What enlarges and sustains our values?

The craziest thing for me to observe as I watch this period of rationalizing control in the name of freedom is asking and answering the question, "What sustains our values?"

And when I say values, I don't just mean our value for freedom or democracy. I mean all of them. I mean our commitment to gender equity, to racial equity, to equity based on income and needs met, I mean our opposition to slavery and our commitment to universal suffrage and one vote for every person. I mean our commitment to intelligence and education. I mean our commitment to a healthy world, a safe world, and world with as clean an environment as possible. I mean our commitment to economic abundance and shared abundance. I mean our commitment to ethnic and religious equity that we can take less for granted as we watched ethnic and religious sectarianism tear apart Iraq. I mean our commitment to openness and transparency, to decency and humanity, to honesty and hope.

Do most people really believe that such values are sustained primarily, if at all, by laws? By rules? By force? By coercion?

Because the plain reality is that if these values were sustained primarily if at all by laws and rules and force and coercion is that none of them could be sustained at all, for long. They couldn't maintain themselves in the face of opposition from a culture that had not internalized those values, by conscience, mind, heart and soul.

Without a commitment to conscience, mind, heart and soul to ground and give real expression to abstract values and their far more blunt and abstract expression in laws and rules, by force and coercion, these values would never find real life. They would always be tucked away in dusty and little consulted codes of conduct, only to be considered when a violation is alleged, which would be often and regular in a society that had not internalized the values they aspire to pass on.

There can be no doubt, really, that it is conscience and not rules that embody our values, since conscience is what distinguishes between good laws and bad so that they can be amended. There would be no need for democracy were values found in laws, because there would be no need for revision since no other authority could trump legal or political authority.

It is not just the inspiration for a free society, it is the function of a free society and our greatest check against tyranny that conscience trumps laws and rules and other political and legal controls.

Would all of those rationalizing force as a central governing philosophy really collude with Nazi-era laws that mandated the reporting of Jews to the German government? Would they really collude with fugitive slave laws of 19th century America? Would they really collude with laws that imprisoned adulterers, homosexuals, sodomizers, imbibers of alcohol, and heretics to the Church?

And the sad answer to that question is that during another era, many of they would and did. Sadly. And the law was excuse and rationalization for all of it. Sadly. So much human tragedy for so little purpose. And all in the name of human or divine law. Sadly.

We have escaped all of that tendency, thankfully, finally finding the present and forever future balance between freedom and control. We should be thankful for our own unflinching wisdom. It would be difficult to find this balance without such foresight.

But the truth is that, in so many ways, we are just like those past generations, thinking that we have found the right path or balance, convinced of our decency and humanity because of how much more brutal and controlling and indecent past generations were, and convinced of our own unchallengeable wisdom that will sustain itself over the generations that we have summoned because we have finally arrived upon the means of promoting good behavior that has eluded past generations, even as it mimics those eras.

Hubris is how the ancient Greeks referred to this mistake of humanity. Arrogance is a good enough common term.

Do we really believe that force could sustain and enlarge all of those values?

Somehow I doubt it. Especially given its clearly poor historical record on the matter.

But we rationalize it anyway because we are afraid to live without it. I do the same, I think. I'm trying to let it go. To learn where more force or aggression is more appropriate. But to avoid it as much as possible.

I'm probably off the mark like everyone else. But presuming against the use of force and aggression, as much as possible and only using them when they are necessary as much as my forever fallible judgment can render, is a good start, I hope.

It is frustrating to me that we would give such cover to our pretense of infallibility, during this period. And it is more frustrating for me to watch people who least deserve that cover taking the most advantage of it.

Hubris, the Greeks wrote. Cynicism, I would add. They generally go hand in hand, is my experience.

I can only hope that we can slowly grow our way out of them.

Love,
Ben

The Age of Infallibility

The American Interest features a really interesting opening reflection in a current book review.

The Age of Infallibility by John Patrick Diggins

From that review:

"Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century (Viking, 2006), 480 pp., $26.95.

Damon Linker, The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege (Doubleday, 2006), 288 pp., $26.

The history of our era seems to move in tragic circles, strangely analogous to those presented symbolically in Greek tragedy. The democratic nations of the world are involving themselves more inexorably in world catastrophe by their very efforts to avert or to avoid it. . . . Why are democratic nations so tragically committed to this dance of death?
—Reinhold Niebuhr
Christianity and Power Politics (1940)

The war in Iraq, tragic though it may be, provides an occasion for some sorely needed philosophical reflection. Such reflection would soon lead us to the realization that in situations leading up to war, action often precedes thought. Sometimes decisions have already been made before debate begins, and in such circumstances the mind does not so much determine events as respond to them; as history unfolds, philosophy invariably arrives too late to be of any use. “The Owl of Minerva takes flight after dusk”, Hegel warned, leaving us in the dark when confronting the rush of events."

Also, Francis Fukuyama's and the American Interest's editorial blog posts an excellent critique by Patricia Murphy of Democratic and Republican efforts to curb ethics violations in Congress while both parties sacrafice democratic engagement to do so.

Is Pelosi Walking a Tightrope Over Sugarcandy Mountain?

And for a cause that may fail to face the realistic likelihood that ethics violations will always be with us (and I would add that ethics violations are often more likely the more taboo and cynicism fuel temptation).

You know the one biggest reason to enjoy working with kids is that the cynicism hasn't quite taken over most people when it comes to kids. We carry it, as we carry it with others. But we haven't quite given into it with young people. We need that attitude to become more generous for all people, not just kids.

But my observation is that the more freedom people get, the more cynical we become about them and their use of that freedom.

And the irony is that it is our freedom, as evidenced by cultures and governments that embrace repression and suppress freedom throughout the world, that is completely responsible for our good will and good deeds.

The same freedom that offers us the opportunity to do bad offers us all the opportunities that we take advantage of, regularly, to do good.

But we take more advantage of that freedom to do good the more freedom we have to do it with.

I find myself growing more cynical, these days, the more my freedom is limited. Which just maintains the cycle of repression and regressive politics and policy.

Is there a way out of this cycle, I hope?

I can certainly understand a more bleak worldview if there is not. But I can't bring myself to resign myself to it.

Love,
Ben

The why of cynicism

You know why I think that adults, including me, (very sadly, since I'm among the more idealistic of my age, I think, and have always thought of myself as a truer idealist than most people of any generation) grow cynical, I think.

Because we all find out that no matter how much we contribute, how much we give everything that we have, no matter how much we try to be the best people and best professionals and give the best that we absolutely have.

That we are all all expendable. That it is never enough. And that the culprits for this situation is all of us, even and especially the good folks who give their all around us.

To our credit, we are better to children than we are to one another. But then we go on to rationalize and make excuses for why our uglier impulses tell us we should be shittier in our treatment of young people (especially young people in trouble, with the law or otherwise) rather than why our treatment of one another should be better.

None of us seem to matter, really, to one another, except when it is too late. We miss each other when we are gone. And treat each other like shit while we're around (and people like Christopher Hitchens and Robert Novak treat people like shit whether they're here or gone, apparently, so sour were their obituaries for a decent man like Gerald Ford; Hitchens lowballs persistently, so we shouldn't expect too much from someone who holds everyone in such low regard and himself in such high regard).

I don't really know how to help humanity out of this rut, anymore, is the truth. We treat each other so awful. And if you're someone who wants people to be more decent to one another, you just open yourself up to people who feel a need to prove to you just how naive you are about how shitty people can be and treating you shitty, just to prove their point).

We make each other and ourselves unhappy. And then we look at the mess we've created and we say, "You see how shitty people are? That's why I'm such an asshole."

I do my best to change that, but I'm limited by people choosing to always make excuses for what dicks they are, all the time.

Jesus was this very decent guy. The world was full of dicks who captured, tortured and crucified him. And that's about how the world treats decent people.

Billy Budd is Herman Melville's update of the Christ story. Billy is a sweet, idealistic young man. Claggart is a dick with a grudge against the world and something to prove to Billy about how naive his sweetness really is. Claggart sends Billy over the edge and Billy kills Claggart with a blow, by accident. The ship hangs Billy, with the dickish impulses of the captain overruling the decent impulses of the ships' officers. And that's about how the world treats decent people.

We are all, generally, decent people. Even when we're being shitheads. Most of us, at least. And the world shits on us. It flunks us. It fires us. It evicts us. It throws us out. It puts us in our place. It tries to prove why the selfish or destructive impulses of some are more clever than the more decent impulses of others. And it tries to prove why the self-righteous impulses of many of us are smarter than the more understanding impulses of others.

And that's about how the world treats decent people.

And so we grow cynical in a world that treats us like shit. Or threatens to. So much that we forget what it was like to be appreciated when we volunteered to do good efforts out of our generosity or on our honor or our sense of doing good in the world.

And that's the why of cynicism, I think.

I've never wanted to give into it. The cynicism. But I do have to say that it sure has a way of making it's point.

I've got to believe there's something better out there. Even as a possibility for how we might be.

But the reality is too goddamn depressing to just accept as the only or best option.

I've got an office to clean up. Have a good weekend.

Love,
Ben

Why I've lost faith in the world

I used to think highly of people and the world. And especially public service.

When I was in high school and college, the world seemed like a bright, decent place to live. I looked for peoples' better natures, and generally saw good in peoples' efforts. And public service seemed like one of the more important ways that you could contribute to others and the public good.

I've not convinced anymore that it matters.

The reason is because I'm fairly convinced, at this point, that people are, as a rule more than as an exception, fairly shitty toward one another. It's perhaps the most important rule of human affairs. And public service is just as full of people who are shitty and is surrounded by people who are as shitty (Christopher Hitchens and David Horowitz come to mind, here) as anywhere else in the world. It involves very little money unless you get a lot of celebrity exposure or powerful connections that you can exploit elsewhere. People are always complaining about it, no matter how well it is done. No leader or civil servant is ever doing enough. Ever. Except by people constantly patting themselves and others in their group or ideology on the back and desparaging the efforts and contributions of other groups and ideologies.

It's full of low-minded, petty people with low-minded, petty priorities as much as any other field, no matter how important the big priorities in respective fields might be.

Noone is ever wrong, ever. In public service or anywhere else in life, really. Which is amazing because there's so much that goes wrong. And yet noone can ever be big enough to acknowledge that it might be their ideas or their way of handling things that are wrong. Wrong is how you describe other people and other groups. People in your group always have it right. Or I do, at least.

And it's everywhere. It's in academia and journalism and writing and teaching and more thinking-oriented careers as much if not more than other fields. Noone can ever admit that they might be wrong, for fear of losing face or looking weak or stupid (which is ironic, because the people in life who have the hardest time with admitting they are wrong are, in fact, people who are the dumbest, the least intelligent; by definition, really, since that's what makes them so dumb).

But the one thing you can count on in public service is that they never think they're wrong, they always want the power to make sure that others don't think they're wrong, either, or at least they do what the fuck their told whether they think they're wrong or not, and that public servants are not, typically, to be bothered with seriously and rigorously questioning their own thinking. Even many academics, sadly, where rigor is most expected and generally maintained. And that definitely includes many of the Ph.D.'s who take up more formal public service like politics, as much as Ph.D's in less formal public service like teaching, writing, and researching.

I don't really trust anyone to make any choices for me, anymore, is the truth, no matter how noble their intentions. And public service is a lot of people making choices for a lot of other people. I appreciate people who make important decisions that have to be made. And I appreciate people making decisions working with me on various projects. And I appreciate that someone has to make the decisions that come with power and public service. But I just don't trust others to make decisions for me, anymore, is the truth. Not just because they do such a bad job of bumbling it, as this war seriously demonstrates. But because noone can ever just take responsibility for their mistakes, including the mistake of treating people so shitty, and acknowledge it because we treat them like such complete and total shit when they do so that most people are afraid to take responsibility, is the truth.

We are a shitty, nasty, mean-spirited, self-centered lot, much of the time, is the truth. Humanity has so much potential that just falls flat, perpetually, because we just can't find it in ourselves to stretch beyond our petty, nasty worldviews and cynicism. And so we perpetually make the world shitty for others, not satisfied in feeling shitty, ourselves. And then, after we get done making it so goddamned shitty, we look at the mess we've created and we say, "See what a fuckin' mess the world is?"

And the whole world just has to shake it's head, "Yes," because it's obvious what a mess we've made of it, even though almost none of us take serious responsibility for the really big messes that we've created.

And we don't take responsibility because we're afraid of being treated like shit for it and we treat people like shit because they don't take responsibility and we don't take responsibility because we don't want to be treated like shit for it and we treat people like shit because they won't take responsibility and on and on and on and on it goes into perpetuity because we can't even imagine that maybe the reason that people don't take more responsibility is because we treat them like such shit.

I hate it. But I don't know what to do about it other than what I do now, which is write and talk and teach about it. And I'm not convinced after having done both for several years, now, that people really want to change all this. Because the solutions just seem so ready-made as long as you avoid this central problem of how shitty we treat one another. A central problem that I have no solution for except the obvious: we need to come to terms with our shittiness towards one another and take responsibility and cut it out and treat people as least shitty as possible when we face difficult problems with one another.

I used to think highly of public service. Politics, teaching, journalism, writing, scholarship, the whole lot.

But lately, all these fields have been giving cover to a notion that people learning to stop thinking for themselves, so much, and just learn to do what the fuck they're told, a notion that I just can't get behind, no matter how much I try. I understand why people want this. I work with kids every day, who never want to listen to a goddamn thing you say, no matter how important, valid, or dead on. I just don't understand why people think it will work or that it somehow promotes more intelligent engagement or solutions or why people seem to think that all the controversy around various solutions will somehow get resolved if you can somehow get your way and just prove to the world what a better place it can be if people would just do what the fuck they were told.

I've lost a lot of faith in the world in the last 5 years, is the truth. And the world, truth be told, has earned every bit of the lost faith.

Love,
Ben

The inescapable fact of free will

Today, I had a really good experience.

I have a degree/certification requirement with my employment that I have to complete to keep my job. I have to finish my Master's Degree in Special Education. It's a long story, but I've had a crazy time with my current program. But if I'm not able to get enrolled this semester, then I may lose my job next year. I think my school and my district would be losing a really terrific teacher. But they would also be losing money the district receives for teachers (it's a fairly arbitrary requirement, but so many of the Federal regulations we face are fairly arbitrary). I'm doing everything I can to get it done. But I've run into a million snags in the process.

And the experience has totally helped me come to terms with choices. Choices amidst uncertainty. My choices, the choices of other people, the uncertainty of where the best choices lie, the uncertainty of even the most intelligent reflection on life.

I've totally come to terms, today, with the fact that no matter how much good and even smart, decent people try to make the best decisions -- individual decisions, decisions that impact an organization like a school, even decisions that impact a country or an international community -- that there is always uncertainty about what the best choices really are.

And coming to terms with that fact helps validate Abraham Maslow's argument that the more freedom people experience, the better choices they make. Not because they make good choices all the time. They can't. That is not possible, because it would involve no experience or understanding of the alternatives.

I've just come to terms with the fact that no matter how much you try to control or limit peoples' freedom or determine their choices, each person's life and all of our lives is ultimately a function of our independent and interdependent choices. There is no escape from that fact of life because it is not artificial human convention. It is a fact of life that is inescapable. And equally inescapable is the fact that noone, ever, no matter how smart, now matter how experienced, no matter how mature, or decent or good or whatever, nooone knows, with certainty, what the best choices look like.

We all believe that we know, at some level. But the truth is that noone knows with certainty, and the smartest people, I think, understand that better and carry more humility, as a consequence, than those who are less familiar with those choices and reflect less on their choices.

It doesn't matter what we know or what experiences we face in life or how good we are. None of that matters. We all make the best choices we know how, period, given our
understanding, knowledge, experiences, reflection, influences, support, etc.

And knowing that makes me much more sympathetic to a uncertain and often confused humanity trying to make choices and not really always knowing what to do.

Good choices and bad choices are an inherent function of our life and learning, as human beings. Our unique capacity is our ability to make them, reflect on them, learn about making them better, and improving our choices based on our capacity for intelligent reflection. Beyond that, we just keep learning until we are not learning anymore.

When I am frustrated with our failures, as individuals and as a community of people, I can reflect on the fact that no matter how foolish or stubborn our choices seem, especially our inability or unwillingness to reflect in the deepest ways on our shared problems, that people are making the best chioces they know how, given, as well, the million rationalizations and excuses that we give and the million pressures, controls, and limitations we experience in making better choices.

I may think that the whole world is embracing a bad idea. The democratic marketplace of ideas is not some magic elixir from which good choices and good ideas always come forward. They are found after so many bad choices being made that finally better choices are stumbled upon. This is what that Israeli diplomat meant when he said that governments make all the wrong decisions until they get to right ones. Because people, not just governments, are not genies or clairvoyants. They are human. Forever subject to the limitations of their understanding, good and bad. And our limitations, our humanity, is a limitation of being human, not a limitation of the concept of freedom and free will. Free will, and all of its pitfalls, including so many mistakes and bad choices and failures, is an inherent and inescapable feature of our humanity and our experience as humans.

I've got bathroom duty to get to. Have a good day, everyone:).

Love,
Ben