In 1962 Thomas Kuhn shown a bright light on the progress of scientific
understanding in his seminal book, The
Structure of Scientific Revolution, as he introduced the phrase “paradigm
shift” to common usage. Basically Kuhn
demonstrated that most scientists spend their careers proving the existing
models of the sciences in which they labor, and that substantive changes in those
models/paradigms come as unwelcome revolutionary moves by outlying individuals.
Those moves frequently draw decades of adverse fire before becoming the new
paradigms.
In the early 1500’s Nicolaus Copernicus argued, as had
others earlier, that our universe was centered on the sun and not on the Earth
as was commonly accepted at the time.
His work was not welcomed by religious leaders and remained relatively
sparsely distributed during his life.
A century later, Galileo Galilei championed heliocentrism
using his astronomical observations as a basis for his thoughts. This promotion of a paradigm contrary to the
implied doctrines of the church was very poorly received. In 1615 a Roman
Inquisition found Galileo’s position "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and
formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of
Holy Scripture.” Galileo spent the last
years of his life in house arrest.
Despite that castigation of the paradigm Galileo was
supporting, it became the prevailing view of the universe at the time, and the
current view of our solar system nearly four centuries later. This model of revolutionary change in the
commonly held view of scientific principles has played out many times.
Those who grew up in the United States, particularly the
older among us, have accepted, with little challenge, some truths about our
country and its culture. We have also seen Kuhnian “paradigm shifts” in some of
those “truths.” Among them, America
changed from a “melting pot” to a “mosaic” in our lifetimes, and many formerly marginalized
groups have been welcomed to seats at the table over our years.
At the same time, we have, with nearly religious conviction,
clung to our beliefs that the United States was nearly unique in the world for
the openness of its political process, and that selection of our leaders
results from a flawless democratic process. We’ve also accepted that our major political candidates
were above legal reproach, were focused on the good of the American people, intended
to use their positions to advance the standing of our country in the world, and
that the Fourth Estate would keep a uniformly keen focus on all in our
government and those seeking to become part of our government to provide
reliable information to an electorate seeking to be informed. These notions were, after all, the core of
school civics courses.
No event in recent history has called those closely held
notions into question in the way the election of 2016 has. The “Fifth Estate,” those who steal and
release presumably private communications, has presented us a knotty ethical
conundrum even as it has shown our sacrosanct political processes to be nasty,
bare-knuckled affairs in which wholly unethical practices are common and the
public personae of the aspiring are contrived roles played by those harboring
many of the same phobic views they routinely chastise the public for
displaying.
The candidates have demonstrated that questionable legal and
ethical pasts are not disqualifying and have made us wonder who they really
intend to serve if elected. The Fourth
Estate has openly completed its transition from objective public watchdog to
politically active entertainment leaving thoughtful Americans little choice but
to disregard its blathering and look elsewhere for reliable information, as the
less thoughtful simply turn to the “news” outlet that promotes ideas and
candidates they already favor.
Perhaps the unwitting Galileo in this colossal demonstration
is Donald Trump. No prominent public
figure in our lifetimes has challenged the most fundamental of our precepts about
selecting leaders in a frontal, sustained attack until Donald Trump walked
onto the American political scene. In
his clumsy, defensive, semi-articulate way, he has raised doubt about the value
of our faith in our electoral processes.
Have these assertions that the primary processes and election
are “rigged” been self-serving sour grapes?
Sure. Are they a way to prepare
for possible defeat and to allow for an angry exit from the electoral
stage? Sure. Are they also harbingers of a paradigm
shift? Maybe.
Of course, there is outrage among front-runners that Trump
would suggest that our system is less than the best in the world and that it
might be rife with cheating, negligence, and manipulation of various sorts. However, attention to the responses of people
not directly challenged by his remarks suggests that, yes, there are flaws in the system that likely deserve our attention. And, yes, those flaws have been evident to,
and used by, members of our political class for some time. Will these flaws play a role in our current
election cycle? Sure. Will they determine the outcome? Who knows?
The big question is, will it take a century for us to make an
honest effort to ensure that our elections reflect the will of the people as
closely as is possible in our current, highly technological world? Or, will the political class protect known
flaws as tools for continued exploitation?
