Questions For Ourselves
If we are realistic about self-government, we should ask ourselves these questions
168 is a newsletter emailed weekly on an unscheduled basis in which I share my thoughts on various topics for the purpose of discussion. Your comments are welcome so please feel free to post them. To view archived newsletters, please visit www.1hundredsixty8.substack.com. And for those suffering from Twitter/Facebook fatigue, please follow me on Substack Notes.
You may ask yourself, "What is that beautiful house?"
You may ask yourself, "Where does that highway go to?"
And you may ask yourself, "Am I right, am I wrong?"
And you may say to yourself, "My God, what have I done?" -Talking Heads, “Once in a Lifetime” (1980)
Our nation has reached a point that may be best described as a call for national self-examination. Myriad oracles are telling us that our democracy is in peril, that this noble experiment in government of, by, and for the people is on the verge of ending, and that authoritarian forces are overtly pushing us toward fascism. Perhaps it is also the point where we, the citizens of this aging republic, must spend some time engaged in introspection by challenging our own beliefs and assumptions in Socratic self-reflection: We need to do a deep dive into our beliefs and why we hold them.
To this end, I can offer these questions:
How do you define democracy? More specifically, how do you describe the workings of our representative democracy? Do you believe that the right to vote extends to all citizens? Do you think that the will of the majority should decide political differences? In a society that accedes to the will of the majority, how should the rights of minorities be protected?
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution is immutable or should it be more amenable to change? Do you accept that the document a group of men authored in 1789 is still applicable in all ways today? Or do you believe that, in order to preserve its core principles, it should be periodically updated to reflect the changes in the society for which it serves as a political framework? If the Constitution were a piece of software, you would be familiar with the incessant updates and versions as issuers improve their product (e.g. Windows 3, 95, 98, 7, 8, 10, 11). The Founders understood this- which is why they included the process to amend the Constitution in its original version. Given what it takes to amend the Consitution, how can the process be made more expedient*?
How important is that trust in public institutions- political, judicial, economic, educational, religious, and media- be maintained and why? If you believe that public faith and trust in our institutions has eroded, who do think is at fault? Is it cynical politicians who, for either personal or ideological reasons, incessantly disparage these institutions (e.g.“Defund the Police”)? Or is it the institutions themselves that have not kept faith with their social responsibility: the financial sector in 2008, the government position in 2003 that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, or the Big Lie that the 2020 election was rigged? Could it be that we the people have not heeded Thomas Paine’s words that “those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must undergo the fatigue of supporting it”?
The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the people’s right to a free press; what do you believe is the proper role of the media in a technologically-advanced, large population society?** Do you accept the convention that objective reality exists by agreement? If so, should media adhere to that convention? Do you believe that there is such a construct as "alternate facts”, or is that simply a euphemism for opinion? What is your approach to misinformation or disinformation that might be propagated via media outlets and social media? How do you decide what to accept or reject when it comes to ‘news’? Are you familiar with the term “confirmation bias”?
Do you understand the concept of civic virtue and why it is important? Do you believe a balance must exist between individual liberty and the common welfare? Do you accept the idea that, in the words of the seventeenth-century English author John Donne, “no man is an island entire of itself”? And do you accept that, both as a society and individuals, we need to practice civic values such as honor, integrity, adherence to the rule of law, respect for others, and personal responsibility?
What is the role of public education in a democratic society? Do we believe that there is a public duty, to paraphrase anthropologist Margaret Mead, “to teach children how to think, not what to think”? Should public education emphasize the teaching of civic values and basic skills (“reading, writing, arithmetic”)? How important is the teaching of history and basic science? Should arts be part of public education? What balance must there be between parental and community input on one hand and that of educational professionals on the other? Should government subsidize private schools with tax dollars via vouchers and grants? Should the effort to improve public schools to the greatest degree possible mean not diverting funds to private entities?
What do you think the role of public health agencies should be? What do you think the words “promote the general Welfare” in the Preamble of the Constitution mean? Do you accept the thesis that government should act to protect the health and safety of the largest number of its citizens as possible even when those measures appear to impinge on individual choice? Do you think, as some do, that pandemics such as Covid have an impact on national security? Are you aware that George Washington, as commander of the Continental Army, ordered the troops to be innoculated against smallpox? What is your understanding of advances in medical science?
What is your understanding of the “Scientific Method”? Do you believe that scientists must always be ‘right”? What is your concept of how research in various technologies, in medical science, and other fields works? What explanation do you have for the dramatic technological progress made in the last two centuries? Do you accept that certain people have more knowledge of particular issues than most of the rest of us?
Given a magic wand, what reforms or changes to our politcal system would you make? Do you consider the huge amounts of money it takes to mount a campaign for office problematic? Would you prefer a system like Great Britain’s which has no limits on how much donors may contribute but does impose strict limits on what candidates and parties spend? Would you favor changes to political advertising such as returning to the Fairness Doctrine***? Would you support legislation to limit the length of campaign seasons as is currently done in many other countries? As for Presidential elections, do you think the Electoral College should be abolished and the President chosen by a majority of the popular vote? Related, do you believe that allowing each state two Senators regardless of population has resulted in an anti-majoritarian bias in the Senate? Would you support other suggested changes like term limits for Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices?
How important is leadership in our society, both in politics and other areas?
Our nation has been fortunate that during the times of greatest peril, transformative leaders emerged as Presidents- Washington at the beginning of the Republic, Lincoln during the Civil War, Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression and World War II; do we believe such a person, someone who can galvanize public support, will emerge now? Do you believe, as French President Charles de Gaulle put it, “politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians”? Do you think that the nation’s best chance for getting past the politics of division and cynicism may be to elect our first female President?
There are so many other questions we should be asking ourselves. In the spirit of self-awareness, we should strive to understand which of our beliefs are driven by emotion rather than reason, of why we express an opinion by saying “I feel” rather than “I think”. Democracy takes effort; the great many of us are not in positions of influence or power. We do, however, have the power to be honest with ourselves.
*Amendments can be proposed by either a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or a convention called by Congress if two-thirds of the states request one. Once an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. As for state constitutions, voters in 18 states can place amendments directly on the ballot through an initiative purpose. All states have some form of legislative amendment process.
**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
***The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced way. The Doctrine was supported by those who believed that listeners have the right to hear all sides of controversial issues. They believed that if left alone, broadcasters would resort to partisan coverage.
If you would like to support my efforts here, please consider becoming a paying subscriber for $5.00 per month.
If you don’t wish to become a regular subscriber, please consider making a contribution from time to time by leaving a tip. Click below:
If you would like to submit a piece of your own for 168, please email me at nicrosato2@gmail.com.
And please remember to click the Like button.
In line with what I've posted here, you may find this Twitter (or "X", if you prefer) thread by Ben Rhodes a helpful addition:
https://t.co/CtwqKZi5wT
I don't think that most people ask themselves the questions raised here. They are mostly busy living their lives accommodating themselves to living among people different from them where they have little power; they are adjusting to informing themselves about many things, some of which interest them and others than don't; they seek independence while discovering it means interdependence in a large diverse society; they are discovering roles within family life for themselves while procreating and raising others; they are learning how to be valuable to others within a business environment or how to go it alone to earn a living; and, after a productive life they are adjusting to conserving their assets for a respectable livable life in declining years. All of these things as youngsters, adolescents, new workers, productive adults, sexual beings, wage earners, or leisure enjoying people take much thought and experience outside of politics, the tacit subject here.
Hence we have democratic bedrock elections as periodic intrusions into life. Campaigns are seen by most as beauty contests with votes going to the handsomest face or body. Party or candidate issues are seen as bumper stickers or slogans, one issue considered at a time--at the last minute before only half of citizens or less enter polling booths. Party affiliations are mostly inherited from parents or friends instead of critical thinking about their actions that may influence daily living. Superficial attention is paid to those who want to become our leaders, lawmakers and occasional elected jurists. Absent a compelling argument about existential continuance as a free individual, we don't pay much attention to 'democracy'.
So what is to be done beyond answering a plethora of political, economic, religious and self-interest questions? Politicians generate existential issues like abortion rights being taken away, that threaten bodily harm. Existing leaders start external or internal wars to insist voters not change horses mid-stream. Media facile individuals invent phony issues threatening child harm, sexual depredation, job loss, financial jeopardy, loss of living standards and the like to scare people into voting. Few in charge of the media heed the standards of fair and balanced , correct spoken/written lies on air or in print as interviewers, commentators or editors. Few former leaders insist on bedrock principles and issues that endure over time to define party platforms. So mustn't we all stand on and talk about our mutual rights and responsibilities in public and private discourse. Recall all the stories of the oddball relative at family gatherings.
Must we be scared before we act or vote, or should standard media fare include editorials and news about good things happening across the country, not just police and crime statistics.
Should we become more aware of national and international affairs to rein in foreign adventures or debunk national conspiracy theories. Shouldn't we insist that local, state and national elected officials devote their energies to our everyday living issues, with action to enhance the greatest good for the greatest number. Don't polls account for anything but media fodder. Can't we review our national past to keep or resurrect the best practices of national life instead of change for its own sake.
Can't we summon the courage of our beliefs and explain them to others so we retain the good things and reject the bad in personal and public life. We can't be afraid to tell others what works for us so they know they are not alone, or they can adopt or adapt workable solutions to their own problems. And shouldn't we all adopt a more patient attitude toward ever-increasing change in a smaller, faster, more connected world? Who should teach us these things, more answers to the article questions than just asking us to question ourselves. That's what critical thinking teaching should be in schools.