The Two Axioms of American Democracy

America was created to be a pluralistic society. Everyone is welcome, you are not required to look a certain way or believe a certain faith.

By it's very nature, pluralism leads to what the founders called "factionalism" and I call "tribalism." If we don't require a particular belief, people will sort themselves into communal belief systems that compete for power.

This leads to the first axiom of American democracy: One tribe, or faction, will never dominate. (In this context, a tribe can be a religion, political party, or any belief system.) It may hold a majority for a brief time, but there will always be another tribe pushing back against it.

Due to self-preservation or some evolutionary trait we picked up along the way, humans are really bad at admitting when they are wrong. This leads to the second axiom of American democracy: One tribe will never convince another tribe that they are wrong. A few may switch sides from time to time, but one tribe will never give up everything they believe in and willfully adopt the ethos of another tribe. 

These two axioms lead to my conclusion: Our system of government was not designed to solve problems by growing one's tribe. Our system was designed to solve problems by building coalitions. 

We start where we have common ground and make trade offs until everyone agrees that the best deal is on the table.

10 Rules for Life

1. Seek common ground instead of conflict. Coalitions, not warring against other tribes, solve problems.
2. Stay open to the idea that you may be wrong and someone, even a person whom you think is dumb, may be able to change your mind.
3. Seek to change your mind on one issue a year. Find intelligent counter points. Changing your mind is a signal that you value evidence over intuition.
4. Never post something on social media that blatantly attacks a different tribe. Virtue signaling is divisive.
5. If a child wants you to read them a book, stop what you're doing and read them the damn book.
6. Unless you're over 70, or one or more of your legs doesn't work, put your shopping cart away.
7. Spend at least 5 minutes a day outdoors, not doing much more than thinking and looking at trees.
8. Get some type of exercise at least 3 times a week.
9. Understand that everyone is a hypocrite at some point, including yourself. There is no perfect belief system, otherwise we would have discovered it by now. However, we should never stop trying to make the world better.
10. Once a year, admit when you are wrong. Aloud, and to the person who was right. You are wrong more often than you think and humility actually brings people closer.

The Telos of Higher Ed

I've been thinking about Plato and Jonathan Haidt lately. Specifically the latter's writings on the telos of higher education. 

Haidt believes that social justice is an important component of an education, but the ultimate purpose, or telos, of a college should be the pursuit of truth. He goes on to write that, in many colleges, the telos has become social justice and that a college can only have one telos and they should be clear about which one they espouse: truth or social justice.

I agreed with him until recently. I wonder if social justice is just a poor characterization of what these colleges are doing. Would it be better to say their telos is ethics?* When you pit ethics against truth (which is basically science), it becomes harder to make a choice. In fact, it seems that colleges try to pursue both.

I think of Plato's concepts of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. We tend to get into trouble when one concept overwhelms another. Ken Wilber said that the Good, or ethics, is something we decide as a community. The True requires something independent from the human experience (the scientific method).

Haidt's binary choice forces people to choose one over the other when they are probably both necessary. The True shouldn't usurp the Good, they should coexist. Isn't that what a liberal arts education is supposed to be about?

Where I think he's right is that ethics isn't taught as much as one branch of ethics, social justice, which places care for the oppressed as the ultimate goal toward leading a moral life.

Haidt has talked about how a college should give students many lenses to view the world and social justice only gives one, the lens of power**. The problem with the multi lens path is that it's essentially moral relativism and competing ethical systems is what is tearing our country apart right now.

It would be great if colleges taught multiple ethical systems, how they have been deployed in our culture, and attempted to find a way synthesize them in a society so students can learn to live alongside different tribes.

Colleges can then tell students: "Here are the lenses. Now go out and find a community that holds these ethical values but also be sure to interact with other tribes since you have to share the same physical and political landscape as them."

In a post-Christian world, we need to fill the void of ethics and community. This means people need to sort themselves into clearly defined tribes who share an ethical code. This involves routine face-to-face interaction, ritual, and reflection. Facebook Groups and Sub Reddit threads ARE NOT an effective replacement. People need more options and this will help with social isolation.

It also means we need routine interaction with other tribal communities, so we see them as Americans too. We don't solve problems by growing and mobilizing our tribe, but by building coalitions.

*After listening to Haidt's lecture again, it appears he was criticizing social justice's attempts to achieve equal outcomes in all instances and inferring all forms of racial and gender disparity are due to prejudice. Any attempts at using truth to suggest prejudice might not explain the disparity but something else gets shouted down without reason.

**Haidt actually said this about intersectionality, not social justice. Although you could argue that social justice is about the lens of power as well.

Meaning and Ethics in 21st Century America

"Listen to the silence behind the engine's noise...It's a love song."
"For whom?"
"You are loved."
Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way by David Foster Wallace

Religion serves two basic purposes: meaning and ethics. It gives meaning to our lives (which we are naturally inclined to look for) and a moral code for a community to live by. So it serves needs on both an individual and group level.

Ethics needs to take place on a community level. Individualism leads to people pursuing their own form of ethics, which sounds good in the name of freedom, but I think has been sort of a disaster on the national level. Meaning, on the other hand, can be pursued on the individual level.

With religion's decline, as measured by both belief and church attendance, a vacuum has been created. I don't know if the problem has been with the shallow options that have filled the void or the fact that they are incompatible, tribal groups fighting for the same space.

The largest branch of neo ethics to fill the void has been social justice. A lot of this derives from the 7 themes Catholic social teaching, notably the "preferential option for the poor." The other major ideology to emerge has been the alt-right, although I'm unsure if they have a clear ethical system other than "immigrants=bad" and a desire for "law and order."

The Meaning of Meaning
Meaning is the answer to the question: What makes suffering worth it? This void has been filled with nationalism, tribalism, and the crusade against "the other"? Ernest Becker believed that once humans become aware of their own mortality, they seek immortality. Religion, and it's promise of an afterlife, accomplishes this. In its absence, people attach themselves to a cause, one that will live on after they die.

Although Christianity has been used to justify violence, oppression, and other terrible acts, a lot of early American Christianity was based on simply loving God and loving your neighbor. In neo meaning and the crusade against "the other", the basic tenet is to slay the evil dragon. It's motivated by war rather than love, fighting the devil rather than worshiping God.

The evil dragon can be the patriarchy, oppressors, immigrants, barbarism, government, or tyranny.  For example, social justice is less about feeding, clothing, and caring for the poor (love) than it is about smashing the oppressors (war) such as capitalism, white men, and the patriarchy in general.  Trump, torch bearer for the alt-right, has paid lip service to helping native-born Americans with tariffs on imports and deregulation on coal mining in an effort to help struggling Americans (love), but spends more time demonizing and deporting immigrants (war).

Habitat for Immigrants and Orphans
Instead of protesting outside Planned Parenthood (war) abortion opponents should promote abortion alternatives (love). The problem is that there are two alternatives; and neither are great. One, abstinence until marriage, is simply ineffective, especially to a secular crowd. The other, birth control, is anathema to conservative orthodoxy.

Maybe a third way is to support adoption. Create funds (publicly or privately) that provide care for unwanted pregnancies (health care and lost income support) and reduce the barriers, financial and otherwise, to attract more adoption parents. Imagine conservative Christians dialing back the "abortion is evil" rhetoric and taking the mantel of "adoption is your duty!" This would emphasize love over war. Either that or ease their stance on birth control.

The pro immigration crowd, instead of fighting government restriction, should be opening their house to immigrants. Give them food, shelter, and support until they get on their feet. The anti immigration group can't complain because this way the immigrants won't be using up public services. What better way to love thy neighbor while having some skin in the game?

This opens up a philanthropic opportunity for Habitat for Humanity. Instead of building homes for the poor, they could build additions to middle class homes for people who are housing immigrants/refugees or an adopted child who would have otherwise been terminated via abortion?

Empathetic Lives Matter
In communities with tension between cops and black citizens, adopt a system of voluntary service. Citizens who opt in will serve one day a year on the police force in lieu of jury duty. Each day, the police will be represented by members of the community who will be able to influence the cops' approach to community policing while also understanding the difficulty in the job. Those who opt out will not be able to have access to police services.

How do we address income inequality with love? What if, instead of forcing employers to pay a $15/hour minimum wage, employers gave customers the option to pay a voluntary surcharge during each transaction? This surcharge would have a suggested amount based on sales per month and how much each customer would have to pay to close the wage gap between what the employees make and a living wage. This surcharge would go into a fund that is equally distributed among the businesses employees at the end of each month.

Expand your "family"
What if your health insurance provider allowed you to add another member to your plan? Only, instead of a spouse or child, you "adopted" someone without access to health insurance. Think of the impact you can have on this one person's life! You can even bring them to their appointments and actually see their health improve from your actions. Or better yet, you can sponsor their health program. Maybe you and another family split the cost.

I get that war is simply a more motivating ethos than love. But using war to address a problem will only be met by war. With love, there is at least a chance of being met with love.

Love has been what is lost by this vacuum. It's right there in the neo ethics of social justice but no where to be found in the neo meaning of any of the post Christian ideologies. David Foster Wallace warned that this was the failure of postmodernism and called for a new type of fiction in which the "silence behind the engine's noise" is love.

Update
I'm not trying to say ethics derived from Christianity are better than those derived from social justice. I'm saying that we now have multiple competing ethical systems in our country and they are causing problems. I believe a solution is:

1. to derive your actions from the Greatest Commandment: love thy neighbor. Making your actions focused on love and not war will reduce conflict.
2. address your concerns on the individual level, rather than as a part of a group. Instead of "what can we do to fix this?" say "what can I do?" 

Mobilizing your tribe to fix something will inevitably lead to some form of coercion and more conflict. I also believe it's a hollow pursuit of meaning; once you slay one dragon, you'll always be looking for the next dragon and will inevitably make more enemies along the way.

Working through love on the individual level will produce less conflict and give more meaning to one's life.

Saving America: Part II

I've been reading American Covenant: A History of Civil Religion from the Puritans to the Present by Philip Gorski. He articulates two ideals, radical secularism and religious nationalism, both of which he believes are misguided.

In his conclusion, Gorski gives a vision for drawing our polarizing country together:

1. Banish big money from the political process. The marketplace of ideas cannot work properly if some people are allowed to buy giant bullhorns to shout down everyone else. The Preamble describes the virtues of freedom and equality, which I now view as competing ideas. Too much of one drowns the other. Likewise, allowing for the freedom of businesses to donate unlimited amounts to campaigns makes political influence unequal.
2. Make civic holidays into holidays again. This space for civic reflection and celebration has been gradually eroded for the sake of commerce...removed in the name of freedom itself. In other words, all non-essential businesses will be closed. Remembering our fallen, celebrating the Declaration, and giving thanks for our blessings would be good for civic spirit.
3. Make character education a part of civic education. The U.K. has introduced a program of character education in its public schools, based on research done by the Jubilee Center at the University of Birmhingham. It's purpose is to instill basic civic virtues such as honesty, courage, and generosity. This would help greatly with public discourse.
4. Establish a universal system of national service. Many countries require citizens to perform a national service. Ours should include men and women, military and civil service. If more families had children in the military, it would temper our trigger-happy instinct toward war. One of Nassim Taleb's examples of "skin in the game" included politicians not being able to vote on war efforts unless they had a direct family member in active duty. This would be a good start. It would give young Americans first-hand experience with our nation's diversity and instill an ethic of service in our youth.

Venn Diagram

What ideas here do liberals and conservatives agree on? I think 2 will work. Conservatives value tradition, sacredness, and respect. Liberals would get behind the anti-consumerism. Plus, those who are forced to work on holidays tend to be the working poor. This would be a good opportunity to stand on their side and against "oppressive" capitalism.

I think 4 would work too, as long as people can choose between military or civic service. Conservatives love the military and liberals love community service/social justice. Only libertarians would disagree with forcing individuals into this, but they're used to being the minority. 

I really like 3, but it's already super hard to get any changes done to the public school system. What would be displaced by this new program? It would be hard to get both sides to agree on what constitutes "character." Is it social justice? Self-reliance? Personal restraint?

1 just raises more questions. Do we make super PACs illegal? That would be a good start but I don't know how many non-rich conservatives would support it. Do we publicly fund campaigns? I can't see conservatives getting behind more taxes and government.

Gorski says John McCormick has a third option: wealthy citizens would be relieved of all tax burdens but in exchange would give up their rights to vote, to stand for office, or to contribute funds to political campaigns. I like the idea and how it fits in with "no taxation without representation" but I worry about the huge impact it will have on tax revenues.

How to Save America: Individualism or Centripetal Forces

I don't make a lot of bold claims, but there is one #hottake that I think about more and more. I believe that, within my lifetime, American democracy as we know it will come to an end.

I don't think our government will dissolve and I don't see civil war in our future either. I'm thinking of something closer to secession. Or, as David French wrote, a divorce.

There are too many forces pulling us apart and too few binding us to one another. I can only think of two solutions for keeping this country together.

I. Massive decentralization of our national government and returning of more power to the states (i.e. federalism). If you believe in a public option for healthcare, your state can tax its citizens and start one up. But you're not going to force people in other states to have their own if they vote against it.

If you think bakers shouldn't have to make cakes for gay weddings, you pass legislation protecting that right. If you want all employers to cover their employees birth control, go for it. Just keep it at the state level.

or

II. A return to a nation-wide belief in an American civil religion.

The problem with multiculturalism is that, while it keeps individual groups together, it does nothing to bind these cultures into the larger tapestry of American life. An American civil religion means we would all have to buy into certain values that our country represents, even as we retain our unique and specific cultural identities.

This option would be less likely to happen than the first option, a libertarian's dream, but here are some additional thoughts on it anyway:

• I used the word "return" but it would only work if we took what we had and modernized it, rather than expecting people to revert back to something from the past. Nostalgia feels nice but culture always moves forward. 
• This new American civil religion would have to incorporate ideas from the right and the left. We would have to decide on what we agree upon and what we agree to disagree upon. Right now, our Venn Diagram does not overlap at all. 
• We would derive this new civil religion from Enlightenment values as well as our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence. It would have to somehow acknowledge our stained history w/r/t slavery and Native American genocide, rather than brushing these things under the carpet. More importantly, it would have to incorporate modern concepts like multiculturalism, privilege, and intersectionality.
• Once agreed upon, this civic religion would be taught in all schools, public and private. It would be required for all immigrants to agree to before becoming U.S. citizens.
• If necessary, it could spawn a new national anthem. Football players kneeling during the national anthem would have had far less support 50 years ago because the song meant so much to so many. That is no longer the case, which means we need a new set of values to get behind, something we all believe in. Something we would collectively get upset about if one of our citizens disrespected. We should celebrate and honor the ideals that make the country great while acknowledging our sins and pledging not to repeat them. Imagine social justice warriors and MAGA supporters being fervently enraged over someone disrespecting the same American ideal. What would that even look like?

Aberration or Precursor?

In 20 years, will we look back on the Trump presidency as an aberration or a precursor?

I want the answer to be "aberration" but I worry that I'm wrong.

"Precursor" is very vague, which makes it more likely. It doesn't necessarily mean Trumpism will win. It might mean the country swings harder in the opposite direction.

"Aberration" means we go back to electing candidates from the political establishment and never again consider unqualified demagogues. I wish I believed this.

I think the 2020 Democratic candidate is more likely to be a Kamala Harris/Elizabeth Warren type (not demagogues; but not the most experienced either), or even Oprah, than a Tim Kaine. And I think the reason is the Internet.

It used to be that cabinet-level experience was a ticket to the white house. That is the only reason Hillary Clinton took the Secretary of State position. If she believed staying a senator offered better presidential prospects she never would have taken the job.

However, in the Information Age, I believe that type of experience is a detriment. It probably makes you more qualified, but less electable. It makes your record public and allows your choices to be picked apart by the opposition.

Obama was a relative outsider and Trump had no experience. Rather than a flaw, this acted as a shield. It meant there were more opportunities for their opponents to get picked apart.

Clinton's time as Secretary of State and the scandal/not scandal involving her email server and Benghazi did nothing but hurt her. She probably would have been better off staying in the Senate.

That is why I think the trend of Washington outsiders will continue. I think Trump is a precursor that will lead to more candidates with less experience who pick apart the hypocrisy of established candidates and take advantage of voters.