Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Vinegar vs Honey


This morning I awoke with an ear worm; which is not unusual for me. An ear worm is a song, or a line or two from a song, that plays over and over in your mind. Some of my ear worms drive me almost crazy (I know: short trip); but most are relatively peasant, like today’s.
There was a folk group in the 60s and into the 70s—25 or 30 high school kids. They dressed alike (neat and well-groomed) and they had guitars and drums (all acoustic) and they traveled around, sharing their considerable talent and uplifting message.
Their theme song has been my ear worm this morning:
“Up, up with people; you meet ‘em wherever you go!
Up, up with people; they’re the best kind of folks we know!
If more people were for people, all people everywhere, 
There’d be a lot less people to worry about, and a lot more people who care!
Contrast that uplifting message with today’s put-down culture. A standup comic is more likely to get a laugh from a put-down joke than from other kinds of humor. Remember Don Rickles?
On Facebook there are a lot of kitten and puppy photos and cooking videos. There’s a lot of poetry and inspiration and prayer requests and plenty of positive, uplifting content.
Sadly, however, when the topic is politics or economics or morality, the put-down pundits come crawling out from under the woodwork. One might not know what these vermin are for; but they leave no doubt about what they’re against. And the primary thing most of them are against is anyone who disagrees with them!
They’re easy to recognize. Their posts will be saturated with disrespectful, insulting put-downs of anyone who dares disagree with them (about anything!), and their vocabulary will be peppered with words like “idiot” and “stupid.”
I’m not an expert on modern marketing and advertising strategy; but it seems evident to me that if your intention is to promote something, be it a product, a service or an ideology, the more effective strategy would be to lift up the positive aspects of whatever you’re promoting or selling. Convince me of its value and why I should buy it.
On the other hand, I am something of an expert on my own feelings and responses, and I know for iron-clad certain that if you disrespect me, insult me or put me down, there’s not the proverbial snowball’s chance that I’ll be buying whatever you’re selling. Your strategy is counterproductive.
A Facebook friend (a friend since high school days) and I are on opposite ends of the political and economic ideological spectrum, and yet, we carry on discussions for days on Facebook. Never once has either of us insulted the other; as a result, our discussions have broadened my own perspective, helped me better to understand his ideology (if not agree with it), and even have convinced me of the validity of some of his arguments. 
It is possible to disagree with respect, and for both parties to benefit!
I could wax theological and biblical here (which is my other area of relative expertise); but, hopefully my comments speak for themselves. So, here’s my question for today: given its counterproductive outcome, what is to be gained, what possible benefit accrued, using the disrespectful, insulting, put-down approach?
Just wondering.
That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my World View. 
Together in the Walk,
Jim

Tuesday, February 19, 2019

Say Something Often Enough...


The longer I live, the worse things get (I swear there’s no cause-and-effect relationship here).
It’s not politics. Co-opting a quip from Oklahoma’s favorite son, Will Rogers, “If you don’t like the political climate today, just wait a while.” The pendulum swings back and forth, and bitter partisanship has always been a part of politics; although, only in recent years has the bitterness and animosity come out of the proverbial “smoke filled rooms”.
And it’s not that the bitter partisanism is out of the closet and infecting the general population through social media (although it is). Nor is it even those who hide behind the anonymity of social media, sniping away at anyone who dares disagree (although many do that, too).
My concern is that so many people (and in my biased view it seems to be coming more--but not totally--from the right than from the left) redefine things to match their personal biases, and then proceed as if those redefinitions are universal and absolute. In that contrived absolutism, truth is measured, not by any objective or verifiable standard, but by their redefined reality. In other words, if I disagree with it, it’s not true.
That contrived absolutism not even denied!!! In fact, it’s flaunted! Early in the current administration’s tenure a spokesman for the President said—on live TV—there are “alternative facts.” 
If I disagree with it—or if I simply don’t like it—it’s “fake news.”
If you say anything often enough, people start to believe it.
For me, the most problematic redefinition is of the word, “socialism.” What so many call “socialism” is not really related to socialism. For example, conservatives generally imply that anything involving government is, ipso facto, socialism.
In researching the word, I discovered that “socialism” describes a wide range of social and economic systems, with a correspondingly wide range of governmental involvement and non-involvement. The concept of socialism evolves, constantly adding sub sets. Some economists say pure socialism has never been practiced.
Bottom line: invoking the label “socialist” or “socialism”, without layers of qualifiers, is virtually a worthless exercise in meaninglessness.
The issue was clouded even further during the 2016 political campaign, when Senator Bernie Sanders self-identified as a “Democratic Socialist.” Millennialists (born between 1980 and 2000) quickly identified with his model.
A Forbes article says Bernie’s approach isn’t socialism at all.[1] Millennials’ attraction to it emerged out of what they perceive as the failure of capitalism on all but the top financial levels. The article notes that even the Nordic countries Sanders touts as models of “Democratic Socialism” are more free market than the US.
Capitalism has not failed. Systems don’t succeed nor fail. People succeed or fail. As one of many economic systems, capitalism[2] is merely a tool with no intrinsic moral or ethical value. On paper, it appears to many (including me) to be a superior system, when applied with integrity. But, while “any system will work, if you’ll work the system,” it also is true that every system is vulnerable to corruption. Glenn Reynolds, an opponent of socialism, says, “Under capitalism, rich people become powerful. Under socialism, powerful people become rich.”[3]
While millennials like to toss around the idea of socialism, they also like to consume; they like profit and entrepreneurialism, and many dream of owning their own business. Those preferences fit no known definition of socialism.
In the minds of millennials and others (including me), the current application of capitalism, given its absence of integrity, has not provided the equitable opportunities its proponents peddle.
Capitalism is said to reward hard work; and yet, a new economic stratum called the “working poor” demonstrates that, in capitalism, hard work is not always rewarded equitably. It becomes increasingly difficult, even when working 40 hours—or more—each week, to provide safe housing, utilities, healthy food, basic transportation and health care. Many elderly, whose generation set the standard for hard work and productivity, now must choose between food or medicine. But capitalism has not failed. The failure is on those who abuse and manipulate the system for their own profit, without regard for how their manipulation hurts others!
Similarly, socialism is a system—a tool. Nothing more. Its value is a measure of how it is applied. Again, I believe it is inferior to capitalism. But too frequently what is being called socialism today—by both its opponents and its advocates—simply is not socialism. 
Here are a few things socialism is not:
1.      Governmental involvement is not de facto socialism. In socialism, the government may or may not own and control the means of production and distribution. There’s a world of difference between the government owning the means of production and distribution versus the government regulating those same means.
2.      In practice, socialism has not been about sharing. It’s been about coercion.
3.      Taxation is not socialism. Every governmental system, good, bad or indifferent, requires taxation.
4.      Social Security and Medicare are not socialism. They are managed and administered, but not owned (that’s the key), by governmental agencies. They are funded in exactly the same way as my private pension and insurance plan. The difference is that the funding is through enforced taxation. Either way, the consumer pays.
The following definition of socialism is consistent with every definition I find, and is more comprehensive than most: “Socialism is a political (or economic, your choice) system in opposition to capitalism. The difference is who owns the productive assets. Under capitalism it is the capitalists: investors discrete from both the labor and the organization being labored in. Under socialism, some form of the people or labor own those same productive assets. Ownership could be direct, or through some system of government—but that's the difference. Socialism means some collective method of the ownership of productive assets. ... A Credit Union is a socialist organization because it is collectively owned.” [4] It has nothing necessarily to do with government.
Government involvement may be good, bad, or indifferent; but it is not ipso facto socialism. The misuse of the word is driving an ideological wedge deeper and deeper into the festering wound of disunity that increasingly describes the heart of America. 
Let’s at least have a common vocabulary before we slap each other in the face with our labels.
That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim



[1] Tim Worstall, “Bernie's Democratic Socialism Isn't Socialism, It's Social Democracy,” Forbes, May 17, 2016. Worstall is a Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute in London.
[2] Actually, I prefer the term, “free enterprise,” which is different from capitalism, although derived from the same roots.
[4] Worstall, op. cit.

Thursday, February 7, 2019

One More Plea for Civility

My undergraduate degree is in sociology, and there was always an open debate between sociology and psychology regarding the relative impact of social vs. psychological influences. The debate continues among the laity, fueled to a significant degree by responses for and against the writings of Ayn Rand.
In today’s climate of extreme partisanism, it’s rare to see an argument for any consideration of relativity. Everything is cast in absolute terms; therefore, it’s really difficult to hold an intelligent—or civil—debate about anything (there’s that absolutist thing again!)
Hillary Clinton wrote a book entitled, It Takes a Village. Reaction against it predictably was based not nearly as much on the merits of her thesis as on her political and personal reputation.
An old friend (since high school days) is intelligent, educated (actually an educator) and articulate, so I take seriously his comments. His brother also is educated and articulate—a colleague in ministry—whose comments I also consider thoughtfully. They both are Libertarians; and since I am a very liberal Democrat, you can imagine some of the conversations that emerge when we make contact.
I also have a cousin—a sweet, compassionate young woman who has survived some of life’s hardest knocks. She is conservative; although, she may be the only true “independent” among all my acquaintances.[1]
I mention these three because each of them is able to carry on a conversation in which there is disagreement without becoming sarcastic, disrespectful, or insulting. They focus on issues instead of personalities, and in virtually every conversation with either of them I find my own awareness expanded and my understanding more empathetic.
By contrast, most of my remaining acquaintances, liberal or conservative, if they participate at all in politically or socially controversial conversations, resort to insulting put-downs directed at any who disagree with them. With increasing frequency, I find myself dropping out of those conversations or ignoring them altogether. They accomplish absolutely nothing; indeed, they are counterproductive to any hope of reconciliation and unity.
The vitriolic conversations I observe appear to emerge out of a mindset that says, “I’m right; and I have to convert these infidels!” I have friends who actually have said we are obligated to confront “their” stupidity! (And the overuse of the word, stupidity is another obsession of mine.)
Here’s the thing: if you refuse to accept me for who I am and for what I believe—if you have a need to change and correct me—if you require that I be like you—before you can treat me with respect and common courtesy, there’s not much hope of deepening our relationship. If I perceive that you are trying to change me—to coerce or intimidate or humiliate me into becoming something I am not—then my sense of distrust and defensiveness is activated.
On the other hand, if you treat me with respect and common courtesy first—if I perceive that you truly are listening to me and trying to understand me[2]; then I am much more likely to trust you and listen to you and to seek to understand you. I may not agree with you, nor do I have a need for you to agree with me; but, if we understand each other first, there’s at least some hope that we’ll move closer to agreement.
And see, here’s the other thing: since the earliest days of this wonderful American experiment, this inability (or unwillingness) to tolerate differences has existed. Remember reading about the infamous duels to the death (Aaron Burr actually killed sitting Vice President, Alexander Hamilton, in a duel that emerged out of the long and bitter partisan rivalry between the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists.)
And what was gained? One human death; the virtual end in dishonor of Aaron Burr's political career, and what some have argued was the final nail in the coffin of the Jeffersonian Federalist party.
And what has been gained by the bitterness and animosity that has continued until this moment because we humans cannot tolerate differences? Hmmm? I’ll wait.
On Tuesday evening President Trump echoed the same whine that has come from every president and politician since (at least) President Nixon: “Why can’t we set aside our partisan differences?” The reason is that the whiner, whether Democrat or Republican, liberal, conservative, independent or Libertarian, means: “Why can’t you who disagree with me stop disagreeing with me?”
So, how’s that working out for you? for our nation?
I don’t want Republicans and Libertarians to agree totally with me! Democracy flourishes on lively debate in which all parties listen to each other and try to find the best in each other’s position.
I truly believe that we all have something of value to offer, and that many of our harshest disagreements are matters of degree, if we only will listen to each other. I refuse to believe that any one party—or any one person—has all of the truth about anything. But actualizing that truism would require each of us to acknowledge and accept the possibility that “I” may not be absolutely, irrefutably, and eternally right about everything.
Oh, well. I can dream.
That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.
Together in the Walk,
Jim

[1] Within my limited circle of acquaintances there are several who claim to be political “independents,” but whose conversation mirrors and supports virtually anything that opposes the Democratic party.
[2] And it always is my intention to be the same kind of listener; in fact, I have specific training in listening. I hope I am a good listener.