Category Archives: Random Blogging

Political Fundamentalism

I had lunch today with a delightful young woman who, among other things, is active with the League of Women Voters. During our discussion, she remarked (rather plaintively) that she found it difficult to understand why the League was so often viewed as a “liberal” organization. “We don’t take positions until we have studied them carefully,” she said. “We gather evidence for two years, and assess it carefully, and base our position on that evidence.”

There you go! Basing positions on evidence is what is now considered liberal.

The conversation reminded me of an explanation from my book God and Country: America in Red and Blue. I was looking at the paradigm shift caused by the Enlightenment, and the profound effect that shift had on our Constitution.

When Francis Bacon insisted that laws governing the material world could be inferred through careful observation (a notion that, for contemporary Americans, is an unremarkable commonplace), it had enormous implications for the existing, traditional, deductive methods of understanding reality. The “old learning,” had begun with an a priori “given,” the bible, the absolute truth of which was unquestioned. The primary goal of Puritan education was thus directed at biblical understanding; one began with the text and learned—deduced—how to interpret it. Proper interpretation required the application of time-tested methods of exegesis and analysis, and instruction in historical context and meaning (mostly, what important theologians of the past had decreed to be correct understandings and approaches). One started with Truth, and education was the process of learning to apprehend and defend that Truth. Bacon changed the fundamental order of things by teaching that education must begin with observation of natural phenomena.

We are a country that was founded on a radical notion: evidence matters. Today, however, those of us for whom evidence still matters are dismissed as “liberals” by the political equivalents of the Puritans. Like those Puritans, our ideologues (of every stripe) begin with their “truth,” and look for evidence to support it and ways to impose it.

No wonder we find it so hard to communicate.

Comments

No Service Charge

I have had a very interesting–and extremely pleasant–experience this weekend. I came to Boston for a conference, and was booked into the conference hotel. My room wasn’t ready when I got in, so I left my bag with the bellman and checked in to the meeting. When I returned to retrieve my suitcase, the bellman refused to accept the usual tip.

In fact, none of the waiters or others working here–all of whom were incredibly helpful, took tips.

The checks in the restaurant explained that the hotel paid its staff an adequate wage, so that these workers did not have to rely on tips. I can attest to the fact that this policy made my stay much more enjoyable. It also makes it much more likely that I would choose this hotel for future trips.

In Indianapolis, where I live, waiters and janitors and other hotel workers have been demonstrating for well over a year just to get a raise sufficient to allow them to live decently once tips are included. I don’t know how much the owners are “saving” by refusing to pay even a minimally living wage, but as a consumer I think they’re missing the boat.

I would choose a hotel that pays its people so that I don’t have to every time!

I

Comments

Bring in the Clowns

Bring in the clowns? As the song goes, “don’t bother, they’re here.” We’ve elected them.

Rational people of all political stripes know that the last thing the fragile recovery needs is a government shutdown, but every time the Republicans and Democrats seem to be making progress toward an agreement, the GOP’s Tea Party wing throws a tantrum and demands that the goalposts be moved. As Steve Benen reported this morning over at Political Animal, the Koch-financed Americans for Prosperity held a rally yesterday across the street from the Capitol.  Several dozen people gathered to listen to speeches from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), and others. The Republican voters chanted, “Shut it down!” during the rally, and every other sign at the rally urged the GOP to shut down the government.

In fact, Indiana’s own clown, Pence, has been prominent among those urging a shutdown–ignoring the effect on our fighting men (whose pay would be affected), seniors (Social Security would stop processing applications) and public servants (who would be furloughed without pay during the shutdown) among many others. He also seems indifferent to the problems a shutdown would cause state governments, including Indiana–evidencing the depth of his concern for the state he proposes to run.

The clowns who populate Congress and state legislatures pontificate endlessly about a constitution they rather clearly haven’t read. They spout nonsense about government spending, displaying an appalling ignorance of economics and the difference, for example, between operating costs and capital investments. (A reader sent me a graph showing U.S. investment in infrastructure as a percentage of GDP since 1950–that investment has declined from 1.4% to barely two-tenths of 1%. The closest analogy would be a person who spent the mortgage money on a trip to Vegas.) They are contemptuous of any science or empirical evidence that is inconsistent with their ideologies, and they sneer at those “elitists” for whom evidence matters.

Depressing as it is to watch these un-self-aware clowns, it is more depressing to remember that the American people elected them.

Comments

Road Trip

It’s been one of those days.

I got up early this morning because I had to drive 75 miles to give the “Good Government Day” speech I posted here a few days ago. Before I left, I tried accessing my email only to discover that my computer no longer recognized me, and wouldn’t allow me to log on. It was pouring down rain and I was out of gas; by the time I’d filled the tank, I looked like a sad, drowned rat. I got lost twice on my way to the small town where the high school was located. And it rained. And rained.

Good Government Day is a big deal at this high school, and everyone evidently attends: the Mayor and Deputy Mayor (a delightful woman I had previously met), members of the City Council, and a variety of elected and appointed officers. I was introduced to the Clerk-Treasurer, who seemed like a very nice woman–until she launched into her description of what was wrong with America and her explanation of why we are losing our “way of life.” I’m not entirely sure who she was alluding to when she referenced “people who are intentionally destroying our system,” but it was hard to miss her distaste for “people from South America” who have evidently had the nerve to invade even her small town. To say that I was taken aback would be an understatement.

I don’t believe this particular officeholder was typical of that small town. I chatted with several others–teachers, candidates for the City Council–who seemed far more representative of the virtues we like to attribute to small-town American life: they were welcoming, thoughtful and gracious. But I couldn’t help wondering, as I drove back through the driving rain, how many people share that woman’s worldview. How many see difference as a threat, rather than an opportunity to experience new perspectives? How many are secretly convinced that “they” are trying to destroy America?

And who do you suppose “they” are?

Comments

Random Ruminations on Personal Responsibility

When I was doing research for my book God and Country, I began to really appreciate the impact of Calvinism on American culture. Calvin taught that people were either “saved” or not, and that personal success (wealth, acclaim) could be a sign that one was one of the elect. (Before religious historians post blistering responses, I know this is a very superficial description of the theology.) What intrigued me was the way in which this particular belief continues to influence our very American perspective on merit and personal responsibility.

I thought about that Calvinist influence when talking last week to a student who was disdainful of his classmates who had yet to find employment. “They should have done what I did,” he told me, explaining the extra efforts he had put into his own search. And those efforts were laudable, no question about it. But he is also blessed with a high intellect, lots of energy, the means to dress well for interviews and other advantages he takes for granted.

A contemporary of mine who runs a political think-tank is an exemplar of this attitude. He is a white, straight, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male, over six feet tall, and athletic. His parents both graduated from one of the nation’s best universities, and while they were not wealthy, he had a comfortable, intellectually enriched childhood and adolescence. He has enjoyed good health. He was born with a quick mind. And he has withering contempt for people who need public assistance of any kind. After all, he “stood on his own two feet.” Why can’t they?

I think this attitude is common among bright people who have worked and achieved. It takes some thought–not to mention humility and compassion–to recognize the role privilege plays in our lives.

My friend grew up white, straight and male in a society that privileged such things. He had good health, a good mind, and he didn’t encounter social or economic barriers to the tools he needed to succeed. I know that he–and my student, and others–also displayed admirable personal characteristics and diligence, but what they and so many others fail to appreciate is the extent to which privilege made it easier for them to “make it.”

The noted philosopher John Rawls asked an important question: What sort of system might we devise that would be fair to everyone if we operated behind “a veil of ignorance”–if we didn’t know beforehand what place we would have in that system? If we didn’t know whether we would be born rich or poor, black or brown or white, disabled or healthy, mentally impaired or brilliant…If we had no way of knowing whether we would be born to privilege or mass despair. What sort of system could we create that would reward effort and achievement while still recognizing and ameliorating “luck of the draw” disadvantages?

I don’t think a fair system would deny health-care to poor people or those with pre-existing conditions. I don’t think it would “save” money by cutting back preschool programs, or insisting that women bear children they are unprepared to raise. I don’t think it would deny laborers the opportunity to unite to bargain for safer workplaces.

I don’t think that insisting that people exercise personal responsibility requires us to ignore the role luck plays in our achievements.

We can insist on personal responsibility without being mean-spirited or willfully obtuse.

Comments