never too old to be idealistic

My personal commitment to preserving an idealistic outlook on life is a calculated move. Some people think old idealists are fools, but I have known too many embittered old men to believe that. I understand how cranky codgers end up where they are, and I don't want to go there myself.

I would prefer to risk becoming an old fool over finding myself in an emotional space that is all about how inconvenient it is to me personally that there are so many people in the world who want to have a fair shot at acquiring the basic necessities of life.

I don't want to be prisoner of pessimism. I don't want to resign myself to the gloomy attitude that there is nothing any ordinary person like me can do about problems like climate change. I don't want to give up on the possibility of a future that is brightened by what I do rather than darkened by what I don't do. It is about being responsible, but it is also about the quality of my own life.

going beyond getting the trains to run on time

Human beings are amazingly ingenious. What we have accomplished in areas like technology, medicine, and space travel is astounding. There is no reason we can’t direct our considerable brainpower and resourcefulness toward solving dire problems like climate change and unsustainable economic practices. One of the main obstacles is that we aren’t very good at responsible collective decision-making.

I’m a big fan of democracy, but the so called democratic governance models that we currently have are ineffective. Some say democracy is inherently incapable of “getting the trains to run on time”. I don’t agree. I believe that the problem is that our governments aren’t democratic enough. The main goal should be empowering and mobilizing ordinary stakeholders everywhere to contribute their ideas, talent, skills, time, and energy toward tackling the big problems that will never be solved without their vital participation.

The basic template for democracy as it is generally practiced today was designed by privileged white males who couldn’t imagine the possibility of sharing power with everybody else. To some extent, their fear of losing control was warranted. Democracy does need to be protected from itself. The majority can be very misguided at any given time. Mob rule run amuck is worse than being governed by an oppressive dictator.

We are currently at a crossroads. One way leads to an exacerbation of our worst problems. The other way would lead to new possibilities. The difference lies in whether we can translate what we already know about information architecture into a model that facilitates robust and broadly representative participation in responsible collective decision-making. I know that sounds ridiculously idealistic, but unless we can find a way to harvest the human potential that is currently being wasted and misdirected, we will continue in a downward spiral toward a series of inevitable global cataclysms.

standing on old shoulders to reach new heights

Self-improvement is not only a possibility for human beings; it is a necessity. That has always been the case. Even our hunter-gatherer ancestors weren’t born knowing instinctively how to survive in the wild. It took years before individuals learned everything they needed to know to be contributing rather than dependent members of their families.

That we can augment and override natural instinct is one of the most significant distinctive characteristics of human beings. Our ability to learn and to pass on what we have learned to successive generations is what has enabled the human species to live, build communities, and thrive in almost every habitat on the planet. It’s not that we lack instinct. We do have instincts, but they seem to be more complex, subtler, and more pliable than those of other animals.

It is as though we have an instinctual appetite for participating in the communal production and distribution of tangible and intangible resources that make survival possible and desirable. The experiences of acquiring new understandings, learning new skills, developing new insights, and sharing accumulated knowledge with others are deeply satisfying.

Since a community of learners and teachers is about simultaneously preserving what is already known and discovering new possibilities, what is required is a blend of conservative and progressive values. We need both perspectives. Not only do we need the contributions from each camp; we need to recognize that it is not possible to be exclusively one or the other. Each of us individually is a blend of both. None of us can reject either.

It is not possible to get by without the benefit of accustomed ways of doing certain things, but since the vast majority of what any of us knows was new at some point, no one can say they what is new is inherently bad. What we need is balance. Each of us defines that differently, but all of us have to find a way to welcome what is new and helpful, even as we count on being able to continue doing what we know works.

It would be foolish to precipitously trash the solid wisdom that comes from traditional sources, but there is always room for improvement. In fact, some of the problems that the global human community currently faces will only be solved by making improvements to our familiar ways of doing things. We are responsible for our own choices. Refusing to accommodate change is at least as harmful as the destabilizing impact of challenging that which currently seems unquestionably true and necessary.  

overcoming political polarization

There is a lot of talk these days about how impossible it seems to have become for the right and the left to work together, but talk is cheap. And actually it is worse than cheap talk. I find most of the talk to be disingenuous because it is usually more about bashing the other side (and thus contributing to the problem) than looking for a real solution. The starting point needs to be a fundamental affirmation of the fact that conservatives and liberals both have important roles to play in the political arena. It is natural for them to be in opposition to each other, but sabotaging the other side crosses a line.

Sabotaging people we disagree with sabotages the whole democratic process. I admit I'm biased and that that affects my perception, but I don't really believe that the blame is equal. What I see is that most liberals believe in government and want it to work, so they generally tend to be more averse to doing anything that would actually have a detrimental effect on the ability of the government to do its job. Many conservatives hate the very idea of government and see sabotaging it as a noble act. (I have to say though that being opposed to a well-functioning government is not an inherently conservative position, but how they have ended up there is a whole other topic.)

Liberals tend to have more faith in the democratic process so are more likely to be willing to work with people they disagree with. Obviously though, there is plenty of blame on both sides. One of the biggest problems is that the political system is inescapably corrupt. The corruption is mitigated to some extent by the ability of journalists to expose blatant corruption and abuses of power (an important role of a free press). The fact of the matter is that getting elected requires money, an enormous amount of money, and a lot of that money comes from people who expect special treatment in exchange. Politicians are human. They like the perks that come with being at the bidding of deep pocket special interests. So even though progressives are supposed to be advocates of public policies that are broadly beneficial, so called progressive politicians are less beholden to ordinary citizens than they are to those who finance their campaigns.

One of the end results is a general sense of futility, an emotional state that is easily exploited by demagogues. Politics thus becomes cultural warfare. Advocacy becomes purely symbolic. Politicians get elected based on hot button issues that are peripheral to doing what it takes to actually govern. The whole process becomes intractably polarized. There is little or no incentive to work together toward real solutions. Everything comes be about bashing the opposition.

The only way out of the morass that I can imagine would entail a grassroots movement of insistent citizens who are committed to bringing honesty and responsibility into the process. That is hard work. It involves swimming upstream. Most people prefer being told comforting lies over hard truths. However, enough of them eventually come around if the facts are made clear to them. Most people want to believe they are doing the right thing, even though they might not know exactly what that would look like. They are not stupid; they just haven't taken the time to really sort things out. The loudest voices are the well-financed shills who are telling them lies that are more appealing than the truth. The truth will win out in the end though if the responsible grown-ups in the room are willing to speak up with loving-kindness and patience. 

raising expecations

Attitude makes a big difference in how things turn out, but actually changing a less than helpful attitude is easier said than done. The difficulty is not that the way to get there is a big secret. We don't see it because we don't want to go where it would take us. The solution involves letting go of some of our most fundamental beliefs because of how they create, perpetuate, and exacerbate a vicious circle wherein the way we seek satisfaction yields bad outcomes which in turn produce disappointment, a soured attitude, and increasingly wrong-headed and dysfunctional approaches.

If we are not getting what we want out of life, we might need to step back and ask ourselves whether what we are pursuing is even capable of providing any actual satisfaction. If our best efforts are thwarted or if accomplishing what we set out to do leaves us feeling unfulfilled, just trying harder is probably not the solution. There is a pretty good chance that there is something fundamentally wrong with our approach. Conventional wisdom is that we just need to lower our expectations, but that is a prescription for even greater disappointment.

The only thing worse than unmet expectations is expecting too little out of life. The problem is not that we expect too much, but is instead that we expect too little. As the famous quote from the movie "Auntie Mame" goes, "Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death". Too often, they are starving simply because they don't show up.

unpleasant truths and comforting lies

Truth claims are often intensely disputed, but that is all the more reason to be vigilant. Some methods for arriving at understandings of the truth are more reliable than others. In fact, some methods are blatantly dishonest, especially those that are tainted by a bias against science and, in general, any evidence that contradicts what they already believe. Scientific consensus is never final, but the very recognition that it is not final actually adds credibility. Truth claims that can't be questioned and tested are highly suspect. It is disingenuous to attack science on the basis that scientists change their minds.

Unfortunately, the sense of certainty that accompanies popular delusions can feel more true than the disconcerting uncertainty that accompanies honest evaluation of actual evidence, and there is nothing more dangerous than a mob of people who are absolutely convinced that they are right and therefore that they need to do whatever it takes to pursue what they believe needs to happen. To a great extent, the problem is in a shortage of critical thinking, but it actually goes deeper than that.

Even smart, highly educated people can get sucked into groupthink, which is collective stupidity that comes about when those who would dispute mainstream beliefs feel pressured to go along or when it just doesn’t even occur to anyone to ask questions. The textbook example of groupthink is the Challenger disaster. The remedy for groupthink is inherently uncomfortable because some of the questions that need to be asked would shake the very foundations of the prevailing value system. Sacred cows become fair game. Since what is being challenged is what seems like the only conceivable truth, the challenge is perceived to be obviously false. We can’t always trust what feels true or what feels like the right thing to do. We need to listen to what our hearts seem to be telling us, but we also need to keep our eyes open.   

being mindful of the big picture

Even when I was working as an ordained minister, I was more interested in the discipline of theological reflection as a way of framing questions than of providing answers. It seemed to me that the primary value in a lot of serious theology (as opposed to ordinary folk theology) was that it provided something other than easy answers. I didn't ignore the extent to which official theological doctrine was about maintaining power over people. I have to admit that I wasn't above using my arcane knowledge of theology to augment the power I had over laity. Nonetheless, I was mainly interested in theology as a body of work that could be mined for helpful resources. It was less about the content than it was about the search itself.

So I don't believe that becoming trained to think theologically was a total waste of time. Being practiced in posing big questions is somewhat rare these days. Almost everybody is a specialist. Few know or even much care about how each specialty fits into the big picture. Theology, prior to the scientific revolution, used to have the role of determining how everything fit together. Today, it is the physicists who are the most serious contenders for the role of probing the biggest questions that can be imagined. They have the most sound knowledge about cosmology. They are the ones who are working on what they call, in all seriousness, "a theory of everything".

I have my doubts about the possibility of formulating a theory of everything, not because of the limitations of human beings, but instead because the ultimate secrets of life are probably not reducible to a single theoretical construct. It seems to me that the attributes that are most helpful in the search for answers to life's deepest and most challenging questions are open-mindedness, honesty, humility, and being prepared for mind-blowing, life-changing surprises. I'm not wanting to go back to the mystification within which theology has traditionally been shrouded; however, I do believe that we would do well to restore mystery to a position of centrality.