religious and political views. Not because we think that others are “right”, but because we accept different individual views as possibly valid. We think there is an objective physical and moral reality but are not confident that we alone possess the truth.
This is the “American genius”. We lean left or right. We think that we are right. But, we accept that our good neighbors have different views. We work together to find solutions for all, solutions that are accepted by a solid majority, not just what a political party can force through.
This requires us to vote against our own side on the simple “left to right” spectrum when candidates fail to meet the basic standards of character or promoting the common good.
Politicians have learned that it is easy for them and highly effective to portray policy positions in ways that make you feel victimized by someone. You blame that someone. You catastrophize the situation. You demonize the supposed villain. You look to the politician and political party for salvation. You attack the opposition. Our political process is polarized. We lose civility. The cycle repeats.
You can choose to reject the victim framework used by many politicians. Few political issues are simply black and white with clear villains and heroes. Most ongoing political issues remain because well-meaning people hold conflicting or non-aligned views. Politicians promote the victim framework and extreme positions because they are easy to communicate, they trigger emotions, and they can be linked to form a simple political platform. Red or blue. Liberal or conservative. Republican or Democrat.
An increasing number of Americans identify as “independents”, not strongly aligned with either party. You probably have strong opinions on some issues and weaker ones on others. You probably hold some combination of liberal, conservative and moderate views on various issues. Many politicians and political parties invest in creating “victim” language for policy areas. Once you become aware of these tricks, you can better choose your own policy views, avoid the victim game and hold politicians accountable for doing their jobs: representing all of their constituents and solving problems.
Populists in both parties claim that the US economy is controlled by bankers, large corporations and Wall Street. Democrats used to monopolize this view, but the rise of the Tea Party made it a Republican favorite too. There is no denying that powerful economic firms try to use their power to extract returns from customers, suppliers, employees, the government and politicians. Don’t be a victim. Economic competitors, customers, suppliers, unions, regulators, courts, financial market and politicians have countervailing powers. Be a wise consumer. Buy local. Support reasonable regulations and anti-trust results. Promote competition. Hold politicians accountable for taking practical steps to maintain a reasonable balance in this area. Consider more than just simplistic “free market” or government owned firms approaches.
Politicians claim that taxpayers are overburdened by wasteful government spending. All firms are imperfect. Modern firms have invested in process engineering, automation and planning systems to reduce waste of all kinds. Governments are not subject to the pressure of competitive markets to reduce waste. The best firms have to decide how much to invest in removing waste each year. Firms outsource functions. These projects are not free. They don’t always work. Don’t buy into the view that “government waste” is a large percentage of spending. Don’t believe that it can be removed simply, without investments, projects and collateral costs. Every government program has someone that supports it because they benefit. Urge politicians to take bipartisan steps to make governments more effective. Independent financial agencies. Sunset laws. Cost reduction targets. Improvement commissions. Simplification laws. Competitive outsourcing.
Politicians claim that “foreign competition” is unfair. Other countries abuse their labor forces, abuse their environments, steal technology, extract skills and money from firms, negotiate better deals, use non-tariff tools to cheat, etc. This is an area that was mostly argued by the Democratic party until the last decade or so. The post WWII progress on reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers was mostly achieved at the global level with strong bipartisan US support. The US did not optimize its country-to-country results because it rightly saw that it could get better overall results through global negotiations. This “free trade” approach was used to rebuild Europe and integrate the US and global economies, to reduce the risk of war and allow the US to project its hard and soft power more cheaply and effectively than by using the discredited colonial/imperial approach. Global progress remains possible if the US, EU and China choose to make it happen. When this is not politically feasible, the second-best approach is to reduce trade barriers within larger blocks of countries. The US can choose to invest more resources in negotiating better trade deals. They are not simple. The US is not a powerful enough force on the global economic stage to simply enforce its will. None of us should see the US as a victim of foreign competition. The US has thrived in a 75-year period of freer trade. In a world of services, the US is well positioned to benefit from further investments in free trade.
Politicians highlight the threats of communist or socialist states or policies. They contrast them with the American way of capitalism, democracy and personal liberty. They emphasize that any moves in this direction are one-way streets to permanent and total loss of liberty. The threat of a totalitarian state is real. Politicians improperly comingle totalitarianism and socialism/communism. No American is supporting communism. Very few support true utopian socialism. The US political system of “checks and balances” is designed to prevent a slide into dictatorship. Russia no longer seeks to export Marxism. China appears to believe in “socialism with Chinese characteristics”, but shows no interest in promoting this system in the West.
Politicians and conspiracy theorists have long described a global cabal of bankers and secret societies managing the world. The Catholic church, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, bankers, traders, Masons, Jesuits, universities, defense contractors and others have been implicated at various times. This view has been promoted by politicians on both sides from time to time. There are individuals, groups and organizations with significant global economic, social, political, legal, military and religious influence. The 5-fold growth in the scale of the global economy and the change in leading nation states and alliances since WWII make these conspiracy claims even more unlikely than they were in the world war times.
Politicians also play on fears of insiders and traitors undermining nation states. Hitler used this to discredit the German leaders after WW I. Senator Joe McCarthy used these kinds of baseless claims to attack President Eisenhower, the State Department and both political parties. Modern politicians who favor more assertive foreign and military policies often criticize their more moderate opponents as doves or pacifists who are insufficiently committed to the nation state and unwittingly supporting the nation’s opponents. The US has strong bipartisan military, intelligence, university and foreign service institutions. They have served the country very well for more than 2 centuries.
Politicians contrast national patriotism with the alleged evil intentions of global institutions such as the United Nations. These “globalist” organizations are seen promoting the goals of other states, developing countries, communist countries, non-Western countries, utopian socialists, greens, global elites and bureaucrats. They are also said to infringe on the inalienable rights of the USA and its citizens. Global institutions and agreements do limit the options for America. Historically the US has used these organizations to promote its interests cost effectively, reducing the risk to the US of wars, disease and trade wars. As with many of these “victim” areas, the politicians take a valid concern and turn it into an existential threat wielded by enemies. The US, as the leading global power, is well-positioned to use these tools to its benefit and to not use them if and when they turn out to not be in our interest.
Politicians claim that “others”, foreign nations, nationals and immigrants are threats to the US. They don’t think, look, act, feel, believe, eat, sing or speak like us. They are to be feared. Nationality, race, religion and culture are all used to define threatening groups. The US has been the leading nation of the world in welcoming and assimilating a wide variety of groups for almost 3 centuries. The country has generally opened its shores to immigrants and restricted entry at other times. Xenophobia seems to be a natural human condition as it is seen in all countries and times. Experts have documented that immigrant groups have a net positive impact on the US. These groups contain a wide variety of individuals who show the same range of social and anti-social behaviors as any other group. Restricting access to the US and “protecting our borders” are valid political topics. Demonizing “others” is an evil tool used by self-interested politicians.
Politicians of both parties offer up “the deep state” as another group of traitorous individuals to be feared. They allege that small groups of career bureaucrats in key agencies such as defense, intelligence, foreign service, FBI, justice and treasury control the information, models, scenarios, options and implementation of public policy. They are alleged to be self-interested and aligned with dark forces of the left, the right, banking, corporations, commissions, churches, etc. There are career employees in key positions in the federal government, universities, churches, media and not for profits who do wield significant formal power and influence over policymaking, politicians and communications. The US federal government allows presidents and political parties to fill the top roles in all government agencies. We have alternated ruling political parties for 75 years. We maintain freedom of speech, religion and assembly.
Politicians allege that “unelected federal bureaucrats and judges” improperly enforce national laws, policies and regulations that should be left to the states. This has mostly been a Republican claim since the enforcement of civil rights after WWII. Some Democratic states are now finding that federal laws and regulations can restrict their options as well. The US has a federal system where state and national rights and responsibilities are divided, contested and adjudicated by the courts. This is an unavoidable conflict, not a usurpation of power.
Politicians take the libertarian view that nearly all government actions are improper. Only a bare minimum of police, property, contract and defense roles are properly held by the state (at any level). In the “tug of war” between laissez faire, free market capitalism and restrictions and regulations, the government is portrayed as fundamentally illegitimate whenever it acts outside the libertarian approved kernel of necessary functions. These actions are said to be improper because they infringe on individual liberty which cannot be given up to the government. Hence, government, politicians, bureaucrats, judges, programs, laws, rules and regulations are bad, evil and self-serving. The US government is at the individual, liberty protecting, capitalism supporting end of the spectrum among developed, Western nations. It has grown in the last 75 years as a share of the economy but not significantly. This fundamental dimension of politics is one where well-meaning people take opposing or differing views.
Politicians portray their opponents as extremists, far-left, far-right, Pinkos, nut jobs, wing nuts, socialists, anarchists, liberals, reactionaries, communists, fascists, doves, racists, globalists, isolationists … This straw-man approach is used to paint them as the opposite, to avoid finding common ground, to simplify, to fear, to build emotion, to catastrophize, to demonize, to disregard, to vilify … This is a highly effective technique. Modern individuals have disagreed about politics, religion, capitalism, philosophy and other nations at all times. We hold different political and moral views. The progress of Western civilization has come from finding ways to set aside these differences in law, commerce, political structures, contracts, science and common understanding. Stand up to the political communicators. Support your political beliefs and agents. Avoid needless, senseless, harmful polarization.
Politicians of both parties routinely campaign against “Washington”. The government, departments, bureaucrats, judges, institutions, lobbyists, lawyers, contractors, advisors, consultants and politicians are all tainted as part of “the system”. Washington allegedly works against the interests of the common man, the Real America, the moral majority, the people. Every nation requires a political system. Ours could certainly be more effective, less wasteful, more responsive and wiser. Running against Washington accomplishes nothing. It is an effective political tool only because we allow it to be and do not hold individual politicians accountable for their actions in making real improvements and establishing structures that hold governments and politician more accountable.
Politicians craft the image of welfare cheats, frauds and queens to reduce or eliminate social safety net programs. They play on our desire for fairness and proportionality and our hatred of waste. They focus on “others”, who are not like us, who are unworthy of support and who don’t even comply with our laws. We are distracted from objectively crafting more effective programs or debating levels of support. We should simply eliminate all such spending! This is another straw-man technique, creating an image so extreme that it must be opposed by any reasonable person. Welfare fraud can be controlled to any desired degree by investing in preventive, detective and corrective processes. All organizations face risks from fraud and theft. Governments are no different. Given that governments spend taxpayer dollars on programs that are not supported by everyone, the level of controls should be high, world class, best practices.
Politicians accuse their opponents of voting fraud. This happens through voting registration rules, voting processes, voting regulations, technology, district boundaries, voting methods, and collusion. The evidence for a significant amount of individual fraud is non-existent. Evidence for voting results being shaped by the legal voting framework is strong. An increasing number of states have turned to independent redistricting commissions, open primaries and ranked choice voting. Courts have placed some limits on politically advantageous redistricting and laws. Until voters demand a neutral framework for voting we will have biased results.
Politicians claim that the economy, culture, institutions and politics are controlled by “elites”, who are not like the common man and who do not consider their interests. This was a populist Democratic ploy for the first three-quarters of the twentieth century, but Republican have increasingly embraced it for the last 50 years. Democrats focused on the “top 1%”, the capitalists, bankers, the military industrial complex, WASPs and the power elite. Republicans focused on thought leaders, universities, media, intellectuals, government leaders, not for profit leaders, the highly educated professional class. The US has a long history of supporting the small farmer and the self-made man, opposing the claims of the city, the traders, and the national bank. In a meritocracy with more at stake and broader potential access to top positions, it is not surprising that politicians appeal to our deep sense of unfairness that someone else has succeeded improperly and using their power to take advantage of others. This is another distraction. We should be reviewing and addressing the fairness of our political, social and economic systems. Railing at “the elites” does not help anyone.
Politicians claim that their opponents and the government want to take away their personal rights to self-defense, religion, health and family. This is most evident in debates about gun control, gun rights and gun regulations. The “slippery slope” argument is used to oppose any regulations. The constitutional right to “bear arms” is proclaimed. This right is elevated above any conflicting objections. The US holds more guns than any other country. It leads the developed world in gun deaths. The NRA prevents reasonable or compromise laws because it benefits from maintaining polarized political views which maximize its fundraising potential. There is an opportunity to clarify gun rights by revising the constitution.
Politicians exaggerate the level, impact, trends and responsibility for crime, especially violent crime. They propose tougher laws, more police, greater police tools, and meaner prisons. They demonize the poor, young men, racial minorities and immigrants. The US has more crime than other developed nations. Experts disagree on root causes, solutions and best practices. Our decentralized political system allows states and local governments to make their own decisions. Federal level crime policies should be changed only when strong evidence is provided.
Politicians promote the “culture wars” because it helps them to define and distinguish their personal brands and because they are unhappy that they cannot control culture directly as they control the political and economic systems. When our cultural institutions were mostly shaped by the Western civilization/Christian experience, politicians of both parties could support the “separation of church and state”, independent media, cultural and educational institutions. But today, in “a secular age” where citizens have very different views on culture, there is a political opportunity to embrace either the traditional culture or the emerging more secular culture. The US political system was built to ensure that religious groups could not control the government. This system has been very effective, especially in the last 75 years when different cultural and religious views are held. Traditional cultural views are allowed and supported today, but they are not promoted by the government. Traditionalists should embrace this approach to ensure that the “secular” groups cannot use the state to impose their religious, philosophical, cultural and political views.
Politicians have brought the public education system into the “culture wars”. Darwin’s theory of education, separation of church and state, morality, school choice, DEI, bathroom access, wokeness, privilege, racial history, sex education and library books have been raised into political topics. Once again, politicians are creating “wedge issues” that had been managed effectively at the local level for more than a century. Public schools should be held accountable for following laws, being sensitive to varied perspectives and not imposing contentious moral, religious or political views. Protecting minority rights is a firmly established principle of American government. Educators have always been assigned the difficult task of creating citizens in a world where groups hold differing views. The challenges are unavoidable. We can use this heightened awareness to help schools to become more effective, not more political.
Politicians have determined that majority groups can be threatened by minority groups and have found ways to appeal to them. The white, working class, straight, Christian, native, small-town man is portrayed as a victim of racial minorities, elites, gays, secularists, immigrants, women and coastal elites. All instances of affirmative action education or steps are claimed to be an affront to true “equal opportunity”. The politicians claim that the majority groups are discriminated against. All Americans deserve protection from formal or informal discrimination. Most Americans accept that people are imperfect, and we cannot expect to ever reach perfection in this area, even as we continue to strive to improve.
Politicians claim that religious individuals and churches are not provided with “freedom of religion”. Their views on “culture war” issues are not fully supported by the government in public education, higher education, government or the media. They are sometimes required to follow or accept laws that they disagree with. Their “minority views” are not respected by the courts. Their “freedom of speech” is restricted by the tax laws. Their religious views are disrespected by much of the mass media and entertainment industry. Their deeply held views on life/abortion are not enforced by law. As the nation moves into “a secular age” these conflicts are unavoidable, but our existing institutions are capable of handling them. Wise politicians can find compromise laws and regulations that balance conflicting forces. We must all reject politicians who use religious views to divide us.
Politicians promote fundamentalist Christian religious views and criticize all others. They link such views to their political party. They criticize liberal Christians, Jews, secularists, Muslims, spiritualists and others. They promote the insertion of one religious perspective into law. This political approach has not helped its intended beneficiaries. It has harmed other groups. It should be rejected by all citizens as divisive and anti-religious.
Politicians undermine science, objective truth, rationality, public health, mainstream media and conventional wisdom. They elevate religious or political belief above conflicting voices. They elevate personal liberty above the common good on policies like vaccinations. This began with the debates over Darwin’s theory of evolution. It has expanded to embrace a deeply skeptical, subjective world view where “truth” is not subject to debate or discussion. Western civilization, Christianity, the Enlightenment and the American political system are all based upon a belief in objective reality and truth. This elevation of politics, personal belief or personal religious belief above everything else is a threat to our political and social system. We must reject politicians who undercut this basis for our civilization.
Politicians claim that all non-traditional or socially sanctioned sexual activity is evil and unlawful. They oppose gay marriage and activities. They misrepresent transgender issues. They conflate differing activities with deviancy. They employ the “slippery slope” argument. They claim that opponents support pedophiles and sex trafficking. They oppose sex education and contraception. Sex is a powerful trigger for human emotions. Individuals in our society hold very different views on legal and moral sexual behavior. We believe in “the separation of church and state”. We should change laws in this area only when there is a compelling need and widespread public support.
Summary
Politicians create issues to effectively define their positions and beliefs. They prefer “wedge issues” because they are most effective in separating individuals into opposing groups. They prefer “victim” issues because those who feel they are victims both oppose the other party and bond with the politician and his party. These distinctive, emotional issues are the most effective tools for politicians. As citizens, we must be aware of these attempts to oversimplify, to conflate, to polarize, to misrepresent, to motivate, to distract, to anger, to demonize and ultimately to disappoint.
There are “differences of opinion” on each item above. Some are honest, perhaps irreconcilable differences. Others are merely fabricated differences. Making a mountain out of a molehill. We have a personal and civic responsibility to be engaged, thoughtful participants in politics. We have allowed politicians to take misleading, divisive short cuts for much too long.
Politicians have learned that it is easy for them and highly effective to portray policy positions in ways that make you feel victimized by someone. You blame that someone. You catastrophize the situation. You demonize the supposed villain. You look to the politician and political party for salvation. You attack the opposition. Our political process is polarized. We lose civility. The cycle repeats.
You can choose to reject the victim framework used by many politicians. Few political issues are simply black and white with clear villains and heroes. Most ongoing political issues remain because well-meaning people hold conflicting or non-aligned views. Politicians promote the victim framework and extreme positions because they are easy to communicate, they trigger emotions, and they can be linked to form a simple political platform. Red or blue. Liberal or conservative. Republican or Democrat.
An increasing number of Americans identify as “independents”, not strongly aligned with either party. You probably have strong opinions on some issues and weaker ones on others. You probably hold some combination of liberal, conservative and moderate views on various issues. Many politicians and political parties invest in creating “victim” language for policy areas. Once you become aware of these tricks, you can better choose your own policy views, avoid the victim game and hold politicians accountable for doing their jobs: representing all of their constituents and solving problems.
Populists in both parties claim that the US economy is controlled by bankers, large corporations and Wall Street. Democrats used to monopolize this view, but the rise of the Tea Party made it a Republican favorite too. There is no denying that powerful economic firms try to use their power to extract returns from customers, suppliers, employees, the government and politicians. Don’t be a victim. Economic competitors, customers, suppliers, unions, regulators, courts, financial market and politicians have countervailing powers. Be a wise consumer. Buy local. Support reasonable regulations and anti-trust results. Promote competition. Hold politicians accountable for taking practical steps to maintain a reasonable balance in this area. Consider more than just simplistic “free market” or government owned firms approaches.
Politicians claim American society is intentionally dominated by a commercial mentality that elevates consumption and production above other religious or philosophical values because this is necessary for a capitalist economy. This mentality is created through advertising, education and commercial experience. It privileges a reductionist, cost-benefit decision-making mentality above all other philosophies. It highlights growth at all costs and the use of GDP alone to manage human welfare. Citizens are seen as mere cogs in the machine. Democrats, liberal Protestants and Catholics promote this view. This world view sometimes inflates valid insights and criticisms into complete opposition to commercial activity. Few Americans buy this view, using their personal experience to offset the claims.
Politicians promote a “small is beautiful” green paradigm. Large firms are inherently tainted by the profit motive, bureaucracy and technology. Buy local. Make it yourself. Form a cooperative. Buy organic. Oppose high technology solutions. Support international handicrafts and local artisans. Source sustainably raised food, fiber and agriculture. Fair trade. Farmer’s markets. Low technology. Recycling and reuse. The world has been changed by these green initiatives, changing mindsets and creating economic opportunities. Critics warn that there are risks from “virtue signaling” and imposing these beliefs and choices on others.
Politicians claim that “foreign competition” is unfair. Other countries abuse their labor forces, abuse their environments, steal technology, extract skills and money from firms, negotiate better deals, use non-tariff tools to cheat, etc. This is an area that was mostly argued by the Democratic party until the last decade or so. The post WWII progress on reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers was mostly achieved at the global level with strong bipartisan US support. The US did not optimize its country-to-country results because it rightly saw that it could get better overall results through global negotiations. This “free trade” approach was used to rebuild Europe and integrate the US and global economies, to reduce the risk of war and allow the US to project its hard and soft power more cheaply and effectively than by using the discredited colonial/imperial approach. Global progress remains possible if the US, EU and China choose to make it happen. When this is not politically feasible, the second-best approach is to reduce trade barriers within larger blocks of countries. The US can choose to invest more resources in negotiating better trade deals. They are not simple. The US is not a powerful enough force on the global economic stage to simply enforce its will. None of us should see the US as a victim of foreign competition. The US has thrived in a 75-year period of freer trade. In a world of services, the US is well positioned to benefit from further investments in free trade.
Politicians criticize the interests of the military-industrial complex. They claim that the economy, finance and foreign policy are operated on behalf of these interests who need war, terrorism or the threat of war to maintain demand for their products. They accuse these militarists/hawks of adopting and promoting a win/lose view of the world and an “end of the world” focus to support their causes and undercut any prospects for global peace and cooperation. The military is a relatively small part of the US economy and government. It was significantly reduced after the Vietnam War and the Cold War. Its credibility has been undermined through various political and military failures. Yet, pride in the US military remains strong. The military is considered a relatively modern organization. Although local support remains high for suppliers and bases, the defense department has downsized its operations through time.
Politicians and conspiracy theorists have long described a global cabal of bankers and secret societies managing the world. The Catholic church, Jews, Arabs, Muslims, bankers, traders, Masons, Jesuits, universities, defense contractors and others have been implicated at various times. This view has been promoted by politicians on both sides from time to time. There are individuals, groups and organizations with significant global economic, social, political, legal, military and religious influence. The 5-fold growth in the scale of the global economy and the change in leading nation states and alliances since WWII make these conspiracy claims even more unlikely than they were in the world war times.
Politicians question the legitimacy of national patriotism compared with the alleged ideal intentions of global institutions such as the United Nations. They naturally see the world as a whole and claim that only global organizations can manage global issues like war, trade, finance, climate, transportation, public health, poverty, economic development, law, oceans, and the environment. They argue that technical expertise is the key to managing these challenging issues with national interests taking secondary positions. The US has created, shaped and modified global institutions to support its global interests. It has not given up its ability to independently manage global issues and is very unlikely to pursue this strategy.
Politicians elevate nature and the environment to highest policy goals. They argue that global survival is the first human priority and must be managed as such. They promote a long-term, risk-averse, ecosystems view. They often reject cost-benefit analyses and commercial incentives as being too narrowly focused to really solve problems. They highlight worst case scenarios to warn people of the dangers of weak protections. The US does not have a 5% Green Party as in many European countries. Politicians appeal to this set of “true believers” because they do prioritize these goals and invest time and money accordingly. Voters should evaluate politicians to see if they properly weigh these goals with others or elevate them to become super goals.
Politicians of both parties offer up “the deep state” as another group of traitorous individuals to be feared. They allege that small groups of career bureaucrats in key agencies such as defense, intelligence, foreign service, FBI, justice and treasury control the information, models, scenarios, options and implementation of public policy. They are alleged to be self-interested and aligned with dark forces of the left, the right, banking, corporations, commissions, churches, etc. There are career employees in key positions in the federal government, universities, churches, media and not for profits who do wield significant formal power and influence over policymaking, politicians and communications. The US federal government allows presidents and political parties to fill the top roles in all government agencies. We have alternated ruling political parties for 75 years. We maintain freedom of speech, religion and assembly.
Politicians allege that the judicial and regulatory state is captured by corporate interests. They highlight the differing amounts invested in lobbying, lawyers, advertising and soft expenses in influencing the government and politicians. They argue that differing salary levels inevitably lead staff to join corporations and external law firms. They point to Supreme Court decisions that undermine the ability of regulators to do their jobs. Congress has the power to define laws and regulations that are effectively administered and to manage the federal work force. Many government employees are loyal to the government and their departmental missions. Consumer supporting special interest groups and politicians have demonstrated a strong ability to fund their causes. Effective regulation is intentionally a constant struggle.
Politicians take the libertarian view that powerful organizations of all kinds are a threat to individuals. They say that the police, military, security services, law firms, corporations, consultants, FBI, CIA and judges tend to take conservative, orderly, power protecting stances and actions. They propose strong external leadership, advocates, ombudsmen and watchdogs to monitor their activities. The US legal system provides avenues for politicians, regulators and citizens to monitor and challenge the actions of such organizations. The US political system is sensitive to the need to increase or decrease the structural power of such organizations.
Politicians portray their opponents as extremists, far-left, far-right, Pinkos, nut jobs, wing nuts, socialists, anarchists, liberals, reactionaries, communists, fascists, doves, racists, globalists, isolationists … This straw-man approach is used to paint them as the opposite, to avoid finding common ground, to simplify, to fear, to build emotion, to catastrophize, to demonize, to disregard, to vilify … This is a highly effective technique. Modern individuals have disagreed about politics, religion, capitalism, philosophy and other nations at all times. We hold different political and moral views. The progress of Western civilization has come from finding ways to set aside these differences in law, commerce, political structures, contracts, science and common understanding. Stand up to the political communicators. Support your political beliefs and agents. Avoid needless, senseless, harmful polarization.
Politicians of both parties routinely campaign against “Washington”. The government, departments, bureaucrats, judges, institutions, lobbyists, lawyers, contractors, advisors, consultants and politicians are all tainted as part of “the system”. Washington allegedly works against the interests of the common man, the Real America, the moral majority, the people. Every nation requires a political system. Ours could certainly be more effective, less wasteful, more responsive and wiser. Running against Washington accomplishes nothing. It is an effective political tool only because we allow it to be and do not hold individual politicians accountable for their actions in making real improvements and establishing structures that hold governments and politician more accountable.
Politicians elevate human rights to the highest priority level. Freedom of press, speech and assembly. Food, housing, employment, social insurance, safety. Children’s, women’s, racial minority, gender, religious. Freedom of choice. They criticize others who don’t see these as absolute rights, not subject to trade-offs. They promote the definition and enforcement of strictly defined legal rights and funding. They see these rights as moral rather than political issues. Opponents liken this to raising a specific religious belief to become the law of the state. The importance of such rights and tradeoffs has evolved. The US political and judicial system is designed to manage this kind of debate. Politicians who vilify others on these issues are being quite righteous.
Politicians accuse their opponents of voting fraud. This happens through voting registration rules, voting processes, voting regulations, technology, district boundaries, voting methods, and collusion. The evidence for a significant amount of individual fraud is non-existent. Evidence for voting results being shaped by the legal voting framework is strong. An increasing number of states have turned to independent redistricting commissions, open primaries and ranked choice voting. Courts have placed some limits on politically advantageous redistricting and laws. Until voters demand a neutral framework for voting we will have biased results.
Politicians claim that the economy, culture, institutions and politics are unfairly controlled by rural, local, non-cosmopolitan, less-educated, less-experienced, parochial, fly over, backward-looking interests, who do not see the big picture or the long-term. They prevent progress and try to maintain the status quo. They are not interested in developing the economy, science, technology, information and culture of the future. Progressives often look past and discount conservative interests and views. The US political system is available for politicians to actively work together to constructively consider both sets of interests.
Politicians elevate public education to be a near-perfect embodiment of the American way. They praise its leadership, teachers, students, processes and results in preparing all students for life, career and civic responsibilities. They support the high professional status of teachers. They actively ensure the “separation of church and state”. They oppose vouchers and school choice as inherently undermining public schools. They accuse those who question school performance and standards or promote competition as being anti-schools and turning teachers into victims. Education is mostly a local activity. Education supporters and critics have the opportunity to work together to develop more effective policies, programs and cultures for our children.
Politicians have determined that some political views are so toxic and harmful that they cannot be tolerated in public debate, especially in educational settings where students are sensitive. They argue that these views are so harmful that they offset the rights of freedom of speech, assembly and religion. The conflict between basic rights in real world application has a long history. Absolute freedom is unattainable. Universities have generally been the most open and embracing of such rights of free expression, linked to their belief that public discussion leads to the truth.
Politicians promote women’s rights as absolute. They must be enforced by the force of law in all situations. A woman’s right to make health care choices is complete. Differences between men and women are considered cultural, never biological. Compensation and career differences are due to the male patriarchy which holds down women as a group and individually. Affirmative action is required to make up for historic and ongoing systemic exploitation. The postmodernist view of powerful majority groups taking advantage of minority groups is believed and shared. Women are victims of the system. This is a minority view, even among women, Democrats and Democratic women. It provides others with an extremist example to oppose and caricature. It promotes a sense of victimhood rather than constructive steps to analyze, program and improve equal rights.
Politicians also promote absolute racial equality. Historical progress in majority and minority groups is discounted because legal, individual and systemic racism continues to be experienced or directed at racial minorities. Legal cases about fine distinctions are treated as right versus wrong, good versus evil. Pragmatic policies to address income and wealth inequality are considered poor substitutes for direct actions to address racial differences. The postmodernist view of powerful majority groups taking advantage of minority groups is believed and shared. Support for affirmative action is required. Politicians who are not fully aligned with interest groups are shunned. These politicians argue that racism is a clear moral ideal which cannot be negotiated, fine-tuned or compromised. Their opponents claim that they are overly righteous and misguided.
Politicians proclaim equal rights for many sexual orientations. They support a rainbow coalition that says that no one’s sexual rights are safe until everyone’s rights are safe and fully supported by society. Some politicians take the position that gender identity is purely culturally and individually determined, without respect to biology. The postmodernist view of powerful majority groups taking advantage of minority groups is believed and shared. Individuals with minority identities are considered victims of the binary majority. The greatly increased legal and social acceptance or embrace of diverse identities is discounted. Historians argue that personal interactions were the key to such progress, not abstract philosophies or political actions. Some proposals to expand equal opportunity are effectively criticized by opponents.
Politicians claim that the “separation of church and state” must be total. Any use of religious organizations, programs, individuals, facilities or moral thoughts is inherently infringing on “freedom of religion”. Only a fully secular state, as in France, is consistent with liberty and democracy. Church property and activities should be taxed like all others. Churches and religious thought are inherently “conservative” thereby intruding on fair politics. Most Americans hold some degree of classic religious beliefs. They don’t see churches, per se, as threats to society, science or politics. They believe that individuals are aware, independent and wise enough to incorporate religion into their lives appropriately.
Summary
Politicians create issues to effectively define their positions and beliefs. They prefer “wedge issues” because they are most effective in separating individuals into opposing groups. They prefer “victim” issues because those who feel they are victims both oppose the other party and bond with the politician and his party. These distinctive, emotional issues are the most effective tools for politicians. As citizens, we must be aware of these attempts to oversimplify, to conflate, to polarize, to misrepresent, to motivate, to distract, to anger, to demonize and ultimately to disappoint.
There are “differences of opinion” on each item above. Some are honest, perhaps irreconcilable differences. Others are merely fabricated differences. Making a mountain out of a molehill. We have a personal and civic responsibility to be engaged, thoughtful participants in politics. We have allowed politicians to take misleading, divisive short cuts for much too long.
Donald Trump clearly won the 2024 electoral college by 312 to 226. He won a 49.8% plurality of the popular vote with 77.2 million versus Kamala Harris’ 75.0 million (48.3%).
The voter participation rate in 2024 was down from 2020, with 86.4 million eligible voters not voting. Hence, the non-voters at 35.8% of the total were the largest category in 2024. Trump earned support from 32.0% of eligible voters. Harris won 31.1% of eligible voters.
When the election is reframed as a 3-horse race, Trump finished second to those who did not cast a ballot.
Trump finished first in 16 of the 51 states (+DC), earning an average of 36.8% of eligible voters’ support. His best showing was 43.5% of Wyoming voters’ ballots. The eligible voter shares of these states to the total at 32.8% is close to the states’ share (16/51).
Trump earned more votes than Harris, but fewer votes than the number of non-voters in another 15 states. He collected 34.2% of the total here compared with 41.6% for the non-participants. Harris was far behind at just 23.3%. These states accounted for 26.2% of the total eligible voters.
Trump finished second to Harris and ahead of non-voters in 5 states, receiving 33.1% of the possible votes. Harris won 37.9%. The non-voter share was 27.3%. These 5 states accounted for just 7.2% of the grand total.
Trump finished in third place in 15 states, earning only 25.4% of the eligible vote. Harris won 36.2%, a shade behind the non-voters at 36.8%. This group of states had 33.8% of the eligible voters.
The US political system does not require or encourage voting. The electoral college system’s “winner takes all” approach discourages voting in states that have historical leaned one way or the other. The non-voters might split the same as the voters, be more favorable to the winner or less favorable to the winner.
In total, Trump won 32.0% of the eligible votes, typically 33-40% in the states that he won and 25-33% in the states that he lost to Harris. More than two-thirds of eligible voters did not vote for him, ranging from 60-75% in different states. Trump clearly won the electoral college, improving on his results in 2016 and 2020 on most demographic slices. His win is not clearly a mandate for assuming extraordinary executive authority.
In the 1970’s and 1980’s Ronald Reagan effectively knit together the various strands of “conservatism” under the umbrella term “conservative” within the Republican party, marking a big shift from FDR’s New Deal Democrats who had dominated US politics for two generations. Reagan’s assembly fit well within classical conservatism as outlined by Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr.
Conservatism was originally a reaction to secular humanism, the enlightenment, scientific revolution, progressivism, individualism and classical liberalism. Buckley summarized it: “A conservative is someone who stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.” The key insight and rationale is that society is the result of trial and error, accumulated wisdom and demonstrated effectiveness. Change is to be considered, tried and adopted slowly. Society is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to science, philosophical and social science principles; analyzed, reformed and changed without great and irreversible risks. The institutions, lessons, wisdom and power of society must be honored for the benefits they provide, not treated as mere subject matter to be optimized.
This fits with social science research that says that “risk tolerance’ is the primary psychological dimension dividing conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are wary/skeptical about change, new situations, new solutions, “others” and mere ideas. Liberals welcome variety, change, ideas, possibilities, progress and ideals. Conservatives appeal to fears while liberals appeal to hopes. Conservatives embrace structures while liberals prefer flexibility. Conservatives are more pragmatic, incremental and results-oriented while Liberals value perfect ideals and honorable processes.
Philosophical conservatism is an umbrella that allows economic, social, international, religious, military and political conservatives to work together effectively despite the differences that exist in their more detailed views.
While Donald Trump promotes some policies that align with conservative principles, I will argue that most of his policies and actions are fundamentally opposed to classical conservatism. He is a radical, an extremist, a narcissist, a totalitarian who views the Republican party and “conservatism” as mere tools for achieving his personal goals which have no connection to the principles of conservatism. He is not seeking to promote the conservative agenda or preserve the best of American or Western civilization. He is not connected to liberalism either. Trump is a Nietzschean “superman” believing in himself, alone.
Culture/Civilization
Trump does not promote “Western Civilization”. No ringing words of inspiration and hope. Division between social and political groups. Neglect of history. No underlying principles like democracy, capitalism and globalism. Merely “might makes right”, realpolitik, leverage, “whatever it takes”, “the art of the deal”, “greed is good”, and “some very fine people on both sides”. The ideal Trump age is the 1970’s and 1980’s when he was making money, not the idyllic small-town, factory worker 1950’s. Universities are attacked. The “Lamestream media” is attacked. The Kennedy Center is acquired. The entertainment industry is criticized. Science is defunded and denied. Values are scorned. Allies are dumped. Europe, Canada, Mexico, NATO, Japan, South Korea, the UN and international agreements and organizations are disrespected. The accumulated wisdom and culture of the post-war era is disregarded. This is a nihilist view. Trump didn’t create it, so it must not be of value.
Citizenship
Trump promotes a “fake patriotism” that helps maintain his political support. He actively supports legislation to reduce “voting rights”. He undermines confidence in the voting process. He disputed and tried to overturn the 2020 presidential results. He never accepts the results of courts or legislative bodies that don’t agree with him. He interprets the constitution to meet his personal needs. He dishonors those who have served before as civil servants, military and political leaders. He sets no standards of excellence for his appointees to government office, merely loyalty. He issues no collective call to cooperation, sacrifice or common purpose even in the face of a global pandemic. He sees no obligation for those with greater resources and abilities to “serve their country”. He undermines the judicial system to meet his own needs. He considers Putin’s foreign policy to be the moral equal of America’s historical foreign policy.
Citizenship is a crucial role within philosophical conservatism. Society requires some form of government. That government must be seen as legitimate through the active participation of the citizens. Trump has promoted greater political participation through his polarized speech and actions. He has undercut the legitimacy of our government and citizenship.
Rule of Law
Conservatives embrace “the rule of law” because they distrust single individuals or mere ideas. Communities, property, firms, trade, organizations, governments, churches and families depend upon a stable background.
Trump completely disregards “the rule of law”. He has found that “might makes right” and money can purchase justice. He disrespects, challenges and undermines the courts, the department of justice, the FBI, Congress, contracts, agreements, allies, deals, rules, rulings, norms, relations, partners, legal counsel, professional associations, marriage vows, history, tradition, habits, judicial precedents, soft power, etc. He is amoral. He uses all tools and means to pursue his ends. Loopholes, appeals, distractions, bankruptcy, new loans, settlements. He lies, threatens, jokes, reverses course, denies, obfuscates, floods the zone, dog whistles, promises and reneges.
Community
Philosophical conservatives see culture and civilization transmitted, embodied and protected by actual communities; not individuals or abstract philosophical principles. Hence, communities of all kinds are essential: families, neighborhoods, churches, parishes, teams, scouts, civic organizations, professional and industry associations, social and sports organizations, social third places, special interest groups, political groups, fraternities. These are “the little platoons of society” that George W. Bush wanted to revive with his “compassionate conservatism.”
Trump offers only “individualism”, division and polarization. He is not a member or leader of other groups, aside from a few elite “clubs”. His life is focused on “deals”, transactions, not social relations. He shares no strategy to bind the country together, no ecumenicism, no third way, no civility project, no common good or purpose, no presidential volunteer program, no legislation to promote not for profits, no churchgoing example, no global idealism, no common morality, no “more effective” Congress, no international youth exchange/service program, no global warming cooperation, no next pandemic research, no cultural investment, no home team, no nonpartisan young Americans clubs, no long-term immigrants solution, no cultural discussion forums.
Class
Philosophical conservatives take a “realistic” view of society. Different people have different talents and capabilities, so they fill different roles for the overall benefit of society. “Birds of a feather flock together”. There are natural differences of experience and interests in different groups. There is no reason to fight this or to “equalize” groups. Hence, conservatives have generally supported the key roles and groups in their societies as being valuable and worthy of social support: landowners, farmers, capitalists, military leaders, priests, lawyers, doctors, bankers, entrepreneurs, scientists, political, government and business leaders.
Trump discounts all class groups except for a few exceptional billionaires and “the people”. He politically caters to factory and mine workers. He disparages corporate leaders, military leaders, bureaucrats, bankers, regulators, elected officials, judges, elites, media, technologists, unions, mayors, government employees, teachers, essential workers, civil servants, doctors, scientists and public health experts. He promotes a sense of “victimhood” in “the people” as he demonizes the various “elites”. The level of trust between individuals in our society continues to fall, undermining any sense of community, class or true national spirit.
Property
Conservatives tend to value property as the highest of individual rights. Without secure property rights, individuals cannot live a good life.
Trump supports tax cuts and deregulation which help to preserve property and wealth. But he also supports an “activist” economic public policy. Government actively manages international trade rules, tariffs and deals. Government maintains an active industrial policy. President directly controls independent agencies like the Federal Reserve Board. President uses all powers of the executive branch to force firms and individuals into cooperation, compliance and obedience. This is undeclared fascism, centralized control of economic power.
Institutions
Conservatives trust institutions, just like property and “the rule of law” because they are not subject to the whims of individuals, new ideas, and rapid change. Institutions develop in response to societies’ needs slowly through time. The political, economic and social elites lead institutions to balance goals, needs and interests.
Trump is an institutional wrecking ball. Every institution is weak, ineffective and suspect. None meet his standards or pursue his goals. Universities, public schools, performing arts, media, charities, hospitals, clinics, social workers, aid agencies, libraries, community centers.
Government
Trump goes beyond the traditional conservative desire for “limited government”. He wants to eliminate most government. He is actively dismantling the federal government. Even the military, research and state department. On the other hand, he wants to control the government for himself (FBI, DOJ, trade, tariffs). Classical conservatives see the government as the visible part of the political system, providing practical services to the citizens and a means for citizens to be heard. Its effectiveness helps to reinforce commitment to the political state. Trump actively undermines local governments as well, criticizing political leaders, teachers, librarians and essential workers.
Religion
Conservatives and the “classical liberal” founders of the US government system agree that governments are built upon the moral, social, cultural, ethical beliefs and commitments of the citizens. In a theocracy, the political and religious can be merged. In our system, the state cannot strongly define, dictate, educate, promote or enforce these values. We rely on individuals and families to choose and practice their own religion or beliefs. Conservatives emphasize the importance of this dimension of life.
Trump appointed judges to overturn “Roe v. Wade” and eliminate the “right” to abortion at the federal level. He then said that “abortion” is a state issue and he is done with it. Trump does not promote religion, philosophy, morality, community, dialogue, understanding, ecumenicism, prayer, civility, service, sacrifice, or cooperation. He promotes no religious values, only the rights of power. He provides no example of religious involvement.
Trump further divides the country into fundamentalist “social conservatives” and the enemy. He inflames the “culture wars” on libraries, public education, school choice, trans athletes, bathrooms, and DEI. He offers no solutions on how Americans can work together locally or nationally to find solutions, compromises and understanding. His policies are “tone deaf” to Christian teachings that call for attention to “the poor, the widow, the orphan and the stranger”. He used the Bible as a political prop.
Character
Conservatives have supported strong families, religions, and institutions so that they are able to transmit culture from generation to generation. “It takes a village to raise a child” is a conservative insight too. Society is based on individuals belonging to society and its institutions. Western societies have embraced individual freedom and liberty and so have had to find means to ensure the balance between the individual and society. We have defined, educated and promoted high character as an essential tool.
Trump displays and promotes no traditional character values. He is an extreme individualist. Truth does not exist. Complete subjectivity and moral relativity. He promotes victimhood rather than agency and responsibility. The end justifies the means. No sense of honor or commitment. Each day is a new day for negotiation. Only power really matters. Not family values. Not social justice. Not human rights, equality or equal opportunity. Strength matters. The courage to use power matters. Achieving and maintaining wealth matters. Social status matters. Achievement matters. No self-awareness or other awareness/empathy. No humility.
Stewardship
Conservatives generally accept an unequal distribution of talent, wealth, power and responsibilities as natural. Historically they have paired this situation with a focused responsibility to be effective stewards of society’s resources. “To those who are given much much is expected”. Noblesse oblige. Leaders care for the poor, widows and orphans. Social norms are used to assign and maintain this responsibility.
As western societies have tasked government with maintaining the “social safety net”, this typical responsibility of the upper and upper middle class has become fuzzier. In a more recent world of smaller government and no taxes, individuals and institutions are required to take up the slack. Trump provides no leadership on this matter. No expanded charitable giving tax deduction. No volunteer hour tax credit. No leading by example. No commitment or encouragement to “give it all away”.
Liberty
Conservatives have always embraced individual liberty for the governing classes. In the American tradition they have embraced liberty as a super value for a widening group of individuals. The US Bill of Rights has become part of the background of our existence. “Give me liberty of give me death”. The Tea Party.
Trump does not support individual liberties. Not “the rule of law” protections. Not freedom of speech. Not “freedom of expression”. Not “freedom of the press”. Not “checks and balances”. Not “due process of law”. Not human rights. Not the independent judiciary. Not civil service protections. Not freedom of religion. Not the right to vote. Not free trade. Not free travel. This looks like fascism, a very strong national state.
Summary
Trump is not a conservative. He sees himself as a Nietzschean superman. He believes in himself and that “might makes right”. He supported both political parties historically because it was helpful financially. He does not believe in “conservative values”. He is politically dispensable.
BERTHE: She climbs a tree And scrapes her knee Her dress has got a tear.
SOPHIA: She waltzes on her way to mass And whistles on the stair.
BERTHE: And underneath her wimpole She has curlers in her hair!
SOPHIA: I ever hear her singing in the abbey.
BERTHE: She’s always late for chapel,
MARGARETTA: But her penitence is real.
BERTHE: She’s always late for everything, Except for every meal.
MOTHER ABBESS: I hate to have to say it But I very firmly feel
BERTHE AND SOPHIA: Maria’s not an asset to the abbey!
MARGARETTA: I’d like to say a word in her behalf. Maria makes me laugh!
SOPHIA: How do you solve a problem like Maria?
MOTHER ABBESS: How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
MARGARETTA: How do you find a word that means Maria?
BERTHE: A flibberti gibbet!
SOPHIA: A willo’ the wisp!
MARGARETTA: A clown!
MOTHER ABBESS: Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her, Many a thing she ought to understand.
MARGARETTA: But how do you make her stay And listen to all you say,
MOTHER ABBESS: How do you keep a wave upon the sand?
MARGARETTA: Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria?
MOTHER ABBESS: How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
MARGARETTA: When I’m with her I’m confused, Out of focus and bemused, And I never know exactly where I am.
SOPHIA: Unpredictable as weather, She’s as flighty as a feather,
MARGARETTA: She’s a darling,
BERTHE: She’s a demon,
MARGARETTA: She’s a lamb.
SOPHIA: She’d out-pester any pest, Drive a hornet from his nest,
BERTHE: She can throw a whirling dervish Out of whirl.
MARGARETTA: She is gentle, She is wild,
SOPHIA: She’s a riddle.
MARGARETTA: She’s a child.
BERTHE: She’s a headache!
MARGARETTA: She’s an angel!
MOTHER ABBESS: She’s a girl.
ALL NUNS: How do you solve a problem like Maria? How do you catch a clown and pin it down? How do you find a word that means Maria? A flibberti gibbet! A willo’ the wisp! A clown! Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her, Many a thing she ought to understand. But how do you make her say, And listen to all you say? How do you keep a wave upon the sand? Oh, how do you solve a problem like Maria? How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?
Context
Our polarized political situation is just the tip of the iceberg. We have similar challenges with our communities, economics and philosophies. We have well-meaning groups of individuals with apparently incompatible views without obvious ways to build bridges. We are facing a self-reinforcing cycle of increasing polarization, threatening modern civilization.
I’ve been focusing on the “root causes” of our situation recently and concluded that there are 6 interacting features that must be understood and addressed.
Radical individualism, which undermines “community” and self-awareness.
Human nature. We are psychologically and morally imperfect. Largely analog creatures wrestling with a much more complex world of choices.
Skepticism. We are good at criticizing, undermining and doubting. Not as good at problem solving, problem resolution, creativity, empathy and communication.
Living in a Secular Age. The default, background, unchallenged Christian worldview is gone. Individuals know they must make conscious choices.
Imperfect Myths. Religion, science, progress, romanticism, personal growth, libertarianism, populism, classic liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, postmodernism … None of the individual views or clusters of worldviews is fully adequate for many people.
Insecurity. Science, technology, business, international trade, specialization, computers, communications, and information all grow and become more complex. We are insecure in our “selves”, our roles and our economic situations.
In each case, the simple “left versus right” analysis or viewpoints are inadequate, misleading and ineffective.
Conservatives promote economic individualism. Liberals promote social and “human rights” individualism. We have jointly lost sight of the essential role played by community in all dimensions of life.
Conservatives tend to emphasize the negative, limited, sinful nature of man while liberals focus on the goodness and potential. Scientists conclude that we are both. Politicians and analysts tend to use overly simple models of man when seeking to understand or improve our situation.
Conservatives are skeptical about progress, change, risks and high ideals. Liberals are skeptical about power, wealth, interests, structure, and large organizations. Healthy skepticism has its place.
Conservatives fight the coming of a “Secular Age” with no cultural consensus on important questions. Liberals tend to welcome continued change towards a purely secular, scientific world where religion and philosophy disappear. We seem to be “stuck” needing a hybrid situation.
Conservatives tend to embrace “well-defined” philosophies, theologies and myths. Liberals tend to like more complex, dynamic, evolving, individually fine-tuned world views. Theologians, philosophers, politicians, scientists and real people have been unable to outline life paradigms that are “obviously true” to everyone. We have different views, and it looks like there is no single final answer that everyone welcomes.
6. Conservatives emphasize a return to a culture with fixed answers on all dimensions thereby eliminating the difficult questions and uncertainties. Liberals emphasize a larger role for the state to buffer the real and mental anxieties of the modern world. Rather than finding a blended approach, the two groups shout louder and louder. Conservative means to liberal ends? More choice and more government options?
Analysis
What do we see in common here? There is no simple solution that is going to be embraced by everyone. The moral, social, political world does not work like the science and business world. We don’t see cumulative progress and increasing consensus. We struggle to find new or revised solutions to our old and new challenges of living a good life within community.
We know more about reality today on each of these 6 dimensions. We can rule out some bad ideas. We better understand trade-offs. We understand where religious and political views inherently cause disagreements. Our challenge is to use this better understanding to find better solutions.
We appear to have many unavoidable trade-offs and paired perspectives. The individual and community. Individual choice and shared community understanding. Analog and spiritual nature. Nature, nurture, chance and other. Certainty and doubt. Idealism and pragmatism. Logic and stories. Individual and universal/eternal. Either/or vs. both/and. Win/lose or win/win.
We have a deep need for certainty, understanding and purpose. We tend to press this too far and expect too much. The progress of science, technology, business and practical areas is so great. Our personal experiences of getting what we want is so common. We are unwilling to accept messy, imperfect, complex, fuzzy answers to important questions. We embrace the general progress of society, politics, science, business, human rights, medicine … and conclude that everything works this way. We look at Newton, classical physics, the scientific method, the ancient Greek model of the atom/materialism and Plato’s ideal “forms” and conclude that a very well-defined world is our birthright.
It’s time for a “revolution of expectations”. We can work with existing philosophies, theologies, worldviews, politics and social institutions and make them more effective. We can learn to embrace paradigms/myths that are imperfect. We can adjust our views and institutions to better support us in this new world.
In general, we need to become more comfortable with “both/and” solutions without falling into the trap of radical skepticism, relativity and subjectivity. We must look more deeply at the scientific method, science and the philosophy of science and understand how they are also imperfectly certain. Even mathematics is not perfectly certain. This is OK. Our political, cultural, social and religious views don’t need to be perfectly certain. We can embrace Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith” as a gift, an insight, an experience rather than a curse.
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?
It’s 1965. Maria means well. She can’t easily fit into a classical religious organization. She is too human, too dynamic, too modern. The cat is out of the bag. The horse is out of the barn. The genie is out of the bottle. “How do you hold a moonbeam in your hand?” Like the sisters, we need to embrace the tension, complexity, mystery, and potential of individuals, organizations and life. The classical answers are inadequate to the modern (or postmodern) situation. We have to understand our situation. We need to embrace the positive features. We should be optimistic and idealistic. We must work together on practical changes to make life better at all levels. This is not easy or trivial. We want simple answers. We want “either/or” style certainty. We want definitive rules and laws. We are “all in this together”. We can make progress. We can have a society with enough in common to work together and enough individual freedom to largely make our own choices.
High Level Solutions Strategy
First, we need to recognize where we are. We’re truly stuck “on the horns of a dilemma”. The historical conservative options of Christendom, nationalism, theocracy, libertarianism, laissez faire capitalism and totalitarianism ignore 500 years of Western culture and society. The liberal options of secular humanism, communism, progress, scientific materialism, romanticism, environmentalism, globalism, existentialism and postmodernism have not found broad public support [because they don’t fully meet human needs].
We seem to be “stuck in the middle” with a “classical liberal” form of representative government, a mixed market plus government form of capitalism and a mixed form of nationalism plus some internationalism for trade, defense and global issues. Our challenge is to refine, communicate and optimize the options and choices within the broad range of options here in the “middle”. We need to collectively reject the extreme views, so they don’t influence our debates. We need to define the essential elements of our middle view, wrap them in a story and constantly promote them as the key to historical, current and future success. The American “founding fathers” stories need to be updated for current use.
We need to address the 6 root causes of our current polarization and anxiety. We need to overhaul our political system to reflect what we have learned in 250 years. A brief outline of what is needed for each of the 6 root causes follows.
1. Radical Individualism and Community
We need leaders on the left and right to recognize the need for both the individual and community dimensions of life. First, limit the “rights” of individuals from becoming super values or God. Second, recognize and promote the critical roles of various communities in raising children, forming citizens, building trust, supporting institutions, trade, education and living a great life.
Our political, legal, educational and institutional systems must effectively support this balanced “both/and” view. We need to find ways to encourage and support “community” without allowing groups to impinge on individual liberties. Political parties must become refocused on their end-goals rather than “perfect” policies and means. Democrats need to provide more room for churches to express their views when it does not impact others. They need to embrace religious programs that deliver on Democratic ends. Republicans need to pursue cost reduction and earned benefits as separate policies aside from the core question of tax rates and zero taxes. Republicans need to find ways to reconcile the individualism of commercial capitalism with the community dimension of religion, family and institutions.
We need to review our tax and legal codes to promote not-for-profit organizations, political participation, volunteering and civility. Within the broad umbrella of “Western Culture” we have much in common that can be used to find solutions with broad public support.
We need leading social scientists to prepare a curriculum that helps everyone to understand what we really known about human nature. The extreme philosophical and political views are not supported. It’s not simple nature or nurture. We’re not simply good or bad. We’re not purely materialistic creatures. Personal growth is essential and critical, but not the only thing. We are social and moral beings. We have limited abilities to be fully focused and fully rational. All of us. We need to embrace our natures, build upon them and use them to our fullest advantage. The challenges of living in modern society with so many important choices require this. This should not be a political issue. Everyone can benefit.
Personality dimensions, flexibility, self-awareness, problem solving, creativity, multiple intelligences, behavioral economics, counseling, leadership, management, mentoring, stages of development, education, evolutionary psychology, cognitive behavioral therapy, influence, communications. We have the knowledge. We must share it.
Skepticism is a self-made trap. President Lincoln said “most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be”. Individuals can choose to be happy, positive, optimistic. Keep a diary, volunteer, join a group, engage in a task, use your talents, believe in something, reject negativity, speak with a friend, have fun, speak with a counselor.
Try recommendations from the other 5 root causes. Find your communities. Build positive habits. Look at the long-run progress of civilization. Try one of the major religions or worldviews on for size. Refuse to be a victim.
Take control of your information diet. Social media. News media. Distinguish news from opinion. Choose high quality sources.
We need some help understanding our history. It’s often presented as a linear movement forward, all progress, renaissance, scientific revolution, enlightenment, modernity and then OUCH postmodernity.
By 1875, Nietzsche, Darwin, Marx and Freud had proven that “God is dead”. Somehow, we have managed to hold on for another 150 years. We need to teach real history in secondary school, college and continuing education. The history needs to include religion, philosophy and politics.
We have learned to be tolerant of “other” people, religions and nations. We have opportunities to improve, but Protestants and Catholics no longer fight wars against each other. We practice a basic common morality even as we fight about politics.
We need help dealing with uncertainty. See root cause 6 for solutions. It is human nature to crave certainty. But we get to define certainty. We can reject Euclidean geometry, Aristotelian logic, materialistic physics and self-proving mathematics. We can reject a perfection standard for religion, philosophy and worldviews. Reject the tyranny of “either/or”. “Science and religion” is supported by the best scholars. Uncertainty is not the same as pure subjectivity or relativity.
We need help moving from skepticism to idealism. We need a new concept of idealism that cannot be undercut by radical skepticism. Existentialism, pragmatism, postmodernism and logical positivism are inadequate.
Invest time learning about the major competing world views. Great courses, Ted talks, college courses, church classes. Choose one and engage with others. Live it. Share it. Challenge it. Apply a variant of “Pascal’s Wager”. If radical skepticism is true and there is nothing but meaninglessness, what must you do? If skepticism is wrong and you believed it, what did you lose?
We need leaders, thinkers, believers and communicators to do a better job of describing their world views. Especially within the context of our skeptical, uncertain secular age. What claims do they make? Why? Time for real apologetics. How do they apply today? How do we face death? Find a purpose beyond ourselves? Be deeply affirmed? Live in community?
Skepticism has won its battle. We can no longer be certain in a way we once thought was our due. How do we think about assurances, confidence, probability, weights, multiple dimensions, history, clarity, beauty, consistency, levels of meaning, unexpected results, effectiveness, feelings, insights, intuitions and faith as replacements for certainty? As with science and the scientific method, we have lost “absolute certainty”. How do we replace this and still feel great?
We need education on the role of paradigms/myths in history, science and cultures. We need to see how things fit together. We need them to fit together to have a society. Men have considered many religions and philosophies. We have built effective institutions. We once believed that some myth or paradigm would solve everything for us, now, perfectly. We elevated this to become a new God. We cannot give up hope. We have to step back and see our true history and progress. We have the knowledge, teachers and tools to provide the needed context.
Our paradigms need to recognize where they are weak, somewhat inconsistent, inadequate, fuzzy, unavoidably irreducible. There is no meta-paradigm for evaluating the paradigms. No paradigm is self-validating.
6. Personal Security
The other 5 “root cause” solutions can help. You are a member of many supportive communities. Join other communities and support others. Note that we are imperfect, complex, mysterious and still fully adequate. Reject victimhood. Be positive and constructive. Embrace your strengths and talents. Replace “absolute certainty” with OK and “good enough”. Choose and live a worldview that supports you as a person.
Take control of your life. Simplify. Set reasonable goals. Under promise and overperform. Learn about psychology, life skills, personal finance, careers, and government programs. Note that people usually “find a way” and that we do make economic and leisure progress through time. Save, hold assets, use insurance, limit debt. Engage in the political process. Make your voice heard.
Adopt some practical stoicism. Lynn Anderson – “I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden”.
Summary
In order to solve our political problems, we need to face and solve the 6 underlying root causes. They are interconnected. They can be addressed mostly outside of the political process. This is cause for great hope and optimism.
Social conservatives have decried the decline of moral values since 1960.
Religious groups of all political views have done the same.
Robert Putnam has documented the loss of social capital in Bowling Alone, Our Kids, The Upswing and American Grace noting that morality, trust and institutions have declined at the same time.
Political scientists and pundits have noted the loss of civic virtue and wonder if a political system based on the “thin” virtues of “classical liberalism” can survive.
High schools, colleges and departments of education have begun to respond to the “crisis” but faced political challenges from both parties, educators and parents.
Corporations, universities, not for profits and military branches have attempted to define their core values as a way to build community, align resources and clarify direction. They note an absence of common values in their employees.
Personal growth advocates, even those emphasizing individual artistic expression, have increasingly noted that the community and spiritual dimensions of life are part of growth.
Big Disagreements
While social and political conservatives have pressed for moral reinforcements, both moderate and progressive liberals have pushed back on these efforts; wary of infringing on personal liberties and supporting community, cultural and institutional oppression. Economic conservatives and libertarians have not bemoaned the decline in community and shared values. Some “communitarian” philosophers and social scientists have begun to challenge the individualistic dogmas that have ruled universities since the Enlightenment. There is not a firm consensus that we need or can have on “shared values”. Many philosophers, theologians and social scientists are quite certain that this is a dead-end street.
Practically Speaking
A majority of citizens and leaders agree that the loss of a shared set of values is harming our country and society. We need to find some kind of solution. Promote religion. Educate students and adults. Conduct research. Create artistic vehicles for learning. Work together on teams. Join groups. Communicate better.
Let’s start by outlining the common moral values. We’ll ignore the experts. We’ll gloss over some inconsistencies. We won’t provide perfect definitions. We won’t outline an implementation strategy. We will provide a meaningful outline by combining the thoughts of some very different sources
Motivations
This is not a dead-end project. We live in “A Secular Age”. We’re not going to reach religious or political agreement on everything. Most people understand that we are forced to live together and that we have to “get along”. We have learned to be “tolerant” in most dimensions of life. We can learn to embrace a set of general moral principles that are self-evident. The principles cannot be proven or derived from core principles. They have to be “accepted”.
Individuals who learn these principles will do so for many reasons if they are presented well. They help the individual to live in a social world. Self-interest alone justifies developing these virtues, understanding and habits. These principles seem to be natural, widely seen across time, space and cultures. They may not be universal or “revealed” but they have proven their worth. Individuals are learning that extreme skepticism and subjectivity are inadequate. Every major worldview offers a set of moral principles like these. Individuals who strive to fulfill their potential understand that moral principles underlie “the good life”. These principles work together nicely in a logical, relatively succinct package.
Sources
Corporate “core values” experts trying to find the essences so they can be easily taught. Anthropologists looking for the most widely seen values. The evolutionary psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Mid-century philosopher and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis claiming that all major civilizations share key ethical principles. Psychology Today advising us on how to best guide our behavior. The Boy Scout Oath. The Rotary 4-Way test.
4 self-evident clusters of Respect, Responsibility, Honesty and Compassion. We know what these are. We know they are good and useful. We know that it requires work for children to learn them and for us to put them into practice consistently and effectively.
Another author calls out Fairness as a fifth cluster.
A group of Oxford anthropologists has surveyed the vast literature on cultures and identified 7 universal principles that are almost always evident and never contradicted. They begin to add some second-level definitions to the 5 clusters.
Respect is shown both by “deferring to superiors” and “respecting property”. Responsibility is shown by “helping your family”, “helping your group” and “being brave”. Fairness is exhibited by “dividing fairly” and “returning favors”. This group didn’t see honesty and compassion as universal values.
Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” introduced the world to a set of moral flavors that varied between traditional and modern (WEIRD) societies and between left and right politicians. His team has added some flavors that have some plausible origin in the development of men from hunter-gatherers through farming and cities. For Respect, Haidt agrees that property ownership rights matter and that respect for authority is critical to holding together communities. Without it, the free rider problem undermines groups. He also argues that “liberty” is the “flip side” of authority. Individuals inherently feel the need to defend their individuality against potentially oppressive authority.
Haidt emphasizes the importance of family, kinship, honor and loyalty in traditional societies. He argues that these values are just as valid as the modern care, fairness and equality trio. He provides 3 flavors of fairness, adding proportionality and equality to the basic idea. He also skips “honesty” and emphasizes “care” as the result of compassion. He adds “Purity” as a separate factor reflecting both biological and religious forms of cleanliness for early men.
In 1943, C.S. Lewis had experienced enough modern analytic philosophy, subjectivity and intellectual progress and fired back with “The Abolition of Man”. He argued that without an objective moral framework, Western civilization was doomed. The Nazi and communist threats mattered. But the breakdown of common culture, values and beliefs within democracy was an equal threat. Lewis argued that a roughly common moral framework and principles existed in every thriving culture. His “natural law” view was not widely embraced at the time.
Lewis’s 8 components of the Tao, or “the way” fit nicely into the 5 clusters. His “duties to parents, elders and ancestors” fits with Respect. He filled out Responsibility with family duties, kinship feelings and magnanimity which emphasized the bravery of making the right decisions. His “law of general beneficence” fills out Fairness. He outlines Veracity as critical to honesty and expands it with the “Law of Justice”. He fills the Compassion group with his Mercy.
A recent Psychology Today article takes a more “personal growth” oriented view. The Respect drawer is empty, although “authenticity” could be seen as a form of self-respect. Dr. Koehler adds resilience to the Responsibility core value and includes Fairness. She adds 3 others to the Honesty cluster after Integrity. A growing individual needs to value authenticity, open-mindedness and lifelong learning. We start to see why there are differences at the second level, but I don’t think they are too great. The author embraces compassion, adding empathy and gratitude to this section.
The Scout Oath was drafted in 1908. A Respectful scout is Obedient, reverent and Courteous. A Responsible scout is Thrifty, Helpful, Loyal and Brave. An Honest scout is Trustworthy. A Compassionate scout is Kind, Friendly and Cheerful. A scout is Clean.
The Rotary 4-Way test was drafted in 1932. It fits into 4 of the 5 main categories.
Summary
We have a nice head start on outlining a set of common moral principles that could be used for education, civics, personal growth and community building. The core ideas fit with traditional and modern societies, secular and religious views, left and right politics. The key, as with our political system, is to agree to work within a framework of practical application. We cannot and will not resolve deeply felt religious, philosophical and political views. But we can agree on what it takes to work together and live good lives together.
Especially in these challenging times we have to be idealistic and believe in possibilities.
Jim Nabors’ rendition of “The Impossible Dream” on the 1965 Gomer Pyle, USMC show is a great place to start. We’ve become too practical, skeptical, secular and cool to consider this or any similar view on life, derived from the classic 1615 novel Don Quixote. Enjoy!
Good News 