Newry School District Withdrawal Threat

What started as a gripe among a few Newry taxpayers about the quality of our public education and the District's longstanding funding formula has morphed several times and taken on a sad life of its own.  At a recent breakfast meeting of the Chamber of Commerce the situation provoked passionately delivered fears and thoughtful rejoinders.  Absent was much discussion about community engagement in the improvement of our schools; front and center was a deep philosophical divide over the assessment question.

On one side of the divide stood those devoted to lower property taxes and their right to withdraw their town from the community’s school district if their town's school tax assessment wasn’t favorably modified.  This group was joined by petitioners who found appeasement value in a funding formula modification.  The petitioners talked about “playing Russian roulette with the school district” and fear about “educating my grandchildren” in their efforts to dissuade those opposed to appeasement as they sought to secure yet another vote on assessment formula modification.

On the other side of the divide stood many who saw this whole matter as a shakedown by some citizens of the town with the lowest tax rate in the District.  Some noted there can be no assurance that appeasement of the current demands would lead to anything more than some quiet before the next withdrawal threat and encouragement of such anti-District behavior going forward.

I left saddened by the thought that there will be no winner in this unfortunate standoff. The District will be left to suffer the morale impact of the current threat and lingering doubt about the value held by the District's citizens for educating its youth.  

Where are the journalists?

Gone are the days of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite whose voices were familiar and respected and whose personal political leanings were not revealed in their newscasts.  The research to validate the stories they released left consumers confortable with the veracity of their newscasts no matter how reassuring or troubling the information conveyed.

The journalists’ realm at the national level is all but empty.  The seats they once occupied have been filled with the Lauers, Blitzers, Maddows, Limbaughs, and Hannitys, and a slew of others like them.  These celebrities are commentators on political matters whose shows have become entertainment for many adults. These commentators make no effort to provide balanced, or even well substantiated, news stories.  Their stock in trade is shrill, partisan hyperbole, and their perspectives are clearly and redundantly articulated.  Viewers and listeners can choose their entertainment by tuning to the channel or frequency occupied by commentators with whom they agree.   

I’m prepared to argue that this shift from serious reporting on confirmed news events to hysterical commentary often based on imagination is at the root of the deepening philosophical divisions in the country and the world.

Two factors have led to the evolution from journalist to infotainer:  an abundance of available broadcast time, and the ubiquity of publishing opportunity for everyone.  Cable television began the evolution when Ted Turner created CNN, a 24-hour news channel.  Programming grew to fill the newly available hours.

Today any of us can share our thoughts with the world at a moment’s notice, regardless of the quality of those thoughts.  Media’s habit of checking its sources to confirm its suspicions made it unacceptably slow, so today those suspicions form the bases for most of our “news”, and few seem alarmed by the opinion-as-news phenomenon.

Evolution doesn’t stop, however.  Today’s infotainers, craving viewers, readers, and ratings, are systematically alienating the audiences upon which they rely.  Even the most partisan citizens are tiring of the monotonous echo chambers in which some rave about the real and imagined transgressions and inadequacies of our elected officials and others blindly sing the praises of the same people.  How many times a day must one listen to hypotheses about electoral collusion with foreign actors and complaints about clumsily worded “tweets” before I Love Lucy re-runs become an appealing alternative?

Where does it end?  It’s hard to tell, but the trend line suggests that a divided electorate will be ever more certain about its grasp of the truth even as objective information becomes increasingly difficult to isolate from the noisy background.

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.