finding a middle path and muddling through

I never put Jon Meacham on my list of thought leaders, and this morning I am questioning why I never thought of him this way.  I always respect the modest wisdom and sharp insight of his editorials.  His commentary in the July 30 issue of Time is no different; if anything even more so because it focused on a very challenging subject. 

The explicit topic is the Episcopal Church’s decision to allow each priest and parish to decide for itself whether to bless same sex unions.  He does a great job talking about why this middle path is a brilliant policy for the current political and social environment.  He recommends at the conclusion that the country can use this same approach to deal with some of the complex issues we are facing. 

Before I go further, let me preface with a few thoughts to frame my take on his article and the topic in general.  He is talking specifically about a situation where different people hold different values and have the right to do so.  When the government is dealing with same sex issues, this is not necessarily the case.  Protecting minority rights is one of the most important values of a modern government.  Full disclosure – I am a strong proponent of full equal rights (or rather full government blindness) for same sex versus opposite sex committed relationships.  But for a religious denomination, this is not the case.  And even for government there are some areas where a minority view does not necessarily warrant full protection – take for example an economic or environmental viewpoint. 

So in these cases, Meacham talks about the need for finding a middle path.  He quotes Bagehot’s quote about the British need for an “enduring effort to muddle through” when navigating the too-much-autocracy of a strong king and the too-much-anarchy of a strong Parliament.  In the case of the Episcopal Church, there are many members who belief in the faith and are against the Church blessing same sex unions.  There are also many who are equally strong believers and who are for blessing these unions.  Any absolute edict would alienate a large proportion of members in a church that has shrunk from 3.3 members to 1.9 million members in the past 40 years as it is. 

This kind of solutions works in this case because the passion of religion is mostly local.  If your parish is aligned with your own beliefs, then what the national organization is doing is largely irrelevant.  It would be about the same thing as if your parish broke away and started its own denomination.  Still, there would be this national organization doing something else. 

But this solution wouldn’t work with health care for example because it is a national market.  It is too easy to drive across state lines to visit a hospital.  Or buy an automatic weapon.  These are one-time events rather than every Sunday morning.  But that doesn’t mean we can’t find a middle path solution.

Can the US as a whole learn to compromise?  Do we have policy wonks smart enough to develop the middle path solutions, politicians brave enough to vote for them, and a populace open-minded enough to vote the politicians into office?

Why moderate parties never last

Moderate third parties can never work because they don’t elicit the passion that is needed for donations of time, money, op-eds, social networking salons, etc.  I guess the problem is that there is an inverse relationship between being passionate and being right. 

Although it is sad, there is actually a scientific explanation for that.  Extreme views are extreme because they don’t make tradeoffs.  You take just one dimension, decide which side you want to be on, and then don’t make any adjustments for mediating dimensions like technical feasibility or cost.  Or (perish the thought!) people who are on the other side.  And because you are locked and loaded on a single dimension, it is very easy to explain, talk about, see examples of where it is being followed or not followed, etc.  Simple. 

But as with most things in our complicated work, no important issues are simple.  There are always nuances.  But nuance is harder to explain, talk about, or recognize when you see it.  These views don’t fit on a picket sign.  They don’t make very good 5-word sound bites or slogans.  Proponents can’t follow a prophet into the promised land.

And so here we are.  Failed policies that are too extreme to work. Single-issue politicians who are too one-dimensional and committed to their extreme position to get anything done.  And an electorate that just contributes to the situation. 

Is there a solution?  I would love to see one appear in the comments below!!!  Please – be my middle path messiah.

Passive v active secularism

I heard this in philosophy of religion lecture I was attending (yeah that’s how I spend my free time, how about you?).  I found it really fascinating:

The US does not allow prayer in school.  Why?  It is “passive secularism.”  We don’t want to violate the rights of individuals (kids or their parents) by forcing a religious practice on them.  No matter how small or insignificant it seems.  We are concerned with anything that could make anyone uncomfortable for any reason connected to religion.  Even a moment of silence that could be interpreted as a time designated for prayer.

France does not allow prayer in school.  Why?  It is “active secularism.”  They don’t want to violate the rights of the state by forcing a religious practice on it. They are concerned with people wearing religious items to school (necklace with a cross, Muslim headscarf).  They want to keep the students’ religion away from the school rather than the school’s religion away from the student. 

I am not sure I have any specific words of wisdom regarding this dichotomy.  I just never thought about this before.  And I love learning something new and wanted to share it with you all.

Liberty, selfishness, and "correctives"

In a letter from 1814, Jefferson wrote that our tendencies toward selfishness where liberty and our pursuit of happiness lead us require “correctives which are supplied by education” and by “the moralist, the preacher, and legislator.” 

Thanks Kurt Anderson (at the New York Times) for this great op-ed.  This follows a lot of what I have been saying about motivated reasoning.   It would be really nice if we have the self-awareness to know how our own brains are making decisions, the insight to know what would be best in the long term for ourselves and our communities, and the fortitude to pursue the long term. 

Unfortunately, I don't see any of these happening any time soon, let alone all of them.

Public Policy Debate for the Day

I apologize for not citing where this idea stemmed from, but it was a day or two ago and I can’t for the life of me remember.  If anyone knows, please post it in the comments.

There is so much conflict between different groups (Occupy v Tea Party, GOP v Dem, religious v secular, austerity v stimulus).  Perhaps part of this stems from the fact that we have forgotten the following symmetries:

Wherever you see “free” replace it with “equal.”  And vice versa.

Wherever you see “freedom” replace it with “equality.”  And vice versa.

America was founded on the idea that one leads to the other.  If we create an environment for individual freedom, we should get equality.  And that should be seen as a GOOD thing, not a threat.

Similarly, think of the phrase “the will of the people.” America was also founded on the principle that the will of the people should guide government.  But that doesn’t mean it becomes the exclusive objective for every aspect of civil society.  For example:

“Will” implies the people’s conscious desires and wants.  Sorry, but our brain just doesn’t work in a way that makes this a good thing.  I am not a big fan of government paternalism.  But there is a huge repository of behavioral science research that demonstrates the fallibility of our consciousness to figure out what we want, let alone what we need. 

“The People” implies we all speak with one voice.  We have common motivations and objectives.  Not even close.  So how do we resolve conflicts?  Majority rule? Ultimate libertarianism?  Free market and buyer beware?  We can’t have it all, as much as our politicians pretend we can.

The source that stirred up these thoughts didn’t propose solutions and I am not going to either.  At least not today.  Just some thoughts for the day.

Get Rid of Commuting!!

The interview guest on Living on Earth this weekend made a comment that I think is true on many levels.  He said something to the effect of that the thing we could do that would have the greatest impact on improving the world is to focus urban planning/development to get rid of commuting.  He was talking about creating more work/live/play neighborhoods.  Similar effects could be achieved by enhancing telecommuting.  But think about all of the benefits this would give us:

• Better for the environment by reducing gas used and smog created.
• Save money by using less gas, less maintenance needed on your car, less tax revenue needed for road building and maintenance.
• Save time that used to be spent commuting.
• Reduce stress by eliminating road rage and the other stresses of commuting in traffic.
• Reduce accidents from people trying to be productive by texting, reading, eating, etc on the way to work.

 It seems to me that this would have more of an impact on our lives than world peace, balancing the deficit, and all the other things that take up the news headlines.  The happiness research shows that what really makes us happy are the day to day details.  I suspect that combining all of these day to day benefits would be huge.