In this series, I'm attempting to outline some basic knowledge that would support significant civil discourse that strengthened the Common Good instead of encouraging us to shout at each other. Last time I explored how a working knowledge of statistics would cause us to argue from established data sources instead of cherry-picking, misconstruing, or simply making stuff up.
My imaginary curriculum adds a second course in United States History, focused especially on the period before the Civil War. This is a fairly common breaking point in US History courses. I believe that the first half is more relevant to imagining our shared future that the second half. Why? Because it's absolutely foundational to how we understand the nation. And too much of what gets included in contemporary debate involves nice stories we've told ourselves that aren't accurate.
Here's the first takeaway lesson from our History class: The country wasn't founded by "The Founding Fathers". We've all picked our favorite heroes and their voluminous biographies usually make the top 10 on the New York Times book list. But the authors of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 were working 169 years after the founding of Jamestown, 156 years after Plymouth Rock, and 146 years after the settlement of Massachusetts Bay Colony. Want to put that in context? Subtract the same period from today and it would be 1842, 1855, or 1865 respectively. Consider the changes in society since Lee surrendered at Appamatox; that's how much time passed between Massachusetts Bay and the Founding Fathers.
So what? Well, the colonies were formed for very different reasons with different assumptions and goals. Jamestown was an economic outpost. Plymouth Rock was where a group of Puritan separatists attempted to carve out their freedom of worship mixed with civil authority. Massachusetts Bay was created as an experiment in civil society. Sarah Vowell's wonderful book, The Wordy Shipmates, explores the differences between the latter two settlements with stark application to contemporary society. That's my second lesson: Forming a Nation Required Negotiating Different Points of View. Independence, when it came, wasn't broadly embraced by everyone running to pour tea in Boston Harbor. Over time, those recognizing that continuing in colonial status wasn't going to work, especially after British soldiers started killing people. (I'll leave Middle East references for some later time, but you get the point).
The Declaration contains beautiful language but it isn't a structure for a new nation. It was simply the prelude to what would follow. Be careful when folks toss around phrases like "in the course of human events" or "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Those phrases are about why we were no longer part of England but don't begin to explain what it means to be America. This management of difference was also evident among the men who drafted the Declaration. While not completely accurate, the Musical 1776 does a great job of illustrating these differences. Whether minor issues of the national seal (Eagle vs. Turkey) or major issues like Slavery, the differences were stark and reflected the interests of the citizens of the colonies.
Third Lesson: The tension between States Rights and National Government has been around since the beginning. It's useful to go back and review what was in the Articles of Confederation that lasted from 1777 (ratified in 1781) until the Constitutional Convention supplanted it in 1789. If you review nothing more than the Wikipedia site I've linked, you'll see that the States didn't recognize a national entity except to resolve disputes. This notion of a limited national government, with States being the important entities is with us today.
Of course, the Constitution dramatically adjusted the relationship between national and state entities. And when John Jay ruled in Marbury v. Madison (just 13 years after ratification) that the national interests could trump State interests through the checks and balances enumerated in the Constitution it set in motion the idea of a national government. When Madison created a National Bank in 1816, it was within the context of commerce done by the nation as a whole. President Jackson worked to decertify the National Bank and Congress censured him (funny how the sides got switched -- the Democrat was decentralizing and the Congress tried to stop him).
When States argued in the Nullification Crisis that they didn't need to follow National Law they didn't like, Jackson held his own and held off disunion for another 30 years. (Jon Meachem's American Lion does an excellent job of illustrating Jackson's complexity.) When popular rhetoric rails against the national government in favor of the local level, the argument has far more in common with the Articles of Confederation or the Nullification Crisis than with the Constitutional Convention. What John Jay clarified is that the national perspective wasn't "a difference in philosophy". It was the Settled Law of the United States under its Constitution! Within that context there is room to work through what is done by the States and what is done at the National Level (except for what is constitutionally defined) but the National Level does not "overreach" or "engage in power grabs".
The final lesson is that we went to war to resolve the balance between national and regional interests. It may be a matter of semantics to describe the warring armies as the Army of the Union and the Army of the Confederacy, but I think it's telling. The South was fighting for the unique interests of the region, including the institution of Slavery. The North, at least as Lincoln saw it, was fighting to "preserve the Union". After the bloodiest military exercise in our history, the Union prevailed. Not just as an occupying force, but as a concept. That doesn't excuse some of the excesses of Reconstruction, but it does point out that this idea of "E Pluribus Unum" isn't just a nice idea to put on coins. It's the heart of the American Experiment. That's where the Exceptionalism comes from. We'd do well to hold that in high regard when we talk to our fellow citizens.
Showing posts with label civil discourse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil discourse. Show all posts
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Monday, January 17, 2011
Jeopardy Hodgepodge, An Apology, Martin Luther King, and Cylons
If you're a faithful Jeopardy viewer, you know that "Hodgepodge" is the category they use when there are a bunch of not-very-related answers in the category. Keep that in mind, since today's thoughts are loose ends I want to tie up.
Rules for Discourse: Like many viewers, I was moved by the president's remarks Wednesday night in Tucson. His challenge to raise the bar on our discourse, not because it causes violence, but because it's a way forward that would be true to Christina Taylor Green's beliefs about democracy. It may seem hard to determine what kind of discourse would meet that heightened bar, but I'm not sure it's hard at all. The following comes from the Washington Post's "User Discussion and Submission Guidelines" that should govern postings on their webpage:
By submitting content, you are consenting to these rules:
While the Post doesn't have the staff to monitor all comments, these are excellent guidelines we can use to monitor our own discourse. I have started copying these guidelines and posting them on comment pages when the dialogue has descended into the name calling that is too common in all of our discourse. If we all agreed to avoid these infractions, we could work together toward common understandings. I will avoid libel and defamation, I will not intimidate or harrass, and I would include "political party" in the limitation against degrading others.
The Apology: A review of websites over the last week shows a tremendous amount of victimization. Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, and the Washington Times believe that there is a "pogrom" against conservatives. (Now in addition to having to apologize to Jews for the "blood libel" line, they need to consider their apologies to all who have endured forced migration.) When challenged that the "socialist" and "take back our country" rhetoric has a negative effect, they respond that Candidate Obama said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun." No one has actually accused the president of inciting violence in that remark.
I really want to make a defense that we're talking about the repetition of messages over an extended period of time in a variety of media sources. And President Obama's claim was something made in a speech in June of 2008. Or that when liberals said that President Bush "lied to go to war in Iraq" that it was a fair response to the misreading of intelligence data.
But to engage in such a defense would suggest that violating principles of civil discourse is best measured by frequency or magnitude. In fact, violating the principles is a one-time thing. Once the line is crossed, doing it by a lot or doing it many times doesn't change the fact that the line was crossed. I'm reminded of a wonderful passage in Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz. Miller and his friends go to largely secularlized Reed College and apologize for the times in the history of the Christian faith where the Church was the source of pain and suffering. They don't make excuses. They just apologize.
So, at least for me, I'm sorry for flippant remarks that demeaned others, accused them of acting on self-interest, or of seeking political gain over common good. I crossed the line and I apologize. Norms of reciprocity would suggest that the other side do the same, but I apologize even if it only changes MY future behavior.
MLK: Today is the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday (at least in most places). It's where we want to celebrate the significance of dreams of a better society, of the value of nonviolence over armed conflict, and how our religious values can promote the common good. But King's "I Have a Dream" speech teaches us some important lessons about civil discourse.
When I taught Race and Ethnic Relations, I would use the speech in the opening class. While most people know the line where he wants his children judged "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", the speech actually demonstrates the difficulty of progress in American society. King starts the speech, describing how the great ideals of the Declaration of Independence had been given to citizens as a "promissory note" but that for blacks the note had come back marked "insufficient funds". In the middle of the speech, he argues that his "white brothers" who had marched alongside, "realize that their freedom is tied up with our freedom". He argued in other speeches that the system that so limited blacks limited whites as well. He argued for true democracy when he said, "We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote." When we can recognize the past, and own together the present, only then will we see the day when "justice rolls down like water." When that day comes, it will be common to see the children judged by their character. We can't simply start with the character line. Understanding race relations in America requires us to hold all these thoughts together, as King did.
Here's the lessons I take for Civil Discourse. First, we have to be able to tell the truth about the past. We haven't always lived according the values we espouse. Admitting that doesn't weaken the values, it pushes us deeper. Second, we are a complex society committed to the constitutional principle of "promoting the general welfare". Not for the folks like me or the folks that agree with me -- the welfare of all. Third, we have a bias toward justice. That means addressing inequality where we see it. If a system works well for most people, we should be concerned about those for whom it doesn't work. Only then, are we free to focus on individuals as if race, class, religion, region, gender, or ethnicity doesn't matter.
Back to Jeopardy: You may have read that an IBM computer has been programmed to play Jeopardy against the two biggest winners. It will be televised in February. There was a practice game last Thursday where Watson competed in a practice game. "He" easily handled the competition.
What happens when we start using computers as pundits? Will they be able to fact check? To combine a variety of competing perspectives and find a policy proposal that meets the best solution for the most people? Can we raise our game to keep competing or will we sit idly by while Hal from 2001 quietly turns off the life support systems?
Makes me really miss Battlestar Galactica: "The Cylons were created by man. They rebelled. They evolved. They look and feel human. Some are programmed to think they are human. There are many copies. And they have a plan".
Rules for Discourse: Like many viewers, I was moved by the president's remarks Wednesday night in Tucson. His challenge to raise the bar on our discourse, not because it causes violence, but because it's a way forward that would be true to Christina Taylor Green's beliefs about democracy. It may seem hard to determine what kind of discourse would meet that heightened bar, but I'm not sure it's hard at all. The following comes from the Washington Post's "User Discussion and Submission Guidelines" that should govern postings on their webpage:
By submitting content, you are consenting to these rules:
- You agree not to submit inappropriate content. Inappropriate content includes any content that:
- infringes upon or violates the copyrights, trademarks or other intellectual property rights of any person
- is libelous or defamatory
- is obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit
- violates a person's right to privacy
- violates any local, state, national, or international law
- contains or advocates illegal or violent acts
- degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or other classification
- is predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass
- contains advertising or solicitation of any kind
- misrepresents your identity or affiliation
- impersonates others
While the Post doesn't have the staff to monitor all comments, these are excellent guidelines we can use to monitor our own discourse. I have started copying these guidelines and posting them on comment pages when the dialogue has descended into the name calling that is too common in all of our discourse. If we all agreed to avoid these infractions, we could work together toward common understandings. I will avoid libel and defamation, I will not intimidate or harrass, and I would include "political party" in the limitation against degrading others.
The Apology: A review of websites over the last week shows a tremendous amount of victimization. Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, and the Washington Times believe that there is a "pogrom" against conservatives. (Now in addition to having to apologize to Jews for the "blood libel" line, they need to consider their apologies to all who have endured forced migration.) When challenged that the "socialist" and "take back our country" rhetoric has a negative effect, they respond that Candidate Obama said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we'll bring a gun." No one has actually accused the president of inciting violence in that remark.
I really want to make a defense that we're talking about the repetition of messages over an extended period of time in a variety of media sources. And President Obama's claim was something made in a speech in June of 2008. Or that when liberals said that President Bush "lied to go to war in Iraq" that it was a fair response to the misreading of intelligence data.
But to engage in such a defense would suggest that violating principles of civil discourse is best measured by frequency or magnitude. In fact, violating the principles is a one-time thing. Once the line is crossed, doing it by a lot or doing it many times doesn't change the fact that the line was crossed. I'm reminded of a wonderful passage in Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz. Miller and his friends go to largely secularlized Reed College and apologize for the times in the history of the Christian faith where the Church was the source of pain and suffering. They don't make excuses. They just apologize.
So, at least for me, I'm sorry for flippant remarks that demeaned others, accused them of acting on self-interest, or of seeking political gain over common good. I crossed the line and I apologize. Norms of reciprocity would suggest that the other side do the same, but I apologize even if it only changes MY future behavior.
MLK: Today is the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday (at least in most places). It's where we want to celebrate the significance of dreams of a better society, of the value of nonviolence over armed conflict, and how our religious values can promote the common good. But King's "I Have a Dream" speech teaches us some important lessons about civil discourse.
When I taught Race and Ethnic Relations, I would use the speech in the opening class. While most people know the line where he wants his children judged "not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", the speech actually demonstrates the difficulty of progress in American society. King starts the speech, describing how the great ideals of the Declaration of Independence had been given to citizens as a "promissory note" but that for blacks the note had come back marked "insufficient funds". In the middle of the speech, he argues that his "white brothers" who had marched alongside, "realize that their freedom is tied up with our freedom". He argued in other speeches that the system that so limited blacks limited whites as well. He argued for true democracy when he said, "We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote." When we can recognize the past, and own together the present, only then will we see the day when "justice rolls down like water." When that day comes, it will be common to see the children judged by their character. We can't simply start with the character line. Understanding race relations in America requires us to hold all these thoughts together, as King did.
Here's the lessons I take for Civil Discourse. First, we have to be able to tell the truth about the past. We haven't always lived according the values we espouse. Admitting that doesn't weaken the values, it pushes us deeper. Second, we are a complex society committed to the constitutional principle of "promoting the general welfare". Not for the folks like me or the folks that agree with me -- the welfare of all. Third, we have a bias toward justice. That means addressing inequality where we see it. If a system works well for most people, we should be concerned about those for whom it doesn't work. Only then, are we free to focus on individuals as if race, class, religion, region, gender, or ethnicity doesn't matter.
Back to Jeopardy: You may have read that an IBM computer has been programmed to play Jeopardy against the two biggest winners. It will be televised in February. There was a practice game last Thursday where Watson competed in a practice game. "He" easily handled the competition.
What happens when we start using computers as pundits? Will they be able to fact check? To combine a variety of competing perspectives and find a policy proposal that meets the best solution for the most people? Can we raise our game to keep competing or will we sit idly by while Hal from 2001 quietly turns off the life support systems?
Makes me really miss Battlestar Galactica: "The Cylons were created by man. They rebelled. They evolved. They look and feel human. Some are programmed to think they are human. There are many copies. And they have a plan".
Monday, November 15, 2010
"I Don't Belong to an Organized Political Party..."
"...I'm a Democrat", Will Rogers, 1935.
As I've written before, since I'm a student of what passes for civil discourse I regularly subject myself not just to articles on political sites but also to the comments folks make in "response" to those comments. It's often painful, mostly maddening, and largely irrelevant to the actual content of the original column. But that pretty well describes the current state of civil discourse in the society at large!
In my earlier posts, I have suggested that we need to have more honest conversations about the nature of the problems we face as a society. I have asked all parties to be committed to telling the truth in the midst of disagreement. I have suggested that we call out those who continue to repeat false claims. (My newest idea is to have the big "X" from the Family Feud game show appear on the screen when a politician repeats a known untruth! $200 million a day -- BEEP!)
There is a critique to be made of my position. It suggests that all matters of exaggeration, distortion, or fantasy are equal and that some of what was said (socialists, death panels) is so extreme as to deserve special condemnation. This is the critique the progressive caucus made of Jon Stewart's rally. It argues that we Democrats have suffered and need to release our own angry protest. I've had friends and family members make the same observation about my writing.
As I look to answer those who want to push hard at the Republicans, or to launch fundraising organizations to match those on the right, I am still looking for a "Higher Way" for civil debate. And while I don't have enough of an answer to satisfy me, some things I've read in the last three months speak strongly that such a search is preferable to the tit-for-tat strategies that have characterized our political dialogues for a couple of decades.
As I've read books by a biblical theologian, a British social theorist, and a moral philosopher, I find some common ground in the search for this Higher Way.
The biblical theologian is N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham for the Church of England. In his book After You Believe, he argues that our task as Christians is be living the coming Kingdom. His interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and Paul's Epistles calls us to celebrate the Image of God in others and thereby show the world the contours of this kingdom that is both to come and unfolding in our midst.
The British social theorist in Anthony Giddens. He has done amazing work in articulating the mechanisms through which society reproduces itself over time through a process of Structuration (don't ask). The very short version is that through repeated interactions we define ways of describing the world which then shape future interactions. Societies shift as these various processes tying individuals to larger organizational groupings are reshaped. Because we're in the midst of it at the time and the changes take significant time to unfold (often generations), we're not duly attentive to what's happening around us. He's not just an excellent social theorist but is also active in European politics and has written about the nature of globalization and how we need a "left of center" government he calls The Third Way.
I'm currently reading Justice, by Michael Sandel, philosophy professor at Harvard. It's a remarkable book that talks about how we together define a good society. He argues, following the work of John Rawls, that we should understand our lives together in terms of an idealized society rather than pursuing our self-interests. He talks about how Kant called us to hypothetical ideals as opposed to views of utilitarianism, libertarianism, or arbitrary free markets.
All three of these authors would support my position that the nature of productive civil discourse needs to be re-imagined. We don't want more of the same "in your face" kinds of dialogue. We need to search for justice for all, replicate those structures that support that effort, and commit to partnering with God as He births his Kingdom.
Let me insert two more pragmatic reasons why I'm calling for more abstract notions of the Common Good. First, what we are doing just plain doesn't work at its core. Years ago when I was teaching social psychology our textbook had a wonderful section on negotiation. I can't remember all of the required components, but the one that has always stayed with me was the need to support the legitimacy of your opponent in the negotiation. Without that belief, good faith negotiation is impossible. I would argue that the name-calling of today's debates (especially when conducted through the lens of the media) destroys claims of legitimacy on both sides rendering fair conclusions near impossible.
The second reason is that Newton's Third Law doesn't work in Civil Discourse. Newton's Third Law says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It works really well on physical elements in the right conditions. But it doesn't work in politics. Every action has an accelerated reaction. What was the outrageous claim becomes the new baseline. And I agree with all my Democratic friends that the Republicans have been far better at raising those stakes in recent years than we have.
In a bizarre way, I'm proud of that. That's why I'm searching for the Higher Way. So I ask my Democratic friends whether progressives, blue dogs, neo-centrists, or whatever: let's redefine the rules of the game. Let's focus on the greater good over protected interests. Let's not demonize those on the other side regardless of what they say. Let's put the long-term Idealized Common Good ahead of winning.
Yes, we run the risk of losing in the short run. But in the long run, we stand for a vision of the civil society that can be well articulated, defended against attack, and will become part of rhetoric that reshapes how we live together in the ways Wright, Giddens, and Sandel suggest.
I also read Carl Hiaasen's Star Island and am halfway through Jonathan Franzen's Freedom. I'm sure they connect somehow but I'll let that wait for another day.
As I've written before, since I'm a student of what passes for civil discourse I regularly subject myself not just to articles on political sites but also to the comments folks make in "response" to those comments. It's often painful, mostly maddening, and largely irrelevant to the actual content of the original column. But that pretty well describes the current state of civil discourse in the society at large!
In my earlier posts, I have suggested that we need to have more honest conversations about the nature of the problems we face as a society. I have asked all parties to be committed to telling the truth in the midst of disagreement. I have suggested that we call out those who continue to repeat false claims. (My newest idea is to have the big "X" from the Family Feud game show appear on the screen when a politician repeats a known untruth! $200 million a day -- BEEP!)
There is a critique to be made of my position. It suggests that all matters of exaggeration, distortion, or fantasy are equal and that some of what was said (socialists, death panels) is so extreme as to deserve special condemnation. This is the critique the progressive caucus made of Jon Stewart's rally. It argues that we Democrats have suffered and need to release our own angry protest. I've had friends and family members make the same observation about my writing.
As I look to answer those who want to push hard at the Republicans, or to launch fundraising organizations to match those on the right, I am still looking for a "Higher Way" for civil debate. And while I don't have enough of an answer to satisfy me, some things I've read in the last three months speak strongly that such a search is preferable to the tit-for-tat strategies that have characterized our political dialogues for a couple of decades.
As I've read books by a biblical theologian, a British social theorist, and a moral philosopher, I find some common ground in the search for this Higher Way.
The biblical theologian is N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham for the Church of England. In his book After You Believe, he argues that our task as Christians is be living the coming Kingdom. His interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and Paul's Epistles calls us to celebrate the Image of God in others and thereby show the world the contours of this kingdom that is both to come and unfolding in our midst.
The British social theorist in Anthony Giddens. He has done amazing work in articulating the mechanisms through which society reproduces itself over time through a process of Structuration (don't ask). The very short version is that through repeated interactions we define ways of describing the world which then shape future interactions. Societies shift as these various processes tying individuals to larger organizational groupings are reshaped. Because we're in the midst of it at the time and the changes take significant time to unfold (often generations), we're not duly attentive to what's happening around us. He's not just an excellent social theorist but is also active in European politics and has written about the nature of globalization and how we need a "left of center" government he calls The Third Way.
I'm currently reading Justice, by Michael Sandel, philosophy professor at Harvard. It's a remarkable book that talks about how we together define a good society. He argues, following the work of John Rawls, that we should understand our lives together in terms of an idealized society rather than pursuing our self-interests. He talks about how Kant called us to hypothetical ideals as opposed to views of utilitarianism, libertarianism, or arbitrary free markets.
All three of these authors would support my position that the nature of productive civil discourse needs to be re-imagined. We don't want more of the same "in your face" kinds of dialogue. We need to search for justice for all, replicate those structures that support that effort, and commit to partnering with God as He births his Kingdom.
Let me insert two more pragmatic reasons why I'm calling for more abstract notions of the Common Good. First, what we are doing just plain doesn't work at its core. Years ago when I was teaching social psychology our textbook had a wonderful section on negotiation. I can't remember all of the required components, but the one that has always stayed with me was the need to support the legitimacy of your opponent in the negotiation. Without that belief, good faith negotiation is impossible. I would argue that the name-calling of today's debates (especially when conducted through the lens of the media) destroys claims of legitimacy on both sides rendering fair conclusions near impossible.
The second reason is that Newton's Third Law doesn't work in Civil Discourse. Newton's Third Law says that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It works really well on physical elements in the right conditions. But it doesn't work in politics. Every action has an accelerated reaction. What was the outrageous claim becomes the new baseline. And I agree with all my Democratic friends that the Republicans have been far better at raising those stakes in recent years than we have.
In a bizarre way, I'm proud of that. That's why I'm searching for the Higher Way. So I ask my Democratic friends whether progressives, blue dogs, neo-centrists, or whatever: let's redefine the rules of the game. Let's focus on the greater good over protected interests. Let's not demonize those on the other side regardless of what they say. Let's put the long-term Idealized Common Good ahead of winning.
Yes, we run the risk of losing in the short run. But in the long run, we stand for a vision of the civil society that can be well articulated, defended against attack, and will become part of rhetoric that reshapes how we live together in the ways Wright, Giddens, and Sandel suggest.
I also read Carl Hiaasen's Star Island and am halfway through Jonathan Franzen's Freedom. I'm sure they connect somehow but I'll let that wait for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)