Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass: Song of the Open Road, 1856
By Wade Lee Hudson
On the Newshour, commenting on Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech, David Brooks, the Republican, said, “Most people are not looking for moral leadership from politicians anymore. They’re looking like, who’s going to make my life a little better? And so I loved the emphasis on policy last night.” Jonathan Capeheart, the Democrat, replied, “I absolutely agree. I think David is absolutely right. That speech was crammed with all sorts of things that he’s done and things that he wants to do.”
They hit the nail on the head. America’s mantra is “What’s in it for me (WIIFM)?” and America is not alone. This moral deficiency is global. Biden’s speech lacked moral outrage.
Outrage at those House Republicans who have blood on their hands because they have not signed a “discharge petition” to get a vote on more aid to Ukraine. Outrage at widespread homelessness and the lack of capacity for alcohol and drug rehab programs. Outrage at Israel for the carnage in Gaza that is genocide or tantamount to it.
Article II of the Genocide Convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice argued that Israel is committing four of the five acts described in Article II, including deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about a group’s physical destruction in whole or in part. Top Israeli officials have made multiple statements that communicate the intent to annihilate Gaza and its inhabitants.
Many nations in the global South have refused to oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine due to the West’s hypocritical failure to support the Palestinians more forcefully.
One glaring moment of moral blindness in Biden’s speech was his claim, “This crisis began on Oct. 7.” Actually, the crisis began in 1948 when the West established Israel as an independent nation without the consent of the inhabitants — or enabling them to establish their own nation.
Biden said
To the leadership of Israel I say this: Humanitarian assistance cannot be a secondary consideration or a bargaining chip. Protecting and saving innocent lives has to be a priority. As we look to the future, the only real solution to the situation is a two-state solution over time…. Israel most allow more aid into Gaza to ensure humanitarian workers aren’t caught in the crossfire.
Crossfire?? Give me a break!
On Saturday, Biden said Israel’s threatened invasion of Rafah in southern Gaza would be his “red line” but then immediately backtracked, saying there was “no red line [where] I’m going to cut off all weapons,” which is his main leverage.
Biden should go to Jerusalem and address its parliament (as Netanyahu spoke to our Congress) and tell Israelis their actions are a cruel, counterproductive dead-end that violates their ideals. He needs to tell Israel to wake up. Aside from political tactics, we need a profile in courage.
With his speech, Biden fired up his base and demonstrated his vigor, but he abandoned the moral high ground and failed to address Americans’ anxieties and concerns about the country’s direction. As Brooks said, “The American people are in a bad mood…. A lot of suburbanites sense that something’s wrong with the country, maybe spiritually, morally, relationally.”
Most Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and live paycheck to paycheck. They don’t feel it when the Democrats praise abstract numbers like the “GDP” and the stock market. Many prices are still much higher than before the pandemic, so most people aren’t impressed when Democrats say inflation has slowed. Telling people the state of the union is strong and getting stronger when they know better is not persuasive.
The narrow focus on building the middle class so “the poor have a way up” is offensive. How hard is that way up? How many will make it? What about an immediate guaranteed living wage job opportunity? Is being “middle class” the be-all and end-all? Is climbing a ladder the best solution?
The Democrats still believe “it’s the economy, stupid,” although many Americans vote against their economic self-interest and vote based on cultural issues because they care about what’s moral (though their values may be skewed). Ignoring this issue is ethically wrong and ineffective politically in the long run, though it may help win the next election.
During the 2020 Presidential campaign, Biden fought for the “soul of the nation.” He affirmed building “a nation of unity, hope, and optimism” rather than “a nation of anger, violence, hatred and division.” After being sworn in, he told his staff that everyone is
entitled to be treated with decency and dignity. That’s been missing in a big way the last four years. I expect you to do that for all the folks you deal with. I’m not joking when I say this: If you’re ever working with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot. On the spot. No ifs or buts.
His 2024 campaign does not echo this approach.
In doing so, Biden plays fast and loose with the facts, as reported by the Washington Post and USA Today. This inaccurate rhetoric may work tactically, but it undermines his credibility as a moral leader. It leaves the impression he’s just another politician focused on winning the next election.
The Democrats’ main tactic is scapegoating Trump. Biden never once called out the “MAGA Republicans” or appealed to traditional Republicans and independents. However, the MAGA movement preceded Trump and will persist after Trump is gone. Trump is not the main problem.
Hyperpolarization is a natural product of the Top-Down System, which inflames the desire to dominate and the willingness to submit. This system indoctrinates individuals, shapes our culture, and structures our institutions. Each element reinforces and reflects the others. Greed and the lust for power breed more greed and lust.
Absent a strong countervailing force, the Top-Down System will fall into a downward spiral. Building an effective counterforce will require facing reality, but most people prefer distractions. They’re self-centered, not other-centered.
Maybe the grassroots will build a powerful compassionate movement, but to do so, activists must deal with their internalized oppression. We’re part of the problem. Overcoming or controlling our desire to dominate and our willingness to submit for personal gain must be a major element in our strategy if we’re to build compassionate communities.
Contents:
-Valor Academy’s Circles, By Wade Lee Hudson
-Mass Culture and the Creative Artist, By James Baldwin (1959)
-Readers’ Comments
Valor Academy’s Circles, By Wade Lee Hudson
I found “How one school is centering social-emotional learning” to be profoundly inspiring. This PBS “Brief but Spectacular” video documents a Valor Collegiate Academy mutual aid “Circle.” Since 2014, Valor has expanded to more than 30,000 students nationwide. Their success suggests the holistic, egalitarian movement is spreading. Time is short, however. The world may be on a deadly downward spiral.
Daren Dickson, Valor’s Chief Culture Officer, says
Our dream has been to turn circle facilitation over to the kids as they get into high school. We all know that middle schoolers are much more impacted by each other than by adults, so having them lead the practice will be more meaningful.
This 11-minute video captures a Circle led by a Valor student.
Valor encourages students to share what’s going on in their lives and accept support. Their mission is “sharp minds; big hearts.” They aim to create a community of care “to empower our diverse community to live inspired, purposeful lives,…bring our diverse community together, and support each other in identity and relational development.” Valor bases its approach on four pillars: 1) top-tier academics; 2) intentional diversity; 3) built to last; and 4) whole child development….
(read more)
Mass Culture and the Creative Artist: Some Personal Notes
By James Baldwin (1959)
Someone once said to me that the people in general cannot bear very much reality. He meant by this that they prefer fantasy to a truthful re-creation of their experience. The Italians, for example, during the time that De Sica and Rossellini were revitalizing the Italian cinema industry, showed a marked preference for Rita Hayworth vehicles; the world in which she moved across the screen was like a fairy tale, whereas the world De Sica was describing was one with which they were only too familiar. (And it can be suggested perhaps that the Americans who stood in fine for Shoe Shine and Open City were also responding to images which they found exotic, to a reality by which they were not threatened. What passes for the appreciation of serious effort in this country is very often nothing more than an inability to take anything very seriously.)
Now, of course, the people cannot bear very much reality, if by this one means their ability to respond to high intellectual or artistic endeavor. I have never in the least understood why they should be expected to. There is a division of labor in the world — as I see it — and the people have quite enough reality to bear, simply getting
through their lives, raising their children, dealing with the eternal conundrums of birth, taxes, and death. They do not do this with all the wisdom, foresight, or charity one might wish; nevertheless, this is what they are always doing and it is what the writer is always describing….
(read more)
Readers’ Comments
Re: “Friedman on Israel”
Larry Walker
Excellent and timely article. My related observation is that the US is losing its role as world leader in other ways as well.
+++
Re: Introduction
Freddi Fredrickson
Growing a generation of intrinsically minded people.
+++
Re: Interview with “Fluke” author, Brian Klass”
Jed Riffe
After being self employed for over 50 years, experiencing 19 stock market failures, all of which seriously disrupted my small independent print and documentary film businesses, I feel like chaos is the operating mode. I appreciate Wade’s two comments.
Yahya Abdal-Aziz
Thank you for this! I believe he’s hit on something important about modern society. He’s right, there is – by design! – very little slack in our systems, so any little chance event (“fluke”) can tip us into an unstable situation that may deteriorate rapidly and uncontrollably into chaos and disaster.
Yes, we like to think we’re in control of our personal lives, but “a little less hubris” would be a very good thing for most of us. And perhaps we can trace some of the roots of our modern epidemic of anxiety and depression to our inchoate sense of the precariousness of the teetering sand-pile?
Joyce Beattie
I’ve spent the past few days traveling from New Delhi to Dubai and Amman, and I have an urgent message to deliver to President Biden and the Israeli people: I am seeing the increasingly rapid erosion of Israel’s standing among friendly nations — a level of acceptance and legitimacy that was painstakingly built up over decades. And if Biden is not careful, America’s global standing will plummet right along with Israel’s. I don’t think Israelis or the Biden administration fully appreciate the rage that is bubbling up around the world, fueled by social media and TV footage.
Thomas L. Friedman
Circles have been used as structures for meeting communally for thousands of years. Some of the earliest known tribes and native people across all continents used Circles, sometimes called councils, to meet to discuss the most important matters their communities faced. In this sense, Circles are natural to us and are not anything new. In many ways, the Valor Circle is a new spin on an ancient practice.
Valor Collegiate Academies
Reader’s Comments
Re: “The NFL and the Egalitarian Cultural Revolution”
Dan Brook
As a racial side note, when Blacks do what Travis Kelley did to his coach, they are often called hostile and thugs. Likewise when Black rappers sing similar lyrics to Johnny Cash’s lyrics.
Mary Hudson
Amazing how the 49ers changed their “mission” and how it has spread throughout the organization. The NFL’s Inspire Change initiative is very encouraging.
Re: NewsGuard
Roger Marsden
Doesn’t mean so much until we scrutinize their analysis by article. They might have their own biases, which might show up on particular issues. Who scrutinizes the scrutinizer? What was the name of that science “skeptic” guy – he always seemed like a bullshitter. And then there is Snopes – I never put much faith in them. The thing about Ukraine is that the narrative is so firm – difficult for any news source or individual to challenge it. Even firmer than Israel used to be. Ukraine has been pulverized, many dead, billions spent – easy for Americans to say it’s worth it – what about the dead, their families and those communities? Worth it for them? What if we had just consented and compromised on those (Russian-speaking) regions that were the points of contention? And it continues on and on – our media, politicians, and military “leaders” have talked at various phases about how Russia is weakening and Ukraine is doing so much better than expected. Sounds kinda like bullshit. I don’t claim to truly know what the agendas are, but the opinion that says this is about the US wanting to weaken and destabilize Russia seems kinda of plausible – and make billions in profit while they’re doing it.
Putin, Truth, and Scapegoating
By Wade Lee Hudson
Some critics blame the West for the Ukraine War. They say because Putin felt threatened by NATO’s expansion, he understandably invaded Ukraine to defend Russian interests. Moreover, they think Ukraine perhaps should’ve given its Russian-speaking Eastern regions independence. Some say the United States is so imperialistic and hypocritical it has no right to judge Russian imperialism. Others say the situation is too ambiguous to justify arming Ukraine.
However, Putin has long made clear his desire to restore the Russian Empire. In 2021, he published a 5,000-word essay entitled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.” During his recent interview with Tucker Carlson, he falsely claimed that 862 was the year of the “establishment of the Russian state.” He considered the collapse of the Soviet Union a terrible disaster. He worried that a liberal democracy on his doorstep would serve as an example to encourage a popular revolt in Russia.
The neighboring Baltic states, former Soviet satellites, knew this and feared it. Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, his heavy-handed handpicking pro-Russian brutal Ukrainian leaders (which backfired in 2004 and 2014), and his seizure of Crimea in 2014 reinforced their fears. The 2022 invasion of Ukraine confirmed them.
NATO expansion was not a one-way street. The West did not push its way in. The Baltic states assertively sought NATO membership to protect themselves.
A post-World War Two global consensus opposed countries changing borders forcibly. This consensus helped stabilize the world. Reversing Iraq’s seizure of Kuwait strengthened this consensus. A Russian victory in Ukraine would undermine it. This dangerous precedent could open the door to similar wars of aggression that would destabilize the world.
The United States has a rich imperialistic history. After World War Two, it has tried to dominate other countries with “soft imperialism.” Its motives aren’t pure, but the U.S. hasn’t expanded its borders with military force. The West supported the pro-democracy Ukrainian revolt, but it didn’t lead it (as Putin tried to do). Russian militarism is a whole other ballgame. Drawing a moral equivalence between Russian and American imperialism doesn’t hold up.
The West shares responsibility for the Ukraine War. It could have done more to stop it. Nevertheless, the West must try to hold Putin accountable for his crimes by arming Ukraine.
+++++
You can hold immoral criminals, autocrats, and bureaucrats accountable without dehumanizing them, or condemning them as less than human. You can avoid scapegoating, or putting total blame on them. It’s important to avoid demonizing Putin.
Putin, Netanyahu, and Trump are symptoms of systemic problems. As such, they’re replaceable. Remove them, and others take their place. They’re not the most serious problem. The primary problem is the System.
The self-perpetuating System encourages everyone to climb social ladders and look down on those below, try to dominate them, exploit them as much as possible, and submit to those above. As Fluke author Brian Klaas said, “This sort of system…operates with optimization and efficiency as its main priorities.”
The drive to optimize, enhance efficiency, and maximize profits is relentless. Gaining more wealth, power, and status becomes a self-centered end rather than a means to higher goals. The System teaches people to be selfish, and selfishness breeds more selfishness. Controlling this excessive self-seeking aggrandizement is imperative.
+++++
Some critics claim it’s impossible to know anything with certainty. Some refrain from making any moral judgment. These arguments are irrational and reprehensible.
Unfortunately, the Internet has spawned a powerful way to undermine truth: trolling. As Jonathan Rausch wrote in 2018,
Unlike ordinary lies and propaganda, which try to make you believe something, disinformation tries to make you disbelieve everything. It scatters so much bad information, and casts so many aspersions on so many sources of information, that people throw up their hands and say, “They’re all a pack of liars.”…
The decentralized, swarm-based version of disinformation that has come to be known as trolling. Trolls attack real news; they attack the sources of real news; they disseminate fake news; and they create artificial copies of themselves to disseminate even more fake news. By unleashing great quantities of lies and half-truths, and then piling on and swarming, they achieve hive-mind coordination. Because trolling need not bother with persuasion or anything more than very superficial plausibility, it can concern itself with being addictively outrageous. Epistemically, it is anarchistic, giving no valence to truth at all; like a virus, all it cares about is replicating and spreading….
All it can do is spread confusion and demolish trust…. Some trolls find it amusing to give offense (what they call “triggering”); some style themselves protesters against political correctness; and some love the thrill of vandalism and defiance. But there are other, less nihilistic reasons….
By insisting that all the fact checkers and hypothesis testers out there are phonies, trolls discredit the very possibility of a socially validated reality and open the door to tribal knowledge, personal knowledge, partisan knowledge, and other manifestations of epistemic anarchy….
Trolls…mock truth, sling mud, trash credentials, ridicule testing, and all the rest. Instinctively, the champions of the constitution of knowledge defend their values—but when they do, they “feed the troll”….
In 2013, …@backupwraith tweeted, “i firmly believe that @realDonaldTrump is the most superior troll on the whole of twitter.” Whereupon @realDonaldTrump took the trouble to tweet back: “A great compliment!” We can’t say he didn’t warn us….
What we could not foresee was a perfect storm of technological, economic, and political changes, all working to the disadvantage of the constitution of knowledge…. First, social media created a distribution platform for disinformation…. Second, software learned to hack our brains. Sophisticated algorithms and granular data allowed messages and images to be minutely tuned and targeted…. Third, the clickbait economy created a business model. Disinformation went from vandalistic to profitable…. Because accurate reportage is orders of magnitude more expensive to produce than disinformation, the economic advantage of real news vaporized…. Politicians and nation-states weaponized trolling….
The promotion of “alternative facts” by Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway, during a Meet the Press interview on January 22, 2017, was an official endorsement of trolling. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer had claimed the crowd at Trump’s inauguration was “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration.” When Chuck Todd challenged this falsehood, Conway defended Spicer by saying she was offering alternative facts.
The same year, key Trump adviser Steve Bannon said, “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit.” Russia’s ongoing avalanche of disinformation weakens confidence in the ability to know the truth.
+++++
Human beings engage in right action based on the best available information about what’s true and false and what’s right and wrong. They have no choice. Inaction is action.
Knowing the truth often isn’t easy, and some conclusions are less certain than others. Fortunately, the Enlightenment led to methods that help humans make these decisions.
One such tool is “the wisdom of crowds.” Wikipedia says, “The wisdom of the crowd is the collective opinion of a diverse independent group of individuals rather than that of a single expert.” The classic example involves hundreds of people guessing the number of gumballs in a large jar. The average of the guesses has a better chance of being more accurate than any one guess.
Another example is a trial by a jury of peers. Deliberative democracy experiments have demonstrated that randomly selected individuals can make solid recommendations about public policy after they’re given some basic facts at the outset. The Irish General Assembly has enabled randomly selected citizens to make impactful recommendations for changes in public policy. Electing representatives, referendums and initiatives are examples of relying on collective wisdom. These methods aren’t totally reliable, but they’re better than the alternatives.
Wikipedia is a collaborative reliable source of factual information. Google’s very useful ranking of sources relies heavily on how many sites link to a page. Yelp, Rotten Tomatoes, Quora, Internet Movie Database, and others aggregate many user evaluations, which most people find valuable. These methods rely on the wisdom of crowds. Ironically, artificial intelligence, infamous for generating false content, can help define truth.
The crowd can be wrong, but most people find these collaborations to be a reliable starting point before making their final decisions.
These methods flow from the Enlightenment and its ways of forming (tentative) consensus concerning what is true — including the scientific method and its controlled, double-blind experiments that independent experiments must replicate.
In “The Constitution of Knowledge,” Jonathan Rausch asks, “Who can be trusted to resolve questions about objective truth?” He responds
The best answer turns out to be no one in particular…. After the invention of the printing press…experimenters and philosophers…removed reality-making from the authoritarian control of priests and princes and placed it in the hands of a decentralized, globe-spanning community of critical testers who hunt for each other’s errors…. The network’s norms and institutions assembled themselves into a system of rules for identifying truth: a constitution of knowledge.
Though nowhere encoded in law [like nations’ constitutions], the constitution of knowledge has its own equivalents of checks and balances (peer review and replication), separation of powers (specialization), governing institutions (scientific societies and professional bodies), voting (citations and confirmations), and civic virtues (submit your beliefs for checking if you want to be taken seriously)….
One rule is that any hypothesis can be floated. That’s free speech. But another rule is that a hypothesis can join reality only insofar as it persuades people after withstanding vigorous questioning and criticism. That’s social testing. Only those propositions that are broadly agreed to have withstood testing over time qualify as knowledge, and even they stand only unless and until debunked….
In 2017, CNN fired three senior journalists for getting a story wrong,… CNN showed that, unlike Trump, it adheres to standards of verification [as do other mainstream media organizations]….
The results have been spectacular, in three ways above all. First, by organizing millions of minds to tackle billions of problems, the epistemic constitution disseminates knowledge at a staggering rate…. Second, by insisting on validating truths through a decentralized, non-coercive process that forces us to convince each other with evidence and argument, it ends the practice of killing ideas by killing their proponents (with) a marketplace of persuasion, because the only way to establish knowledge is to convince others you are right. Third, by placing reality under the control of no one in particular, it dethrones intellectual authoritarianism and commits liberal society foundationally to intellectual pluralism and freedom of thought.
Rausch argues
The troll army will encounter a disadvantage. Trolls have swarms, but the constitution of knowledge has institutions…. Creating knowledge is inherently a professionalized and structured affair…. (It) requires time, money, skill, expertise, and intricate social interaction…. But at the core of the constitution of knowledge, by its very nature, are professional networks.
The distinguishing characteristic of journalism is professional editing…. The distinguishing characteristic of academic research is professional review…. Modern jurisprudence, policy development, and intelligence collection would be unthinkable without institutions like the courts, law schools, and think tanks, as well as agencies like the Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Central Intelligence Agency, and many others—all staffed and run by elaborately trained people who exchange detailed knowledge across specialized channels, using protocols developed over decades and centuries. To be an accomplished scholar or journalist requires years of training and acculturation, which only institutions can provide….
Troll networks are acephalous [without a head], which makes them self-organizing and persistent…. They cannot approach the institutional depth of the communities built up around the constitution of knowledge, nor do they try. Instead, they relentlessly attack the institutions at the heart of those communities, hoping to make the public see professional academics and journalists as scammers peddling biased personal opinions….
How much damage the troll attack inflicts depends on a lot of things, but it depends most on how successfully the institutions rally to improve their performance and defend their values…. Trump’s attacks on the press seem to have strengthened its resolve and its popularity…. The courts and law enforcement have also responded resolutely, even bravely…. Whether Facebook and Google can get a handle on the problem remains to be seen….
On Quora, members post questions and rank the answers. A recent question was, “Where can one find real news, not opinionated news, just the facts on what is going on in the world? Does such a news service exist?” The highest-rated answer is:
Yes, they do. They are called wire services. I would start with the Associated Press and the Reuters News Agency. Wire services operate under a different set of rules than the newspapers, cable news and websites you visit. They have much stricter rules about what they send out. The AP is owned and operated by news outlets around the country who pay a fee for the service. The AP and Reuters, therefore, have no pressure to sell news, they have pressure to get it right. If they make mistakes, they lose customers. Go to your favorite websites and see how many stories come from the AP and Reuters. I talk much more about these issues in my book Broken News: Journalism in Crisis.
In March 2018, media entrepreneur and award-winning journalist Steven Brill co-founded NewsGuard, which fights fake news by providing reliability ratings for over 7,500 U.S. websites as well as specific Google search results. Their 60 editors, powered by multiple AI tools, post ratings that help online readers distinguish between legitimate news sources and those allegedly designed to spread misinformation.
NewsGuard-approved sites include The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Democracy Now, and BuzzFeed. Sites they label unreliable include Fox News, InfoWars, Sputnik, RT, and WikiLeaks.
The Guardian and many other sites have reported favorably on NewsGuard, whose 27 investors play no role in the determination of ratings. NewsGuard makes money by licensing access to its database of independent ratings to companies, educational organizations, hospital systems, and other entities, including Microsoft. Individuals can pay $2.95 per month to get the ratings.
Oren Etzioni, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington where he helped to pioneer meta-search, online comparison shopping, machine reading, and open information extraction, is the founder of TrueMedia.org, another promising use of AI to fight political deepfakes.
Experts and mainstream news organizations don’t always get it right. Their main problem is what they is what they don’t cover; biases influence these decisions. They could do more to examine important neglected issues. Nevertheless, projects like NewsGuard and the wire services can help users decide where to start. Broad collaboration and honest debate can help get a handle on the truth.
Arrogance, however, is a significant barrier. Ego gets in the way. The temptation to seek and hold “the Secret” is enormous. Going against the grain and challenging conventional assumptions is often valid, but ego-driven stubbornness is a real danger.
With today’s disinformation and misinformation overload, finding reliable sources of reasonably accurate information is essential for helping to determine a moral course of action.
February 14
Seeing Addiction Clearly
Americans fundamentally believe that people who suffer from addiction are morally flawed, and somehow don’t deserve all the help that we can give them.
Reader’s Comments on “New Homepage and Preface”
Larry Walker
All the Best for Your New Website Approach
I read your piece in Wade’s Wire describing your new approach. It sounds promising to me, so all the best as you go down this path. Cheers
Wade: Good to hear. Thanks much for the feedback.
Freddi Fredrickson
I just read your “Wire” and Preface which I enjoyed. It is hard trying to get people to organize for a better society. I don’t know if it ever will happen as a large movement. I guess I think that the goal will be for more and more people who care about others to infuse their ideas in smaller groups, and then have this spread.
I wanted to tell you I bought the new book by David Brooks on how to really get to know people. I saw him on a couple of shows and thought he reminded me of what you have said about people knowing other people. I’ll let you know if I think it’s useful. Take care and many hugs, Freddi
Wade: Yes, I believe small groups can help educate and inspire each other to be more proactive. My hope is that somehow someday these groups, and issue-oriented organizations, will unite and accomplish more together than they can alone…. I look forward to hearing what you think about Brooks’ book, including points that resonate with you most strongly.
Mary Hudson
Great job! Would this picture work as a replacement for the Cultural picture?
Wade: I think it works well. What do you think? Thanks.
I think it looks great! I’ll look for a replacement for the “Political” picture.
Wade: Sure.
Yahya Abdal-Aziz
I appreciate the countless hours you have put into thinking and writing about how to achieve “a global society that’s fair and kind,” which is exactly what I’d love to see on the global scale, mirrored at every scale in communities both large and small, physical and virtual, that are also both kind and just.
We may have different perspectives on how to get there. You talk of unity, and I hear a faint whisper of conformity. Because, as we all know, people can be coerced into following an easier path when loaded words make them feel guilty for wanting to go their own way. Still, I trust, that you’re really talking about “unity in diversity”. I value diversity much more than I do unity. So, it appears, does nature, as countless varieties of organisms evolve into ever-new and unexpected forms.
We all have overlapping circles of family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues, and other practical relationships, such as business, medical, official, political, etc. Every one of us is a member of at least two distinctly different kinds of community, and it would be impractical to combine or unite these communities in any meaningful way. However, all these communities do intersect, and we, individual persons, are the points of intersection.
I remember the fun I had at my 21st birthday party, introducing dozens of people from very different circles to each other, and enjoying observing their interactions. The musicians, the chess players, the linguists, the mathematicians and scientists, the literary people, the politicians, and family members all received a present at my party: a chance to meet and converse with people they’d never normally bump into. Some received their gifts gratefully and gracefully; others were bemused. To this day, I still enjoy a smorgasbord better than a three-course set dinner!
Let’s compare the two formats: online encyclopedia vs. book. The second offers us a set menu of courses. The first offers us endless, web-like hyperlinks. Very much as envisioned by Vannevar Bush, in his prophetic article “As we may think”, the source document for the notion of hyper-text and a direct inspiration for Wikipedia.
Guests circulating at my party weren’t tied to their previous decisions; they could sample a little here, nibble a little there; and feast on what they found to their taste and abilities. I guess you can sense which way this analogy is heading, right?
Yes, I do prefer the collaboratively-edited, somewhat amorphous, potentially chaotic, and patchy structure of the encyclopedia, to that of the carefully curated, architecturally-designed, and professionally-constructed book.
Not that I don’t appreciate the design and construction skills behind the book format! But it does throw too much responsibility on its architect, to see the project through to a usable state. Whereas the other approach lets everybody muck in. So what if somebody gets it wrong? Others can jump in to fix any problems that arise.
How many readers of Wikipedia know the name Jimmy Webb? How many of its editors do? But does it matter? No. Wikipedia wasn’t built by Jimmy Webb; an impossible undertaking for one person. It was started by him, for which I’m extremely grateful. And his effort deserves to be recognized as the great game-changer it is. Yet the value of what he started has been amplified many thousand-fold, by his slipping the reins and letting the horse follow its head. (Mixed metaphors, perhaps!)
So, I hope that I’ve left you something to chew on. (As if you were the horse!) It may be nutritious oats; it may only be chaff; taste it and see. Regards.
Wade: I, too, prefer collaboration.
+++++
Does “the System” exist?
References to “the system” are common in advertising, political commentary, popular culture, and elsewhere, but few people define what they mean by the phrase.
Wikipedia says, “A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole.”
This description leaves open the question of whether any one element controls or dominates a particular system. Concerning human societies, for instance, who rules? Who’s to blame?
In its “Jungles” episode, Our Planet declares “No one species can ever dominate, protecting the jungle’s incredible diversity.”
But don’t humans dominate nature? The Oxford Dictionary defines the “Anthropocene” as the geological age. “during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.” Dominant means “ruling or controlling.”
However, “The irony of the Anthropocene: People dominate a planet beyond our control,” argues, “It appears that nature…may have some tricks up its sleeve. Despite humans’ pervasive influence on the planet, our actual control over natural systems remains limited.”
In “The Limits to Human Domination of Nature,” Steve Cohen writes,
There is little question that human activities have damaged and sometimes dominated nature. But dominating nature is proving to be a little more difficult than some might have thought. The forces of natural environmental systems have proven to be more than current technologies can handle…. What is missing from our economic system and its technological base is humility and reverence for a universe that may, well, in some measure, always be beyond scientific understanding.
National Geographic likewise takes a more qualified position. It states, “The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems (emphasis added).”
Whether human society functions as a system is another question. In its introduction to sociology, Lumen reports:
Functionalists view society as a system in which all parts work — or function — together to create society as a whole. In this way, societies need culture to exist. Cultural norms function to support the fluid operation and continued stability of society, and cultural values guide people in making choices.
As summarized by Graham Scammbler, Talcott Parsons and other sociologists have seen society as a system composed of interconnected parts, where each part has a specific function that contributes to society’s overall functioning. Specialized institutions that perform specific functions help maintain social stability. Society socializes individuals to internalize norms and values, which guide their behavior, constrain their freedom, and reinforce social order.
If successful, this socialization results in norms and values becoming internalized by individuals. When people pursue their own interests, they also serve the needs of society as a whole. Unity with diversity sustains stability over time. Otherwise, societies fall apart.
Whether one element controls or dominates is a related question. In the February 5, 2020, Ezra Klein Show podcast about Klein’s book, Why We’re Polarized, Jill Lepore comments, “In some big structural way in the book there’s a quite notable absence of villains,” and asks Klein, “Why no villains?” He replies:
I’m trying to tell you how a machine works. I’m just trying to tell you what happens to almost everybody in it… I wanted to call some players and institutions villains, (but) I had trouble figuring out a chain of causality… Every time I tried to trace [blame] down to the place where I could prove it, I would fail… I have trouble assigning the causality or even figuring out where it begins. All these things seem to be in a dynamic relationship with each other. It’s hard to figure out how if you replaced a player or even the institution how different of a result you would get… The thing I’m trying to build an idea of is a machine with different pieces all working together.
In the Introduction to his book, Klein talks about “the system” and writes, “We collapse systemic problems into personalized narratives.”
Commentators most often merely refer to “systems” that are not integrated into a single social system. I’ve concluded, however, that our society weaves together all sectors — social, cultural, personal, economic, environmental, and political — into a single self-perpetuating social system — the Top-Down System.
The next question is what is the Top-Down System’s function? As I see it, its driving force is programming people to selfishly climb social ladders, look down on those below, and try to dominate and exploit them — and submit to those above. Our institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals are woven together into this social system. As individuals, we reinforce it with our daily actions.
Whether you call it hyper-meritocracy, rankism, elitism, technocracy, or some other label, this Top-Down System assumes that a select few with superior abilities should rule society.
Domination and submission can be justified as a means to a higher end, but when they become the goal, the be-all and end-all, structural reforms are needed to establish a Bottom-Up System that holds leaders accountable to those they serve.
Bob Anschuetz, a former college English teacher, told me:
I think all references to “the system,” whether within or without quotes, should be changed to “the System.” That’s because you use the word in a special sense, as developed in your booklet. You need to distinguish that special sense for the reader by, in effect, representing it as a “proper name” — which in turn requires an initial capital letter…. This still represents my opinion on the use of an upper-case “S” in “the System.”
Proper nouns are capitalized words for a particular person, place, organization, or thing. The Top-Down System is a specific thing.
How to reform it into a Bottom-Up System is a challenge. This website suggests methods for how to move in this direction and grow our society into a compassionate community.
Whether this systemic focus is the wisest path is uncertain, but it’s the best I can do so far. Suggested course corrections are welcome.
With apologies to FromWade subscribers for cross-posting.
I’ve reframed the website as a constantly updated digital book rather than an online encyclopedia. The homepage now features the book’s working title, Systemic Reform, and I’ve changed the “Resources” drop-down menu heading to “Content.” This menu now begins with “Preface” and “Introduction,” followed by the chapter titles.
The “Learn More” links under the chapter images on the homepage continue to summarize the chapters, but soon the drop-down links will lead to more extensive content with essays with links to the Knowledge Base, which will serve as endnotes. The Index will continue to link to the Knowledge Base resources.
Though many people have made valuable contributions to this project, which I appreciate, my efforts to recruit a co-editor or co-authors have failed. Likewise, my discussions with potential partner organizations have not panned out.
So I’m accepting that I’m the editor and lead content author. This approach requires more solitude, so I’m learning how better to be alone and refrain from so frequently asking for feedback.
Rather, I’ll digest the research I’ve conducted and the input I’ve received so far, present my conclusions to the best of my ability, and trust that they’re sensible, unique, and important. Perhaps someday they’ll ring more bells and garner more engagement.
In the meantime, I’ll proceed as if thousands of people read my work, my Daily Reflections and What’s New with great interest, subscribe to the monthly Mutual Empowerment newsletter and the daily Wade’s Wire, and take action to advance a systemic reform movement.
Soon, drawing on three recent generous donations, I’ll hire a part-time administrative assistant to help clean up the Knowledge Base. The latest draft of the job description is here.
My cancer doctor told me, “You beat the odds. Your cancer will not kill you.” I’ve almost recovered from the injuries I suffered from a recent fall, and soon, my apartment should be completely free of bedbugs. These difficulties have hampered my productivity, but with the excitement of a New Year, I look forward to being bug- and bruise-free and getting into a better groove.
Regardless, I appreciate your interest.
For 60 years, I helped organize egalitarian communities whose members supported each other in becoming better persons and more effective activists. Now I sum up what I’ve learned.
Though my methods have changed, more than anything, I’ve wanted a global society that’s fair and kind. This site explores how to move in this direction.
Within institutions and informally, countless individuals and organizations empower the powerless, control the powerful, live in harmony with Mother Nature, promote fairness, relieve suffering, and cultivate positive cultural change.
Unfortunately, however, this compassionate humanity community is fragmented. Its members don’t see how their efforts are interconnected. They fail to unite, address root causes, and support each other.
My goal is to help unify this community and thoroughly and fundamentally reform our society into a compassionate community.
Utopia is impossible, but we can make steady progress. We can make incremental improvements while at the same time building support for deep change.
A good first step is to face and name our primary problem: the System. The roots of our fragmentation lie in the larger social system. Society encourages everyone to climb social ladders and look down on, dominate, and exploit those below — and submit to those above — for personal gain.
Our institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals are woven together into a hyper-meritocracy rooted in rugged individualism and winner-take-all competition. The System rewards division with financial incentives, and we reinforce the System with our daily actions. Wealth, power, and status become ends, rather than means to a higher goal.
This hyper-competitive individualism breeds bitter power struggles that undermine solidarity. We must establish new, more compassionate social structures — and reform existing ones — as well as work within them to make incremental gains and nurture individual and collective empowerment.
The inflated quest for upward mobility afflicts almost everyone if not all. Unfortunately, however, few people who engage in compassionate action focus on overcoming these weaknesses. I know of no organization that sets aside time for its members to support each other with unlearning the desire to dominate and the willingness to submit for personal gain.
Twelve-step support groups and many other projects have demonstrated that peer support can help people reach personal goals and thrive more fully. Social service and political activists can learn from these efforts. This website explores how we might do so.
In recent decades, to explore how we activists might be more effective, I’ve conducted strategy workshops, engaged in extensive research, shared drafts of proposals, interviewed individuals, circulated online surveys, and experimented with specific methods to help bring about fundamental and comprehensive reform.
Self-development can serve a greater end. We can care for ourselves so we can better care for others. We can find a balance between being selfish and sacrificing too much. We can build strong communities and strong individuals. We can find solutions where everyone wins. We can prevent suffering by correcting root causes.
Ego, arrogance, the desire to dominate, and the willingness to submit get in the way. Bitter power struggles divide organizations. People assume leaders are those who can get followers to do what they want, which undermines mutual empowerment.
I’ve had this problem and still do. I know it’s better to work with others to solve problems, but I’ve struggled to live up to this ideal, I’ve formed strong opinions about the right action plan and recruited people to support it. I’ve been too focused on proving myself and gaining recognition and become too vulnerable to hostility, criticism, and disappointment. I’m not alone.
This website promotes holistic and systemic change. It’s holistic because it involves the whole person and the whole society. It’s systemic because it proposes that we adopt a new primary purpose for our society and establish new ways of organizing our activities (structures) to serve that purpose — while preserving healthy traditions.
The proposals presented here aren’t a blueprint. The focus is on articulating a worldview that might serve as a foundation for lasting unity. Specific policy proposals that flow from this worldview are presented for the sake of discussion to clarify possibilities. Many people have helped with this project, but I assume responsibility for the final edits.
I know my current audience is small. These big questions are hard and I may be wrong on major points. Nevertheless, the response I’ve received so far has been largely supportive and I still believe that what I’m saying is unique and important.
So I hope that someday, thousands will be engaged with this project and I work AS IF they were. Regardless, many people are on similar wavelengths, and eventually, we may grow in number and come together to change the world.
I invite you, dear reader, to share your thoughts, experiences, and suggested resources to help improve this effort.
—Wade Lee Hudson
1/23/24
By Thomas B Edsall
…Perhaps the most trenchant comment I received was from Theda Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology at Harvard, who replied to my inquiry at the height of the controversy over the former Harvard president Claudine Gay:
I have thought for some time that America was suffering multiple elite-driven institutional breakdowns across the board, opening the door to a national and global maelstrom. But now I find myself so overwhelmingly distressed by it all, including the collapse of core values at my own university (Harvard), that I cannot write coherently about it.
