Community Member or Consumer?

Years ago, while I was in the middle of a career in boarding schools, I became intrigued by the work of Amitai Etzioni.  He wrote about democracy and morality in communities and was central in the American iteration of the communitarian movement.  As I was living in a small, highly interdependent community, I was affected by his work and have always felt an obligation to the communities within which I live, probably as a result of that influence.

Recently there seems to have been a confluence of reminders that voluntary investment in one’s communities isn’t universal and that it may be becoming less common.  Two very local reminders have come from a sewer district and a school district.

Last week, I attended a public hearing at a selectmen’s meeting in which sewer rates were being discussed prior to a vote on changing the rate structure.  Testimony ranged from thoughtful review of the proposed rate structure to shrill complaints about perceived personal inequities.  A surprising drumbeat had developed among those who wanted to pay only  for actual water consumption (the basis for sewer rate computation), not for being connected to a system that was always available.  There was even a suggestion that building owners currently on the sewer district infrastructure be empowered to disconnect their homes from the system and build septic systems if they chose.

Over the last several years, one town has withdrawn from our local, multi-town, school district, and a second has been trying to do the same.  The first town withdrew over the impending closure of a small elementary school.  The second town, a ski resort town, wants to withdraw because of tax-based assessment. The town pays more per student attending the district than do other towns in the district. Even though the town has the lowest tax rates in the district, some citizens see the tax-based funding as unfair and would prefer to pay per student.

In each of these instances the respective community, a sewer district and a school district, is being adversely impacted by strong differences in the way community members perceive their relationship to the community.  In each case, there is an emerging difference between the perceptions of belonging and consuming.  Affinity organizations, community districts, and safety services have traditionally been viewed as those deserving support of their communities.  Over the years this support has taken the form of financial and volunteer support.

In an increasing number of cases we can see that perception morphing in favor of support for the individual consumer position. 

That trend will create conflict between the two disparate points of view and will likely lead to the dissolution of numerous smaller affinity organizations and service providers that are dependent upon broad infrastructure support to provide services whenever they’re required.

Means of supporting highway infrastructure and the electric grid costs could create strong precedent.  We are burning less fossil fuel, the basis for highway funding, and doing more co-generation, reducing commercially produced power demand while leaving the need for immediate replacement service intact.

Political Correctness and Charlie Hebdo

In response to my Naked Emperors and Jousting Knights post, I received a thoughtful comment about the importance of continuing to challenge the precepts of political correctness while guarding against hate speech.  This came from one who has read widely, has studied philosophy deeply, and whose opinions I value, so I took the comment quite seriously.

On its face, no one could fault the message the statement carried.  After all, who would support hate speech?  When I tried to define political correctness as I see it, it came to be expressly about preventing speech that some listeners find hateful, or, at least, irritating.  Merriam-Webster defines political correctness thusly: “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated.”

Again, it would be in very poor form to disagree with the notion embedded in the definition.  Who would argue that offending groups is in the best interest of the general good?

At the same time, the obverse questions raise interesting concerns.  Is it a good idea to eliminate language and the ideas from which it stems to ensure that no one is offended?  Which political sensibilities require such protection?  And, of course, are there limits to the extent of this language elimination?

Last January, Elaine and I were in the Caribbean when upset Islamists slaughtered members of the staff of Charlie Hebdo for the “crime” of producing satirical drawings of Mohammed.  This is harsh retribution for hate speech as viewed through the eyes of these Islamists.   They had very clear ideas about what is approved expression and what is not.

“Je suis Charlie” t-shirts became popular on the French islands throughout the Caribbean, as the world seemed to rally behind those who had lost their lives in the defense of free speech.

If you’ve seen Charlie Hebdo, it’s easy to suggest that its vulgarity and broad irreverence make it a natural target for many, and that its woes are unrelated to our simple political correctness discussion.  I see the two as occupying different points on the same continuum.  Perhaps the continuum extends from unfettered free speech to tightly controlled expression as is common in repressive countries and religions.  Where we should reside on that continuum and how we best get there are the basis of the discussion.

Perhaps the most articulate discussion of these questions that I’ve seen was pointed up by another reader of the earlier blog.  I recommend it as thoughtful reading.

Charlie Hebdo no longer drawing Mohamed cartoons.

Debates and Decision-making

I have watched both Republican and Democrat primary debates within the last week.  Formats were similar; emcees were respectful; and, questions generally reflected issues that are in the news.  Some of the questions were general while others were candidate specific.  Forcing confrontation was commonplace.

During the debates, it was no surprise that candidates were well-armed with damning criticisms of their opponents’ past behaviors. Attackers revealed example after example of malodorous votes and past support of unacceptable causes or people by their opponents.  Those charged were universally indignant and pronounced the accusations nonsense, or worse, before countering with similarly horrific examples of malfeasance by their accusers.  In all cases, I was left knowing only that one, or both, of the candidates was misinformed, misconstruing, or simply lying about their accusations and their rebuttals.   dutchdresser.com/cartoons.html

Adding another layer of confusion about source veracity, I visited the fact checking websites following each of the debates.  Sure enough, most fact checkers found many statements made by most candidates to be false or partially false.  Often these questionable claims were the most powerful ones made during the debate by the candidate, and they are frequently repeated ad nauseam in television commercials.

My guess is that these fully unethical practices are as old as is campaigning for election.  That rich history has apparently calloused us to the experience.  Clearly we don’t see the level of public outrage that one might expect when those wishing to hold public office intentionally attempt to deceive millions of people at a time repeatedly. I guess the debates have some value as occasionally good theatre, but they have very limited value to those actually considering their choice of candidate.   

Debates have little place in decision making unless you hold one of two positions.  If you see rhetorical skill as a significant attribute for the office being filled, then they certainly have value.  It’s generally not hard to tell who “won” an exchange.  If it’s important to you that rhetorical skill is a veneer on a solid rational and philosophical structure, they provide less insight.

If you hold the odd position those who talk to you very publicly about their qualifications, their past performance, and their actions in challenging times, and lie to you while doing it, should seek employment outside the public sector, debates can also serve well.

Acknowledging that I’m willing to stay up too late to listen to people that I know damned well are lying to me much of the time forces me to try to understand how I decide for whom I vote.  I’ve got to work on that.