As I follow coverage of world issues, these days, it's undeniable to me, anymore, that the source of most of our problems and their lack of real resolution is power and our efforts to manipulate one another.
I don't know what's wrong with humanity, most days. Except that we are too stubborn to ever admit when we might be wrong. Which really is the most foolish pride to have.
It's foolish because most of humanity's progress has come when it has acknowledged that it was wrong on serious issues they faced.
Without mistakes, there is no real progress. Otherwise we remain at a standstill, biding our time until we pass from this mortal coil.
My kids in 2nd hour and I debated the Rennaisance, today, and whether it made humanity better. We all agreed, for obvious reasons. But I took the negative since the kids were nervous to take a position that seemed so obviously wrong.
I argued as the Church argued, at the time. That freedom and free thought undermined the Church's authority. That challenging the Church's authority would make morality and criminality rampant. And that our hedonism and decadence in the West was a consequence of this break from the Church and its teachings. And that all of the developments of the Rennaisance and the Enlightment - in science, in art, in literature, and in reason in all matters of humanity, as well as in other matters - could be used for good or for bad. Science brought us medicine. But it also brought us nuclear weapons. Philosophy brought us John Stuart Mill. But it also brought us Nazism. And that undermining Church authority has led to a downward spiral of corruption and perversion, ever since.
The kids made good counterarguments. They argued that none of the major advances we have made, in science and technology, nevertheless in our humanity, could have been made or were made without the freedom and free thinking of the Renaissance. They argued that advances like the printing press and the mass production of books, including the first mass produced book, the Bible, educated people in ways that improved peoples' understandings and their capacity to improve society. And they argued that people like Hitler had developed their own sorts of religion to justify their ugly deeds, and that it was free peoples, from America and the rest of Europe, who challenged Hitler's ugly ideology and war machine and saved the world and made it free from his tyrrany.
After the debate, I showed them the evidence I had found, while researching, that demonstrated that crime rates, in all likelihood, according to Cambridgeshire Criminal Justice Board research, were higher in Medieval Europe, the period before the Rennaisance, than after or today, while punishments were much more brutal and publicly humiliating.
That evidence, if it is true, is consistent with the vast majority of other evidence I have researched on the subject of criminal justice, that punishment generally has very little effect on aberrant behavior, long term, despite far more brutal punishments that one might imagine would have much larger substantial deterence for would-be criminals in both our own illiberal history and illiberal cultures in contemporary times.
The fact is, I think, that we are either unaware of that debate, that we disagree for various reasons, or, often, that we largely ignore that evidence for the same reason that we have always ignored it. Because it challenges our more fearful and vengeful impulses.
It is fairly plain, really, that our society is a better society than that of Medieval Europe. On every count. Including morality and criminality. And it is fairly plain that liberal societies are better, safer, more prosperous, and more decent societies than their illiberal counterparts, left and right.
We are just too scared to embrace that fact. Because we are afraid that if we do, it will confirm our deepest insecurities about ourselves and about our cultures. That we are weak. And immoral. And indecent. And just waiting to be overrun by our more brutal, illiberal enemies. Same as it ever was.
It is a sad state of affairs. The hollow victory that is the insecurity of liberal democracies that their liberality makes them weak. Rather than, quite clearly, for anyone being objective about the matter, what makes them strong.
There is no mistake why most people, including people from illiberal cultures, would rather live in liberal countries like America, Europe, and the various other liberal nations growing in number around the world.
It is because our liberality makes us stronger.
If only we would have the sense to embrace that fact about ourselves.
And to embrace ourselves, in the process. And all the good and bad we have to offer.
And the freedom to do both that offers us the freedom to do so much more good than our illiberal ancestors or brethren were ever willing to imagine.