Is there room in America for Moderates?

 Is there room in America for Moderates?

People say that the United States of America has never been this politically divided. I am not sure if that is a true statement or not. It certainly feels that way, but we have a collective short term memory and have a hard time keeping long spans of time in perspective. I am thinking that before the civil war, American politics might have been a little more divisive than it is now. It does seem that politicians go "all in" and use the "nuclear option" more often than they should. Why do things feel this way? Why do politicians feel they need to respond so over-the-top all the time? Is it possible to regain the middle ground and to have civil discussion and respectful politicians? 

 

How did we get into this situation?

I think this current situation came about through a perfect storm of career politicians coming to the end of their careers, growing social media influence, and the advent of "Troll Nation."

As the "Baby Boom" generation moves towards retirement, even in politics, they are uncertain about the future and are needing to trust their kids or grandkids with taking the lead. It seems many of the leading politicians, whom are overwhelmingly Baby Boomers, are taking extreme positions in order to hold power just a little longer. A lifetime of politics has made them experts in radicalizing their opponents in the eyes of their audiences.

A large contributing factor is the blatant use of the "Strawman Argument." The Strawman Argument is when someone creates a caricature of their opponent's ideas and then argues against the caricature, rather than the actual ideas of the actual opponent. Often the caricature is the worst possible version of the opponent's ideology. This is a very dismissive and misleading tactic. It forces everyone into a false dichotomy of Right vs Left where Right and Left are extreme positions. This leaves no room for moderates.

We see this used a lot in the media, not the "News" or "journalism," but in talk media and opinion media. So, raises another issue. We have confused "media" with "news." Journalism, which leads to good news stories, is used to be about gathering facts for creating a narrative. The "news story" has devolved into opinion pieces, and the media has become a rating-seeking 24/7 hype-fest. Two ways to pump the rating are Strawman and ad hominem arguments. Of course, the king/queen of ad hominem attacks are the internet trolls. We have all seen them and even at times, have possibly even become one.

 

Troll Nation is not a place, but rather a state of mind which exists in the world of social media. Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.) is a relatively new platform for sharing information and ideas. With the ability for instant commenting and dialogue, it often brings out the worst in people. Not only does it lead to opportunities of miscommunication, but also for Trolls to wade in on the attack. Sometimes it is hard to tell when someone is just lacking in understanding or being an intentional troll.

 

It seems we, as a society have devolved into a state of "Talking, not listening." "News Media" wants/needs the rating so they just talk, talk, talk, talk. Politicians want the spot light so they just talk, talk, talk. Even "we the people" want to be heard through protest marches and social media so we just talk, talk, talk. 

 

What can we do?

Thanksgiving is just a few days away. Typically holiday time is family time. Of course this year may be different. Every family seems to have that one aunt, or cousin, or grandfather who really likes to stir the pot and cause drama. They know all the hot topic buttons to bring up and send the family into a chaotic swirl or argument and name calling. The rest of the family tries really hard to stay away from those topics and not be lead into arguments by the family troll. These family trolls are the ones who are not invited to the lesser family gatherings, but you know they will show up at the holiday events and so you guard yourself for conflict, stay one room away, and try to keep quiet for as long as possible. This analogy really sounds like America right now. We try hard to get along, but some people just can't seem to drop it.

 

Can Common Ground exist?

Should we table some topics until we can take a collective breath?

Sure it is on me to not respond to the trolls out there, and it is on me to not be a troll to others. Is that enough? Can we find some topics, maybe like foreign policy or taxation rates, which we can have a civil discussion about? It seems like we are so used to going to the "us versus them," or the "scorched earth" mentality that we don’t even have room to listen. How can we progress if we cannot listen long enough to understand where they are coming from?

I would really like to be seen as a moderate. I believe I am a moderate. But my friends and family on the right push me to the left, because they do not take the time to listen and understand. My friends and family on the left push me to the right, because they do not take the time to listen and understand. I am sure I do the same thing with them. So, I know I need to be willing to listen as they speak and search out common ground, and not go on the attack.

 

Curious how to move out of impulsiveness & into educated replies?

Here are a few helpful tips:

1. Stop watching the news and start reading it instead.

News outlets which are 24/7 are full of hype and it is easy to get lost in the noise and excitement of their rating games. I have found that reading the news helps me to see through the false statements easier and to concentrate on the facts clearer. If I watch the news, it is the local news which focuses time and research on local events, which is informative. This allows me to have a more educated response with local events.  

 

2. Listen before you speak

Ask questions and allow the other person to speak. As they speak, don’t use that time to formulate your arguments, but spend that time listening to understand. When they are done with their stance, then you can have your turn to speak.

 

3. If you must post a comment, wait and don’t post in the moment.

Social media is an interesting beast. We can get instant gratification from it, which can become an addiction. If you read a post and it triggers you, don't go for the instant gratification. Spend some time reflecting upon why you were triggered, if it is worth commenting on, or if you are just trolling. If, after some time for reflection you feel you must comment, then write out a well thought-out comment and read it over a few times to check for errors. Then post it.

 

Conclusion

I do believe many of us share common ground, but have been pushed to the fringes through some of the actions mentioned above. If we can learn to be civil and allow the other person to define themselves and their positions, we will see that most of us are moderates, or at least share some common values. Once we can establish some common ground, then we have a place to start. Like at the family Thanksgiving, where everyone can agree the turkey was dry, but the pie was delicious!

21st Century America

How did we get into this state of unrest? What the hell is going on?

We are not standing in a new place in history. 21st century America is just like 19th century America.

What we see going on around us is the same struggles that have been going on for centuries. These struggles stem from two roots and are so intertwine as to form one hulking tree of oppression. This massive tree overshadows everything that happens in western society, and possibly the world. The two roots are Capitalism and Police as paramilitary organizations.

The first root is Capitalism.

Capitalism is an adequate system. It certainly has its advantages over other system of economics and production. But it has inherent problems which actively work against it. The two largest problems are excess and inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Defenders of the status quo like to point to outliers of this as seen by a rich person falling from grace and becoming poor or the underprivileged rising above it all to making it big, these are the scarce exceptions.

Excess in capitalism is a given. If you have a good idea and a little capital (cash) or access to cash then it is possible to turn your little into a lot. If you have capital but no ideas you can always "shark-tank" an idea. And the more capital you have, the more capital you can make. Excess builds.

If we were all starting from zero, then this would be limited to what could be achieved in a life time of work. We do not start at zero, some start well below zero and some start well above zero. There are millions of "trust fund babies" who don’t need to work a day in their life because they have the capital to invest and thus, live off the interest. On the other hand there are people who are saddled with debt from before they are born.  It all comes down to the luck of the birth. This creates a duality: The Owners and the Workers.

The duality of Owner/Worker defines the inequality.  Inequality has very little to do with one's skill set or even educational potential. Often it has to do with being born into the right family with the right capital means. At no fault are the children who are born into a situation which is beyond their control. Sometimes education and opportunity presents itself and the child can move beyond their birth. Most often they cannot. It becomes a generational inequality issue. This is part of the system of capitalism. Owners need workers.

Attempts are made to limit the excess and the inequality. Antitrust laws of the late 19th century and early 20th century limited the size and scope of business. The Federal Trade Commission regulates big business. This helps to create a freer and more open market so other smaller business can have a chance to compete. Workers can move into the Owner class.

Another way to limit excess is through taxation. The inheritance tax is levied against the super-rich in order to limit the amount of capital that is trapped in trust funds. Property tax and income tax can both be used to help shape more equitable society. Often taxation is used to help support the working class as they struggle to make ends meet.

Unions used to be a powerful force in the USA fighting for the rights of the working class. Unions allowed the Workers to approach the Owners on equal footing. Through collective bargaining, workers' unions were able to increase the livelihoods of their union members. Unions have fallen out of favor and the working class has seen a huge wage gap increase over the last 40 years. The poor become poorer.

During the 1950s and 1960s the US economy was the strongest it has ever been. During that time we came to dominate the world market. It is also the time when taxation on the super-rich was the highest it has ever been, and Unions were also at their peak fighting for the workers. It was a golden age which created a robust Middle Class. A Middle Class which is now in sharp decline due to the loss of unions and the changing of laws in favor of big business.

No amount of regulation is going to create a perfect capitalism. There will always be excess and inequality.  Some fear that regulation will move capitalism into socialism, where the State controls more and more of private business and private life. There certainly needs to be a balance between government regulation and capitalist freedom. And the people of the nation need to be the determiners of how far into socialism we are willing to go.

And this leads us into the second root, which is the way policing is done in America.

The owners of capital have always used the military or the police to keep the system in place. Socialism threatens them and they often respond covertly through politics: undermining the unions, relaxing taxes and antitrust laws. They also respond overtly through the use of police. The police may not even know they are being used as pawns to protect the rich. Certainly one would think the police union would stand with other unions against immoral corporate practices.

Let's take a moment to look at policing in America before we wade into how capitalists and police are intertwined.

Police forces are built upon paramilitary organizational ideas. There is a chain of command. You don't questions your superiors. You follow orders. You look out for your fellow soldiers. There are inherent problems when you use this structure in civilian life.

Some of those problems are lack of oversight and accountability. As well as the creation of an ingrained "us versus them" mentality. Other problems that occur are seeing everyone as an enemy (criminal), closing ranks around problem officers, and the blue brotherhood syndrome.

Accountability is only as good as the leadership. If the commanding officers do not want to hold lower ranks accountable, or even side with them in their bad behaviors then there is no recourse for the "civilians" to take. Outside oversight and accountability can go a long ways in correcting some of these inherent problems.

When you combine a paramilitary organization with an Owner dominated economy then you can see great abuse of power. The police power and the economic powers combined to keep the system working. In some respects this is needed. But if the powers at the top are unjust, corrupt, inept, immoral or just plain apathetic towards others, then the system slowly grinds people down. There is no recourse and no escape for the millions of people trapped at the bottom.

We are seeing the fruits of this dynamic play out today. It is not the first time we have seen it, nor will it me the last. People, on both sides, focus in on one particular aspect of the failing system, but fail to see the underlying faults in the whole system. People see racism in the police force, but fail to see that the police force is only working at the hands of the Owners. The problem is in the way in which people of color are perceived by society in general. And that stereotype is promoted on behalf of the system. This idea was started centuries ago and is ingrained in our culture. Very few of the people who work within the system even see the systemic failures. They may see a few problems, but chalk it up to a racist policeman, an inept business owner, or a lazy worker. They seldom take the time to sit down and piece it all together to understand how the whole system is devised to protect the wealthy and make sure the working person stays in their place.

Because this is a problem with the system and not a problem with a people, or person, there are very few changes that can be made. Going after an individual may feel good for now, but it will not change the system in the long run. Can the system be changed to make a more equitable and fair society? Sure. Do the power-that-be want that to happen? Probably not.

Leviticus and the Founding Fathers of the USA

I hear people say that we, the United States, were a Christian nation but at some point we have moved away from the Christian principles of the founding fathers. I always wonder about the accuracy of that statement.

 

I am reading through the Bible for a class. Right now we are reading Leviticus in the Old Testament, a very dry read. But one passage in particular caught my attention. Leviticus 19: 33-34.

 

“When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”

 

Wow, that sounds like something Jesus would say. Made me think “what would the founding fathers say?”

I imagine they would say something like, “Yep because we are all aliens here, now if we can only get those damn natives to accept us…” 

 

I think the founding fathers would agree to this biblical ideal and have a very different understand of immigration issue then the ones we have today. I wonder how many Christians are willing to live by this principle of accepting the alien in love and treating them like a native born. Makes one rethink immigration law and such, at least if you are Christian… like the founding fathers…

Big History

In the recent issue of Discover, I read an interview that dealt with the theme: Big History. As far as I understand the concept it is putting human history into context of universal history. Human history is only a subset of a much larger history that include the environment that allowed mammals to develop, the cosmos that allowed a planet to develop with such an ecology that supports life... back to the beginning.

I had this thought. Before everything that is there was truly limitless possibility. It is like a blank piece of paper before the first line is drawn; but once that first line is drawn it both reveal what picture may develop and also begins to limit what possible picture may take shape and with each line more limits are placed, until finally a finished product is revealed. As the cosmos go, before the Big Bang there were no limits, no natural or physical laws. But once "Bang" happened then limits were placed: atomic structure and shape, thermal dynamics, gravity, electromagnetism... more and more limits were put into place until life emerged. And limits are placed on life through ecology, DNA, intelligence.

But at what point can we step back from the paper and see the picture, how much of the outline needs to be revealed before we can understand the contours of the overall structure and shape of the picture developing before us? How many details need to be sketched in before the limiting effect is in fact a revealing effect? Or is there no grand picture emerging from the chaos turned order of the cosmos which has brought about life and awareness?

Emerging or Post Christian

I have recently read Phyllis Tickle's "The Great Emergence," which of course brought a flood of thoughts into my head. First, let me talk about the book a little and then about the thoughts which is sparked.

The book is... well, light in some areas and thought-provoking in others. The book attempts to cover the last two thousand years in history, western history that is. Western history with an eye towards trends in religious thought and development. The book itself is an easy read, although her sentence structure and thought processes are a bit muddled at times. Towards the end of the book it begins to play out and the themes she creates earlier on in the book finally emerge. I am not sure if it is the best book on the subject but it is an adequate introduction. Because church history is my area of study, I felt it was lacking in some areas. I don't think she misrepresented church history, but she does not give a detailed account. OK, now to the subject of the book.

The book looks back at the last two thousand years of history and brings out a trend or cycle. Every 500 years, roughly speaking, there is an event that radically changes the face of the western world, and specifically the church. Of course we are coming up or in the midst of the next five hundred year mark and so the book attempts to flesh out current trends of the course of the next five hundred years. So here is a break down of the last four cycles:

1.0-500 Christ: the birth of Christianity which ushered in a new religion that over the next five hundred years became the dominant religion.

2. 500-1000 Holy Roman Church: with the fall of the Roman Empire and Rome itself, there was an economic, political and religious vacuum which the church was able to step in and take control of. With the birth of monasteries, western thought and culture was preserved and carried forward.

3. 1000-1500 The Great Schism: The eastern church and the western church split over theological and ideological themes. This is the when the west flourished in thought and development, especially as the crusades brought back knowledge from the east.

4. 1500- 2000: The Great Reformation: The church had become authoritarian and oppressive. Scholarship had moved beyond the church as a final authority. People, Martin Luther in particular, stood against the church, calling for reform. What happened was the creation of Protestantism and its thousands of denominations where the Bible became the final authority, not church dogma.

And now, 2000- present: What is being called The Great Emergence. What it is and who is involved, or what effects it will have over time is still unknown.

My thoughts:
This book fails to take into account the other forces that were at work in each of the epochs. Martin Luther was a success not because of his ideas alone, but because he had the backing of German princes who tired of the Church tithing them to death and the Holy Roman Empire taxing them to death. The advent of western science and shifts in technology combined with the emergence of a middle class which could rival the Nobility in wealth and power all called for a shift to occur. Martin Luther has just become the rally cry of the religious historians. But the history of that time period is much more complex.

The book does give credit to modern shifts in science, technology and world views. But when we stand so close in history to the events, it is hard to tell which events will be the hallmarks of the age and which will pass quietly into the past. Certainly tomorrow a greater event can occur that overshadows anything over the last hundred years. Or perhaps Christ will return and the whole question will be mute.

It appears that things happen every five hundred years to shake up the world and what settles out is different than what was before. That which shakes the world is hard to define. Science, technology and culture are all shifting. In the west, eastern ideas about religion, life, and death are forcing people to think differently. In the east, Christianity and western economic and political thought are forcing people to change their worldviews. And the realization that we are one people all inhabiting the same planet is having a major impact on the world. As the west moves towards post-Christian thoughts and practices, it is incorporating ideas from the east but also from science. And what is emerging is spreading that new gospel in new ways through technology. It is there in the blending that I think the next flower will blossom. I think this new epoch will emerge out of a blending of east/west, science/religion and the break down of dualism. Philosophy, theology and politics will all have to be rethought in light of new technology and new responsibility towards the whole. It is not us/them, or you/me... but rather we. This new thought will include the greater environment as part of the human being.

Another theme which is overlooked in the book is that each epoch is also ushered in with violence. That which was before does not want to change into that which is coming and so lashes out violently to stop the change. The usual response is to lash back with self defense and often violence, as well to bring in the radical change. History settles out and forgets the names and faces of the dead on both sides. Today war still rages. But how does that warfare fit into changing times and thoughts? And who is waging the war: the old stalwarts refusing to change, or the revolutionaries helping to emerge a new worldview? This is one of those moments when we stand too close in time to know what history will say in the future about today.

What will emerge will blend the threads of the current trends into a new fabric of reality that will greatly challenge and frustrate that which was. It cannot be just the continuation of what was, but must be an internal change with external consequences. And again, beccause we stand so close, it is hard to say what or who will force that change; but change is occurring.

Death rattles of capitalism, 1929

Isn't capitalism just one big ponzi scheme?
The way a ponzi scheme works is by paying yesterday's debt by tomorrow's earnings. A ponzi scheme promises investors with higher-than-normal returns on investments. It sounds good so people invest. The return is payed by future investors wanting in on the good fortune. It works because there is always a larger flow of cash into the system. It collapses when the flow stops or too many people try to withdraw from the scheme.

Kind of sounds like the basic premise of capitalism. The key word being "capital," as in needing to continually raise more this week to support last week's payments. The capital to be raised may be goods, or money, or workers. But without the increase it self destructs. Why else would 3% growth (inflation) be good? Is less or more bad? Less and it all falls apart, more and it threatens to run away.

In 1929 the premise was questioned and was found lacking. The result: the only thing that keeps a ponzi scheme afloat is to throw more money at it. The New Deal did just that. It shored it up for a while, then a war helped it along. In the aftermath of the Great Depression the real questions about capitalism were not addressed. Business boomed with a lot of hard workers and the world's resources to fund it (more and more capital). A few hiccups were felt and should have been warning signs. But a ponzi scheme this large would take decades to unravel and more capital was raised (Hence the Cold War and the hot wars in the Middle East countries).

But now the world is running out of capital to invest. The last few pounds of earth and flesh are being eaten as we speak. Soon there will be nothing left but revolving debt: 700 billion now (coming from where? DEBT) and another trillion later (again from DEBT). The ponzi scheme will be over and there will be no capital left to throw at it (The Middle East countries and China are the last of the big money men and look how heavily we are invested in their interests. Yet even they are eating through whatever capital they might have at an alarming rate). Finally the premises of capitalism must be questioned.

When the ponzi scheme is over then capitalism dies. So what is next? Hard to tell. It may be possible to prolong the death for a few more years... but in the meantime, we better all learn Chinese.

Daav Corbet

Project update

It has been a month since I started my world literature project. I have made some progress and have began reading some texts. It is an amazing project. The hurdles to overcome at times seem too large to even grasp. But with some diligence I think I can move forward, one little step at a time. My list is growing, as it should, even though I am running into problems of dating. Some sources put a text at a certain date but other sources date it differently. I am also cheating a little. Instead of listing every little scrap of text written on papyrus, inscribed in stone or preserved in mud tablets, I am only listing the source I am using for the whole collection. Well that is the technical side and I am still working out the methodology and approach.

As for insights. I have found human thought occupied with three subjects so far. The Code of Hammurabi, the Law of Manu and the Torah are great examples of the first and second concerns of human thought: Law and religion. Even in the most ancient of times laws regulating moral conduct, religious life, civilian life and lawsuits were abundant. We as a people group are very litigious. And the law carried outward from civil life to religious life, or visa versa. Religious codes of conduct, sacrifice, priesthood, etc. occupy a lot of ancient texts. Even ancient myths center around the role of the gods in the life and creation of the world. It takes centuries of Babylonian and Assyrian thought development before the role the human is even explored in relation to the gods. The third thought which I have found preserved in ancient texts is the idea of personal legacy. Kings, rulers, priests, etc. all wish to leave a written record of what they had accomplished in their life time. Lands conquered, wealth gained, armies destroyed, cities built... it goes on and on and today it is all gone, but to them in that day it was SO important for the memory to be preserved.

Well I will keep reading and reflecting. Please feel free to comment or ask questions.

World Literature

So I have decided to undertake a rather massive project. I want to organize a list and then read as much of what is contained on that list as possible. The list will consist of all the literature of the world organized in chronological order. And when I say literature I don't just mean fiction. I mean anything and everything that has been written down and preserved through the ages. That in and of itself is daunting. The most ancient texts are easy because there are so few of them that have survived the centuries. But once you get into the middle ages and cultures with writing abound it is going to become an organizational nightmare. Not only do you have the West (Greek,Latin, French, German, English language writers), but I am also searching out the Middle East. Also, at the height of the Islamic culture there was just as much if not more writing taking place in all subjects than ever in the west. And then there is the far east: China, Japan, etc. Those empires had their scholars, philosophers and writers as well. So this raises the next problem: finding readable English translations for the works. I could read them in their original languages (and for this project to have much scholarly application I probably should) but I don't think I have the time to learn all those languages as well.

Why would I want to undertake such a task? Does it have any merit? I think the list itself would have some use. (I am secretly hoping it already exists some place and I will find it in one of my searches. So far I have only found lists segregated by their respective cultures or time periods). I think that human culture is more connected than we might at first assume. I think the segregation by culture or time period is artificial to how things really work. I think that ideas, concepts, philosophies, stories, fictions, etc. travel and flow with the human populations. I think that in the past, humanity traveled and with them so did their ideas. And as such through the study of what was preserved in writing we can get a glimpse of how ideas spread about the globe. Did the idea of monotheism spring up naturally in various places, or was it brought from one to another? Or the idea of democracy? Or the way in which armies waged battles and conquered lands? I think a project like this could have many different applications even though it is going to be daunting and I doubt I will get much past the first few centuries of the common era (CE).

So far, I have listed with mostly accurate dating writings from the Greeks and Latins before the common era (BCE). I also have a start into Sumerian and Egyptian literature. The most ancient text that has survived to date appears to be "The Code of Hammurabi" followed closely by the "Epic of Gilgamesh." Both of which seem to come from a pre-Babylonian era (that is from the land of Iraq). It is five centuries before you get to Homer and the Greek classics. There are writings in Asia and Egypt that seem to come from this same era (2500-900 BCE). After 900 BCE, writing seems to begin to grow in volume. But even then each century only has a few surviving authors, thinkers or works.

And so my first insights are:

1. Writing seems to have appeared in various cultures around the same time.
2. The fact that more of the written record is available the further forward you move in history may stem from either or both of the following: more people are writing and/or less time has elapsed for the record to be lost.
3. Humans feel the need to preserve what they deem as important.