Happy Fourth of July, everyone! Here's a quote from George Washington:
"...the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."
There's a lot to that quote, and it's only part of a larger statement. The part I wanted to focus on was his use of the word 'experiment'. When the United States was created, there were a LOT of unknowns, and uncertainty whether the system would work at all.
Almost 50 years after the ratification of the Constitution (NOT the signing of the Declaration of Independence. People seem to forget about the Articles of Confederation in between) Andrew Jackson said "Our Constitution is no longer a doubtful experiment."
Again, that word. Experiment. 50 years later the United States no longer seemed quite so precarious an invention. Today, over 200 years later, it's hard to imagine how disruptive and new our entire system of government was.
In this time of fear and anger, when divisiveness seems everywhere, I was thinking about what makes us so afraid.
For example, Politico recently wrote an article about Colorado Springs and it's experiment with libertarianism. I'm sure there are libertarians who will disagree with their analysis, I wanted to focus less on that and more on this notion - again - of an experiment.
See, when you say something is an experiment, you imply an acceptance that the results are unknown, a willingness to give it a go, and an understanding that you'll try something different if it doesn't work out. It requires a mindset that is, frankly, scientific. A willingness to try and an openness to changing direction based on the results.
It's also a reminder that whatever path you are choosing, it is not irreversible. (Which can be good or bad, but is always worth remembering.)
We act as though the fate of the nation rests on our side winning politics. And losing is a disaster, that must be avoided at all costs. But something funny happens when we are so afraid of losing that we try to guarantee that we win. That sense of an experiment gets lost.
There's a balance in life which fantasy writers play up with the archetypal fight between chaos and order. Chaos is, of course, disruptive and disorienting. It's uncomfortable. It makes it hard to do...well, pretty much anything.
But too much order is bad, too. Too much order makes things stagnant, unchangeable. In a word - dead.
We humans don't do so great in worlds like that. Aside from turning off our brains and living on remote control, it also makes it hard for people who want to better themselves. To improve their lives. This is a perennial problem, of course. Talented have-nots see people who are less talented ahead of them and wonder why they can't be that person. It's why we developed this whole notion of a meritocracy, and why it's so desirable.
In an ordered world, one with no disruptions and no chaos, there'd be no way to get ahead. (and, on the flip side, no way to fall behind. Hence the appeal to order.)
The reason why I talk about income inequality, the reason I like to point out the flaws in this so-called meritocratic system, is that for us to accept that the 'cream rises to the top' and to accept that this is the land of opportunity we have to make sure everyone really DOES have that opportunity.
A kid growing up in Flint, with lead in the water, has been hamstrung before the race has even begun. And getting to the top of the heap when half your competition has been injured before the race...it's not really a sign you're the best of the best, is it?
Our capitalist/meritocratic system depends on, requires, that everyone have the chance to show what they can do. And any system that abandons the ones who can't afford to go to private schools, or get extra coaching for SATs, or abandons students who go to schools with rodents and water leaks, is one that can not be considered meritocratic.
How we fix that is open to debate. On the education issue, for example, I'm not opposed to school vouchers. You can debate whether it's the local community's responsibility (though schools located in poor communities are at a disadvantage, which doesn't make things any more meritocratic), or the state, or the federal government. Either way, we can not just abandon public schools. There are too many people who still attend them and will attend them even with school vouchers. (And for the record, there is a strong debate over whether charter schools really do better or not.)
That's just one issue, of course. The main point is that our republic structure allows us to experiment. One area may do school vouchers, another may raise state taxes to help improve schools. The point I started out with, this grand sense of experiment, is that we can try different things. Assess the results. And use what's proven effective.
"...the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."
There's a lot to that quote, and it's only part of a larger statement. The part I wanted to focus on was his use of the word 'experiment'. When the United States was created, there were a LOT of unknowns, and uncertainty whether the system would work at all.
Almost 50 years after the ratification of the Constitution (NOT the signing of the Declaration of Independence. People seem to forget about the Articles of Confederation in between) Andrew Jackson said "Our Constitution is no longer a doubtful experiment."
Again, that word. Experiment. 50 years later the United States no longer seemed quite so precarious an invention. Today, over 200 years later, it's hard to imagine how disruptive and new our entire system of government was.
In this time of fear and anger, when divisiveness seems everywhere, I was thinking about what makes us so afraid.
For example, Politico recently wrote an article about Colorado Springs and it's experiment with libertarianism. I'm sure there are libertarians who will disagree with their analysis, I wanted to focus less on that and more on this notion - again - of an experiment.
See, when you say something is an experiment, you imply an acceptance that the results are unknown, a willingness to give it a go, and an understanding that you'll try something different if it doesn't work out. It requires a mindset that is, frankly, scientific. A willingness to try and an openness to changing direction based on the results.
It's also a reminder that whatever path you are choosing, it is not irreversible. (Which can be good or bad, but is always worth remembering.)
We act as though the fate of the nation rests on our side winning politics. And losing is a disaster, that must be avoided at all costs. But something funny happens when we are so afraid of losing that we try to guarantee that we win. That sense of an experiment gets lost.
There's a balance in life which fantasy writers play up with the archetypal fight between chaos and order. Chaos is, of course, disruptive and disorienting. It's uncomfortable. It makes it hard to do...well, pretty much anything.
But too much order is bad, too. Too much order makes things stagnant, unchangeable. In a word - dead.
We humans don't do so great in worlds like that. Aside from turning off our brains and living on remote control, it also makes it hard for people who want to better themselves. To improve their lives. This is a perennial problem, of course. Talented have-nots see people who are less talented ahead of them and wonder why they can't be that person. It's why we developed this whole notion of a meritocracy, and why it's so desirable.
In an ordered world, one with no disruptions and no chaos, there'd be no way to get ahead. (and, on the flip side, no way to fall behind. Hence the appeal to order.)
The reason why I talk about income inequality, the reason I like to point out the flaws in this so-called meritocratic system, is that for us to accept that the 'cream rises to the top' and to accept that this is the land of opportunity we have to make sure everyone really DOES have that opportunity.
A kid growing up in Flint, with lead in the water, has been hamstrung before the race has even begun. And getting to the top of the heap when half your competition has been injured before the race...it's not really a sign you're the best of the best, is it?
Our capitalist/meritocratic system depends on, requires, that everyone have the chance to show what they can do. And any system that abandons the ones who can't afford to go to private schools, or get extra coaching for SATs, or abandons students who go to schools with rodents and water leaks, is one that can not be considered meritocratic.
How we fix that is open to debate. On the education issue, for example, I'm not opposed to school vouchers. You can debate whether it's the local community's responsibility (though schools located in poor communities are at a disadvantage, which doesn't make things any more meritocratic), or the state, or the federal government. Either way, we can not just abandon public schools. There are too many people who still attend them and will attend them even with school vouchers. (And for the record, there is a strong debate over whether charter schools really do better or not.)
That's just one issue, of course. The main point is that our republic structure allows us to experiment. One area may do school vouchers, another may raise state taxes to help improve schools. The point I started out with, this grand sense of experiment, is that we can try different things. Assess the results. And use what's proven effective.
