Tag Archives: social responsibility

Liberty, Justice Made Personal

Posted on by

Liberty cannot be pulled out of the air, and it cannot be handed to us by those who assume political or religious authority.

Our freedom is constrained by many forces and circumstances in life. These can be inflicted upon us socially, economically, or by physical nature; but every limitation can be addressed with a positive attitude, with creativity and wisdom.

It is through a commitment to responsibility that we find the substance of personal freedom. Indeed, it has been said that there can be no liberty without responsibility.

This is important to understand when the world around us seems to be coming apart.

If we are to keep our balance when the ground is shifting under our feet, how can we best prepare ourselves? We must do more than simply prepare materially for hard times, although that is important, too. How can we find the moral and mental strength to persevere?

How can we take a long view in the midst of chaos – to gain a sense of ultimate purpose, and a vision of the future we can believe in?

In my view, there is a clear and dependable reason to believe that justice is indestructible and will prevail in the end. Please bear with me!

It is my firm conviction that there is an integral foundation underlying all things, which has the character of justice. This is the ultimate ground of being.

The reality we live in, both physically and metaphysically, has a dynamic and perfectly balanced “functional structure” that we can each learn to see with our own eyes (and not through the eyes of others), and understand for ourselves without being swayed by others.

Justice is the governing principle and inherent character of this truth. It is the basis of religious law, the purpose of which is our protection, and it allows us to keep our balance in a disturbed world.

Whether this idea is viewed through religious or philosophical eyes, all of us can benefit by gaining confidence in the ground we stand on. It is reasonable, it is dependable, and it offers a stable basis for constructive action.

Everyone sees things differently and none of us can comprehend ultimate truth. Yet, the concept proposed here can be helpful in maintaining our composure, and in determining the right course of action in difficult circumstances.

Stated briefly, justice is the ultimate balance manifested in the self-sustaining structure of the whole of being. Or, to put it in another way, justice is a dynamic framework upon which all things depend, and which remains unified and transcendent despite the disruptions caused by human activity.

When things get crazy it helps to understand that a firm, inviolable structure supports the reality of things. And, when we endeavor to align ourselves with it, things go well for us with far greater consistency.

Such an understanding can be the starting point for both thinking and action.

If we are to rebuild our communities and nation in a constructive and principled manner, it will be necessary to adjust with flexibility to the unexpected changes that comes with crises.

Life is always going to be a challenge, living as we do in a world dominated by materialism, egotism, and conflict. It is not possible to fully comprehend the dynamic in which we find ourselves. Yet, I submit to you that an ultimate and indestructible balance does, in fact, exist at the foundation of things.

The ground of justice allows us a steady hand in exercising responsibility, building trustworthy relationships, and conducting our lives with integrity.

Justice furnishes the ordered condition in which we have the opportunity to bring ourselves into balance with the world of existence as it truly is – and as I believe it is meant to be.

Tom

Next week: The freedom to see for ourselves.

Dear readers, I am depending on your comments and constructive feedback.

The Resilience of Inner Freedom

Posted on by

I fear America is sliding steadily toward social disorder and economic disarray. In an atmosphere of deepening crisis, I am concerned about the potential for overreaction by government, police agencies, and citizens. These are circumstances in which terrible things can happen, and indeed are happening.

This week I will share a story with you that illuminates our capacity as human beings to assert our dignity and inner freedom even amidst the most dreadful circumstances.

Responding to the contradictions and injustices we experience in life is challenging. Yet, doing so rationally and responsibly can be a personal statement of transcendent freedom. This is possible regardless of the conditions around us, however difficult they may be.

To be free we must seek to be autonomous individuals first, whole and complete in ourselves, and then to actualize our identity with dignity and perseverance.

We may not like the reality in which we find ourselves. Indeed, it could be nightmarish. But, possessing free will necessitates a commitment to be free in oneself and to engage proactively with the circumstances we face.

If there is a primary requirement for attaining inner integrity, it is the personal determination to do so. In my view, this choice has never been described more eloquently than by Viktor Frankl in the book, Man’s Search for Meaning, the testimony of four terrible years as a prisoner in Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp.

Because his response to that experience is so revealing, I will devote most of this post to his words:

“I may give the impression that the human being is completely and unavoidably influenced by his surroundings. (In this case the surroundings being the unique structure of camp life, which forced the prisoner to conform his conduct to a certain set pattern.) But, what about human liberty?

“Is there no spiritual freedom in regard to behavior and reaction to any given surroundings? …Do the prisoners’ reactions to the singular world of the concentration camp prove that man cannot escape the influences of his surroundings? Does man have no choice of action in the face of such circumstances?

“We can answer these questions from experience as well as on principle.

“The experiences of camp life show that man does have a choice of action. There were enough examples, often of a heroic nature, which proved that apathy could be overcome, irritability suppressed. Man can preserve a vestige of spiritual freedom, of independence of mind, even in such terrible conditions of psychic and physical stress.

“We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.

“And there were always choices to make. Every day, every hour, offered the opportunity to make a decision, a decision which determined whether you would or would not submit to those powers which threatened to rob you of your very self, your inner freedom….

“Even though conditions such as lack of sleep, insufficient food and various mental stresses may suggest that the inmates were bound to react in certain ways, in the final analysis it becomes clear that the sort of person the prisoner became was the result of an inner decision, and not the result of camp influences alone. Fundamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide what shall become of him – mentally and spiritually. He may retain his human dignity even in a concentration camp.”

As we face our own tests, which we hope will not be so daunting as Dr. Frankl’s, how can we find this resilience within ourselves? Here is a freedom gained through empowered compassion and responsibility as we respond to the turmoil of a transformative age.

No one can do this for us. As we turn our attention to the suffering and confusion of those around us, we are preparing for both the coming hardship and the new day beyond.

Tom

Next week: Liberty and justice made personal.

The First Steps to Freedom

Posted on by

The struggle for freedom and fairness in governance has a long and turbulent history. In the past the passion for liberty set citizens against totalitarian authority, and the goal was understood to be protection against the self-serving motivations of governments.  By liberty was meant limits on the power of government to impose its’ will on the community.

Later, people came to believe it unnecessary that government should be independent and opposed in its’ interests to themselves. Consequently, a new demand for short-term elected leaders became predominant.

This idea was assumed at first to mean that elected officials should identify with the people and the interests of the nation. It followed that such a nation would not need to be protected from itself.  Supposedly a democracy would not exercise tyranny over itself.

However, as Americans well know, the notion that citizens have no reason to limit their power over themselves only seems reasonable to those who have no experience with popular government.

After two hundred years of experience we know that “self-government” can be fragile and complicated. “The will of the people” often turns out to be the will of the most actively dominant portion of the citizenry, usually the majority, but quite possibly those with overbearing economic or financial firepower.

The American founders took great pains to control any possible abuses of power. As we saw in Chapter Four: Freedom and Order, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 recognized the importance of limiting such dangers throughout an uncertain future.

Liberty came to mean the freedom of each to live our lives as we see fit, so long as we do not impose ourselves on the well-being of others.

As an ideal, this is not so simple in practice. It was controversial then and it is controversial now. And, as I have suggested, the changes and challenges of the ensuing years have given us much to ponder.

Finding ourselves facing the dangers, complexities, and tensions of the present turning point, I believe the American people would do well to step back and reassess the values, principles, and general attitudes with which we can best regain our poise and seek a shared vision and purpose.

In short, I propose that the first steps to freedom will be those that lead to problem-solving and cooperation – if we are to avert catastrophe. And, I believe that this can be done most effectively when addressing felt-needs in our local communities. We will learn by doing, and act we must.

The first steps are challenging, but straight forward:

1) To engage as neighbors, which means learning to listen and to truly understand one another, and then to rise above our differences to resolve problems and address local needs.

2) To recognize the diversity of knowledge, skills, and experience we have available to do what needs to be done; our survival might depend on it.

3) To identify the extent to which we share values, and to build a level of trust that ensures we have neighbors we can depend on when the going gets tough.

4) To commit ourselves seriously to the ultimate purpose of seeking a vision of the future we can hold in common – a future we can all respect and believe in.

In focusing on first things first, we must learn the ways of community that Americans once practiced so well in the vibrant civil society of our past.

Such is the purpose of this little book. The pages that follow are devoted to finding our way through the difficulties and perplexity of this most difficult endeavor.

As we begin to take these first steps, I think we will find it helpful to reflect on the meaning of freedom in our personal lives. For it is deep in our own souls that we must first build confidence in our personal ability to prevail over fear and loss.

There is no greater strength to be found than knowledge of the freedom we control within ourselves. Indeed, it is through this primal freedom that we gain the capacity to respond to life’s tests with grace.

Tom

Next week: The resilience of inner freedom

Dear readers: I wish to thank all those who kept me in your thoughts and prayers during the past two weeks. My surgery went well and I am recovering rapidly. I keep finding more ways to appreciate you, and I look forward very much to continuing our conversation. (Please see the Facebook page, where there is active reader engagement.)

To Act With Integrity

Posted on by

We each have a sense of self, a coherent unity within ourselves, a feeling of integrity that defines our identity in our own minds. This sense of self is challenged by the conflicts and incongruities we are forced to contend with, between the material and the moral, the physical and the metaphysical, and the various unresolved concerns in our lives.

The moral philosopher Mary Midgley describes this experience rather well I think:

“I am suggesting…, that human freedom centers on being a creature able, in some degree, to act as a whole in dealing with… conflicting desires. This may sound odd, because freedom sounds like an advantage, and having conflicting desires certainly does not.

“But it is not a new thought that freedom has a cost. And the conflicting desires themselves are of course not the whole story. They must belong to a being which in some way owns both of them, is aware of both, and can therefore make some attempt to reconcile them.

“…The endeavor must be to act as a whole, rather than as a peculiar, isolated component coming in to control the rest of the person. Though it is only an endeavor – though the wholeness is certainly not given ready-made and can never be fully achieved, yet the integrative struggle to heal conflicts and to reach towards this wholeness is surely the core of what we mean by human freedom.” (1994)

Each of us, consciously or otherwise, adopts a system of morality upon which to base decisions and guide our way in the world, either a formal religious system or one assumed or devised by ourselves.

Whether it is weak or strong, sloppy or consistent, or we even think about it very much, our personal morality serves as the grounding for our sense of identity and our actions. It is impossible to function without it.

It is our integrity as “whole persons” that resists the onslaught of disintegrating forces in our lives. When we lose consciousness of this effort and succumb to the fragmentation imposed by the incoherent impact of advertising and mass media that constantly bombards us, we lose control of our independence as individuals.

This is particularly challenging I think for those who choose to disregard the teachings of the great religious traditions, which supply us with rich and textured guidance. For the reader who is religiously inclined, the way forward is generally well-lit – at least in principle.

If the reader is non-religious, the task will be to ground oneself in common decency, to focus ones’ vision on the highest good, to abide consistently by an ethical code, and to bring healing and encouragement to those around us.

Let’s be clear, however: This is quite difficult, especially when we rely on our own devices.
Each of us is called to step forward to participate in the affairs of the community we have chosen as our home, and to engage with our neighbors respectfully as active listeners and facilitators motivated by a desire to encourage and empower.

We can only ensure the integrity of our purpose by means that are in harmony with our purpose. Mahatma Gandhi said it best:  “They say ‘means are after all means’. I would say ‘means are after all everything’. As the means so the end.” (1937)

This assertion was stated somewhat differently, but just as explicitly by the economist and political philosopher F. A. Hayek, when he wrote: “The principle that the ends justify the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals.” (1944)

These are not theoretical statements. Rather they express a profound truth. The integrity of means must always provide the standard of reference in every endeavor.

If each of us holds our personal integrity clearly in focus, attends to moral responsibility, and respects our neighbor as we ourselves would wish to be respected, we should not find ourselves at odds with justice.

The manner in which we respond to our personal differences will determine who we are and the freedom we are capable of knowing.

Tom

In Two Weeks: Finding a transcendent resilience through inner freedom

Dear readers: I am scheduled for surgery next week. Consequently the blog will be on pause very briefly. I hope to have the next post ready for you on Friday, February 19.

The Freedom Within

Posted on by

Our freedom to make choices, however limited, defines us as human beings. Without freedom of choice there could be no morality and no capacity for personal integrity. Yet many of our choices in life restrict subsequent alternatives.

The choice of career, of a love-mate, and the decisions to have a family, to stand by a friend, or to embrace a religious faith, all limit future choices. And if we are caring human beings, we find our choices further constrained by our sense of responsibility as members of family and community.

Most of us are mature enough to recognize that freedom is impossible if we abandon responsibility. So, where do we find freedom? What is freedom, really?

The integrity of political, economic, and religious freedoms should always be a concern, and particularly so in times of crisis. However, the difficulties confronting the individual are always paramount. We each find ourselves facing our own tests, and each must respond on the basis of our own sense of integrity.

In the coming weeks, I will explore the difficulties we can experience when seeking personal integrity through clear-thinking moral, spiritual, and mindful self-control in the face of civil disorder or repression.

In times of hardship and distrust this is a vital matter.

Each of us could choose to walk away from the human crisis, but even then we would be confronted by the necessities of nature and circumstance.

Any attempt to walk away comes at great cost, limiting our personal opportunity to grow and mature through the challenges and tests of human relationships. Indeed, most of us find meaning in the commitments we make to our families and friends.

In this time of historic social disruption the potential for finding honor and satisfaction is at its’ greatest.

Whatever our decisions, when we think about what is most important to us – in addition to our loved ones – many of us would place value on self-respect and the freedom “to be ourselves”. We prefer to explore opportunities for ourselves without interference, to have autonomy in making our own decisions, and to seek goals that we have chosen for ourselves.

Let us reflect then on what freedom means when we seek it as self-possessed individuals, and on the attitude with which we can best respond to the social fragmentation and dysfunction that confronts us daily.

It is primarily in the context of tests and difficulties that our identity as human beings comes into focus.

Some of you are not committed to a religious tradition. Those who have religious belief will recognize that the guidance we receive from religious teaching, while critical to personal development and our ability to remain steady in the face of crises, also sets clear limits to appropriate behavior and constraints on free choice.

I expect those of you who are principled but not religious, if you value your self-respect, will never-the-less find yourselves constrained by ethical principles, by your personal dignity and sense of justice.

Religious or otherwise, I think it fair to say that our responses are influenced by our attitude toward life: our sense of belonging, our capacity to appreciate others, and our readiness to engage fully in life while attempting to remain balanced and unperturbed amid the confusion and negativity that life often brings our way.

We may care about human suffering; we may wish to avoid negativity and calamity; yet our personal feeling of freedom depends upon an ability to think creatively and function effectively when the going gets tough, even extremely tough.

This is a daunting task. To be free we must seek to be autonomous individuals first, whole and complete in ourselves, and then to actualize our responsibility as people in the real world.

We may not like the reality in which we find ourselves. Indeed, life can occasionally become nightmarish. But, free will necessitates a proactive response with a commitment to be free in oneself and to respond rationally.

Tom

Next week: Moral Integrity, Self-respect and Responsibility

Either life entails courage…

Posted on by

Vista 7-x

“Either life entails courage, or it ceases to be life.”

–E. M. Forster

Freedom or Paralysis

Posted on by

We all know the discomfort of unwelcome constraints imposed by our workplace, our families, and society in general. Freedom for the individual, it seems, is relative. As we mature we come to see purpose in the underlying order of things and recognize that often we cannot advance our interests without it.

We generally understand and accept the limitations we experience in life, however much they chafe. Still there are aspects of freedom we value highly despite the complications and challenges they present.

As individuals we value freedom of opportunity. We also have preferences concerning the control of processes that impact on our personal lives, and preferences concerning the processes that operate in society.

There is much of value to discuss here, but I wish to focus on our response to life’s inevitable constraints, especially in the context of crises, and the choices we can make if we wish to work effectively with others.

There are rules we accept that regulate such things as athletic contests and the marketplace, which make it possible to ensure fairness, to strategize and compete. And, it is the certainty of fairness and predictability that allows an economy to be productive and our lives to be sane.

Similarly, it is fairness, honesty and respectfulness that are most conducive to constructive dialog and decision-making in any organization or community. This is what leads to trust, and trust is essential if we are to reach our compatriots.

When we find ourselves confronted with unpredictable and chaotic conditions, our first steps can always be to address the need for order that allows respectful and meaningful communication.

Progress toward social and economic reconstruction in our communities will require that we work together in a civil manner, regardless of our differences. Problem-solving cannot take place otherwise.

We cannot assure safety in our communities or create effective organization if form and structure, or varied opinions, are viewed as limitations to liberty.

The iconic conservative philosopher Richard Weaver, who we heard from in the previous post, would say this goal represents a formidable task; that it would require us to confront a national character uncomfortable with form, resistant to leadership, and impatient with any systematic process. He called America “a nation which egotism has paralyzed.”

We have seen how this egotism has diverted our attention from serious purpose: in our infatuation with expensive toys, in our descent into personal and public indebtedness, and in a sordid media voyeurism that forgoes all pretensions of privacy. Weaver called it “the spirit of self, which has made the [citizen] lose sight of the calling of his task and to think only of aggrandizement.”

Is it this “spirit of self” that has led us to the meaningless disorder in which we now find ourselves, where self-indulgence overwhelms motivation, rational judgment, and foresight?

I see some truth in this, but I believe we must look more deeply into the character of a people who have risen to every test in the past. Americans are smart, resilient, and creative. In the difficult years ahead I expect we will gain a deeper understanding of freedom and will respond with a maturity imposed by necessity.

All form has structural limits. It is the consistent dependability of this reality that allows us to launch ourselves into new frontiers of learning and experience, to control the direction of our efforts, to instigate, organize, create.

Without the constraints of necessity, which include our own values, we would have no capacity to direct our energy and intelligence, to explore new ideas or undertake new ventures.

For the individual, the ability to exercise discipline overcomes the limitations imposed by nature and society. Surely the discipline to leverage inspiration against the constraints we encounter in life provides the power to actualize our freedom and transcend the material difficulties in life.

We cannot leap without a firm foundation beneath our feet; we cannot fly without wings.

It is in the encounter between discipline and necessity that we find the ground of freedom.

Tom

Next week: The freedom within.

Dear readers: Your thoughts and feedback will be very helpful to me.

At the crossroads…

Posted on by

Mountain 12 MendenhallGlacier Alaska

“Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.”

–Jeremiah 6:16

Renewal of Our Core Values

Posted on by

Answering questions about what has gone wrong is never comfortable. Some truths are not pretty. But, revitalizing core American values and the restoration of a once vibrant civic spirit will require that we recognize what has been lost and why. I believe an honest appraisal is in order.

The current difficulties have developed over a long period of time. The gradual loss of a commitment to integrity in all areas of life has left Americans without the interwoven fabric of community relationships, without a soulful center or shared sense of purpose.

We find ourselves dominated by materialism and immersed in a homogenized culture with little conscious identity. Where is there a meaningful commitment to community, to the dignity of mutual respect, to embracing shared responsibility for local needs?

Most significantly, in my view, Americans have become obsessed with immediacy. We want what we want and we want it now. Reason and foresight have been eclipsed by a fixation on material appearances, and yet we are unabashed about entertaining ourselves with violence and degrading behavior.

Even the once humiliating liabilities of personal debt seem to be of no concern. All possibility of generating real wealth is abandoned in exchange for false appearances bought with future income.

Strange as it may be, we have essentially abandoned the future.

The moral bankruptcy and distortions of logic represented by this posture have influenced almost everything in our national life. An undisciplined attitude has led us to the brink of disaster, and our insistence on freedom from institutional and cultural restraints is fraught with contradictions.

For example, our respect for the individual requires that we honor the independent integrity and privacy of each citizen, and yet we have abandoned this principle out of fear for our own safety.

Similarly, we have failed to see that privacy has been sacrificed when we welcome the obscenity and titillation of mass media into our homes. Personal integrity is lost to a fascination with “the raw stuff of life,” in the words of the conservative American philosopher Richard Weaver:

“The extremes of passion and suffering are served up to enliven the breakfast table or to lighten the boredom of an evening at home. The area of privacy has been abandoned because the definition of person has been lost; there is no longer a standard by which to judge what belongs to the individual man. Behind the offense lies the repudiation of sentiment in favor of immediacy.”

Richard Weaver wrote these words before the advent of television. And he was not the first to make such an observation. A quarter century earlier George Bernard Shaw commented that “an American has no sense of privacy. He does not know what it means. There is no such thing in the country.”

Weaver warned Americans of a self-destructive streak that would ultimately lead to a crisis. He pointed out our fascination with specialization and with the parts of things at the expense of understanding and respecting the whole. He argued that an obsession with fragmentary parts without regard for their function necessarily leads to instability.

Such instability is insidious, penetrating all relationships and institutions. In his words, “It is not to be anticipated that rational self-control will flourish in the presence of fixation upon parts.”

This is not the fault of government – except to the extent that government, managed by people like ourselves, has joined whole-heartedly in the party. In a democracy it is tragically easy for government policy to degenerate until it serves the worst inclinations of a self-interested electorate.

Consequently we have descended into the financial profligacy of the past fifty years and are now the most indebted nation in history by a wide margin. Ours has been a twisted path, but with a clearly visible end. And, the implicate outcome remains ignored.

If we are to recover our balance, it is essential that we recognize the wrong-headed thinking that got us here.

Values and principle are not in question; only wisdom. What we are challenged to do now is to reconsider the way we think.

Tom

Next week: Freedom or paralysis.

Dear readers: I would be grateful for your thoughtful remarks and feedback.

The people of this country…

Posted on by

Clouds 5

“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.”

–Alexander Hamilton

Americans Co-opted by the State?

Posted on by

For more than a hundred years Americans expressed their values and creative energy in numerous organizations and associations. As we saw in the previous post, Americans overcame constraints on their freedom through their own initiative and sense of community.

Generations later, however, action has been replaced by inaction. A once spirited culture of engagement has been replaced by an increasingly self-centered attitude, the loss of community, and the isolating influences of the automobile, television, and the digital age.
Is it these technologies that have isolated us from one another?

Economic historian Niall Ferguson argues no. Rather he suggests that it is “not technology, but the state – with its seductive promise of ‘security from the cradle to the grave’ – [which is] the real enemy of civil society.” He cites the prophetic vision of Tocqueville in 1840, when he imagined a future America in which the spirit of community has been co-opted and neutered by government:

“I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others: his children and his particular friends form the whole human species for him; as for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone….

“Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood….

“Thus, …the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”

Elsewhere Tocqueville added an explicit warning:

“But what political power would ever be in a state to suffice for the innumerable multitude of small undertakings that American citizens execute every day with the aid of association?…

“The morality and intelligence of a democratic people would risk no fewer dangers than its business and industry if government came to take the place of associations everywhere.

“Sentiments and ideas renew themselves, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal action of men upon one another.”

I agree that government has had a part in the deadening of the American spirit. But, I do not think we can attribute the present condition solely to government. I believe the degeneration of attitudes and behavior cannot be divorced from the isolating influences of corporate culture, the dispersion of communities by the automobile, or the gradual loss of a moral, metaphysical center.

Telecommunications and commercial airlines have brought the world together on a macro level, but they have also left us disinclined us to engage with our neighbors.

I believe the long slide to isolation is the consequence of social forces that have followed the trajectory of human progress since the founding of the American Republic, and which we can only fault ourselves for accepting.

Our government is, after all, a creature of our own invention, served by people who have been subjected to the same degraded values and demoralized sense of responsibility as the rest of us.

Tom

Next week: The renewal of core American values.

Note to readers: Your comments and feedback would be much appreciated. As a writer I would find this very helpful.

Motion and action…

Posted on by

Background 7

“Never confuse motion with action.”

–Benjamin Franklin