The Election of 2016 and Paradigm Shifts

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?

The Election of 2016 and Paradigm Shifts

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 systemic 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?

No One for President 2016

-->

This year’s presidential election cycle has drawn into clear focus the irrationality of our collective political decision-making.  With no admirable candidates running for the most important office in the world, otherwise bright, thoughtful people have been forced to retreat to party affiliations or unimportant candidate attributes to decide who to support in this race.

While “The Donald” has trouble with anything beyond bald, fifth-grade level assertions laced with fantasy in his extemporaneous speeches, Hillary carefully parses her phrases to stave off the indictment she so richly deserves for FBI confirmed misuse of our country’s secrets and continuous recounting of her fantastic beliefs about how those secrets were handled.  Where on Earth does one find inspiration or comfort in Donald’s assurances that everything will be "huge" or "great" or Hillary’s abject denial of mistakes she made that everyone has watched.

We don’t.  We retreat to other decision-making practices.  Many of us base our voting decisions on our perceptions of the parties these candidates represent. That these perceptions are likely as flawed as the candidates themselves makes little difference; we do it, anyway. 

These strongly held perceptions are referred to as memes by many scientists and philosophers these days.  These memes often take on the controlling force formerly reserved for the most controlling of ideas, religion. There’s quite a lively debate afoot in the philosophical world about whether or not we have free will if we are encumbered by strong memes that influence, outside our recognition, what we want to want. While organized religion has historically had the best meme generating machinery, memes of all sorts have enjoyed increased amplification with the growth of mass media and social media. Ideas pass at light speed looking for fertile minds to populate.  Once those ideas take root, we identify (note the memetic use of that word) as Progressives or Libertarians or Evangelicals or feminists or Catholics or Jews or, or, or. 

This identification makes candidate selection a much easier matter than weighing the attributes and flaws of individual candidates.  We’ve watched as the Republican Party has worked at forcing the “Republican meme” to garner support for its nominee among candidates who might have freely chosen a different candidate or no vote at all.  We’ve watched as Hillary has reinforced the “first female President meme” in an effort to capture more of the female vote than she might otherwise get.

If we are to make an attempt at choosing rationally between two demonstrably unworthy candidates during this election cycle, I guess the best we can do is try to imagine which of the prevaricators says he/she intends to lead the country in a direction we favor, and then hope the substance of that articulated intention actually drives the candidate’s behavior…not the self-aggrandizement or enrichment that seem to be significant drivers for both candidates today.

"What Difference Would it Make?"

“What difference would it make?”

Yesterday, I listened to a speech delivered by President Obama in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre.  As we have come to expect, it was a well-delivered speech including an argumentative section during which the President exhibited an uncommon level of emotion.

After appropriate remarks of sorrow and condolence over the unconscionable mass shooting at a gay club in Orlando the President turned his focus unexpectedly to the presidential campaign.  Specifically, he chose this occasion to address the persistent insistence of some that the President call the perpetrators of these unimaginable attacks “radical Islamic terrorists.” 

The President’s ire became increasingly evident as he asked repeatedly, “What difference would it make if my administration called the perpetrators radical Islamic terrorists?” After each rhetorical use of the question, he wondered if it would make a difference in the numbers of sortees that have been flown against the terrorists, or the number of terrorist leaders who’ve been killed, or the number of our troops who have given their lives in this war on terror, and so on.

He repeated earlier explanations of his choice of terms that are free of religious reference by generally asserting that use of the term Islam in the phrase some would prefer…radical Islamic terrorists…would cast aspersions on the world’s entire, enormous Muslim population to the delight of the terrorists.

At the end of the speech, I again admired the President’s ability to deliver remarks clearly and forcefully, but I was left with only two possible conclusions about the real answer to his question, “What difference would it make if my administration called the perpetrators radical Islamic terrorists?”  Either he didn’t know the most important answer to his own question, or he didn’t think his audience was sufficiently astute to go beyond his assertions to find the more important answer.

We have been busy for some time killing the agents of the real enemy that is challenging the western way of life.  The enemy is a radical ideology derived from the Islamic faith.  While it is likely that derivation is perverse, it has occurred, and it is the worldview that is leading terrorists to horrific acts of violence against hundreds of innocent people.  It is the ideology that is the real enemy, and while we can kill the agents of that ideology with armament, it is unlikely we will kill the ideology physically.

The difference it would make if this administration called our present danger radical Islamic terrorism is that it might then focus sufficient attention on considering how to stem the growth of this Middle Age ideology as we continue to try to kill those who hold it.

See the associated cartoon.