Transformation

I want to talk about a few things that are purely subjective, based on my own life experience. Not something factual, no articles or references I can really link to.

It's one of the things I always liked about philosophy (though I think Western philosophy has gotten a bit too hung up on semantics, and trying to define something exactly). See, most of it is something anyone can do. We all have life experience, which we can use to shape our opinions on all sorts of subjective topics. Like what it means to be human. Or what 'truth' and 'justice' really means.

So anyways.

Back in 2004 I deployed with the New York National Guard. There was a bit of culture shock, I'd say, coming as I do from a midwestern, middle class, white, strongly Catholic background. I've summed up the difference in a saying I learned there - "I got mine, how you do?"

It's this belief that you take care of yourself, and yours, first. That there isn't really any greater morality. That the things which annoyed me no end were just 'the way it was', and you would do the same thing if you were in their position.

This was vastly different from the way I was raised. Where I grew up hearing people decry the belief that morality was relative. That right or wrong depended on your point of view. Right was right, wrong was wrong, and just because 'everyone was doing it' didn't suddenly make it right or okay.

Truth, justice, and the American way.

I've talked before about the differences I noticed, particularly in decision making. I've worked in organizations that were fairly open and transparent about the decision-making process. Where at a staff meeting you might present a decision brief, showing the pros and cons of various courses of action... then debate them and see what the commander decided.

And then, there was the New York National Guard. Where the rules were never written, and you only learned them when you broke one. Where there was the 'internal reason', and an 'external reason', and you were never supposed to let outsiders know what that internal reason was.

Where I got asked to investigate something one of my superior officers heard about, a rumor that we were going to have to give up one of the buildings our unit was using. And I tracked down someone who had written up the orders, who said it was supposed to be there... but it was never published. And when I talked about it to my battalion commander, he claimed that this was proof the process worked. Because he knew someone (who probably knew someone) who got that bit taken out.

Not understanding that this was precisely my point. That a decision like that wasn't supposed to be about who knew who, and who had what connections, and who was able to pull one over on the other guy (all of whom happened to be, supposedly, on the same side. Though they sure didn't act that way sometimes.) That it was supposed to be about who needed the building, and whether that need outweighed ours, and about what the alternatives were and - if we did have to give up our building - what arrangements would be made for housing the people currently staying there.

I make that sound pretty negative, I suppose. I don't actually feel all that upset about it right now (though I had to deal with a lot of anger back then, cause that just wasn't the way it was supposed to be. And they just absolutely could not believe that it was any different anywhere else. That the midwest, for example, just made it look prettier... but the farmers lobbies and midwestern groups were just the same. Except, growing up in the midwest, I can tell you that it was never thought of or felt that way. I suppose, from one of my college courses, I would say that the people I knew all understood that you helped each other out when you could. Because you never knew when you might need a helping hand, in turn. You take care of each other, and do favors for each other, and you're not carrying some invisible tally of who owes who what.)

I learned a lot from it, and I don't really judge them for thinking the way they do. Or, perhaps I judge less now. It's a bit like the old 'pessimist vs. optimist' argument. It's a point of view, and it's almost impossible to persuade a pessimist to be an optimist, or vice versa. If I had grown up there, experienced life the way they had, I'd probably think that was 'the real world', too.

I came to believe professionalism mattered, though. Always, but especially when you dislike the other person. Because unprofessional behavior (i.e. 'losing' the promotion or award paperwork of someone you dislike) exacerbates the political crap, and takes the decision of who gets promoted or awarded out of the hands of the person it's supposed to be in. Yes, the process is not always fair or just... but people playing games like that doesn't make it more fair or just. It generally does the opposite. (And you should fight for systemic reform if it bothers you that much).

Oh, and it also seemed like decisions were never final, because it just meant whoever was pursuing their goal would just try to find another way. The bickering and infighting just never ends, really.

And, again, some of that really is true of everywhere. I don't care what nation or company or organization you are talking about, every time you get a large group of people together there are tensions and factions and things people disagree on. Learning how to manage that and work with that is pretty important.

But... there are ways, and there are ways, of doing so. Some ways exacerbate the infighting, some push it underground but don't really resolve it, and some succeed at getting most everyone else on board.

That's all background for what I wanted to go into next. Which, coming from that strong Catholic background (which has shaped and influenced me regardless of what my current beliefs are), I find the Bible fascinating... for a variety of reasons.

I hadn't really put this into words before, so some of this is more retrospective than my thinking at the time, but I started pondering how you could transform an organization from one to the other.

Or rather, learning how to be cynical and out for yourself is easy. Too easy. And as people see others 'succeed' by acting that way, they tend to start acting that way themselves. (Like my earlier post about driving).

But what about transforming an organization the other way? After all, those of us in the midwest came by our beliefs somehow. Just as valuing logic and rationality, truth, justice, transparency... all of these came from somewhere.

And when I read up on the Bible, it seemed to me like a lot of it is about exactly that. (and, presumably, other large religions as well... though I am not as familiar with them and don't make any claims to speak for them. Really, I can't even speak for my own, but I can speak of my own experiences/understanding.) The 'west', even as many have fallen away from the church and religion, had been transformed by centuries of christian domination, to the point where you can have pretty much the same moral compass without believing in God at all. (I knew a lady, as a child, who was married to an atheist. And she said once that her husband was more ethical than many Christians. And as Penn Jillette said, he does murder all he wants, and the amount he wants is zero.)

But the world wasn't always like that. Heck, even christendom wasn't. Early priests were out there sinning and marrying and having children in a way that would be shocking now (though for Protestants who allow their religious leaders to marry and divorce that's not really an issue.) Heck, early popes may have had sex after taking orders, and had children outside of marriage.

I think about my undergrad class, and how it talked about a culture where it was considered perfectly acceptable to cheat strangers and foreigners. So long as you were played it straight with you and yours.

And a large part of the New Testament is Jesus trying to teach his disciples... who were people like us, and more concerned with an earthly kingdom, and seemed to think they'd gain worldly power by following Jesus, and only really started changing after Jesus's death. On the cross, like a criminal.

By all rights, that should have been the end of it. The fact that it wasn't is mysterious, in the religious sense of the word.

It goes against the grain of our fallible, mortal world. Goes against a world where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Where the powerful crush the weak, and all the weak can do is suffer and die.

People wanted to believe that the world didn't have to be like that. That they could build the 'kingdom of heaven'. Because even though some people make their peace and accept a world where "I got mine, how you do"... and even though some people learn how to play that game themselves, and perhaps even take pride in 'winning'... most people find it a horrible, miserable, sucky world to be in.

Sure, you might be on the top. Some of the time. Right up until someone else comes along who is smarter, or stronger, or more willing to get their hands dirty. Or maybe you're lucky enough not to have that happen... but then you grow old, and weaker, and someone younger an more energetic comes along.

A dog eat dog world just plain sucks.

And so we have religions, that offer up an alternative. A way of transforming that dynamic into one that is... well, maybe not a utopia, but still a heckuva lot better for most.

Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Take care of the strangers in your midst.

Be truthful.

Be just. Merciful. Compassionate.

Turn the other cheek.

And have faith, believe in it enough to keep doing it. Even when the world seems to tell you that doing so makes you weak and vulnerable. Perhaps especially when you think it makes you weak and vulnerable.

Oh, over the centuries, as early Christians started to realize they were in for the long haul (many had expected Jesus to return within their lifetimes), they started talking more about doing these things for the later reward in heaven.

But much of it was also about creating a better society here, on earth. Because when a majority of the people believe in living this way, it's like the allegory of the long spoons.

Giving in to fear, and anger... going all Sith on the world... that pretty much does make hell on earth.

And, well. Some people can be persuaded by logic, and rational thinking. As I said above, we came to value these things for a reason.

But most people are more emotional than that. So I think, if you want to make that sort of transformation, you have to engage the heart.

Control, II

I wanted to expound a bit on my previous post (http://cguthrie00part2.blogspot.com/2020/01/control.html)

That post is why I think it's so important to consider at what level decisions should be made, as well as how detailed our instructions should be. For the birthday cake, for example, you probably need to give some sense of when it needs to be available, what the budget is, and how many people will be eating it.

Other factors depend on the situation. Chocolate? White? Banana? Is there a reason for one or the other?

Are colors an option, or does it need to be done a certain way? (i e. Their favorite color is blue. Or maybe it's not for a birthday. Maybe it's a cake for a university, and they want the school colors).

The point, though, is to distinguish between 'this is the image in my head' and 'these are a requirement for achieving the goal'. I could ignore a cake that's red when I pictured blue, because the color wasn't really important. But if it WAS, then I'd specify it, and expect as much.

So the guidelines should be the essential bits, and the details beyond that are up to the person given the task. 

And what about the dragon cake?

In some ways, it exemplifies why in the military we like to give the tadk and purpose. See, things can change. Quickly. And you don't always have time to provide an updated guideline. That's why you should want people who show initiative and good judgement. So even if it doesn't say 'Happy Birthday' on the cake, if the person responsible for that task has reason to think it would do a better job of making the birthday person happy (and it's within budget), that's ok. It's meeting the real intent.

Though, of course, it's a judgment call and could be wrong. That's a different story. 

This is why, in the military at least, the officer focuses on planning, resources, and the 'what' while the NCO handles the how. 

Or, to go into public policy - different levels of government are appropriate for setting various standards (federal, state, county, etc). But even if it's appropriate to set the standard at the national level, the 'how' can often be figured out at a lower level,where they have local knowledge and can make whatever it is work in their specific context. 

Washington DC doesn't need to dictate to a city or county where to put a local road, but they may want to provide a bare minimum standard for interstates. And make sure that states coordinate so interstate roads connect across state lines. It'd kind of defeat the purpose if I80 or I10 ended at the border, and you had to drive 50 miles on local roads to pick it back up again. 

Belt of Truth

Saw headlines illustrating how ludicrous certain types of Christianity sound to people outside it, and looked up a Wikipedia article on, 'spiritual warfare'.

All I can say is that these people seem to have forgotten to wear their 'Belt of Truth'. 

Control

In the original Star Wars movie, Princess Leia says "The more you tighten your grip... the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

I've always liked that imagery. Or, well, I suppose it requires one addition to paint the picture I imagined...

It's like trying to cup water in your hands. The more tightly you squeeze, the more the water slips through the cracks and runs down your hands.

You need to cup your hands both tight and loose... tight enough that it will hold, not so tight that you squeeze all the water out. (Much easier to do, than to explain, and I have a hard time imagining anyone doesn't already know what I'm talking about.)

Something similar occurs with using chopsticks. When you try to pick up a clump of rice, if you squeeze too hard you'll break the clump and the rice will fall apart... and off your chopsticks. You have to get the right balance between tightness and looseness.

On a less physical level, the same can be argued for people. And power. Too tight a grip (i.e. micromanagement, as just one example) is bad. Too loose is also bad. (Picture the frustration when a group of people are trying to decide what to eat for dinner, and nobody can agree on anything.)

In management, well. Let's say that you want someone to bring a birthday cake to an event...

You have to give them clear guidelines. For example: It has to be a chocolate cake, large enough to feed ten people, and have 'Happy Birthday' written on it.

They go out and get the cake, and they bring back this:

But what you pictured in your head was more like this:

(I apologize for how dark it is).

Both are chocolate. Both say 'Happy Birthday'. But what they brought you just isn't quite what you'd been picturing.

At this point, well... I generally would say "it met my requirements, and it looks good. This is fine."

Especially because nothing squelches motivation (and initiative) like having the boss come down on you for not being able to read their mind and give them exactly what they'd been picturing.

If there'd been a clear reason why it had to be, I don't know.. square instead of round. Or with brown icing instead of flowers... well. Then I failed to give clear guidance on what was needed, didn't I?

Now, you could always come up with a detailed list of requirements. One that would give you exactly what you pictured. Let's say "it has to be square, 13 x 9 in. Chocolate. With a white icing base and a chocolate rectangle in the center, on which is written 'Happy Birthday' in blue."

And, well... you then suck all the creativity out of the project. You'll get exactly what you've imagined, but you also leave no room for someone to bring you a cake like this:

And note, it doesn't have 'Happy Birthday' on it. But do you honestly think someone would be upset about that, if they got a cake like this?

And maybe it's not quite what you had pictured... it's even better.

So, yeah. Control can be a good thing. Planning, coordinating, making sure that thing happen (on time, and to standard). But you also have to know where/when to NOT take control.

Because sometimes, just sometimes, that's when the magic happens.

Perspectives

Eye opening -

https://twitter.com/victoriabwrites/status/1219068778748751873?s=19

Tackling Poverty

A nice summary of my understanding of the issues -

https://www.theguardian.com/advertiser-content/stand-together/how-to-escape-the-poverty-trap-for-good?fbclid=IwAR3Q-YuBI-Ka-2n2coilGgpY8eQavI-T48UAyG-PW3sl5nr_UJhfx7ohaJ8

The only thing I'd add is that some of the solutions run into an issue best explained with our prison system -

Is our system meant to rehabilitate, or punish?

Statistically, opportunities for higher education have helped keep ex-criminals from committing more crimes, but if you think punishment is the point then providing money and resources to convicted criminals seems unfair, especially when people who've never committed a crime struggle to pay for college.

I personally think the benefits to society as a whole are more important (less crime overall, yay! More people living up to their potential, yay!) but you have to address the attitudes/perceptions of the other side. 

Good Deeds

Saw this on Facebook -

https://www.otmj.com/st-lukes-medical-debt/?fbclid=IwAR3OJm_jyz7JlNbVV7jXAfIg9e5EQCf_RUv4fkNTroBGLUBuMJV1370Jtog

And it's far more in keeping with my understanding of what it means to be a good Christian. 

They also mentioned a church here that did something similar. I might have to check them out. 

Faith, Martyrdom, and Various Musings

In C.S. Lewis's Narnia series, there's a scene in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe where the lion, Aslan, talks about the 'deeper magic'.

It's a very clear Christian allegory (though I didn't realize that until later, since I started reading this as a child)... in which the evil witch has convinced the lion to sacrifice himself, and all seems lost.

The concept of a 'martyr' has been used in a variety of ways over the centuries, some of them problematic... like the tendency to 'martyr oneself' by not speaking up about things that bother us, out of some misguided sense that we should be 'nice' and/or 'loving'. (Honestly, and I think anyone who takes a few moments of silence and is honest with themselves, which would you rather have - a friend or lover who never lets you know when they're upset, who suppresses it and pretends everything is fine when it really isn't? Or one that is honest with you, even if it sometimes hurts, but gives you the chance to address whatever-it-is? Sort of like the age-old question - do you want friends who tell you when you've got something stuck in your teeth, or pretend it isn't there?)

Then there's people who think 'martyrdom' just means suicide on behalf of some grand goal, and are willing to murder and die. Forgetting that a key part of becoming a martyr was being innocent... the very attempt to hurt and attack others prevents you from being a real martyr.

And there's the common notion that a martyr is someone who dies in a cause, but in way that inspires others to fight even harder. That's where the common belief that you 'don't want to make someone a martyr' comes from, where it's not enough to kill an opponent... you have to discredit them in the process. After all, killing the head of a snake doesn't work so well if it's actually a hydra.

So anyways - the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and the deeper magic.

The magic that comes from willingly facing the worst. Of allowing yourself to be weak. Vulnerable...

And somehow winning, despite it all.

Winning - not by having a deus ex machina come and strike down your opponents, but because something about how you lose inspires others. Converts them. Makes you and yours stronger, even in defeat.

Especially in defeat.

Which is part of why I consider everyone, even those who claim to be 'doing God's will', who have persuaded themselves that they 'have' to do something God's been pretty clear is wrong... have lost faith.

They think that they have to win. That the stakes are so high, that it's okay to lie... as just one example. Because it's in pursuit of a higher purpose.

Or it's okay to ignore the whole notion that "there is no compulsion in religion', as Mohammed says in the Koran, if it creates God's kingdom on earth.

People forget the very basics, because they think they can come back to it once they've got power. That winning is more important.

And yet, over and over again God (if you believe in Him. I'm not trying to persuade those who don't) appears to somehow turn defeat into victory.

If you only have faith, and trust, and continue to follow the right path... even when all seems lost.

Which is why I say, over and over again... that the extreme Muslim terrorists show an absence of faith, as they don't trust they can win without murdering their opponents.

And our current political alliance with conservative evangelicals also shows a lack of faith, as every. single. time. they. lie -

to 'win', to gain power, to make God's will happen... whatever the reason...

Every single time they knowingly do wrong, thinking that the 'ends justifies the means', and that this is what they have to do in order to win against such powerful opponents...

They show that they totally failed to understand what having faith in God means.

How can anything good come from such rotten foundations? They're building their house on sand, and calling it God's will.

No True Scotsman...

Wanted to share this -

https://thedispatch.com/p/the-rights-bullsht-problem

And clarify something, since I am guilty of a version of the 'no true Scotsman' declaration.

I like subverting the common argument. I have heard people on the right argue that 'no true Christian could support' X or Y, and it's wrong pretty much for all the reasons listed in this article.

And instead of writing a post like this, I like to change it up. Break out of the well worn treads in our minds, where people think they know exactly what you're going to say next when you say something like 'true Christian', or 'patriot', or whatever.

And I also want to make other points of course. Because the Bible has that whole bit about golden calves, and false idols, and being unable to serve two masters... 

And what if you can't serve God and follow Jesus and believe in a form of capitalism that allows corruption like in my previous article?

Who do you really follow?

The World Is On Fire, Feels Like

So I saw this post today - https://seananmcguire.tumblr.com/post/190152843280/victory-new-free-file-rules-ban-tax-prep-firms

and it reminded me yet again why I'm so angry with modern Christian conservatives.

The world is full of stuff like this, and they should be at the forefront of that fight. 

So very much of the Bible has to do with social justice, and taking care of the poor. The ill. The hungry. 

If you're more concerned about homosexuality than you are about stuff like this, your priorities are really screwed up. 

The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn't sodomy, it was their widespread selfish and evil behavior, like rape. And targeting visitors/guests.

Where are the Christian Conservatives standing against poverty and corruption? 

and this just...

Wow.

Since I do try to hear other points of view, I figured I'd read an article with a headline indicating the left was overreacting on the war crimes but -

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/war-crimes-hysteria-on-the-left.php

And, well, here's the thing. 

Trump clearly uses Twitter to float trial balloons, and then walkbacks or tries to find a 'legal' way to do things that don't go over well. 

I only had to see the back and forth of some of his earlier chaotic policy changes to figure that out (remember the whole 'banning Muslims' thing?)

So, sure, he hasn't actually committed a war crime. 

That is only because of the feedback he gets. 

If you don't make it crystal clear that it's NOT ok... Well, do you honestly think he'd rein himself in?

Which is pretty much why I wrote my previous post. 

We, as a people, need to send a clear message that it's a bad idea. 

So very, very, very bad. 

And I am disappointed that too many people are willing to blindly support him, to the point where they'll actually try to justify committing war crimes, instead of send that message. 

Untitled

I had a bit of discussion on Twitter yesterday, and I'm sort of upset about some of what I'm seeing, so I figured I'd try typing it out here.

In college, I tried a variety of things. Tai chi. Ballroom dance. Hapkido. 

One of the things that stuck with me was that martial artists have options.

If someone attacks you have choices -

Block it. 

Hit back. 

Dodge it.

Move with it, make them overextend and lose their balance... And throw them, or put them in a joint lock, or whatever. 

Its easy to narrow your focus, get tunnel vision, and think it's binary... But it's generally not. 

So what disturbed me on Twitter was all these people acting like we only had two options - be weak and do nothing, or commit war crimes.

Like... We have a whole range of options. Do nothing, sure. Sanctions. Striking military targets. 

Why did so many people seem to jump straight to war crimes?

I cannot express how... Disappointed I am right now.

Because it's not just the President. It's all the people who support, enable, and encourage him. 

I find the ones claiming to be Christian to be the most offensive, personally. (Turn the other cheek, anyone? If you sit in silence for 10 minutes and are honest with yourself, do you really think Jesus wants this? It's insulting to all the good Christians I respected and admired that these people claim to speak on behalf of them, and Jesus, and God.)

But really, all of them, no matter what their reasoning, are enabling this. 

So much for the rule of law. 

So much for principles. 

So much for truth, justice, and the American way. 

Apparently, for some of us, those things are as strong as tissue paper. 

God help us all. 

Odds and Ends

I've been reading that book on Stalin, and it brought up a bunch of other things that I decided to type out here... hoping to untangle the complex muddle.

As usual, there are about a million caveats to everything, and I'm only doing a superficial look at some pretty deep topics.

Guess it's a good thing I'm writing this in a semi-obscure corner of the internet. ;)

Okay... where was I?

So this history book was talking about some of the factions within Russia's revolutionary movement (i.e. Bolsheviks vs Mensheviks), as well as the cultural support for autocracy, and various other things that I really don't have the cultural context to understand. (Autocracy? Really? I don't see why you would dismiss the hundreds of years of history we have proving what a bad idea this is... but okay. Seems plenty of Americans today agree, given that they seem bound and determined to recreate a strong authoritarian figure with few checks and balances on their power. More fools they.)

Anyways. Lenin (and Stalin) seemed to support the idea of some sort of technocratic elite guiding the peasantry... which, honestly, is part of why far right and far left are sometimes not very different from each other. I mean, when you propose a strong central authority that 'knows better' than the ignorant masses... it's pretty much the same sort of system no matter what fancy labels you put on things. You just get a different group at the top of the heap. (Like the 'children's book' I keep mentioning, Hope for the Flowers.)

I say contradiction, because we were founded as a republic... with the belief that 'all men are created equal', and yet many of our Founding Fathers were slaveowners who clearly did not believe that lofty ideal. And we created a system where the masses could vote, except that we actually restricted voting rights to land-owning white men, and put in place the electoral college and Senate to help counterbalance the masses.

Do we believe that average citizens can make wise decisions, should have a say in their government, and should be represented by said government? Or do we really believe that there are people who 'know better', and should guide us to the 'right' decisions even when the 'ignorant masses' disagree?

Yes, I put single quotes around those things to highlight the phrases that generally embody an elitist attitude.

There are times when I get... well, both points of view, tbh. We - fallible human beings that we are - have a tendency to get into fads and things, and can sometimes be very foolish indeed. I don't think I even have to use political examples for this - just look at business, and the various fads that sweep through corporate America, like Lean Six Sigma. (Which is not to say the fads are bad, necessarily, but all too often businesses seem to jump on the bandwagon because that's what all the other cool businesses are doing, and they aren't actually doing the work to manage change effectively, so no matter how good these ideas are they become yet another 'check the box to keep the boss happy' kind of thing.) Or businesses decide to sell the physical assets they own, because that's what the cool accounting strategies say to do... and then some years later we can't get the addition or upgrade to our warehouse because now we're renting it from someone else, and that owner doesn't support doing so. (An oversimplification.)

Consider economic bubbles, and how every Christmas some toy is the latest craze. Tickle Me Elmo, anyone?

And yet, despite the craziness of humanity en masse, there are problems with letting a 'technocratic elite' make all the decisions.

First and foremost, the tendency to grow arrogant and dismissive of views that don't agree with yours. After all, you know better. It happens so much so that the Law of Unintended Consequences shows what a powerful force it can be. The tendency to live in a bubble, where you only see a narrow view of an issue, and thus have trouble coming up with real solutions.

Then there's all the usual problems of groupthink and whatnot - if your technocratic elite all go to the same sorts of schools, and all get trained to think the same way, then you don't have a very diverse body of thought... and tend to dismiss the out-of-the-box thinking that comes from those who don't have the same background.

Which almost inevitably seems to happen. I don't know why it is, but God (or evolution) seems to love putting talent and creativity in out-of-the-way places. So much so that I tend to think this is more firmly on the 'nurture' side of the nature-vs-nurture debate. As soon as one group gains control and manages to shunt out competition in one area, it stagnates and stultifies and some completely different area starts flourishing almost as a counterpoint. (i.e. Hollywood started as a place for creatives to make movies... then when it got locked down and commodified to the point where it became formulaic and less creative, we got the growth of indie films. YouTube... well, you have to wade through a lot of crap and mediocrity, but you can also find golden nuggets of creativity there. This is part of why I say that any time you hear complaints about a 'talent shortage' what you really have is a pipeline problem. We are bursting with talent and creativity, and if you struggle to find it you should take a long, hard look at your recruiting system.)

So... sometimes the people who study a topic really do know better, and sometimes they really don't. Which doesn't really help much, does it?

More and more, I keep thinking of something my brother said a long time ago - that the true virtue is wisdom. I forget what philosopher he was drawing on for that, and I'm sure I'm misremembering it, but there's a lot of truth to it. Wisdom is the difference between boldness and foolhardiness, caution and cowardice.

There is never going to be a perfect system. Whatever system you come up with, there will be flaws. And people who will try to exploit those flaws.

The system only works when the majority of people are wise enough to make it work, and to avoid those flaws. (And boy, oh boy, is there a lot of foolishness going around today... as people who really ought to know better are one by one dismantling all the checks and balances and various measures to keep the craziness in check.)

This whole debate is also, in many ways, similar to the debate over whether or not we elect politicians for their judgement or to implement our will.

To which I will say... yes.

Or rather, it is the interaction between the two, the debate as someone 'knowledgeable' tries to persuade others to their point of view (and succeeds or fails) that is important. We shouldn't blindly go with the masses when we truly think their wrong, and we also shouldn't blindly assume we know better and ignore the masses.

It should be a dialogue. And one in which we are open-minded, and continue to evaluate/assess our policies. (This ties back to some earlier posts on whether it's better to have a good plan, poorly executed... or a bad plan, well executed.)

I honestly don't like getting too caught up in any specific ideology, because all of them are short-hand for a complex and messy reality. If that particular way of looking at things is useful, great. If it isn't, try another. (In public policy we called it 'evidence-based practice'. I want what works, not what you've convinced yourself will work. And that again is a very superficial statement on a deep topic, because how do you decide what is a sign something is 'working' or not? Works for who? How?)

So anyways...

Stalin (and Lenin, who led the Bolsheviks initially) made a mistake, to my mind, by deciding that his technocratic elite knew better than the peasant masses. It meant that when the Bolsheviks came to power they also ruled as autocrats. I think. Still reading up on that, ofc.

Which is not to say that the Mensheviks were right, either.

Or rather, to bring in yet another complex subject -

It's a bit about how some change comes from the top down, and some comes from the bottom up...

And the most effective changes really do both. There's support from the top, and support from the bottom. If it's only from the top, it's like all those business fads I talked about earlier - people check the box and mouth the words, but drag their feet and continue to do things their own way... and just sort of wait for the people at the top to leave, or get tired and move on to a new best thing, or whatever.

And if it's from the bottom up, with no support from the top, then it generally doesn't get the support it needs and just makes people frustrated and cynical.

(This also, btw, shifting gears completely because it's my blog and I can do what I want... is part of why Trump has demonstrated what a horrible leader he is. Or maybe the difference between being a founder and taking over a large and complex organization as a CEO well after the organizations history has been established. You see, anybody who has ever taken a leadership position in the latter has had to deal with the sort of resistance I just described. There's organization history. An established way of doing things. And people are resistant to change. You have to convince them that the change you want to make really is for the better... and managing that change is a talent a great CEO will have.

All this talk about a 'deep state' is because Trump doesn't know how to deal with those sorts of problems. I mean... JFK had a fit - iirc, can't find the details online - because he wanted a sign for the CIA headquarters taken down and it took far more work than it should have to find someone in his own government who could get it done. These are the challenges you deal with in any sort of large-scale organization.

But Trump is labeling that sort of leadership challenge as 'traitors' and a 'deep state'... because he really, really, really sucks at leading in any sort of organization where he can't just rule by fiat.

Such a shame his supporters are willing to tear down any such obstacle to doing that. We fought a whole revolution against a king, and made it clear we don't like kings, and these guys are essentially trying to reinstall a de facto king. It's about as un-American as you can get.)

Anyways. Lenin and Stalin's belief in a top-down technocratic elite was wrong.

And I find myself wondering what would have happened if someone wiser had prevailed (and why does so much of this history seem like a horror story, where the worst decisions keep getting made, over and over again? Did someone put a curse on Russia? And why do I keep sensing parallels to our own history today, where I fear we will continue to get people making foolish decisions. I hope I'm wrong, because I don't really want to see what happens if the foolish powers-that-be don't wise up before it's too late.)