Tag Archives: community

Freedom and Stability in Governance

Posted on by

The structure of the Constitution is simple yet profound. It carefully restrains the passions of factionalism, however intense, from imposing destructively on either minority or majority. It limits the potential for regional conflict and ensures the strength to confront external threats.

It is the antagonistic divisiveness current among Americans that concerns us here.

“Give all the power to the many,” wrote Alexander Hamilton, “they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many.”

To understand how and why we depend on the Constitution as we navigate through crises, it will be useful to consider both the carefully reasoned manner in which it was conceived and the negative reaction that it at first inspired.

The founders made a great effort to see into the future.

It can be instructive to review some of the numerous essays and polemics that were published in the American colonies during the period when the proposed document was being considered for ratification. Among these, a series of 85 commentaries was published in 1787 and 1788 for the purpose of supporting ratification by three members of the Constitutional Convention.

The three writers, who originally shared the pseudonym, “Publius”, were Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. Later consolidated into a single volume as The Federalist, the assembled papers were said by Thomas Jefferson, another participant at the Convention, to be “the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written,” a view many legal scholars agree with today.

The Federalist remains an authoritative text often cited in major court cases and has appeared in the debates surrounding virtually every constitutional crisis. Another collection entitled The Anti-Federalist Papers, edited by Ralph Ketcham, is also easily available.

Readers are encouraged to investigate the issues reflected in the debate that led to ratification.

In the end, the outcome turned out not to be in question except in New York, where the State Constitutional Convention passed it by only three votes. But, the debates remain instructive and bear a strong similarity to many of those we find ourselves engaged in today.

As an example, I refer you here to the way the framers of the Constitution addressed an inevitable challenge to both fundamental freedoms and effective governance.

In The Federalist, Number 10, James Madison argues that there is no more important purpose in structuring a sound government than that of limiting the “violence” of factionalism.

Responding to the issues prevalent in the colonies immediately following the Revolutionary War, Madison writes that: “Complaints are everywhere heard…, that our governments are too unstable; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties; and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

Does this not sound familiar to the citizen of today?

Madison continues:

“As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.

“The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society…. So strong is this propensity of mankind, to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions, and to excite their most violent conflicts.

“But the most common and durable source of factions, has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a monied interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.

“The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government….

“The inference to which we are brought,” Madison concludes, “is that the causes of faction cannot be removed; and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.”

Tom

Next week: A different kind of nation

Man’s capacity for justice…

Posted on by

Tree 7

“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”

–Reinhold Niebuhr

Freedom and Stability: A Careful Balance

Posted on by

We are confronted today with increasing danger and instability. In rebuilding the dynamic balance between freedom and stability in the United States, there are many negative forces and potential threats to be acknowledged.

We must act carefully and not throw away our inheritance.

Americans have been provided with a simple and carefully considered model for governance that has protected us from most forms of excess for 200 years.

Our politicians have complicated things, but the basic principles are plain and straightforward. Where partisanship or bad judgment have corrupted good governance, the unique structure of our republican form of government has always guided the return to reason, however tough the medicine or jarring the upheaval.

Sometimes all we see are the threats to principle or the dysfunction of institutions. But the constitutional structure we have inherited has a durable balance that will always recover.

To correct serious problems such as we see today, it will be necessary to keep our purpose in perspective. And surely our immediate purpose includes the safety of our families and the ability to address pressing material problems in cooperation with our neighbors.

A balance is necessary between local and national. We have allowed our personal responsibility to slide and permitted distortions to develop.

Ours is a nation of both principles and laws. This provides a degree of stability and allows us to listen to one another respectfully – if we so chose.

The Constitution provides us with a structure within which to manage our affairs and restrain abusive behaviors.  It was not intended to outlaw foolishness, and it has not. Rather it was designed to permit a nation to emerge and prosper while protecting minorities from the majority, the majority from minorities, and the government from itself.

The framers of the Constitution recognized that our liberties can only be defended by confronting the natural human propensity to impose ourselves on one another whenever possible. Without some degree of federal power, they believed that the natural rancor of politics would lead to the oppression of minorities, wars between independent states, and vulnerability to external threats.

However, this centralized power must be constrained by a vigilant citizenry. We must take responsibility for making the structure work as it was intended. A balance must be ensured by citizens who understand the meaning and purpose of this unique form of governance.

If we seek to build a world where prosperity is possible, where our children can be safe and personal freedoms are respected, it will be necessary to first create a stable environment for addressing problems, resolving conflicts, and building effective institutions.

In my view, this can only be done in the context of organized, self-possessed and forward-looking local communities — our own communities.

Community is the seat of civilization, made genuine because it is personal. It is in our local communities that we engage one another face to face, cementing trust, tending to needs, learning patience and responsibility. Here it is among friends and neighbors that we can find the confidence to envision the future and look forward from the disorder of the present.

Our strength comes with diversity and our readiness to rise above our differences to build a vibrant, welcoming and free-spirited society. This is the essence of our heritage, our humanity, and the source of the nation’s greatness.

Trust and responsibility don’t just appear by good fortune. They are formed in the trials of necessity and hardship, and inspired by commitment and purpose.

Beyond the boundaries of family, community is that place where immediate needs present themselves and must be resolved. As government loses its capacity to manage, we will have no one to look to except ourselves.

Americans have abdicated personal responsibility for this aspect of civilized life for a long time, and we have done so at our peril.

It was not always this way. Prior to the American Revolution and for close to 100 years afterward Americans gravitated easily, even impulsively, toward decentralized local governance and an independent frame of mind.

They managed their own affairs in cooperation with their neighbors and accepted regional autonomy as a natural condition.

I believe the time has come to accept responsibility for what we have been given by those who came before us.

Tom

Next week: Freedom and Stability in Governance

Unexpected Wisdom

Posted on by

How has the American identity formed itself amid conflicting ideas, beliefs, and perspectives? How has the clash of differing opinions contributed to strength?

The idea that unity is strengthened by diversity may sound counter-intuitive at first, but it is measurable and irrefutable.

In his book, The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki describes compelling evidence that large groups of people possess an extraordinary power to solve problems when their judgment is aggregated, and that the more diverse the crowd, the more efficient the solutions.

Citing a variety of examples, author Surowiecki presents a fascinating description of the conditions in which democratic decision-making does and does not work.

In his introduction to The Wisdom of Crowds, we hear of the surprise of scientist Francis Galton when 787 participants in a raffle at a county fair submitted guesses at what the weight of a large ox would be after it had been slaughtered and dressed.

“The analogy to a democracy, in which people of radically different abilities and interests each get one vote, had suggested itself to Galton immediately. ‘The average competitor was probably as well fitted for making a just estimate of the dressed weight of an ox, as an average voter is of judging the merits of most political issues on which he votes,’ he wrote.”

Galton, who wished to support his view that “the average voter” was capable of very little good judgment, borrowed the tickets from the organizers following the competition. He then ran a series of statistical tests on them. Among other things, he added all the contestants’ estimates and calculated the average.

The crowd had guessed that the ox, after it had been slaughtered and dressed, would weigh 1,197 pounds. In fact, it weighed 1,198 pounds.

Another example described by Surowiecki is the story of the 1968 loss of the United States submarine Scorpion, which disappeared in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. The Navy had no idea what happened to the vessel, where it was, or how fast it had been traveling.

Mr. Surowiecki recounts the story as told by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew in their book Blind Man’s Bluff, about how a naval officer named John Craven assembled a group of people – mathematicians, submarine specialists, and salvage men – provided them with a number of varied scenarios, and asked them to offer their best guesses without benefit of discussion each other. All they knew was the sub’s last reported location.

The group laid wagers on why the submarine ran into trouble, on its speed as it headed for the ocean floor and on the steepness of descent, among other things.

Craven built a composite picture of what happened and calculated the group’s collective estimate of where the submarine was. The location he came up with was not a location suggested by any members of the group. But, that is where it was.

The Navy found the wreck 220 yards from where Craven’s people said it would be.

Mr. Surowiecki proceeds to demonstrate the surprising consistency of this outcome in widely varied circumstances. And, he explains how groups work well in some circumstances better than others.

As we all know, there are times when aggregating individual judgments produces a collective decision that is disastrous; a riot, for example, or a stock market bubble.

Interestingly, he writes: “Diversity and independence are important because the best collective decisions are the product of disagreement and contest, not consensus or compromise.

“An intelligent group, especially when confronted with cognition problems, does not ask its members to modify their positions in order to let the group reach a decision everyone can be happy with. Instead, it figures out how to use mechanisms – like market prices, or intelligent voting systems – to aggregate and produce collective judgments that represent not what any one person in the group thinks but rather, in some sense, what they all think.

“Paradoxically, the best way for a group to be smart is for each person in it to think and act as independently as possible.”

Later in the present project, we will look at practical methods by which groups with diverse viewpoints can engage in creative problem-solving and decision-making in a manner that transcends consensus, even when face-to-face, to reach unexpected and mutually satisfying outcomes.

Tom

Next week: The challenge we must rise to

Finding Our Strength

Posted on by

The choice is ours. We can acknowledge our differences, address one another with dignity, and unite in our communities to address local needs and resolve local problems. Or, we can accept a world of hostility, disorder, and ultimate collapse as our children’s inheritance – and let the vision and the treasure of the American idea slip away.

Some may say that it is too late. Or, that their principles are too important to be compromised.

I say that the United States was conceived in controversy and that the powerful vision of the founders came with recognition that strength in unity can only be founded upon diversity.

Indeed, it will be argued here that diversity is the foundation for strength, and that the United States Constitution is a visionary assertion of this belief. They gave us structure. It is our responsibility to give it character.

Given our great diversity, what exactly does it mean to be an American? The answer that we choose as a nation will determine the shape of our future. We will be returning to this question again and again throughout the forthcoming book.

We find ourselves confronted today by one of the great tests of history, a direct challenge to both the intent enshrined in the Constitution and the coherence of the American vision that has been gradually maturing for more than two hundred years.

Perhaps we have lost our way for periods of time, stumbled, gotten sloppy. But now it is time to pull together. And, in all practicality this can only take place in the context of our local communities – the home of democracy and seat of civil order.

In a free society, stability cannot be imposed from above. The kind of strength we seek is grounded in trust, and the dependability of personal relationships.

I am not writing about a “recovery” from crisis in the normal sense. Rather, I submit that we stand at the threshold of an unprecedented turning point, one that offers us a window of opportunity to reaffirm and assert our exceptional and multifaceted identity.

In considering our approach to new and unexpected challenges in a rapidly changing world, we are positioned to make positive changes, both pragmatic and ethical, that would have been impossible otherwise. I believe a creative process is now underway that would not otherwise have been possible.

A tough lesson like this can correct weaknesses and imbalances that have led to these crises, but success can only be built on the time-tested principles that have made America an attractive model for the world.

We will go on to consider the foresight of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that led to the system of protections, the checks and balances that makes this nation what it is. First, however, let’s examine the reasons that diversity has ensured American strength – not as a nice idea, but as a pragmatic necessity.

When, as individuals or groups, we address a problem or plan a project, the more varied the perspective and experience that is brought to bear, the more creative and effective will be the solutions found. This is an irrefutable truism.

In many institutions, and particularly in government, people are often afflicted with a condition called ‘group-think’. Everyone thinks the same way and listens only to those they most respect or fear. Consequently, groups often ignore obvious fallacies and misperceptions. Not only that, they tend to scorn perceptive critics as trouble-makers.

Our resistance to accepting diversity is often based in our discomfort with those we perceive as “outsiders”, who look or think differently than we do, or who come from unfamiliar cultural backgrounds. Yet, differences constitute the essence of diversity, and they can sometimes stimulate our thinking in ways we can ill afford to live without.

Why are we afraid of new and different ways of thinking? No one is asking us to change our minds.

Aristotle said that “it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

The opportunity to explore the world through the eyes of other people is a blessing and a gift. A life filled with diversity is an adventure that never stops giving.

Tom

Next week: Unexpected Wisdom

Good Neighbors Are Earned

Posted on by

Where to begin? If local communities are to serve as the foundation for healing the American spirit and reclaiming our sense of purpose, we must learn to make them strong – dependable, trustworthy, and resilient.

Many of us are not well acquainted with our immediate neighbors, much less those around the corner or down the road. If we want good people to depend on in a serious crisis, this has to change. Many problems are more easily resolved when we team up with others. Think food security, or friends we can trust when the banks close or the power goes out.

I have shared my concerns with you about the critical role of local communities. I have explained why I believe local communities and networks of communities will become the essential platform on which Americans reorganize themselves to identify common values, plan a common future, and forge a common purpose.

Building on the solid ground we foster in neighborly relationships, community is the only place in these extreme days where we have both the ability and the opportunity to control our destiny.

As each of us looks around and assesses our circumstances, how can we begin?

Those of you who are naturally outgoing will find this discussion simplistic. But for others the challenge of reaching out to strangers and proposing a common endeavor will be imposing.

There are several kinds of challenges to consider. These include: 1) getting acquainted with strangers and developing friendships, 2) explaining our motives honestly and our ideas effectively, 3) cooperation in addressing local needs, and 4) proposing more ambitious endeavors.

Community-wide efforts can include a wide array of possibilities. For example, these might include local security considerations, growing and preserving food, educating children, initiating small business enterprises, and troubleshooting technical problems that require creative thinking or specialized skills, such as electrical power, safe drinking water, and waste disposal.

All these possibilities can be placed on the table when we are first getting acquainted. Hearing a range of possible benefits for engaging in mutual assistance can jump-start resistant minds.

However, it is probably best not to try to fix all the ills of the world on the first visit. Unless you already know someone well, the first step will be to get acquainted and to find reasons to spend more time together. A warm, friendly first visit can be the basis for later, more substantive engagement.

Always begin interactions by inviting people to share their feelings and views before you do. This will provide you with a basis for effective engagement, and it will make them more receptive to you. Do not pry or press. But, if you can get another person talking, you will find them far more open to hearing from you.

Once new acquaintances begin to warm to you, invite them to think with you about ways the community can be improved. Invite ideas, and then suggest some of your own. If you find an opening, share your hope.

Try to avoid or downplay the more serious political or emotional issues, if possible, until you have secured a stronger positive connection.

If you meet unreceptive people, don’t push. Be friendly, stay in touch, and make yourself useful. As time passes, watch for ways to demonstrate the practical benefits of a mutually supportive community.

Soon we can begin to introduce people to each other. Small social gatherings can help people get acquainted. While remaining informal, we can introduce ideas by floating questions. What problems or unmet needs do we know of? Who has skills? What skills would be we like to learn? How can we assist one another?

As we come to know one another better, we can begin to discuss our willingness to rise above our differences when needs are great or the stakes are high.

First we are human, then we are neighbors, and, finally, we are Americans who care. As individuals we can be none of these things in isolation.

The future is of immense importance – but reality begins at home.

Tom

Next week: Finding our strengths.

The American Idea

Posted on by

Coast 1

The integrity of the American Idea is founded upon honesty and the strength of diversity. This nobility is the desire of the world. It will live on – generous, tolerant, and fair – long after foolishness and irresponsibility have been left to the dregs of memory.

–Tom Harriman

The Forward Edge of History

Posted on by

The unprecedented vision that came into being with the birth of the United States is today impaired by increasingly bitter and antagonistic rhetoric that precludes dialog. If Americans care to participate in a constructive process leading to renewal, we must navigate carefully through the currents of instability.

Violence begets violence in a downward spiral, rhetorical or otherwise. Words can ignite fierce, uncontrollable fires.

When the financial world came unraveled in 2007-08, Americans discovered that startling failures of foresight, responsibility, and common sense involved the very people and institutions we most depended on.

We were stunned by the foolishness that came to light in the very places where we were most vulnerable. Suddenly we recognized a profound disregard for the interests of both citizens and nation – by the same institutions we had previously regarded as models of dependability.

In retrospect, however, we can see that this crisis had long been coming, and that it revealed far more than political and financial irresponsibility.

We have seen the broad social deterioration that comes with unethical behavior and the loss of principled values. Respected national leaders have stained themselves. We have even seen immoral and deeply hurtful actions committed by religious leaders and clergy, the supposed exemplars of integrity.

Where will it stop? In addition to the material damage done to our lives, the rampant failure of responsibility appearing at the core of our society is demoralizing. Indeed, it strikes at the foundations of civilization.

It is easy to get caught up in our feelings at a time like this. It will be necessary to modulate our speech and better manage our emotions if we wish to reaffirm the ultimate purpose of this great nation. Times of peril require that we communicate carefully and avoid contributing to inflamed passions, however offended we may be.

Hurled accusations and inflamed rhetoric make it impossible to hear potentially valid reasoning behind the anger.

The trouble with blame is, first, that it tends to be indiscriminate. It blinds us to the plural identities of those who disagree with us, or who have just made some bad mistakes. We can sometimes fail to see that we share similar values and commitments with those who anger us.

Secondly, blaming will block our ability to respond to looming perils that endanger us all. A fierce storm has come upon us. We need to take responsibility for addressing immediate circumstances.

Make no mistake: A great storm like this will alter everyone’s perspective. So, let’s start with priorities we know to be essential, to ensure the safety and security of our communities. We will build from there.

In so doing we will learn much of what the future will require of us. It is essential that we transcend personal fear, resisting its attendant passions, and learn to work with those around us. Otherwise it will be impossible to respond effectively to the complex challenges of a rapidly changing world.

Some of you have expressed serious doubts that this is possible.

I never said it would be easy; I said we have no choice. If we are unable to confront crises shoulder-to-shoulder as loyal countrymen, freedom will be lost in the chaos of a deepening storm.

It will be helpful if we can see the end in the beginning – the vision of a civil society where respectfulness, fairness, and moral responsibility prevail and freedom of expression is nurtured and defended.

This is a vision and purpose that might just be worth our learning to get along, even for the most doubtful among us. And, it is something we can work on in our own communities.

Patience, composure, steadfast determination, and, most of all, the American generosity of spirit are among the virtues that will be called upon again and again in this day.

We will not escape this great turning point in human affairs. It will inflict tests upon us whether or not we respond with dignity and compassion, whether or not we take our rightful places at the forward edge of history.

Tom

Next week: Where to begin.

A note to new readers: Several chapter drafts for the forthcoming book are posted on this site. See especially Chapter Six: The Ground of Freedom, and Chapter Nine: The Individual in Society.

Compassion is hard…

Posted on by

Sunrise 1-x

“Let us not underestimate how hard it is to be compassionate. Compassion is hard because it requires the inner disposition to go with others to the place where they are weak, vulnerable, lonely, and broken. But this is not our spontaneous response to suffering. What we desire most is to do away with suffering by fleeing from it or finding a quick cure for it….

“Compassion asks us to go where it hurts, to enter into the places of pain…. Compassion means full immersion in the condition of being human.”

–Henri J.M. Nouwen

Lessons From a Painful Past

Posted on by

The 20th Century brought an immense wealth of marvelous advances into the world – scientific, intellectual, cultural. Yet it was a century of appalling violence, the most destructive in all of human history. An estimated 167 million to 188 million people died at human hands.

The century that produced communism, facism, and nationalism also saw the invention of highly efficient weaponry, and a willingness to direct it against civilian populations on a massive scale.

Perhaps it would be wise for us to look at our current problems in historical context. Will we, as Americans still enjoying the relative isolation afforded by two great oceans, recognize how easy it is for terrible things to happen?

A balanced perspective would lend wisdom to our endeavors and offer important lessons. At the present historic turning point humankind can least afford to repeat the horrifying errors of the past. And how easy it would be to do.

In his 2006 book, The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West, the historian Niall Ferguson, who I have introduced to you previously, wrote that “the hundred years after 1900 were without question the bloodiest century in modern history, far more violent in relative as well as absolute terms than any previous era. . . . There was not a single year before, between or after the world wars that did not see large-scale violence in one part of the world or another.”

I believe Niall Ferguson’s analysis is of value to us because he departs from the typical explanations blaming weaponry and fascist governments, as significant as these were, and instead identifies ethnic conflict, economic volatility, and declining empires as the true causes.

In short, he reminds us of our human vulnerability to emotional insecurity, fear, and tribalism.

The “confluence of crises” I am writing about involves elements of all these things, but also a range of newly emerging concerns that have become apparent more recently, and are related more or less to the material limits of population growth, environmental and resource sustainability, and the capability of technology to maintain critical systems or mitigate major problems.

In every case, regardless of the particular nature of oncoming crises, the challenges we face as individuals and families come into focus as we respond to immediate threats. And, as Dr. Ferguson points out, it is the overreaction of people under pressure that leads to the most terrible violence.

It is my view, as most readers know, that our local communities are the only place where we have the capability and reasonable hope of controlling our lives going forward.

The difference between a violent past and a civilized future will depend entirely on the manner in which we relate to one another, approach problems, and organize our local affairs. In a word, the distinction between past and future will be our attitude.

Community-building is the context in which we can best respond, creatively and constructively, to the degradation taking place around us. It can provide us with the means to build trust with friends and neighbors and to take responsibility for meeting local needs and addressing local problems.

Here it is that we can undertake to work together for the greater good as loyal compatriots. Here it is that the real needs of real lives can be identified and addressed.

And, it is in the process of problem-solving and working shoulder-to-shoulder that we can begin to know, understand, and influence one another.

We must be realistic. Great numbers of people remain under the influence of ingrained prejudices of ethnicity, gender, religion and class. This will only change as we rise above our differences to address the felt-needs we face together in a difficult world.

Patience and determination make many things possible, but necessity brings everything sharply into focus. Interpersonal alienation wanes as we identify common concerns and develop a deepening sense of unity around common purpose.

Tom

Next week: Seeing the end in the beginning

A note to readers: You may find related chapter drafts posted on this site of some interest. See especially Chapter Six: The Ground of Freedom, and Chapter Nine: The Individual in Society.

The Bedrock of Ethics

Posted on by

During the past week we learned that the website AshleyMadison, which caters to cheating spouses, faces threats by hackers to reveal the names and personal details of as many as 37 million customers if the site is not taken down.

Soon after these revelations were made public it became apparent that popular opinion supports AshleyMadison and views the web-based service as a victim of injustice.

Here we have a classic example of the deeper, underlying crisis I wrote about a week ago.  I submitted to you, dear readers, that we are witnessing a stunning loss of personal integrity – a broad failure of honesty, trustworthiness, responsibility on a societal scale.

I suggested that this is a deepening quagmire that influences our institutions, our government, and our lives at every level, and will certainly play a key role in every one of the diverse, oncoming crises that presently loom before us.

Clearly, there has been a loss of ethical grounding to such a degree that no amount of righteous exhortation will have any useful effect.

In my view, the institution of marriage plays an irreplaceable role in securing the foundations for social stability and well-being.

While marriage may not be for everyone, it is impossible to imagine how civil order could be maintained in a productive society without the values and virtues and civilizing influences that are inculcated in each generation by stable marriages and responsible, caring parents.

Marriage is not easy. It is the hardest thing many of us ever do. But, when we understand the importance of it we persevere, and seek the profoundly personal rewards of an integrity that comes with age.

What exactly do the clients of AshleyMadison and their sympathizers not understand? Can they not imagine the strength and resilience of that stronghold of safety and well-being that is a true and honest marriage? Do they believe themselves incapable of this? Or, does the shame and sorrow of infidelity simply represent a fleeting capitulation to personal failure?

Clearly they fail to understand how and why a civilized world must depend on trust and responsibility, or to recognize the integrating role of marriage when it is woven into the fabric of life.

What utter devastation there is in the emotional wasteland of a socially disintegrating world!

How will we address this problem?

One cannot put out a fire by aiming a fire extinguisher at the flames as they flicker in the air. A fire can only be extinguished at the site that is burning.

Attacking the flames will accomplish nothing. People do not respond well to preaching or finger-wagging, especially when their perspective feels good to them and seems quite rational.

It is for this reason that I have drawn your attention to the potential safety and dependability of our own communities – if and when we do the basic work of opening communication, inviting cooperation to address local needs, and building trust.

In my view, community-building is the only context where honest listening and learning and soulful change can take place on a meaningful scale.

We must learn how to make this happen. I do not believe it can happen anywhere else.

Until the wayward and the lost discover that their lives and well-being depend on the security and stability of their local communities; until they recognize the necessity for trust and responsibility in their own comfort or survival, the wisdom of values and virtues will be lost on them.

These great lessons will not be learned and understood by our friends and neighbors without a struggle. We will have to engage patiently, intimately, to work through the hardships of survival and community development together one step at a time.

Principled truth can only be introduced gradually, honestly, effectively, in the context of the tests we are subjected to as loyal compatriots.

No, it will not be easy. Discipline is never easy on the threshold of change. But with an understanding of purpose comes true freedom, and the struggle to get there will be at least as rewarding for the teacher as for the taught.

Tom

Next week: Seeing the end in the beginning

A note to readers: Please note the chapter drafts available on this site, especially Chapter Six: The Ground of Freedom, and Chapter Nine: The Individual in Society.

Our greatest glory…

Posted on by

People 16

“Our greatest glory is not in never failing, but in rising up every time we fail.”

–Ralph Waldo Emerson