I feel like Charlie Brown in his quest to kick the football teed by Lucy. Forever she will snatch the ball away as I run to kick it.
The elections that I felt should be an emphatic repudiation of Trump instead are a mild rebuke. It should have been no surprise. Our nation's heinous and racist past is a better predictor of the future than is our idealistically worded Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Behavior always dominates words, so it should have been a foregone conclusion that country's path would continue to disappoint.
Being as I am in the privileged 1%, I personally 'benefit' from the result. Why complain, then? It is because I believe in the myth of the country about liberty and justice for all. I need to detach and allow that just as I vote against my self interest, so do the majority of the population. Insofar as this trend will not affect me personally, why should I care?
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Saturday, November 3, 2018
Science for Improving Society
Science is a term connoting the study of the physical and natural world. Scientists use experiment and observation to test hypotheses and to advance understanding. Engineering and technology use science to build and invent.
I have long believed that the present ills of the world are not based in a deficiency in the application of science. To be sure, many ills are being addressed by science. Insofar as one of our current global crises, climate change, has been accelerated by man-made innovation (harvesting and burning fossil fuel), it is argued that science causes many ills. The list may include all of the innovations of war that kill more efficiently or even have potential to wipe out civilization (think nuclear war).
Other than unintended consequences of science and technology, we think of ethics, religion, and other realms not associated with science as domains for governing interpersonal relationships. These arenas seem important in determining all domains of human activity, including the choices for applying science and technology. It is in this sense that I have agreed with others on the need for attention to domains outside of science.
But now I want to advocate for the importance of science in these areas as well. This is not about applying scientific methods to social ills, as in the fields of psychology, political science, and sociology. This is about the importance of science as a way of thinking.
When we separate science and confine it to the study of the physical and natural world, we demean the fundamental thought that precedes the science. That is, science demands a disinterested and unfailingly logical approach to observation. If more of our activities were more rooted in this disciplined approach, we would become accustomed to questioning causes of ills. We could become more inventive in our politics and become more aware of beneficial and harmful policies.
Perhaps this idea harkens to one of my favorite quotes from Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 15.
Returning to this idea about science and government, our collective state can be seen as a living organism, in a continual state of adaptation. Insofar as dynamics entail social interactions among its members, including unpredictable human passions, scientific method will not produce the kind of truths or knowledge that are obtained in the physical world. Still, the method is useful in keeping collective action attentive to reason and justice.
In a related essay, I will posit that the primary political consideration before all debates in government is defining the sphere of government. We collectively perceive injustices, disparities, and inefficiencies, and the fundamental everlasting debate must always be, which of these are the domain of collective (government) action? When all agree there is a problem, there is a bias in our society that the most efficient path to an answer is private enterprise. That is, a recognized problem can be assigned a certain value, and that value can be addressed with a commercial answer without the need of government, or in some cases, with a modest government subsidy. If the problem is not thus solved, it qualifies as one in need of a government solution. These are to be minimized for many reasons. First, it is a slow mechanism, and the problem will fester and grow while awaiting the government response. Second, it is expensive to establish a government agency to address problems. Third, government agencies are susceptible to perpetuation. Once the problem is addressed, the purpose of the agency should disappear. If we are attentive to the primary political consideration, government agencies could be dismantled as well as created.
I have long believed that the present ills of the world are not based in a deficiency in the application of science. To be sure, many ills are being addressed by science. Insofar as one of our current global crises, climate change, has been accelerated by man-made innovation (harvesting and burning fossil fuel), it is argued that science causes many ills. The list may include all of the innovations of war that kill more efficiently or even have potential to wipe out civilization (think nuclear war).
Other than unintended consequences of science and technology, we think of ethics, religion, and other realms not associated with science as domains for governing interpersonal relationships. These arenas seem important in determining all domains of human activity, including the choices for applying science and technology. It is in this sense that I have agreed with others on the need for attention to domains outside of science.
But now I want to advocate for the importance of science in these areas as well. This is not about applying scientific methods to social ills, as in the fields of psychology, political science, and sociology. This is about the importance of science as a way of thinking.
When we separate science and confine it to the study of the physical and natural world, we demean the fundamental thought that precedes the science. That is, science demands a disinterested and unfailingly logical approach to observation. If more of our activities were more rooted in this disciplined approach, we would become accustomed to questioning causes of ills. We could become more inventive in our politics and become more aware of beneficial and harmful policies.
Perhaps this idea harkens to one of my favorite quotes from Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 15.
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.The implication is that government is the dispassionate opposition to unreasonable and unjust passion. When collective action is needed, policy agreed on all sides is a mandate. When action is in dispute, a compromise can result. Or else, no action is taken. This is the logic of limited government.
Returning to this idea about science and government, our collective state can be seen as a living organism, in a continual state of adaptation. Insofar as dynamics entail social interactions among its members, including unpredictable human passions, scientific method will not produce the kind of truths or knowledge that are obtained in the physical world. Still, the method is useful in keeping collective action attentive to reason and justice.
In a related essay, I will posit that the primary political consideration before all debates in government is defining the sphere of government. We collectively perceive injustices, disparities, and inefficiencies, and the fundamental everlasting debate must always be, which of these are the domain of collective (government) action? When all agree there is a problem, there is a bias in our society that the most efficient path to an answer is private enterprise. That is, a recognized problem can be assigned a certain value, and that value can be addressed with a commercial answer without the need of government, or in some cases, with a modest government subsidy. If the problem is not thus solved, it qualifies as one in need of a government solution. These are to be minimized for many reasons. First, it is a slow mechanism, and the problem will fester and grow while awaiting the government response. Second, it is expensive to establish a government agency to address problems. Third, government agencies are susceptible to perpetuation. Once the problem is addressed, the purpose of the agency should disappear. If we are attentive to the primary political consideration, government agencies could be dismantled as well as created.
Giving Up on Trump Supporters
Having endured the 500+ days of the Trump administration, I am part of a large proportion of voters who wish to see the Midterm elections repudiate him and his agenda. I would be less invested in this wish if the majority party in Congress was less passive. But the Republican leadership has shown nothing but deference to Trump. I assume there are some among them who value the rule of law and who are alarmed at Trump's abuse of power. But as a group, they have enabled him with their silence. They are quite in league with him on some fundamental issues that I believe are detrimental to the nation's welfare, but my largest concern is with the way Republicans seem to have abandoned their duty to check the power of the Executive branch and a duty to govern in consultation with the minority party.
I want elected officials to address Trump's use of our government to enrich himself. I want elected officials to reverse a slate of regressive actions resulting from Trump's election, including reversals of healthcare reform, exits from the Iran-nuclear weapons agreement and the Paris climate accord, and welfare for corporations in the tax reform. I want elected officials to grant a path to citizenship for the "Dreamers" who are US citizens already in all ways except name and had no role in their status in the U.S. in the first place. I want a government that values and respects all of its citizens, irrespective of race, religion, or political affiliation, and a Congress that will vocally oppose opposition to this ideal, especially when coming from the Executive branch. I must wait until 2020 to vote on leadership in the Executive branch, but the Congress needs to assert its function as a check on the excesses and deficiencies of Donald Trump.
I want elected officials to address Trump's use of our government to enrich himself. I want elected officials to reverse a slate of regressive actions resulting from Trump's election, including reversals of healthcare reform, exits from the Iran-nuclear weapons agreement and the Paris climate accord, and welfare for corporations in the tax reform. I want elected officials to grant a path to citizenship for the "Dreamers" who are US citizens already in all ways except name and had no role in their status in the U.S. in the first place. I want a government that values and respects all of its citizens, irrespective of race, religion, or political affiliation, and a Congress that will vocally oppose opposition to this ideal, especially when coming from the Executive branch. I must wait until 2020 to vote on leadership in the Executive branch, but the Congress needs to assert its function as a check on the excesses and deficiencies of Donald Trump.
Adults in the Room and Trump
A recent anonymously written Op-ed piece Anonymous’ vs. Trump: Resistance From Within presents a Whitehouse staff trying to save the country from Donald Trump's worst behavior. I have an experience from my life I offer here as an analogy.
My father was in his early eighties when he had some traffic accidents in a short period of time. The first occurred in a hospital parking lot when he inexplicably drove his car on to the sidewalk, taking out a bench and damaging is front fender in the process. His explanation of the incident was that the rubber pad of the brake came off somehow, and his foot slipped to the accelerator. I inspected the brake pedal and could not believe this story at all. Soon after, the same type of incident occurred, this time at a facility housing my invalid sister. In both cases, no one was hurt. Prior to these 'accidents', my father called to tell me he was lost en route to our house. It was a route he had taken dozens of times, involving two turns. Another time when he was a passenger, he insisted we were on the wrong road to Fullerton. When we persisted and arrived at our destination, he joked, 'They must have moved Fullerton.' We coached him to consider stopping his driving, but he insisted that he has always been a fine driver.
The time came for his driver's license to be renewed, and thankfully, the occasion required a driver's test. The DMV tester failed him on multiple tasks. We were relieved because we were clearly fearful that the next 'accident' could seriously injure or kill someone. In retrospect, we should have made sure that he could not drive by taking away the keys to the car.
I am confident there are people across the country who have faced a nearly identical situation with respect to someone who needs to have the keys to the car taken from them. Insofar as the office of the President affects the lives of millions of people every day and the President's has repeatedly demonstrated that his 'driving' is 'off the rails', it is the responsibility of those closest to him to take away his keys.
My father was in his early eighties when he had some traffic accidents in a short period of time. The first occurred in a hospital parking lot when he inexplicably drove his car on to the sidewalk, taking out a bench and damaging is front fender in the process. His explanation of the incident was that the rubber pad of the brake came off somehow, and his foot slipped to the accelerator. I inspected the brake pedal and could not believe this story at all. Soon after, the same type of incident occurred, this time at a facility housing my invalid sister. In both cases, no one was hurt. Prior to these 'accidents', my father called to tell me he was lost en route to our house. It was a route he had taken dozens of times, involving two turns. Another time when he was a passenger, he insisted we were on the wrong road to Fullerton. When we persisted and arrived at our destination, he joked, 'They must have moved Fullerton.' We coached him to consider stopping his driving, but he insisted that he has always been a fine driver.
The time came for his driver's license to be renewed, and thankfully, the occasion required a driver's test. The DMV tester failed him on multiple tasks. We were relieved because we were clearly fearful that the next 'accident' could seriously injure or kill someone. In retrospect, we should have made sure that he could not drive by taking away the keys to the car.
I am confident there are people across the country who have faced a nearly identical situation with respect to someone who needs to have the keys to the car taken from them. Insofar as the office of the President affects the lives of millions of people every day and the President's has repeatedly demonstrated that his 'driving' is 'off the rails', it is the responsibility of those closest to him to take away his keys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)