Restoring Government of the People: A Citizen’s Petition

27 Mar 2026 14 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

We the people and citizens of the United States of America want to return this country to responsible, ethical and efficient government.  Over the years, inevitable creep has occurred in all branches of government leading to situations that are no longer consistent with the principles and values of our Founding Fathers.  These “Ten Points for Effective and Efficient Government” would be a start to restoring the Democracy that this country was founded on.  You do not have to believe in all of these points to sign this petition, but if you believe in at least seven of the points, we hope you will sign this petition for a Government that once again is By the People, For the People and of the People.

  1. Term Limits

Over the years, our population has increased in life expectancy.  Term limits would help insure that new blood and vitality is injected into our political system.  Ideally, two terms of six years each would help an elected official achieve their stated goals and aims.  These term limits would apply to all elected officials holding seats in any legislative office of the country.

  1. Illegal Lobbying

Lobbying is legal bribery.  An official is given campaign money if they support the lobbyists agenda.  In other areas of business, this would be called bribery and would be illegal.  We need to make lobbying illegal in all of the government and make those trying to use money to persuade politicians guilty of bribery.

  1. Limits on time in office for Supreme Court Justices

No one of the Founding Fathers ever thought that the average judge would live to 80 + years.  We need to cap a Judges tenure at 20 years.  Anything more than that puts our law in the hands of people who are no longer in touch with the average citizen.

  1. Non-Partisan selection of all Federal and State Justices

The system of allowing a politician to select our Judges distorts the law and puts a bias in courtroom decisions based on political affiliations.  We need to have a non-partisan panel of legal experts who select our Federal and State Judges based on specific criteria related to professionalism, ethics and the ability to render judgements irrespective of political affiliations.

  1. Campaign Spending Limits

If campaigns can be won or lost based on monetary expenditures than we do not have a government of the people.  We have a government where he or she who has the most money gets elected.  It becomes the Golden Rule:  “Whosoever has the most gold makes the rules.”  We need to have campaign spending limits and get corporations out of the business of funding political campaigns.

  1. Limits to holding elected offices consecutively

It will not do any good to have term limits if elected officials can simply jump to another government position either elected or appointed.  We need to insure a turnover of all elected and appointed government officials.  This can only be assured my limiting the number of political offices that they can hold consecutively whether appointed or elected.  We do not need lifers in Government but people who bring new visions and new skills.  We should limit the number of combined elected or appointed political positions that can be held to no more than three positions for a total of no more than 18 years which would combine both appointments and elections.

  1. Funding for Elected Officials during Government Shutdowns

When Congress cannot do its duty by funding the government and employees can not receive a paycheck, than Congress should also have their paychecks suspended for the duration of the shutdown.  As they say, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

  1. Compulsory National Service for all US Citizens

Every American Citizen at the age of 18 must elect for National Service of either two or four years.  This obligation can be satisfied by either military or civilian service such as the Peace Corp or other civilian programs.  Two years would be the minimum for compulsory service.  Two years of National Service would earn two year of paid education benefits.  Four years of National Service would earn four years of paid education benefits.

  1. Caps on all budgets including Military, Education, Health Care

Government cannot be fiscally responsible when politicians are free to print all the money they want to spend.  We need mandatory caps on all budgets to insure that good financial policy is followed.  It is too easy for money to be allocated when there is no ceiling to how much can be spent.  Can you imagine what would happen in your home if you were free to just spend as much money as you wanted to?

  1. Campaign Communication Integrity

There is a myth that Free Speech means you can say anything you want to.  This is not true.  Our democracy depends on truth and respect.  Today’s campaigns too often rely on misinformation, personal attacks, and division.  We call for stronger accountability for knowingly false or defamatory statements and a return to fact-based, civil debate.  This is not about limiting free speech—it is about restoring trust, honesty, and integrity in our elections.  We need to restore civility and open mindedness to the campaign process.  We have demonized other parties, slandered opponents, descended to lies and name calling to the extent that they have become commonplace in our elections.  We need to restore human decency to elections.

Petition Summary

This petition represents a call from citizens who believe that the strength of the United States lies not only in its founding ideals, but in our willingness to renew them.  Over time, the structures of government have evolved in ways that many feel no longer reflect the balance, accountability, and ethical standards envisioned at the nation’s founding. This proposal outlines ten practical reforms designed to restore trust, improve efficiency, and reestablish a government that truly serves its people.

These reforms focus on limiting excessive concentration of power, reducing the influence of money in politics, ensuring fairness and impartiality in the judicial system, and promoting shared civic responsibility. They are not intended to favor any political party or ideology, but rather to strengthen the integrity of the system itself.

If you support the majority of these principles, we invite you to sign this petition and join in a constructive effort to help guide our nation toward a more accountable, effective, and unified future—one that lives up to the enduring promise of government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

If you want to add your name to this petition.  Send a copy to me at persico.john@gmail.com.  I will compile as many names as I can to eventually send to media and elected officials. 

If you are comfortable doing so and can support 70 percent of the ideas in this petition, than would you please help share this petition.  Names can be sent back to me at Persico.john@gmail.com  I will compile as many names as I can to use in contacting media and elected officials.  I have no naïve beliefs that in the short term this will change anything.  However, if over time we can all stand up for the things that really matter, we may eventually have a tidal wave that will sweep away the old system and usher in a new era of peace, justice and equality for all. 

                                              

                                               

                                               

                                               

                                               

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Try Honey Before Vinegar” – Lessons on Leadership from Abraham Lincoln

06 Feb 2025 1 Comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

America has lost the “Art of Leadership.”  We no longer develop men and women with integrity or selflessness.  Instead of Statesmen, we have political hacks only concerned with getting reelected.  Politicians with no backbones or the courage to stand up against injustice.  We have a Congress of sycophants willing to do whatever they are told to do regardless of how unethical or immoral it may be.  We have thousands of lawyers who do not uphold justice but find arguments to support an amorality that meets the letter of the law but ignores the significance of decency, goodness, honesty, conscience and fairness.

In this blog and the ones to follow,  I will write about insights regarding leadership from one of the greatest American leaders and Presidents of all time.  I found a compilation of these in an old collectors edition of “Civil War Times” published in Winter, 2013. There are 41 in total, and I have already covered the first in a previous blog.  I would like for you to hear the words of Abraham Lincoln and what he had to say about leadership.  I will include some of my own experiences from my years of working with senior management in over 32 organizations.  Some of the men and women I worked with were incredible leaders.  Most of them wanted to be better leaders and that is where I brought the teachings and thoughts of W. E. Deming to my consulting practice.  Dr. Deming achieved extraordinary results in business by tapping the knowledge, skills and abilities of ordinary people.  Senator Hubert Humprey famously said that “Democracy is a system that achieves extraordinary results with ordinary people.”

Insight # 2 – Try Honey Before Vinegar: 

Lincoln said, “If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend.”  Springfield, Illinois, 2/22/1842

This seems to be a principle or idea that is not very well understood by many people today.  I constantly hear people tell me that if you want to change people’s ideas about things, you must “empathize with them.”  “You must really listen to them.”  To these admonitions, I say “Bullshit.”  You can listen to some fanatics all you want to, and they will still totally ignore anything you say that does not fit in with their preconceptions or ideology.

A good woman friend of mine and I were arguing about Trump and his supporters.  Repeatedly in every argument, she would say “John, you just have to really listen to them.”  I finally got tired of hearing this refrain and one day I challenged her.  I said, “Tell me one, only one, Trump supporter you have listened to who has changed their mind.”  She was dumbfounded.  She was stumped.  She was bewildered.  She could not think of one.  Months went by.  I would occasionally rub salt into the wound, “Did you change the minds of any Trump supporters today?”

You can listen to others all you want.  You can listen to hell freezes over.  You will not change a fanatic or zealot’s ideas by listening.  But Lincoln was smarter than all the psychologists we have today put together.  He knew that it would take more than listening to get others to think differently or to appreciate your ideas after you have heard theirs.  It takes believing and feeling that you are a “Sincere” friend.  Not just a Facebook friend or some online friend, but a “Sincere” friend.  Plato talked about the various types of friends, but he said nothing about a “Sincere” friend.  So, what is a “Sincere” friend and what does it take to make someone believe that you really and truly are a “Sincere” friend?  Let’s first define the meaning of “Sincere.”

An online dictionary defines “Sincere” as:

“Free from pretense or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings.”

Wikipedia defines the virtue of Sincerity as follows:

“Sincerity is the virtue of one who communicates and acts in accordance with the entirety of their feelings, beliefs, thoughts, and desires in a manner that is honest and genuine.  Sincerity in one’s actions (as opposed to one’s communications) may be called ‘earnestness”’.

I think the word “Sincere” has a lot to do with integrity, honesty, trustworthiness and truthfulness.  The Jewish have a word for a person who is sincere and honest called a Mensch.  In Yiddish, a Mensch roughly means “a good person”.  The word has migrated as a word into American English with a Mensch being a particularly good person, similar to a “stand-up guy”.  A Mensch is a person with the qualities that one would hope for in a friend or trusted colleague.

I think we can now answer the question, “What does it take to impact someone’s ideas and ideology?”  The answer is very simple.  If you want to have someone listen to your ideas, you must be a Mensch or at least a very “Sincere” friend.  When I think about the people we elect to political leadership, I am struck by the lack of Menschs in either Congress or the Legislature.

In fact, I would argue that we have the exact opposite.  We have people you would not trust with a nickel.  People who we know will change their mind at the drop of a lobbyist’s donations.  Congresspeople, who continually lie to cover their malfeasance and incompetence.  Ask anyone of them what they do all day long and they will deny that they spend about 80 percent of their time fundraising for their next election campaign.

Try to suggest some new ideas to them as I have done countless times, and you will get the following answer, “I am very busy but send me something and I will look at it.”  Don’t hold your breath my friend.  You will die of asphyxiation before any of them, Democrat or Republican will ever get back to you.  However, mention that you are thinking of a large campaign contribution and doors will open in a New York minute.

Let us think of a scenario wherein a Trump supporter meets a Trump opponent.  We will call Mary the Trump supporter and Joe the Trump opponent.   Neither of them have ever met before and do not know each other.   The talk between them soon turns to politics.

Mary:  I think Trump is doing a great job.  He is really shaking the government up.  Just what we need.

Joe:  You think tariffs, job cuts and threatening our allies are what we need?  Are you crazy?

Mary:  He is already getting results.  Mexico and Canada have agreed to send more troops to the border.

Joe:  These are our allies.  What if I threatened you, how would you feel about me?  I am sure that long-term you would be looking for some way to get even.

Mary:  Well, I have to go.

Joe:  Yeah, so do I. Bye

If the above scenario had gone down between two long-term “Sincere” friends, how do you think it would have turned out?  I am betting both sides would have heard some value in the other sides position.  Furthermore, they might have  finished the discussion and gone out together to have a bite to eat or at least agreed on another time to get together.

Old Abe Lincoln knew a lot about leadership and the role that friendship played in it.

“On the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and though you throw it with more than Herculean force and precision, you shall no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.” — Lincoln, Address to Washington Temperance Society (February 22, 1842)

I have heard many conversations between Trump supporters and Trump opponents.  We attack each other.  We condemn each other for stupidity.  We assail each other for taking the Kool-Aide.  Then we retreat to the other sides of the room full of hate and disgust.  We ask ourselves, “How could anyone think like they do?”  “What is wrong with them?”  “They must be either, stupid, uneducated, brainwashed, racist or something else.”

If we are going to break down the walls and barriers that now separate us in the USA , we are going to have to do more than just listen to our opposition.  We are going to have to find ways of befriending each other.  Not just casual friendships but real “Sincere” friendships.  Friends who can accept and support mutual honesty and truthfulness with each other.

Too much of what I have seen in the media supports a narrative that my side is intelligent and smart, and the other side is dumb and uneducated.  I confess to having shared some of this narrative in my own writings.  It is now time to move past these simplistic and detrimental stereotypes and develop empathy and understanding that surpasses mere listening.  The way to do this is through “Sincere” friendship and not by demonizing the other side.

How do we fight an “Uncivil War”?  Insight # 3 from Old Abe has more valuable thoughts to help us in this struggle.  I will share these in my next blog.

 

How to be civil in an uncivil world

23 May 2022 9 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , ,

Ms Hudson’s piece is marvelous.  She is a wonderful writer with insights on civility that we all need to think about.  This copy is from a site it was posted on with shares.  The site is called Civic Renaissance.  I advise everyone to sign up for this site and enjoy some excellent writing.

On Plato and civility: reflecting on Plato during his traditionally recognized birthday month, and civility for International Civility Month + win a YEAR of WONDRIUM!

1

Gracious reader,

May is the month that scholars traditionally deem to be the birthday of Plato. Also, certain authorities have declared that May is International Civility Awareness Month.

The School of Athens, a fresco by the Italian Renaissance artist Raphael, painted between 1509 and 1511.

I’ve been thinking of both of these topics of late.

Plato and civility are never far from my mind, but I recently emerged from an experience that caused me to lean and reflect on them all the more.

(For those new to the Civic Renaissance community, my upcoming book on civility will be published by St. Martin’s press in May 2023.)

A recent, tumultuous business transaction prompted me to consider how civility applies to the real world—a and to ask a question that you may have considered, too.

How can we be civil in an uncivil world?

Is it possible for people who are committed to the principles of decency, courteousness, and treating others with basic respect to succeed and thrive when others do not abide by these principles?

Or is it a hopeless cause?

Share

The story

In a recent business situation, the opposite party lacked all manner of basic decency.

Their behavior did not quite reach the level of illegal — although it did come perilously close—they were certainly unethical. More than anything, however, they were just terribly unprofessional and unpleasant to work with.

But their conduct reminded me of the importance of basic civility that many of us take for granted. It is only when norms of courtesy and respect are broken that we fully appreciate their importance to helping us co exist with others in society.

It’s an important truth: we note and appreciate civility most in its absence.

I define civility as the basic respect we are owed by virtue of our shared dignity and equal moral worth as human beings. We owe this to others regardless of who they are, what they look like, where they are from, whether or not we like them, and whether or not they can do anything for us.

I live and breathe civility and have studied social norms across history and culture— including countless instances of when they have been broken. I was still taken aback by how unpleasant the entire interaction was because of the absence of civility and mutual respect.

From the outset the opposite party was more than rude. They dispensed of basic courtesies from the get go. They didn’t even attempt to appear generous, amicable, or conscientious.

They were single-minded in their aim: all things personal aside, they wanted to get the absolute best deal possible at any cost.

Business is business, I’m sure they were thinking.

They forgot that there was a person on the other end of the transaction.

This resulted in me feeling used, squeezed, bullied, nickeled and dimed throughout negotiations.

It brought out the worst in me.

Instead of making me want to help them or instead of making me want to reach an agreement of mutual benefit, their conduct inflamed my baser nature, tempting me to go “scorched-earth,” ensuring they didn’t get what they wanted even if it hurt me, too.

I was frustrated by the fact that we were operating on two different moral and ethical levels.

I tried to stay high when they went low, yet every grating exchange with them made me want to sink to their level, where all bets and codes of decency were off.

In the end, rather miraculously, we came to an agreement.

I managed to prevent my baser nature from winning out. I was able to rise above the pettiness and the vindictiveness that I wanted to respond with— a facet of the human personality that we all share when we feel we are under threat.

But it wasn’t an experience I particularly enjoyed.

I was left with feelings of frustration and exhaustion. I felt like I had been disrespected and degraded.

I also felt disappointed in myself.

Most of us have probably had thoughts like this during and after interactions with people who are willing to do whatever it takes to get the upper hand:

Should I have been tougher?

Was my commitment to civility in the face of incivility a handicap?

Did my attempt to uphold my values allow me to be taken advantage of?

This experience has caused me to consider the practical importance of civility in life.

Won’t the person who is willing to go low—one who is willing to throw off the shackles of decency and civility—always win out?

Share

How to be good in bad world

“How to be civil in an uncivil world” is a variation of an important question that people have been considering for a long, long time: how can a good person succeed in a world of evil?

Renaissance thinker and author of The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, who we have explored in a past CR issue, observed that, in history those who tend to gain and maintain power appear to have morals publicly, but privately dispense with their values the moment they get in the way.

“Politics have no relation to morals,” wrote Machiavelli.

Also in The Prince: “Thus it is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, religious, and also to be so; but you must have the mind so disposed that when it is needful to be otherwise you may be able to change to the opposite qualities.”

In other words, Machiavelli argues that one who wishes to be powerful must be willing to dispense with the moral bounds of civility if the need arises.

While the civil person is contained by their commitment to civility, the uncivil person can do whatever is necessary to win.

Socrates—the Greek philosopher Plato’s teacher, and the protagonist in his dialogues—took a different view. He would take issue with how Machiavelli defines “winning.”

Socrates said that justice is to the soul what health is to the body. If a person gets the better end of a business deal, wins an argument, or comes out on top of a political battle, but does so by cutting corners and being dishonest, he hasn’t really “won” anything.

His soul is unhealthy and sick.

In Plato’s Republic, Socrates attacks the poet Homer, the educator of Greece, because he doesn’t like the values that Homer’s poems promote.

Achilles, the protagonist of The Iliad, embodies the ethics of revenge, slaughter, and vainglory.

Odysseus, the protagonist of The Odyssey, embodies the ethic of wiliness and deceit in order to come out on top of any situation.

Socrates purposes a new ethic: one that loves wisdom.

He wants to trade the ethic of revenge, “might makes right,” and vindictiveness with a shared love and pursuit of goodness, beauty, and truth.

Socrates believes that anyone who acts with injustice does so out of ignorance—after all, who would willingly make themselves sick? Who would knowingly choose sickness of the soul?

“Living well and living rightly are the same thing,” Socrates said in The Crito.

Socrates argues that a just person has an excellent and healthy soul, and the function of a just soul and person is to seek the justice and soulish health of others, too.

Socrates noted that it is not then the function of the just man to harm either friend or anyone else. Seeking to harm is an act of injustice, and therefore harms the harmer. The function of the just person is to seek the good of others, friends and enemies alike.

In a related sentiment, Abraham Lincoln once said, “Do I not defeat my enemy when I make him my friend?”

Share

Final thoughts: on virtuous and vicious cycles, and on unbundling people and situations

There are three thoughts I’d like to leave with you.

First, we should not underestimate the power we each have to promote trust and civility in our world.

Second, learning to “unbundle” people and situations can help us mitigate the vicious cycles of incivility that are so detrimental to a free and flourishing society.

Third, we must remember when we encounter incivility in our modern world — and we invariably will, as the problem of incivility is endemic to human nature and human social life — we have a choice about how to respond.

Norms of decency and courtesy comprise an unwritten social contract between us and our fellow citizens. We take this contract for granted, which is why when this bond is broken, we are surprised, offended, and dismayed. When people don’t uphold their end of the social contract, we lose a little bit of faith and trust in society and others.

When that trust in others and society is corroded by the thoughtlessness and incivility of others, often we are less likely to act in good faith and civility in our future interactions. Our less-than-civil response to others may in turn cause them to be unkind to others with which they engage.

And so the vicious cycle continues.

My recent experience with bad actors made me appreciate those today who claim that “all bets are off” when it comes to decency in public life. We often hear things like, “The other side has gone to a whole new low. How can I be expected to stay civil?”

We also see evidence of the “vicious cycle” all around us in politics today. When one figure breaks norms and bounds of decency everyone else feels like they have to so as to keep up.

We contribute to this trust-corroding ripple effect when we are uncivil. Others do, too, with their incivility. The incivility of others often tempts us to relinquish the shackles of decency in order to “win.”

But we must resist—for our own sake, for others, and for society.

We cannot control the conduct of others.

We can only control ourselves.

We must also learn to mentally unbundle people and situations. This means not assuming things about their character because of one deed, word, or interaction you had with them. We must learn to unbundle situations. This means not allowing one bad interaction or instance to corrode your trust in society in general.

This is much easier in theory than in practice. This is much easier said than done. but again, in the end we cannot control others. We can only control ourselves.

Socrates and Machiavelli remind us of why we are civil in the first place. The reason to be civil isn’t instrumental. It isn’t just a tool of success. As we’ve seen, sometimes it can be an impediment to success. Civility is instead a disposition, an outgrowth of seeing people as they really are: as beings with irreducible moral worth and deserving of respect. This is worthy for it’s own sake, even if it means we don’t gain the upper hand of every business dealing.

Being uncivil is poison to the soul. When we treat people as means to our ends, it hurts and degrades them, but also us, too.

Machiavelli is famous for the amoral aphorism: “The ends justifies the means.”

Socrates would respond, “But what is your end?”

No earthly battle is worth compromising your soul for.

Here are some questions to consider:

  1. Can you empathize with my experience? Have you had an experience where it felt like decency was not a match for indecency? Write to me with your story and how you dealt with it at ah@alexandraohudson.com
  2. Who do you find more persuasive: Machiavelli or Socrates? Do you think we can be civil in an uncivil world? Or will incivility always win out?

Thank you Ms. Hudson for a great piece of writing and morality.  

Cancel Culture Meets Political Correctness

08 Aug 2021 5 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , ,

what-is-cancel-culture-1591556973276

I woke up (No! I mean really woke up, like after you go to sleep) and thought of the cancellations that I would have to make today.  My calendar had several items that I needed to cancel.  I had several products on my Alexa shopping list that I had to cancel.  I had to cancel a meeting with a friend.  My day starts off with one cancel after another.

It seems that I cannot go through life anymore without having to cancel something.  Everywhere I look there are cancel buttons.  My microwave has a cancel button on it.  My cellphone bids me to cancel numerous phone calls that are not in my contact list.  My oven wants me to cancel after I am done roasting the chicken.  My computer invites me to accept or cancel a software download.  My former business partner texts me once again to cancel a meeting that we had scheduled.  My wife comes in to cancel something we had talked about doing tonight.

210721-sollenberger-MTG-Gaetz-tease_yr2jy0I am surrounded, inundated, besieged by cancel requests.  The Republican lamebrains such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz repeatedly scream “cancel culture, cancel culture, cancel culture!”  I have not witnessed as much animosity towards a phenomenon since the zeitgeist of Political Correctness (PC).

You may remember a few years ago, the concept of PC first appeared.  Its emergence seemed to be a response to certain people who felt denigrated by titles or language used in American culture.  For instance, African Americans did not like to be called niggers.  Feminist women resented being called frigid bitchs.  LGBTQ people resented being called fags, dykes, freaks, and homos.  Undocumented immigrants resented being called illegal aliens.  And of course, devout Muslims resented being called Islamo terrorists.  The people who felt that their right to insult, abuse and demean others had been challenged, quickly coined the term PC to label efforts that might better have been labeled as “cultural civility and sensitivity.”

political-correctness

The same people (I would give you ten to one odds) are now appalled at the fact that some Americans want to silence their insults.  This desire to silence hostile and often lying rhetoric has given rise to the term “Cancel Culture.”  Basically, those who believe that we are living in a “Cancel Culture” feel that the rest of us have no right to truth, honesty, and dignity.  They of course have the right to say or do any preposterous thing they want to and the rest of us are expected to accept it.  Let me give you a few examples:

  • Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene screams that the recent vaccination push Is more like Jim Crow–Era segregation than the Holocaust. Before it was more like the Holocaust.  She flips flops easily.
  • Representative Jim Jordan yells that “The wave of cancel culture spreading the nation is a fundamental threat to free speech rights in the United States.” He insists that the “Cancel Culture” silenced Trump’s lies by denying Trump access to Twitter and Facebook.  Jordan pushes the “Stolen Election” lie in which he swears that Biden did not win the election.  Jordan will swear to anything if it defends Trump.

I could go on and on with hundreds of examples of “Cancel Culture”, but I think it is obvious that something as Sherlock Holmes said is “afoot.”  My personal theory is that Republicans have discovered how powerful euphemisms can be as a tool to ridicule the opposition.  Nasty labels, pejorative names, insulting sobriquets have become all the rage in the Republican Party.  When you add the political stunts, clown shows and imbecilic performance acts that Republicans now use routinely, you have every reason to wonder what is going to become of American Democracy.  Two examples illustrate Republican circus acts:

  • Jim Inhofe throws a snowball on the Senate floor in an effort to disprove what he sees as alarmist conclusions about man-made climate change.

58c9482fb06c4.image

  • Republican Lauren Boebert declares that “I will carry my firearm in DC and in Congress,” she says in a video, which has been viewed over two million times.

EretJaAWMAABnRQ

The Republicans will counter that the Democrats also pull political stunts such as the recent effort by Democrats in Texas to block a voter suppression bill by leaving the State Senate and flying off to Washington, D.C.  However, there was a purpose to this move by the Democrats which was to deny the Republicans the quorum they needed to pass a bill designed to destroy what little is left of our democracy.

In looking at the examples of Inhofe and Boebert above, it is clear that these stunts are done for their own aggrandizement.  The single purpose of most of the theatrics done by Republicans today tend to be to deny reality or to push agendas that do not serve the overall good of the nation.  The Republican Party has become a party of clowns and Madison Avenue shysters.

If there is a historical reckoning (assuming the human race survives), it will look back on this era in American politics as the beginning of the death of democracy in America.  We will not be the first country where democracy was tried and subsequently succumbed to the forces of authoritarianism and fanaticism.

republican-fascists

Go to go now.  If I say too much, some stalwart Republican lawyer may try to sue me.  Of course, that would not count as “Cancel Culture.”

Patience: The Third Most Important Virtue for a Good Life

24 Dec 2020 3 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , ,

Patience is number three of my seven essential virtues for leading a good life.  Every Wednesday I start my day with the following prayer:

  • Give me the patience to avoid judging others today and forgive me for those times when I fail.

Augustine-of-Hippo-Patience-Quotes

Years ago, I would give give an annual safety lecture for friends in our motorcycle club.  One year, I started my lecture off with the comment that “You should never run a green light!”  “You mean red light” someone replied.  “No, I mean green light.  This comment seems confusing at first thought, since it is perfectly legal to “run” a green light.

Before, I explain my logic behind the red light versus green light comment, let me give you a little test to see how patient you are.  I will do this by way of posing three scenarios.  I will suggest some possible paths that you could take in each scenario.  You select the action that you would be most likely to take or that perhaps you usually take.  I will then give you a score for each possible path.  The scores will point to your “patience quotient.”

checkout

People waiting in line with shopping baskets at grocery store

The first scenario involves a common enough occurrence in most of our lives.  You have finished your grocery shopping and now need to find a cashier to check out with.  Today, there are only six lanes open and the lines seem to be somewhat disproportionate in length.  Do you?

A. Try to find the shortest line before moving your cart into position

B. Simply take the first line you come to

C. Hang back and see if they will open another line

D. Get into one line but hop over to another line if it seems to be moving faster

mc-cullgreets-061611-sn-tifOur second scenario involves going to church service.  At the end of many services, the minister (Do Rabbis and Imams do this?) will wait at the door and greet the outgoing parishioners.  Do you?

A. Wait in line and wonder why the heck they have to do this

B. Get in line and look forward to greeting the minister

C. See if you can find another door to exit by

D. Say some prayers in your pew until the line shortens

bigstock-angry-girl-driver-inside-car-125280341-725x400Our third and final scenario finds us on our ubiquitous freeway system wending our way to some appointment that we will probably be late to if the traffic stays so slow.  Do you?

A. Silently curse the other drivers on the road

B. Try to find the fastest lane

C. Simply resign yourself to being late and stay in one lane

D. Weave in and out to get ahead of the other traffic

If you selected, D for 1, C for 2, and D for 3.  You have a patience problem.  On the other hand, if you selected B for 1, B for 2 and C for 3, you should be writing this blog and not me.   All other choices put you somewhere between patient and impatient.  You decide and be honest where you are at on this continuum.

It is has been said that Patience is the greatest of all virtues, but I will not argue that point because it is meaningless.  Patience can save your life.  Patience can save your sanity and Patience can save your soul.  These three facts are cause enough to consider that Patience should rank at least among the top virtues in terms of importance.  How high it should rank for you will depend on how you rated yourself on my scenarios.  For instance, if you weave in and out of traffic trying to get someplace a few seconds or even minutes faster, you not only endanger your own life but you endanger the lives of other people.  You have a Patience problem.

Patience can save your life because as the saying goes “Haste makes waste.”  How many people have died because they could not wait?  They were so impatient and they just had to take the shortcut.  Whether it involved shutting the electricity off before doing some repairs, waiting for someone to hold a ladder for them or taking their time crossing the road by looking both ways, impatience costs lives.  You will live longer if you are more patient.

“He that can have patience can have what he will.”  ― Benjamin Franklin

“Patience can save your sanity, because you will be living a pretty stressful life it other people’s actions can dictate your feelings.  If you get mad in lines at the behaviors of people who take too long or have too many coupons, you will be habitually angry.  If you get mad at “inconsiderate” other drivers, you will be stressed whenever you set foot in a vehicle.  If your expectations of people mean that they should help you to save time in your life, you will most likely die from a premature heart attack.

“The strongest of all warriors are these two — Time and Patience.”  — Leo Tolstoy

Patience can save your soul.  A good person is someone who can have empathy for others.  Other people make mistakes.  Other people are late.  Other people may not plan as well as you do.  Other people may be preoccupied and seem inconsiderate.  If you lack patience, you lack empathy for others.  Lacking empathy for humanity is a sure way to become calloused and soulless.  A spiritual person does not judge others and as Jesus said:

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged.  For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”  — Matthew 7:1

So why should you never run a green light.  Well, the answer is simple.  How many times have you sat at a light and watched some frenzied driver try to beat the light and fail?  How many times have you seen someone run a red light while you were waiting to enter the intersection?  How many times might you have been killed if you had been in the intersection when the other party ran the red light?  In each of these cases, the light would have been green when you started through the intersection.

red light

I always make a point of slowly entering an intersection after a light changes as opposed to gunning my engine and racing though the intersection.  This simple thought of “never running a green light” has saved my life more times than I can count both when I was on my motorcycle and in my car.  This was my point at our motorcycle safety meeting that day and everyone nodded thoughtfully after I had explained why you should “never run a green light.”

Time for Questions:

How did you do on my three scenarios?  How patient a person are you?  What would you have to do to become more patient?  What is stopping you?

Life is just beginning.

“Prayer of an Anonymous Abbess”

Lord, thou knowest better than myself that I am growing older and will soon be old.  Keep me from becoming too talkative, and especially from the unfortunate habit of thinking that I must say something on every subject and at every opportunity.

Release me from the idea that I must straighten out other peoples’ affairs.  With my immense treasure of experience and wisdom, it seems a pity not to let everybody partake of it.  But thou knowest, Lord, that in the end I will need a few friends.

Keep me from the recital of endless details; give me wings to get to the point.

Grant me the patience to listen to the complaints of others; help me to endure them with charity.  But seal my lips on my own aches and pains — they increase with the increasing years and my inclination to recount them is also increasing.

I will not ask thee for improved memory, only for a little more humility and less self-assurance when my own memory doesn’t agree with that of others.  Teach me the glorious lesson that occasionally I may be wrong.

Keep me reasonably gentle.  I do not have the ambition to become a saint — it is so hard to live with some of them — but a harsh old person is one of the devil’s masterpieces.

Make me sympathetic without being sentimental, helpful but not bossy.  Let me discover merits where I had not expected them, and talents in people whom I had not thought to possess any. And, Lord, give me the grace to tell them so.

Amen”
― Margot Benary-Isbert

A Tale of Two Men

03 Oct 2020 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

download

It is a time of overwhelming greed.  It is a time of underwhelming altruism.  The hoards of poor and destitute and abused are still at the gates but the gates have been replaced by a wall.  The few that have managed to get over the wall or under the wall have found that their dreams of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been replaced by barbed wire fences and security police intent on finding and locking them up in cages.  In truth, there are no streets paved with gold.  The gold has long since been stripped by billionaires and the American dream has been supplanted by a Trickle-Down theory which the billionaires are cynically prophesizing.

trickle-down1

Through the country stride two men.  One man driven by money laden with stocks, bonds, and coupons for a cheap cup of coffee.  The other man driven by compassion with a calendar always full of dates to help someone else out.  One man has plenty of gold, the other man has plenty of time.  No two men could be more different.  One man represents the America that was.  The other man represents the America that could be.  The two men frequently cross paths and to some extent even like each other.  There is no hatred between the two but a mutual inability to understand the other’s motives has always existed.  Each thinks that the other is of unsound mind or to put it another way is “out to lunch.”  This is their story then.  I tell it from a neutral objective.  Strangely, I like both men.

tom

Tom is a white middle class male in his mid-seventies.  Tom is driven by the almighty dollar.  Hardly a day goes by that Tom is not trading or looking at his stock portfolio.  Tom (everyone agrees) is “all about the money.”  Tom is a Trump supporter.  In many respects, he does not fit the typical demographic for a Trumpist.  Tom has gone to college.  He worked at a white-collar job and he has one of the largest houses in the town.  Tom always dresses well, speaks well and never utters a vernacular word.  Tom has never owned a motorcycle and I doubt he has ever shot anything in his life.  He is the epitome of decorum and propriety.  He has kept himself in good shape and looks physically fit.  Indeed, he looks several years younger than his age.  Tom is soft-spoken and is the last person you could think of who would ever get in an actual fight with anyone.  

Tom prides himself on his frugalness, some would say cheapness.  He will buy a coffee at the local coffee shop and when it is time to pay, he will search the internet with his smart phone to find a coupon that will allow him to get 50 percent or so off the cost of an already low-priced cup of coffee.  But greed cannot be measured by cheap cups of coffee.  In some respects, it is difficult to separate greed from fear.  Many a conversation with Tom, I walked away thinking that it is not so much greed that drives Tom as fear.  Fear that the immigrants might take his house away.  Fear that women will take his job.  Fear that minorities will get his share of the America pie.  Fear that LGBTQ people will gain access to his bathroom.

money 1 counter

If it is true that Trump supporters are driven by fear and greed, then Tom (regardless of demographics) is the quintessential Trump supporter.  Tom defies the category of “Trump Deplorable.”  You can have an intelligent and civil conversation with Tom on many a subject.  Nevertheless, he defends Trump no matter what the issue.  Trump is his God and can do no wrong.  Despite Tom’s penny pinching, he is proud enough of his Trump affiliation that he has spent the money to purchase some Trump paraphernalia.  He proudly wears both a Trump hat and a Trump t-shirt.  This always puzzles me. 

Tom has never suffered poverty.  He lives well and has a beautiful lake front home with a mortgage long paid off.  He drives a luxury car with a brand image.  I am sure that neither NAFTA nor Globalism has ever been of undue stress to his finances.   Quite to the contrary, Tom has undoubtedly benefitted from the good that has come out of these policies.  Unlike the white rural blue-collar worker who saw his job and company go overseas, Tom has prospered in the 21st Century economy. 

ron 1

Ron is also a white male in his mid-seventies.  Ron did not go to college.  Ron was a blue-collar electrician until his retirement.  Ron grew up on the wrong side of the tracks.  Ron rides a Harley Davidson and when he was younger went on many a deer and elk hunting trip.  He still proudly has an array of rifles that he seldom now uses.  Ron has even won some rifles and given them away.  Ron can be difficult to talk to.  He is passionate about his position and not always willing to listen to others.  You cannot always describe his discussions with others as civil and polite.  Some people would describe Ron as uncouth.  He cares little about fashion or image.  He usually looks like he needs a good haircut.  If you did not know Ron, you would have no difficulty in putting him down as a Trump supporter.  You would be dead wrong.

Ron is a generous man.  He is one of the most generous persons I know.  Ron is not rich.  He has never purchased a brand-new car and he does not live on a lake.  Ron does not have a great deal of money, but he will often pay for my coffee and the coffee of others at our table.  Ron is most generous with his time.  Never a day goes by that he is not doing a favor for someone.  His generosity extends well beyond his immediate family.  Three years ago. Ron and his wife were given an award as Volunteers of the Year.  If anyone needs something or help with anything, they will call Ron.  I do not think of myself as “ungenerous”, but I am loath to admit that I sometimes think Ron is too generous with his time. 

favor image

Politically, I would describe Ron as an independent thinker.  Ron gets a good pension from his former IBEW union and if there is anything he is proud of and will defend to the nth degree, it is unions.  He despises Trump and the Republican politics of greed and Trickle Down.  However, he does not defend the Democratic party either.  He has said that the Democrats sold too many Americans down the drain with NAFTA and Globalism.  It would have been one thing to pursue these policies if there had been some type of life jacket or safety net for the American workers displaced but the Democrats as well as the Republicans simply ignored the side effects of these policies. 

Ron is no racist, no sexist, no hater of immigrants.  If you talk to Ron about these subjects, you will find a man that is not fearful or belligerent towards others.  Whereas Tom would lock America down, Ron would tear the walls down.  Tom will deplore violent protestors.  Ron will deplore the violence that lead to the protests in the first place.  Ron loves to travel and meet new people.  Tom spends most of his days in the same town that he has always been and traveling the same safe pathways that he has always traveled.  Ron has taken several foreign students into his home on an exchange program and is always eager to hear stories about other people and other places.  Tom has a child who is developmentally disabled that he is a loving and kind father to. 

A tale of two men.  Both men married.  Both with families and children.  Neither man a criminal or drug addict or law breaker.  Both men admired by others in the community.  Both men loved by their families.  Both men with friends who speak and think well of them.  Men who are on opposite sides of any imaginable political spectrum. 

A time in America when the divisions seen to outweigh any points of commonality.  When the divisiveness and polemics drive everyone either right or left.  When disagreement is called evil and rudeness and bullying substitute for politeness and civility.  When you are my enemy if your politics disagree with mine.  When truth is now called a lie and facts are now called fake. 

old men drinking coffee

Ron and Tom still sit down mornings at the coffee shop and talk to each other.  There is often passionate disagreement.  Ron will storm and foam at the mouth.  Tom will quietly state his position and seem somewhat amused at Ron’s vehemence.  I am not sure who has the most difficulty understanding the other but watching Tom and Ron interact is something like watching a TV sitcom.  Are Tom and Ron following a script that the rest of us do not know about?  Perhaps there is a script written somewhere that we are all following.  

“Aspire to decency. Practice civility toward one another. Admire and emulate ethical behavior wherever you find it. Apply a rigid standard of morality to your lives; and if, periodically, you fail ­ as you surely will ­ adjust your lives, not the standards.” ― Ted Koppel

Is Civility Overrated?

06 Jan 2019 3 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

be fucking civil

All the talk these days by political pundits, news reporters, columnists, journalists and of course politicians seems directed towards decrying the lack of civility in politics.  It is common knowledge that there is a war between the Democrats and Republicans going on.  Each side sees the other as bent on destroying democracy, mom, god and apple pie.  They have become bitter enemies, and no one is taking prisoners.

To study this problem more, I decided to invoke Santayana’s famous dictum on “those who forget the past.”  I fired up my trusty time machine and selected four eras and events from the past where it seems civility had also been called for.  As you perhaps know, when journeying to the past, you become invisible and there is no way that you can influence any past events.  This is in accord with Novikov’s Self-Consistency Principle.  I report on these events in the following four narratives as I witnessed and remembered the discussions.

Moses and Rameses – 1440 BCE

Moses:  Let my people go

Rameses:   Not on your life

Moses:  Then I will bring numerous plagues to smite you Egyptians

Rameses:  Go ahead.  See if I give a dam

A few weeks later:

Rameses:  Look Moses, can’t we be civil about this

Moses:  Sure, let my people go

Rameses:  Not happening

Moses:  Then I will bring a new plague that will strike all first-born Egyptians dead

Rameses:  I thought we agreed to be civil.  Can’t we discuss this more?

Moses:  Let my people go

Rameses:  The hell with you Israelites

One week later:

Rameses:  Moses, I thought we agreed to be civil.  Look how many of my people you killed

Moses:  Let my people go

Rameses:  To hell with you, get out and don’t come back.  I hope I never see you again

Moses:  Now that is what I call being civil.  Goodbye!

in pursuit of civility

War of Independence – 1776 CE

King George:  You dam colonists.  Who do you think you are?

Benjamin Franklin:  We are your loyal servants my lord, who merely want to be treated with the same rights as Englishmen in your country

King George:  You are low-lifes with no civility.  I can’t believe you dumped all that tea in the harbor?  Furthermore, you don’t even have tea-time each day like we do.

Benjamin Franklin:  My lord, the customs in our country are very different

King George:  Different my ass, you people are nothing but barbarians

Benjamin Franklin:  All we want is to eliminate taxation without representation

King George:  Do I look like I care what you want?  I’m the king

Benjamin Franklin:  I am afraid we are prepared to go to war over this issue my lord

King George:  We want to have a civil discussion and you dare to threaten me?

Benjamin Franklin:  What does civility mean to you my lord?

King George:  Your people stop whining about our taxes and get their asses back to work

Benjamin Franklin:  I will bring your message to my people your lord, but I don’t think they will agree

King George:  Then we will crush them like we crush all the enemies of the empire.  They will be begging for tea and not coffee.  You are dismissed.

12-years-slave

 

Somewhere in Mississippi – 1860 CE

Plantation Overseer:  How many times Moses have I told you that you can’t run away?  You are going to get another whipping boy

Moses:  Yes, master

Plantation Overseer:  How many lashes do you think you should get Moses?

Moses:  I don’t rightly know master

Plantation Overseer:  Look Moses, I want to be civil about this, so I am asking your opinion.  I was thinking that since it was fifty last time, we should add ten making it sixty.  That would be ten for each time you ran away – agree?

Moses:  Go to hell!

Plantation Overseer:  Mind your mouth boy.  I thought we were having a civil and friendly conversation and now you go ahead and insult me with your vile mouth.  I am going to add ten lashes to your whipping.  That will teach you to be more civil!

Moses:  Go to hell!

four-components-of-etiquette-33-638

Hollywood Producers Office – March 15, 2018 CE

Producer:  Look Emily, I would like for you to get on the couch and take your clothes off

Emily (Aspiring actress): I don’t understand what taking my clothes off has to do with an audition

Producer:  Well, you have heard of “quid pro quo” right?  Well, I just want you to do me a little favor and then I will do you a bigger favor

Emily:  And what if I refuse?

Producer:  Can’t we be civil about this?  We are both adults

Emily:  I do not plan to screw my way to a role in your production

Producer:  I am tired of trying to be civil, now get your ass on that couch

Emily:  Unlock the door!  Please let go of me!

Producer:  Just relax, you will enjoy it more

Emily:  Get off me, I will scream!

Producer:  Can’t you be more civil Emily?  I am just doing this for your own good

Emily:  Fuck you, get off me!

Producer:  Not until I finish what we started

Emily:  Crying

Producer:  See it wasn’t so bad was it? Maybe after this we can be more civil to each other

Emily:  Screw you!

trump on civility

Well, that is all the time I had for my time journeys. I report the above narratives to the best of my memory.  I was wondering what messages or meaning I could ascribe to these events in terms of the problem of civility that I mentioned earlier.  I know Trump, McConnell, Graham and many others on both sides of the aisle have all called for more civility in politics.

Somehow though, I question when and where civility is appropriate and where a good “Screw you” is more appropriate.  I have no doubt that civility is of value in some circumstances but like any value, perhaps it can be overdone.

death of civility

Webster’s defines the term Civility as: 

1:  Archaic : training in the humanities

2a: Civilized conduct, especially : COURTESY, POLITENESS

b: A polite act or expression

If we dismiss the first definition, we are left with courtesy and politeness as being the sine qua non of civility.  But I ask, who and when should we be courteous to?  Should we be courteous to:

  • Someone who is robbing us
  • Someone who is trying to kill us
  • Someone who is obviously lying to us
  • Someone who is preaching hate and fear
  • Someone who is taking money from the poor to give to the rich
  • Someone who will deny others the chance for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

sarahhuckabeesanders1

There is a time for civility.  I have no doubt.  But there is a time for anger and indignation.

It takes more courage to stand up to bullies and wrong doers than to merely stand passively by and acquiesce to calls for civility.  To conclude, I observe this about civility:

  • It is often a call by the more powerful to the weaker to be subdued and humbled
  • It can be used to hide evil of the first order and should be suspect
  • It is of merit only when it is reciprocated

Beware the Trojan horse!  Beware those who want civility without justice, truth and freedom!

Time for Questions:

Are you always civil?  When are you not civil?  Why?  Do you agree that civility is not always a virtue?  Why or why not?

Life is just beginning.

“In politics, disagreements between opponents is the sign of a healthy and flourishing democracy. When politicians show too much deference to each other, fundamental ethical questions are likely to get buried and power can go unchecked. Meyer points out that insults are a non-violent way of curbing the excesses of the powerful, and he argues that politics must therefore ‘allow for a boorishness typically at odds with polite society’. Similarly, Kennedy argues: ‘The civility movement is deeply at odds with what an invigorated liberalism requires: intellectual clarity; an insistence upon grappling with the substance of controversies; and a willingness to fight loudly, openly, militantly, even rudely for policies and values….” Meyer, ‘Liberal Civility and the Civility of Etiquette’, 79; Kennedy, ‘The Case against “Civility”’, 85.

The above exercpt is from:  “Six Questions About Civility” by Nicole Billante and Peter Saunders, 2002

 

 

 

Debate versus Discussion:  Why Debates are a Waste of Time!

06 Mar 2016 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(Listen to the Debate Song, while you read my blog this week.)

berniedebateOnce upon a time, I thought debates were the answer to the question of “how do we discover the truth?”  I thought that if you put two intelligent people together and each took opposing positions on an issue, that through the interplay of ideas the truth would emerge.  If you think about this a bit, it is the basis for our judicial system in America.  One side argues for the defendant, the other side argues for the prosecution or against the defendant.   It is also the basis for an academic exercise called Dialectical Research or Dialectical Inquiry.

dialectical inquiryA dialectical investigation is a form of qualitative research which utilizes the method of dialectic, aiming to discover truth through examining and interrogating competing ideas, perspectives or arguments.  This latter method is often applied through the use of case studies in which students or investigators discuss real world examples of complex situations.  The purpose of a case study is to provide a more thorough analysis of a situation or “case” which will reveal interesting information to the reader.  As I use them in my classrooms, my goal for my students is to help them understand how to better form strategies for success in business.

159_TJ_Dillashaw_vs_Dominick_Cruz.0.0Unfortunately, in the real world the strategy of debate does not work.  Debates are a waste of time when honest discussion takes second place to winning or looking good.  Dialectical Inquiry is also often useless since the complexity of the subject can be beyond the ability of many students to grasp.  Real world situations are froth with uncertainty, volatility, complexity and ambiguity or as some have called it VUCA.  VUCA is an acronym used by the military to describe or reflect on the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of general conditions and situations.  Many complex situations are seldom able to be accurately modeled leading in most instances to weak images or portrayals of the actual situation.  This is why debaters opt for simple explanations rather than complex explanations.  Another example of this watering down of reality is a Hollywood movie depiction of a supposed “true” story.  Recent movies that come to mind include the following:

  • The Revenant – Story of legendary frontiersman Hugh Glass.
  • American Sniper – Story of U.S. Navy SEAL Chris Kyle
  • Steven Jobs – Story of the founder of Apple Corporation
  • The Theory of Everything – Story of physicist genius Steven Hawking

Hollywood loves to take stories of great enterprise and or daring do and change them into a 1. 5 hour dramatic show full of love, heroism and imaginary situations that often did not exist.  Did I say lies?  Perhaps that would be more accurate.  For often, these Hollywood epics are no more than half true.  The other half are stories added for dramatic impact.  Even worse perhaps are the often skewed biases that intrude into the movie which distort the reality of the character or situation.   For instance, here is what one critic had to say about the Steve Jobs movie:

“With all this in mind, I was disappointed in the Steve Jobs movie.  Partly because as an Apple expert I watched the film in dismay as events were pulled out of context and people appeared in locations and at times where they simply wouldn’t have been around.  I can’t help but think that in his desire to avoid the chronological retelling or Steve Jobs story, a traditional childhood to death epic, in favor of three acts (which would be better suited to a theatrical production) Aaron Sorkin constrained himself too much.  The only way he could tell the story was to pull events from all corners of Jobs’ life and present them as if they had happened in the 30 minutes before a keynote presentation.”  — Karen Haslam, 10 Nov 15

I mentioned earlier that debates cannot work when winning is the primary objective.  Hollywood’s version of winning is making money.  Making money becomes a more important objective than telling the truth.  Similarly, the truth takes second place to winning in political debates.  Winning for the networks means providing entertainment to sell ads, not necessarily a stage full of erudite rationale individuals trying to discover the truth.

The 2016 debates for both the Republican and Democratic candidates have not only been a farce but they have been an insult to the American People.  Here is one comment regarding the Republican debate on TV a few nights ago:

“The GOP debate on FOX last night was an embarrassment.  The talk show hosts said it best.  This debacle stooped to a new low. Penis size?? C’mon people.  Seriously. We need to respect our President.  It is beyond my comprehension how anybody could respect this pathetic excuse for a candidate.”

politifact-photos-Trump_gesturesI have watched several of the debates now and I see no evidence that truth is being discovered.  The debates have become hyperbolic spectacles of insults, half-truths, reality distortions, innuendos and petty personal attacks.  I doubt if anyone has found much truth in these debates never mind elucidations of complex policy positions for any of the candidates.  Trump 2495-so-funny-and-true-rhetoric-wallpaper-427x454will build a giant wall.  Cruz will fix Syria.  Rubio will fix health care.  Sanders will fix inequality in America.  Hillary will fix Obamacare.  Do you know how any of the candidates will accomplish these lofty goals?  Of course not, since they know that the “debates” are no place for such a complex discussion.  Trump perhaps realizes this fact better than anyone and has kept his discussion and clarification of his policy positions to less than fifteen second descriptions.  The general consensus seems to be that if a candidate cannot explain their position on any subject in less than fifteen seconds, they are doomed, i.e., they lose.

In their book, Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate, (1988) Jamieson and Birdsell make a case for the importance of Presidential debates but only if certain changes are made to the usual format.  Their book was written over twenty five years ago and if you have watched the recent debates, you will note that their recommendations were not heeded.  Furthermore, the present debate formats have probably encouraged worse excesses in rhetoric and sophistry than either Jamieson or Birdsell could have imagined in 1988.  Looking historically at debates, the Lincoln-Douglas debates were the epitome of rationality and decorum.  Today, the networks want drama and entertainment.  Debates such as took place between Lincoln and Douglas would never qualify as either drama or entertainment.

debate parrotsOn a more personal level, I have a problem with debates.  I have a few friends who love to debate.  I have noted as a result of recent discussions with them concerning the Presidential elections that do not want to understand or clarify any issues, they just want to argue or perhaps debate.  I say that they want to argue, because their main agenda seems to be looking good or advancing their points and not understanding my points.  They often enter into these contests (Since that is what a debate means to them.  It seems to be a contest between winning their points and looking good or losing their points and looking bad.) with a pretense of trying to understand why I think or feel a certain way.  Sometimes, they start the “debate” with a flat out rejection of my position or with a declaration such as “you are dead wrong” or “you don’t know what you are talking about.”  I confess that such latter utterances often preclude my disposition to have a rational discussion with them.   I see no point in it.

Have you ever changed anyone’s mind which was made up?  Have you ever tried to have a rational discussion with someone who was being emotional?  Have you ever tried to explain something to someone whose main objective in talking with you was to score points or make you look stupid?  Under the rubric of “debate,” are we to think that our antagonists give one farthing for the truth or where we stand on an issue?  There is a big difference between debating me on an issue and discussing an issue with me.

The result of these “debates” with erstwhile friends have led me to two inescapable conclusions.  First, I don’t need or even want debaters in my life.  I have little time left for scoring points or winning games by making someone else look bad or proving that they are wrong and I am right.  Second, debates do not start from an honest position of fruitful and objective inquiry and thus cannot lead to truth or relevant knowledge.  Rather, most debates start from a position of “I am right and you are wrong.”  The antagonists goal being to show you or the audience how right and smart they are and how wrong and stupid you are.  Is there a point to such an exhibition?  I presume winning is the payoff and reward.  As Vince Lombardy once said:  “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.”

If your objective is to understand something or if you want to find the truth, I suggest that you think more of discussing and less of debating with others.  A good discussion aims to find an understanding and comprehension of complexities that is often beyond our singular abilities to understand.  The truth can usually (but not always) be found between two extremes.  However, the process of truth seeking is more important than the process of truth finding.  The truth will inevitably change over time.  You will never have found a truth that will be good for all eternity.  There will always be a new truth to be found somewhere.  Thus, the process of truth seeking becomes a way of life that outfits the seeker for a journey through the cosmos that may take the seeker to the end of the universe and back to the beginning.

Well, if you finished my blog and you think I did not give a fair presentation on the evils of debate, then please listen to the song I noted above.  This song makes a case for the value of debate.  It does it in an Indian Rap song with great visual effects, music and choreography.  I am probably undoing my entire argument by including this song but Amen or so be it. 

(Listen to the Debate Song, it makes a great case for the value of debate)

Time for Questions:

Do you seek first to understand or first to be understood?  Do you debate others or discuss with others?  Are you more concerned with understanding or looking right?  How do you grasp complex issues?  How do you insure that you truly understand and are not being duped by charlatans trying to sell you simple answers to complex issues?

Life is just beginning.

“And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:”  — The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom written by Thomas Jefferson in 1777.