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.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Required Classes for Civil Discourse: First Course -- Statistics
In the month since my last post, I've focused a lot of energy on job search issues. There's some reason for hope on that front but I continue the hard work of staying patient and letting things unfold at their own pace.
Of course, I've continued to follow all of the interesting political/cultural dynamics as well as issues in higher education. One of the interesting things to show up on the higher education front is a significant research project conducted by sociologists at New York University and the University of Virginia. They found that the gains we'd hoped to find in students over time aren't happening. Universities need to demand more rigor, they argue, and to expect students to demonstrate what they've learned along the way.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, when I consider some of the dynamics currently in play in American Society, I've decided that there are some courses that ALL CITIZENS should be required to master whether in high school or in college. Mastery means that they take away the learning with them and know how to apply it to everyday situations. Over my next few posts, I'm going to describe lessons people SHOULD have learned from my required classes and explore why those matter. Given my sociologist background, the first example shouldn't be particularly surprising.
Introduction to Statistics
There are three things I want everyone to remember out of a statistics class. Those who argue that you can make statistics mean whatever you want didn't pass their statistics class. The heart of research and measurement is the careful explanation of what is being considered in ways that everyone can share. We agree on the measurement strategy, tell others what we've done, and then they can see the same thing.
Too much of the debate over deficit reduction and spending cuts has used funny statistics. For example, Rep. Paul Ryan claimed that the president's budget raised spending when it simply maintained legislatively mandated cost of living increases. These statistics may mean that one can make the case, but you wouldn't pass my stats course by playing fast and loose with definitions. Cherry-picking the data is not acceptable by any party. If Rep. Ryan made clear that he was describing spending over a decade or President Obama explained that he was counting proposed Medicare savings as part of his calculations, we'd be better off. When they just quote statistics that support their policy solutions without explaining their data, they just aren't being fair. The struggles we face are too important to paint over them with distorted data. It's hard to imagine how the sides will come together without first accepting a set of statistics that can be adequately defined and measured. Only then can policy situations be worked out.
Here's a second lesson one should take away from statistics class: inferences stem from the data. One of the new Republican Representatives from a Southern state gave an interview claiming that "the people" had given her a mandate to make drastic cuts in federal spending. The story went on to show that she had won her election by 51% to 49% over her Democratic opponent. Here's why she didn't pass statistics:
Not only is this NOT a mandate for her position but we need to think about her responsibility to the other 75,798 people who didn't vote for her. My example is about a Republican but the same misapplication of statistics occurs for Democrats as well. Statistics don't lie and we shouldn't make them out to be more than they are. This is why our fascination with various polls becomes quickly problematic. We interpret trends when the data is actually quite varied. The right way to read them is to look at the diversity of opinion and not simply the horserace characteristics.
The third thing everyone should know out of statistics involves how to understand the Normal Distribution.
Not everything fits into a normal distribution, but it's good to remember as a mechanism for understanding the varieties of positions folks take. The normal distribution illustrates that most people cluster around a centrist position. The farther to the extreme one goes, the fewer people actually hold that position.
This is good to learn because it's easy to get our impressions formed by the extreme positions (the blue bars of the chart above). Consider how we think about the major cable news organizations involved in discourse today. We have the sense that Fox News represents one side (maybe including the green bars on the right) while MSNBC represents the other side (with blue and green bars). Here's the point: from a probability standpoint, they always reflect a minority view. There is no voice for the red bars above (CNN has an unfortunate tendency to put two blue-bar representatives together in a "debate"). When we talked about The Silent Majority forty years ago, the red bars are who we were talking about. [NOTE: please don't confuse the colors of the bars above for our unfortunate shorthand for political positions; that's not what this means and if it were my chart I'd use different colors.]
Here's another application of the normal distribution to current events. I'm currently working my way through Robert Putnam and David Campbell's American Grace, a very long research piece on the role of religion in contemporary society. They do a wonderful job showing the changes in religious expression over time. One of the critical trends they explore has to do with the rise of those with no religious commitments whatsoever, especially among younger generations. They demonstrate that these shifts are in reaction to how religion is perceived in American society today, especially in reaction to the role of women, attitudes toward sexual orientation, opposition to evolution, and wariness of other religions. But they go on to demonstrate that those highly visible religious position are only held by 25% of the 40% who claim to be evangelicals. The upshot is that the modern Christian church is being perceived by one of the blue bars in the normal distribution. Critics as well as casual observers miss the ways in which faith is meaningful for a host of Americans. Thinking of Westboro Baptist protesting military funerals or the Florida pastor wanting to burn the Qu'ran, they say, "If that's what it means to be Christian, I don't any part of it." As a result of failing to see the red bars, they miss the open-minded Christians who are maintaining a consistent faith without denouncing science, social change, or diversity of thought.
The normal curve cautions us against extrapolating from an extreme position and to pay more attention to the probability that such positions are held by "normal" people. I've read some stuff recently about the number of people who felt abused by organized religion. Reporting on his book about those abused, Jack Watts quotes the Barna Group, a major evangelical religious research operation, suggesting that 37% of the unchurched have experienced some type of negative interaction with religion. I would suggest that many of the New Atheists and the young people estranged from faith are treating the blue bars as if they represented all people of faith. Maybe if we all worked on seeing complexity rather than oversimplifying the extremes, the church would be a source of healing our civil discourse and not a contributing factor to our challenges.
So if everyone mastered a basic statistics class, they could agree upon the nature of our challenges, resist the temptation to read more into the data than is reasonable, and be careful to see the complexity of the situations we face. You might even find yourself liking the math!
Of course, I've continued to follow all of the interesting political/cultural dynamics as well as issues in higher education. One of the interesting things to show up on the higher education front is a significant research project conducted by sociologists at New York University and the University of Virginia. They found that the gains we'd hoped to find in students over time aren't happening. Universities need to demand more rigor, they argue, and to expect students to demonstrate what they've learned along the way.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, when I consider some of the dynamics currently in play in American Society, I've decided that there are some courses that ALL CITIZENS should be required to master whether in high school or in college. Mastery means that they take away the learning with them and know how to apply it to everyday situations. Over my next few posts, I'm going to describe lessons people SHOULD have learned from my required classes and explore why those matter. Given my sociologist background, the first example shouldn't be particularly surprising.
Introduction to Statistics
There are three things I want everyone to remember out of a statistics class. Those who argue that you can make statistics mean whatever you want didn't pass their statistics class. The heart of research and measurement is the careful explanation of what is being considered in ways that everyone can share. We agree on the measurement strategy, tell others what we've done, and then they can see the same thing.
Too much of the debate over deficit reduction and spending cuts has used funny statistics. For example, Rep. Paul Ryan claimed that the president's budget raised spending when it simply maintained legislatively mandated cost of living increases. These statistics may mean that one can make the case, but you wouldn't pass my stats course by playing fast and loose with definitions. Cherry-picking the data is not acceptable by any party. If Rep. Ryan made clear that he was describing spending over a decade or President Obama explained that he was counting proposed Medicare savings as part of his calculations, we'd be better off. When they just quote statistics that support their policy solutions without explaining their data, they just aren't being fair. The struggles we face are too important to paint over them with distorted data. It's hard to imagine how the sides will come together without first accepting a set of statistics that can be adequately defined and measured. Only then can policy situations be worked out.
Here's a second lesson one should take away from statistics class: inferences stem from the data. One of the new Republican Representatives from a Southern state gave an interview claiming that "the people" had given her a mandate to make drastic cuts in federal spending. The story went on to show that she had won her election by 51% to 49% over her Democratic opponent. Here's why she didn't pass statistics:
- Current estimates are that a congressional district contains about 700,000 people. About 25% of those are under voting age, which leaves 525,000.
- The census department reports than in 2008, 71% of the eligible population was registered to vote which leaves 372,750.
- The 2010 election had a national turnout of 41.5% of registered voters, which leaves 154,691.
- The candidate had 51% of her votes. If her district is "normal" that means she got 78,892 votes. Her opponent got 75,798.
- She won by 3,094 votes.
Not only is this NOT a mandate for her position but we need to think about her responsibility to the other 75,798 people who didn't vote for her. My example is about a Republican but the same misapplication of statistics occurs for Democrats as well. Statistics don't lie and we shouldn't make them out to be more than they are. This is why our fascination with various polls becomes quickly problematic. We interpret trends when the data is actually quite varied. The right way to read them is to look at the diversity of opinion and not simply the horserace characteristics.
The third thing everyone should know out of statistics involves how to understand the Normal Distribution.
Not everything fits into a normal distribution, but it's good to remember as a mechanism for understanding the varieties of positions folks take. The normal distribution illustrates that most people cluster around a centrist position. The farther to the extreme one goes, the fewer people actually hold that position.
This is good to learn because it's easy to get our impressions formed by the extreme positions (the blue bars of the chart above). Consider how we think about the major cable news organizations involved in discourse today. We have the sense that Fox News represents one side (maybe including the green bars on the right) while MSNBC represents the other side (with blue and green bars). Here's the point: from a probability standpoint, they always reflect a minority view. There is no voice for the red bars above (CNN has an unfortunate tendency to put two blue-bar representatives together in a "debate"). When we talked about The Silent Majority forty years ago, the red bars are who we were talking about. [NOTE: please don't confuse the colors of the bars above for our unfortunate shorthand for political positions; that's not what this means and if it were my chart I'd use different colors.]
Here's another application of the normal distribution to current events. I'm currently working my way through Robert Putnam and David Campbell's American Grace, a very long research piece on the role of religion in contemporary society. They do a wonderful job showing the changes in religious expression over time. One of the critical trends they explore has to do with the rise of those with no religious commitments whatsoever, especially among younger generations. They demonstrate that these shifts are in reaction to how religion is perceived in American society today, especially in reaction to the role of women, attitudes toward sexual orientation, opposition to evolution, and wariness of other religions. But they go on to demonstrate that those highly visible religious position are only held by 25% of the 40% who claim to be evangelicals. The upshot is that the modern Christian church is being perceived by one of the blue bars in the normal distribution. Critics as well as casual observers miss the ways in which faith is meaningful for a host of Americans. Thinking of Westboro Baptist protesting military funerals or the Florida pastor wanting to burn the Qu'ran, they say, "If that's what it means to be Christian, I don't any part of it." As a result of failing to see the red bars, they miss the open-minded Christians who are maintaining a consistent faith without denouncing science, social change, or diversity of thought.
The normal curve cautions us against extrapolating from an extreme position and to pay more attention to the probability that such positions are held by "normal" people. I've read some stuff recently about the number of people who felt abused by organized religion. Reporting on his book about those abused, Jack Watts quotes the Barna Group, a major evangelical religious research operation, suggesting that 37% of the unchurched have experienced some type of negative interaction with religion. I would suggest that many of the New Atheists and the young people estranged from faith are treating the blue bars as if they represented all people of faith. Maybe if we all worked on seeing complexity rather than oversimplifying the extremes, the church would be a source of healing our civil discourse and not a contributing factor to our challenges.
So if everyone mastered a basic statistics class, they could agree upon the nature of our challenges, resist the temptation to read more into the data than is reasonable, and be careful to see the complexity of the situations we face. You might even find yourself liking the math!
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Telling the Truth about Health Care
I admit that I couldn't get through all seven hours of the House debate on HR2, the Republicans' bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I had to give up during hour four (two and a half hours yesterday and nearly two today) when the talking points were simply repeating themselves. We'd entered that point where everyone had to give their one-minute speech that would get them on the local news. (For all the talk about changing the filibuster rules in the Senate to allow better decision making, we really need an approach to "debate" in the House that gets to more than dueling talking points.)
The bill passed the house by a vote of 245 to 189, with Republicans voting 242 to 0 and Democrats voting 3 to 189. It stands little chance of coming up in the Senate, less chance of passing if it does come up, and faces a sure veto by President Obama.
With that behind us, we can go back to remembering what is true about ACA. I've posted these things on Facebook before, but thought it would be good to put them all in one place.
ACA is NOT a government takeover of Health Care. This was determined as "the big lie of 2010" according to Politifact. Talk about "putting bureaucrats between you and your doctor" is the status quo. The federal government creates incentives for states to establish exchanges for those people not on employer-based insurance. It's true the states represent governments, but this certainly isn't a national takeover (Reagan called it "New Federalism").
It is NOT a "budget buster". It actually saves money in the long run based on CBO estimates. It begins to slow the growth curve on costs, which increased 131% between 1999 and 2009. It is true that costs have gone up since the passage of ACA in March, but the full implementation doesn't occur until 2014. The costs have regularly been increasing. There is an additional piece I've been thinking about. One of the new restrictions is that insurers must spend 85% of their revenues on actual medical care. I believe the cost increases this year are an attempt to maximize what the base is before the 15% overhead limit kicks in. It's not a sustainable growth curve but more of a one-off.
The "American People" HAVE spoken on the Law and they DO NOT support repeal. Recent data demonstrates that there are significant partisan divides on the question. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 55% of Republicans do support repeal. But only 26% of all those polled think so. The remainder want some parts adjusted, think it's a good thing, or are unhappy because it didn't go far enough. This may indicate that our political discourse has gotten so one-sided that we only listen to our most ardent supporters and think they represent the people as a whole. When you look at the individual components of the law, they are very popular even among those calling for repeal.
Medical malpractice reform WILL NOT solve the cost issues. I don't think it would hurt the Democrats to give in on this one, but it's not significant. In response to a request by Sen. Orrin Hatch in the fall of 2009, the CBO estimated that fixing frivolous lawsuits would reduce medical costs by one half of one percent. To put that in context, if you spent $300 per month on insurance you'd only have to spend $298.50. It may be true that doctors practice defensive medicine (additional tests, etc) to protect themselves against lawsuits, but the Effective Measures review (that gets called a door to rationing) would likely provide tremendous protection against those lawsuits.
The law has NOT been declared unconstitutional. One judge is opposed to the individual mandate (and there are legal scholars who challenge his logic) but left the law standing. The other judges to review constitutionality upheld the law. The commerce clause allows the regulation of proper interstate business. (By the way, the Republican strategy is to require shopping across state lines, which besides creating a "race to the bottom" would apply the same logic.) This will be determined in the Supreme Court and "if" the decision is made on established law, it will be upheld.
So what is this about? It's a major philosophical disagreement over the nature of health care. This morning, one of the new Representatives from Indiana, Todd Rokita, stated his position clearly -- "Health Care is Not a Right". Position like his see health care as a commodity that one purchases from the private sector. If you have sufficient means, you get better care (which is why there's been a big fight over "Medicare Advantage" or "Cadillac plans"). This is why the Republicans are concerned about individuals being forced to purchase care "against their will". I really don't understand why folks worried about immigrants using public services are comfortable with the uninsured getting care from emergency rooms and relying on the pro-bono write offs of local hospitals.
Democrats like me look at this differently. I'm concerned about those who gamble with their health for financial reasons until the situation is chronic. Then they get care too late so that the costs are much higher. Those costs get factored into everyone's health costs (the hospitals aren't giving stuff away). So caring for the poor and sick represents the common good. More importantly, it becomes a moral imperative because of our expectations about what a healthy society looks like.
The Republicans will now try to limit the implementation of ACA, as is their right. As they say, elections mean something. Of course, the 2008 election is why ACA was legitimately made law and will remain so since they didn't win the Senate. Republicans do appear to be in favor of the reforms people like (portability, no limit on pre-existing conditions, children on parents' insurance, etc.) but have no plan for how to get there or how to finance it.
There is much to address in ACA going forward. The exchanges will need to be evaluated. Adjustments will be made this year to the 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses. It will take time to move from chronic response to preventative care. It may take a decade for the deployment of medical professionals to match the need. And there are still nearly 30 million people uncovered. But it's the right direction, as Ezra Klein explained the other day in the Washington Post. In the end, that's all we can do in terms of finding the balance between individual freedom, states rights, crisis management, and fiscal health, while pursuing that "more Perfect Union."
The bill passed the house by a vote of 245 to 189, with Republicans voting 242 to 0 and Democrats voting 3 to 189. It stands little chance of coming up in the Senate, less chance of passing if it does come up, and faces a sure veto by President Obama.
With that behind us, we can go back to remembering what is true about ACA. I've posted these things on Facebook before, but thought it would be good to put them all in one place.
ACA is NOT a government takeover of Health Care. This was determined as "the big lie of 2010" according to Politifact. Talk about "putting bureaucrats between you and your doctor" is the status quo. The federal government creates incentives for states to establish exchanges for those people not on employer-based insurance. It's true the states represent governments, but this certainly isn't a national takeover (Reagan called it "New Federalism").
It is NOT a "budget buster". It actually saves money in the long run based on CBO estimates. It begins to slow the growth curve on costs, which increased 131% between 1999 and 2009. It is true that costs have gone up since the passage of ACA in March, but the full implementation doesn't occur until 2014. The costs have regularly been increasing. There is an additional piece I've been thinking about. One of the new restrictions is that insurers must spend 85% of their revenues on actual medical care. I believe the cost increases this year are an attempt to maximize what the base is before the 15% overhead limit kicks in. It's not a sustainable growth curve but more of a one-off.
The "American People" HAVE spoken on the Law and they DO NOT support repeal. Recent data demonstrates that there are significant partisan divides on the question. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 55% of Republicans do support repeal. But only 26% of all those polled think so. The remainder want some parts adjusted, think it's a good thing, or are unhappy because it didn't go far enough. This may indicate that our political discourse has gotten so one-sided that we only listen to our most ardent supporters and think they represent the people as a whole. When you look at the individual components of the law, they are very popular even among those calling for repeal.
Medical malpractice reform WILL NOT solve the cost issues. I don't think it would hurt the Democrats to give in on this one, but it's not significant. In response to a request by Sen. Orrin Hatch in the fall of 2009, the CBO estimated that fixing frivolous lawsuits would reduce medical costs by one half of one percent. To put that in context, if you spent $300 per month on insurance you'd only have to spend $298.50. It may be true that doctors practice defensive medicine (additional tests, etc) to protect themselves against lawsuits, but the Effective Measures review (that gets called a door to rationing) would likely provide tremendous protection against those lawsuits.
The law has NOT been declared unconstitutional. One judge is opposed to the individual mandate (and there are legal scholars who challenge his logic) but left the law standing. The other judges to review constitutionality upheld the law. The commerce clause allows the regulation of proper interstate business. (By the way, the Republican strategy is to require shopping across state lines, which besides creating a "race to the bottom" would apply the same logic.) This will be determined in the Supreme Court and "if" the decision is made on established law, it will be upheld.
So what is this about? It's a major philosophical disagreement over the nature of health care. This morning, one of the new Representatives from Indiana, Todd Rokita, stated his position clearly -- "Health Care is Not a Right". Position like his see health care as a commodity that one purchases from the private sector. If you have sufficient means, you get better care (which is why there's been a big fight over "Medicare Advantage" or "Cadillac plans"). This is why the Republicans are concerned about individuals being forced to purchase care "against their will". I really don't understand why folks worried about immigrants using public services are comfortable with the uninsured getting care from emergency rooms and relying on the pro-bono write offs of local hospitals.
Democrats like me look at this differently. I'm concerned about those who gamble with their health for financial reasons until the situation is chronic. Then they get care too late so that the costs are much higher. Those costs get factored into everyone's health costs (the hospitals aren't giving stuff away). So caring for the poor and sick represents the common good. More importantly, it becomes a moral imperative because of our expectations about what a healthy society looks like.
The Republicans will now try to limit the implementation of ACA, as is their right. As they say, elections mean something. Of course, the 2008 election is why ACA was legitimately made law and will remain so since they didn't win the Senate. Republicans do appear to be in favor of the reforms people like (portability, no limit on pre-existing conditions, children on parents' insurance, etc.) but have no plan for how to get there or how to finance it.
There is much to address in ACA going forward. The exchanges will need to be evaluated. Adjustments will be made this year to the 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses. It will take time to move from chronic response to preventative care. It may take a decade for the deployment of medical professionals to match the need. And there are still nearly 30 million people uncovered. But it's the right direction, as Ezra Klein explained the other day in the Washington Post. In the end, that's all we can do in terms of finding the balance between individual freedom, states rights, crisis management, and fiscal health, while pursuing that "more Perfect Union."
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".
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Reflections the Day After the Tucson Shootings
So, I'd hoped my first blog of 2011 would be an upbeat piece about the possibilities inherent in a new year. But the events of yesterday morning at a Safeway knocked all sense of happy new year out the window.
Like most people, I've been trying to find news updates about the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and those who were with her. It's impossible to understand what was in the mind of the shooter, but the picture that is emerging is one of paranoid delusions and a significant amount of premeditation. Jared Loughner may well be a deranged individual actor like previous actors who shot Ronald Reagan or George Wallace. And legal responsibility rests with the shooter, not the people whose careless rhetoric creates an unstable atmosphere.
The sheriff in Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, made comments yesterday about how "vitriol and hatred" had become a part of our culture and that Arizona might be a centerpiece for such rhetoric. He did make clear that "unbalanced people" will react in ways that we don't expect.
Comments by Speaker Boehner and Senator McCain make Loughner out to be significantly abnormal. Boehner's comments referred to "an inhuman act". McCain said that Loughner was "a wicked person who has no sense of justice or compassion." Not that any of these leaders had ever met the shooter -- but to call him "other" makes clear that normal people aren't affected by harsh rhetoric. Megyn Kelly challenged Sherif Dupnik that he should focus on the facts of the case and that it's not the time or the place of a sheriff to critique rhetoric (but it's okay for a commentator/newsperson to opine!).
Commentators and politicians were trying to get the sheriff to back off his statement. Jon Kyl argued that such comments weren't the job of law enforcement officials. Sarah Palin's staff tried to argue that the bulls-eyes on her election map weren't meant to look like targets (a claim that has already been easily "refudiated" by one of Sarah's tweets).
David Gergen has an excellent piece on the CNN website arguing that we need to avoid recrimination and finger pointing. He also reminds us that when this day passes, we need to do some reflection on the nature of discourse and "pledge to each other that we will struggle for a more civil and decent America."
Here's what I've been pondering. The reason we need to scale back our heated arguments is not primarily because they might inflame unbalanced individuals to acts of unimaginable violence. There will always be characters like John Hinkley (who shot Reagan) and Arthur Bremer (who shot Wallace). It's possible our rhetoric provides a rationale for misguided, wrongheaded, irrational, or absolutist people. As much as it pains me to say this, I kind of agree with Megyn Kelly -- these folks are out there.
The real issue, as Gergen makes clear, is what the rhetoric does for the rest of us. There are internet rumors circulating that Loughner once had "liberal leanings" and others that he's connected to "anti-government groups". What's happening is that Being Right and Scoring Political Points has become so important that we'll use the actions of a deranged individual to get Our Side to Win. That's not crazy behavior by an inhuman actor. That's us, getting sucked into a style of rhetoric that only has winners and losers.
It has been pointed out that just three days ago, Congresswoman Giffords took to the well of the House to read the First Amendment to the Constitution. It makes clear that the government "will make no laws abridging the freedom of speech." That has gotten distorted to the point that anyone suggesting that a sentiment not be shared is denying free speech rights. But just because you're free to your opinion doesn't mean that you shouldn't be careful about how it's expressed. I'll defend anyone whose voice is silenced by the government. But "bearing false witness" isn't a matter of freedom of speech. This isn't about legality, but is about our moral commitments to truth-telling and expressing common decency and compassion for fellow human beings. It's a higher bar to clear but it's really how we want to live.
Happy New Year anyway.
Like most people, I've been trying to find news updates about the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and those who were with her. It's impossible to understand what was in the mind of the shooter, but the picture that is emerging is one of paranoid delusions and a significant amount of premeditation. Jared Loughner may well be a deranged individual actor like previous actors who shot Ronald Reagan or George Wallace. And legal responsibility rests with the shooter, not the people whose careless rhetoric creates an unstable atmosphere.
The sheriff in Pima County, Clarence Dupnik, made comments yesterday about how "vitriol and hatred" had become a part of our culture and that Arizona might be a centerpiece for such rhetoric. He did make clear that "unbalanced people" will react in ways that we don't expect.
Comments by Speaker Boehner and Senator McCain make Loughner out to be significantly abnormal. Boehner's comments referred to "an inhuman act". McCain said that Loughner was "a wicked person who has no sense of justice or compassion." Not that any of these leaders had ever met the shooter -- but to call him "other" makes clear that normal people aren't affected by harsh rhetoric. Megyn Kelly challenged Sherif Dupnik that he should focus on the facts of the case and that it's not the time or the place of a sheriff to critique rhetoric (but it's okay for a commentator/newsperson to opine!).
Commentators and politicians were trying to get the sheriff to back off his statement. Jon Kyl argued that such comments weren't the job of law enforcement officials. Sarah Palin's staff tried to argue that the bulls-eyes on her election map weren't meant to look like targets (a claim that has already been easily "refudiated" by one of Sarah's tweets).
David Gergen has an excellent piece on the CNN website arguing that we need to avoid recrimination and finger pointing. He also reminds us that when this day passes, we need to do some reflection on the nature of discourse and "pledge to each other that we will struggle for a more civil and decent America."
Here's what I've been pondering. The reason we need to scale back our heated arguments is not primarily because they might inflame unbalanced individuals to acts of unimaginable violence. There will always be characters like John Hinkley (who shot Reagan) and Arthur Bremer (who shot Wallace). It's possible our rhetoric provides a rationale for misguided, wrongheaded, irrational, or absolutist people. As much as it pains me to say this, I kind of agree with Megyn Kelly -- these folks are out there.
The real issue, as Gergen makes clear, is what the rhetoric does for the rest of us. There are internet rumors circulating that Loughner once had "liberal leanings" and others that he's connected to "anti-government groups". What's happening is that Being Right and Scoring Political Points has become so important that we'll use the actions of a deranged individual to get Our Side to Win. That's not crazy behavior by an inhuman actor. That's us, getting sucked into a style of rhetoric that only has winners and losers.
It has been pointed out that just three days ago, Congresswoman Giffords took to the well of the House to read the First Amendment to the Constitution. It makes clear that the government "will make no laws abridging the freedom of speech." That has gotten distorted to the point that anyone suggesting that a sentiment not be shared is denying free speech rights. But just because you're free to your opinion doesn't mean that you shouldn't be careful about how it's expressed. I'll defend anyone whose voice is silenced by the government. But "bearing false witness" isn't a matter of freedom of speech. This isn't about legality, but is about our moral commitments to truth-telling and expressing common decency and compassion for fellow human beings. It's a higher bar to clear but it's really how we want to live.
Happy New Year anyway.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Labels, Learning, and One More Story
I mentioned in my last post that I was going to watch the No Labels launch via webcast since I didn't make the trip to New York. It was impressive to see some major political and media figures express their support for an organization that won't be driven by hyper-partisanship. Anything that lessens name calling, misrepresentation, and pat answers is something I'm in favor of.
It was enlightening to watch the event and then read the response in the media. Some argued it was business as usual. Others said that it was simply Centrist Democrats trying to regain the position they held in the Clinton years. Others complained that by equating name calling on the extreme right (Hitler, socialists, etc.) with those name calling on the left (obstructionists, homophobes) that we weren't condemning bad behavior.
Here's what I've been reflecting on this week. First, there is no value in trying to prove that my behavior is not as extreme as my opponent. If there are assumed norms of proper behavior and I've crossed them in my caricature of the other side, it doesn't really matter HOW FAR I crossed the line. The truth that the other's behavior was more egregious isn't an excuse for my behavior. My response, as hard as it is, should be one of apology and repentance. I'd like to think that would bring about a reciprocal response from the other, but even if it doesn't it's the right thing to do. If I want to see civil behavior, the pressure is on my to demonstrate it. (Think of it as the Sermon on the Mount does Politics.)
Some observers of the No Labels launch recognized that the only Republican speakers participating were moderates, some of whom had been forced out by Tea Party challenges. I think that's a good critique and a movement committed to true engagement of issues must find ways of reaching out to all segments of the political spectrum. They may not want to come, but the invitation needs to be regularly made.
There were several media figures that participated in the event. In watching them, particularly as part of panel discussions, it clarified one of the major issues in cable news today. They think it's about them. On more than one occasion, media figures talked too much, for too long, and kept other voices from being heard. I remember Walter Cronkite as "the most trusted man in America" but I don't remember him as A Celebrity.
This leads me to something my daughter Niki shared with me today. A group called World Public Opinion conducted a study of what people knew about the recent campaign and where they got their information. Not surprisingly, they reported that the 2010 campaign was seen as more distorted than those in the past. Further, they show how much reliable data exists to dispute claims made in the election. Finally, they examined how the source of news correlated with certain incorrectly held views.
This last piece was instructive on several grounds. First, folks who watched Fox News every day were far more likely to hold a number of distorted views (this is correlation, so it could be that folks with distorted views just watch Fox more often). There were some other interesting patterns where people's views moved toward more correct positions (with the same correlation exception -- maybe rapid NPR listeners already know a lot of stuff).
But the amazing data to me was HOW LITTLE DIFFERENCE viewing patterns made. If I were a news executive, I'd be mortified. My best guess is that the media has so bought into the approach of "on the one hand we have A" and "on the other hand we have B" that people think that all data is suspect, that everybody lies, and that I can simply decide what I think is right and then find sources to back me up. This is a major challenge to democracy. Like it or not, FACTS EXIST. We may disagree as to what the policy reactions to those facts might be, but we don't get to treat facts as if we're at Old Country Buffet.
Media figures need to return to being humble newspeople making difficult situations easier to understand. If the CBO says that the Health Care Law will reduce the deficit over time, repeat this fact every time anyone says otherwise. Currently, the person doing this better than anyone else is Anderson Cooper. If more journalists would follow his lead, we'd be a healthier society. On the other hand, we have the stories of how Fox executives suggested particular wording in talking about policy in order to create a specific impression. Such behavior should be denounced by professional journalists everywhere.
Enough ranting about the media and how they not only don't understand a group like No Labels but seem to want to make Labels more rigid (makes their job easier). Maybe in this week where compromise actually happened we'll find some new descriptions of reality.
One more Story. It's The Story. Last time I commented on the Holiday Parade, Christian America, and the War on Christmas. I know there's no war on Christmas and having people say Happy Holidays is nothing more than a combination of secular society and consideration for Jews. But it is still interesting that the story of Jesus being born in a stable is part of our overall sense of the Christmas season. People who've never gone to church know about Angels and Shepherds and Magi. Maybe it all comes back to the moment when Linus asks for the lights to come on in the auditorium. But people know the story. They get it mixed up with acquisition and Santa Claus and once in Illinois we saw a pig in the creche (which isn't quite kosher). But the Story remains. Somehow it cuts through all the other stuff this time of year. It's a miracle, really.
To use another line we all know, God Bless Us Every One.
Next blog post in 2011. Have a Marvelous Christmas.
It was enlightening to watch the event and then read the response in the media. Some argued it was business as usual. Others said that it was simply Centrist Democrats trying to regain the position they held in the Clinton years. Others complained that by equating name calling on the extreme right (Hitler, socialists, etc.) with those name calling on the left (obstructionists, homophobes) that we weren't condemning bad behavior.
Here's what I've been reflecting on this week. First, there is no value in trying to prove that my behavior is not as extreme as my opponent. If there are assumed norms of proper behavior and I've crossed them in my caricature of the other side, it doesn't really matter HOW FAR I crossed the line. The truth that the other's behavior was more egregious isn't an excuse for my behavior. My response, as hard as it is, should be one of apology and repentance. I'd like to think that would bring about a reciprocal response from the other, but even if it doesn't it's the right thing to do. If I want to see civil behavior, the pressure is on my to demonstrate it. (Think of it as the Sermon on the Mount does Politics.)
Some observers of the No Labels launch recognized that the only Republican speakers participating were moderates, some of whom had been forced out by Tea Party challenges. I think that's a good critique and a movement committed to true engagement of issues must find ways of reaching out to all segments of the political spectrum. They may not want to come, but the invitation needs to be regularly made.
There were several media figures that participated in the event. In watching them, particularly as part of panel discussions, it clarified one of the major issues in cable news today. They think it's about them. On more than one occasion, media figures talked too much, for too long, and kept other voices from being heard. I remember Walter Cronkite as "the most trusted man in America" but I don't remember him as A Celebrity.
This leads me to something my daughter Niki shared with me today. A group called World Public Opinion conducted a study of what people knew about the recent campaign and where they got their information. Not surprisingly, they reported that the 2010 campaign was seen as more distorted than those in the past. Further, they show how much reliable data exists to dispute claims made in the election. Finally, they examined how the source of news correlated with certain incorrectly held views.
This last piece was instructive on several grounds. First, folks who watched Fox News every day were far more likely to hold a number of distorted views (this is correlation, so it could be that folks with distorted views just watch Fox more often). There were some other interesting patterns where people's views moved toward more correct positions (with the same correlation exception -- maybe rapid NPR listeners already know a lot of stuff).
But the amazing data to me was HOW LITTLE DIFFERENCE viewing patterns made. If I were a news executive, I'd be mortified. My best guess is that the media has so bought into the approach of "on the one hand we have A" and "on the other hand we have B" that people think that all data is suspect, that everybody lies, and that I can simply decide what I think is right and then find sources to back me up. This is a major challenge to democracy. Like it or not, FACTS EXIST. We may disagree as to what the policy reactions to those facts might be, but we don't get to treat facts as if we're at Old Country Buffet.
Media figures need to return to being humble newspeople making difficult situations easier to understand. If the CBO says that the Health Care Law will reduce the deficit over time, repeat this fact every time anyone says otherwise. Currently, the person doing this better than anyone else is Anderson Cooper. If more journalists would follow his lead, we'd be a healthier society. On the other hand, we have the stories of how Fox executives suggested particular wording in talking about policy in order to create a specific impression. Such behavior should be denounced by professional journalists everywhere.
Enough ranting about the media and how they not only don't understand a group like No Labels but seem to want to make Labels more rigid (makes their job easier). Maybe in this week where compromise actually happened we'll find some new descriptions of reality.
One more Story. It's The Story. Last time I commented on the Holiday Parade, Christian America, and the War on Christmas. I know there's no war on Christmas and having people say Happy Holidays is nothing more than a combination of secular society and consideration for Jews. But it is still interesting that the story of Jesus being born in a stable is part of our overall sense of the Christmas season. People who've never gone to church know about Angels and Shepherds and Magi. Maybe it all comes back to the moment when Linus asks for the lights to come on in the auditorium. But people know the story. They get it mixed up with acquisition and Santa Claus and once in Illinois we saw a pig in the creche (which isn't quite kosher). But the Story remains. Somehow it cuts through all the other stuff this time of year. It's a miracle, really.
To use another line we all know, God Bless Us Every One.
Next blog post in 2011. Have a Marvelous Christmas.
Monday, December 6, 2010
My Stories, Your Stories, and Our Stories
I like stories. They go a long way to remind us who we are, where we fit, and where we're going. I don't really mean stories we learned as children or fiction we read as adults or drama we watch on television.
I'm more focused lately on the stories that we use to define identity. This is a theme I've been trying to address over the past couple of months. Identity stories are often used to divide "us" from "them".
I finished a wonderful book over the weekend, Christian America and the Kingdom of God, by Richard Hughes of Messiah University. Richard is a wonderful person, a sweet spirit, and a deep Christian. Hughes describes the history of our civil democracy, explores the periods of activity attempting to define us as a Christian Nation, and contrasts the view of Christian Nationalism with a commitment to the Kingdom of God. He is persuasive in showing the connections between biblical inerrancy, dispensational theology, and political strategy.
It's a great book and one can't argue with its logic. But I realized after reading it, and even e-mailed Richard to this effect, that those who make Christian America part of their narrative don't care about logic or the details of history. To them, being in Christian America is all tied up in who they are and how they function in the civil society. If they were to accept Richard's excellent analysis, they would be at a loss as to where they fit.
But the narrative they've tied their identity to not only isn't true historically, it's unsustainable in the present. It actually creates risk that their positions will not be taken seriously over the long run.
Let me illustrate with some recent examples; two from Oklahoma and one from California. The first illustration from Oklahoma relates to their recently passed referendum to ban Sharia law from being applied anywhere in the state. Statistics show that the total Muslim population of Oklahoma is less than half a percent. There has never been any conversation about introducing Sharia law into Oklahoma (or any other state for that matter). So what is the point? It appears to be a means of writing into law the privileged position of Christian Oklahomans.
The second example comes from Senator James Inhofe (the one who is sure global warming is a hoax). He has refused to participate in a Parade in Tulsa because it's called a "Holiday Parade." Inhofe explained to Fox and Friends that Christmas is about Christ's birth and that's what he wants to celebrate. First, Hughes' book makes clear that favoring Holiday over Christmas is not unlike Jefferson talking about The God of Nature. It is kind of religious (in a sociological sense) without being specifically Christian. That's a good thing in terms of both first amendment criteria and in creating a big tent that allows diversity. A simple Google search finds that about 1% of Oklahomans are Jewish and that the Christian population of the state (the 8th most religious) is only 65%. A Holiday parade seems to be something that would represent the breadth of folks who live in Oklahoma. So why is Inhofe offended?
The third example involved the Federal Appeals Court hearing regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that amended the California constitution to define marriage as being between only one man and one woman. The initiative passed by a slim majority (52% to 48%) and was subsequently declared unconstitutional by a state judge. Today's hearing was the federal appeal of that action. Since it was televised on CSpan, I got to watch. The proponent for Prop 8 argued that a) the CA supreme court had invalidated heterosexual marriage, b) that two-parent marriage is best for children, and c) that marriage supports procreation. As I listened to his argument, particularly after reading Richard's book, I was amazed at the narrative he was clinging to. Why would he argue that his marriage was threatened? Why does he put so much weight on "the people's voice?" Where does childrearing fit into his story? I have read conservatives like David Brooks argue that society should favor committed relationships in any form. If the people's voice is sacrosanct, what happens if the next initiative fails? Where does divorce fit in? And what about the recent surveys saying that young people, especially those with less education, don't feel marriage is necessary for companionship or procreation?
What I'm recognizing is that these stories are mythic in character. It's not that they're related to evidence or logic. They speak to what people deeply feel.
But as I've written in earlier posts, the situation on the ground is changing. The percentage of folks, particularly younger folks, who claim no faith at all is increasing. Muslims, Hindus, Arabs, Persians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Ukrainian, and Latin American populations will not only continue to be part of America, they will be more mobile than they've been in the past and many will settle in Oklahoma. Some have significantly higher birth rates which has tremendous long-term demographic implications. The flip side of the recent terrible stories of gay teen suicides is that folks are "coming out" earlier and earlier. It will be very common for today's school children to go through their school years with at least one close friend who is gay.
So our past stories will become increasingly fragile. We can choose to fight to hold on to our story or we can figure out how to write new ones.
One book I return to on a regular basis is called Primal Leadership, written by the Emotional Intelligence psychologist Daniel Goleman and some business folks. It's a marvelous book. I've not always put it into practice as I'd like, but it provides some guidance to working with others and I keep trying. The authors talk about how four domains work together to inform leadership: self awareness, self management, social awareness, and relationship management.
I haven't worked out all the connections yet, but I'm thinking that these four domains provide us with a means of working on civil discourse and the narrative style that requires. When are we feeling threatened and why? How do we remain open while considering other positions? How do our arguments impact others? How can we put the building of civil society ahead of simply how I want things to be?
Here's what I wish could happen. Senator Inhofe would be invited to the Holiday Parade. His first reaction would be discomfort that his Christmas Parade had been retitled. He would need to talk to leaders about why Christian components of the holiday season was important to him. But he would also need to be reminded that for many people in the parade, Hanukah might be significant and for others, simply celebrating family is enough. It might be possible then to see how a narrative could be created that brought all these differing views together as a celebration of community and what makes Oklahoman life so wonderful. (Maybe I'm pushing things, but I have friends in Oklahoma and giving the benefit of the doubt!)
What we need is a more vibrant, more versatile, and more variant approach to narrative. To truly go back to our founding as a country. This is where we find story. It's in what Alexis de Toucqueville found when he toured America in its early years -- a diverse people who were able to build a common story. Not by holding to the stories from the Old Country (well, a little bit, but that became hard to maintain) but by writing new story.
One more thing. Next Monday is the official launch of a group I've joined called NoLabels.Org. It is an effort by politicians, journalists, and civic leaders to return to a form of civil discourse that isn't defined by party or political labels. I'm excited to be a Founding Member. I wish I could go to New York for the big launch event (I looked into it but the schedule didn't work). But I'm hopeful that by working with those different from me we can craft the new narratives that have the resilience required for today's challenges.
Anyone else interested in delving in some Creative Writing?
I'm more focused lately on the stories that we use to define identity. This is a theme I've been trying to address over the past couple of months. Identity stories are often used to divide "us" from "them".
I finished a wonderful book over the weekend, Christian America and the Kingdom of God, by Richard Hughes of Messiah University. Richard is a wonderful person, a sweet spirit, and a deep Christian. Hughes describes the history of our civil democracy, explores the periods of activity attempting to define us as a Christian Nation, and contrasts the view of Christian Nationalism with a commitment to the Kingdom of God. He is persuasive in showing the connections between biblical inerrancy, dispensational theology, and political strategy.
It's a great book and one can't argue with its logic. But I realized after reading it, and even e-mailed Richard to this effect, that those who make Christian America part of their narrative don't care about logic or the details of history. To them, being in Christian America is all tied up in who they are and how they function in the civil society. If they were to accept Richard's excellent analysis, they would be at a loss as to where they fit.
But the narrative they've tied their identity to not only isn't true historically, it's unsustainable in the present. It actually creates risk that their positions will not be taken seriously over the long run.
Let me illustrate with some recent examples; two from Oklahoma and one from California. The first illustration from Oklahoma relates to their recently passed referendum to ban Sharia law from being applied anywhere in the state. Statistics show that the total Muslim population of Oklahoma is less than half a percent. There has never been any conversation about introducing Sharia law into Oklahoma (or any other state for that matter). So what is the point? It appears to be a means of writing into law the privileged position of Christian Oklahomans.
The second example comes from Senator James Inhofe (the one who is sure global warming is a hoax). He has refused to participate in a Parade in Tulsa because it's called a "Holiday Parade." Inhofe explained to Fox and Friends that Christmas is about Christ's birth and that's what he wants to celebrate. First, Hughes' book makes clear that favoring Holiday over Christmas is not unlike Jefferson talking about The God of Nature. It is kind of religious (in a sociological sense) without being specifically Christian. That's a good thing in terms of both first amendment criteria and in creating a big tent that allows diversity. A simple Google search finds that about 1% of Oklahomans are Jewish and that the Christian population of the state (the 8th most religious) is only 65%. A Holiday parade seems to be something that would represent the breadth of folks who live in Oklahoma. So why is Inhofe offended?
The third example involved the Federal Appeals Court hearing regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that amended the California constitution to define marriage as being between only one man and one woman. The initiative passed by a slim majority (52% to 48%) and was subsequently declared unconstitutional by a state judge. Today's hearing was the federal appeal of that action. Since it was televised on CSpan, I got to watch. The proponent for Prop 8 argued that a) the CA supreme court had invalidated heterosexual marriage, b) that two-parent marriage is best for children, and c) that marriage supports procreation. As I listened to his argument, particularly after reading Richard's book, I was amazed at the narrative he was clinging to. Why would he argue that his marriage was threatened? Why does he put so much weight on "the people's voice?" Where does childrearing fit into his story? I have read conservatives like David Brooks argue that society should favor committed relationships in any form. If the people's voice is sacrosanct, what happens if the next initiative fails? Where does divorce fit in? And what about the recent surveys saying that young people, especially those with less education, don't feel marriage is necessary for companionship or procreation?
What I'm recognizing is that these stories are mythic in character. It's not that they're related to evidence or logic. They speak to what people deeply feel.
But as I've written in earlier posts, the situation on the ground is changing. The percentage of folks, particularly younger folks, who claim no faith at all is increasing. Muslims, Hindus, Arabs, Persians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Ukrainian, and Latin American populations will not only continue to be part of America, they will be more mobile than they've been in the past and many will settle in Oklahoma. Some have significantly higher birth rates which has tremendous long-term demographic implications. The flip side of the recent terrible stories of gay teen suicides is that folks are "coming out" earlier and earlier. It will be very common for today's school children to go through their school years with at least one close friend who is gay.
So our past stories will become increasingly fragile. We can choose to fight to hold on to our story or we can figure out how to write new ones.
One book I return to on a regular basis is called Primal Leadership, written by the Emotional Intelligence psychologist Daniel Goleman and some business folks. It's a marvelous book. I've not always put it into practice as I'd like, but it provides some guidance to working with others and I keep trying. The authors talk about how four domains work together to inform leadership: self awareness, self management, social awareness, and relationship management.
I haven't worked out all the connections yet, but I'm thinking that these four domains provide us with a means of working on civil discourse and the narrative style that requires. When are we feeling threatened and why? How do we remain open while considering other positions? How do our arguments impact others? How can we put the building of civil society ahead of simply how I want things to be?
Here's what I wish could happen. Senator Inhofe would be invited to the Holiday Parade. His first reaction would be discomfort that his Christmas Parade had been retitled. He would need to talk to leaders about why Christian components of the holiday season was important to him. But he would also need to be reminded that for many people in the parade, Hanukah might be significant and for others, simply celebrating family is enough. It might be possible then to see how a narrative could be created that brought all these differing views together as a celebration of community and what makes Oklahoman life so wonderful. (Maybe I'm pushing things, but I have friends in Oklahoma and giving the benefit of the doubt!)
What we need is a more vibrant, more versatile, and more variant approach to narrative. To truly go back to our founding as a country. This is where we find story. It's in what Alexis de Toucqueville found when he toured America in its early years -- a diverse people who were able to build a common story. Not by holding to the stories from the Old Country (well, a little bit, but that became hard to maintain) but by writing new story.
One more thing. Next Monday is the official launch of a group I've joined called NoLabels.Org. It is an effort by politicians, journalists, and civic leaders to return to a form of civil discourse that isn't defined by party or political labels. I'm excited to be a Founding Member. I wish I could go to New York for the big launch event (I looked into it but the schedule didn't work). But I'm hopeful that by working with those different from me we can craft the new narratives that have the resilience required for today's challenges.
Anyone else interested in delving in some Creative Writing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)