If you’re a reader of my blog then you probably already know that I’m a big fan of the concept of civil discourse,  both for practical and moral reasons.  And the decline in quality of our political dialogue stresses me more than pretty much anything else in the realm of politics right now.  I’m not just talking about recent events.  In many ways the anger, distrust, fear, misinformation, and outright hatred we’ve seen on display recently are just the natural result of several decades of steadily crumbling communities and increasingly isolated and individualistic lifestyles.  And quite frankly, new technological methods of communication that allow anybody with an internet connection to appear to be as credible as actual experts, that facilitate the specialization of news so that citizens can wrap themselves in a cocoon of their own perspective, and which enable people to say increasingly inflammatory things while hiding behind a veil of anonymity are just accelerating the degradation.

So can you imagine my delight to find that my church has chosen to speak out against this very problem.  The LDS church put out a press release a week or so go entitled “The Mormon Ethic of Civility” that I thought was well-written, insightful, and extremely relevant.  While it’s written by LDS leaders, it should be an interesting read for Non-LDS readers as well.  It can be found here on the original LDS newsroom website, but I’ve also posted the full text after the jump.

The Mormon Ethic of Civility

SALT LAKE CITY 16 October 2009

The political world is astir. Economies are faltering. Public trust is waning. Individuals feel vulnerable. And social cohesion wears thin. Meanwhile, stories of rage and agitation fill our airwaves, streets and town halls. Where are the voices of balance and moderation in these extreme times?

During a recent address given in an interfaith setting, Church President Thomas S. Monson declared: “When a spirit of goodwill prompts our thinking and when united effort goes to work on a common problem, the results can be most gratifying.” Further, former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley once said that living “together in communities with respect and concern one for another” is “the hallmark of civilization.” That hallmark is under increasing threat.

So many of the habits and conventions of modern culture — ubiquitous media, anonymous and unsourced online participation, politicization of the routine, fractured community and family life — undermine the virtues and manners that

make peaceful coexistence in a pluralist society possible. The fabric of civil society tears when stretched thin by its extremities. Civility, then, becomes the measure of our collective and individual character as citizens of a democracy.

A healthy democracy maintains equilibrium through diverse means, including a patchwork of competing interests and an effective system of governmental checks. Nevertheless, this order ultimately relies on the integrity of the people. Speaking

at general conference, a semiannual worldwide gathering of the Church, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles asserted: “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal

with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay.” Likewise, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton emphasized that the virtues of fidelity, charity, generosity, humility and responsibility “form the foundation of a Christian life and are the outward manifestation of the inner man.” Thus, moral virtues blend into civic virtues.

The seriousness of our common challenges calls for an equally serious engagement with reasonable ideas and solutions. What we need is rigorous debate, not rancorous altercations.

Civility is not only a matter of discourse. It is primarily a mode of engagement. The technological interconnectedness of society has made isolation impossible. Of all the institutions in the modern world, religion has had perhaps the greatest

difficulty adjusting to the reality of give and take with the public.

Today, and throughout its history, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continuously encounters the legitimate interests of various stakeholders in its interaction with the public. Rather than exempting itself from the rules of law and civility, the Church has sought the path of cooperative engagement and avoided the perils of acrimonious confrontation.

Echoing this mode of civil engagement, President Monson declared: “As a church we reach out not only to our own people but also to those people of goodwill throughout the world in that spirit of brotherhood which comes from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Speaking of civility on a personal level, Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught Latter- day Saints how to respond to criticism: “Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But, to ‘love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]’ (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.”

The moral basis of civility is the Golden Rule, taught by a broad range of cultures and individuals, perhaps most popularly by Jesus Christ: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). This ethic of

reciprocity reminds us all of our responsibility toward one another and reinforces the communal nature of human life.  Similarly, the Book of Mormon tells a sober story of civilizational decline in which various peoples repeat the cycle of

prosperity, pride and fall. In almost every case, the seeds of decay begin with the violation of the simple rules of civility. Cooperation, humility and empathy gradually give way to contention, strife and malice.

The need for civility is perhaps most relevant in the realm of partisan politics. As the Church operates in countries around the world, it embraces the richness of pluralism. Thus, the political diversity of Latter-day Saints spans the ideological

spectrum. Individual members are free to choose their own political philosophy and affiliation. Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.

Furthermore, the Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that render civil discussion impossible. As the Church begins to rise in prominence and its members achieve a higher public profile, a diversity of voices and opinions naturally follows. Some may even mistake these voices as being authoritative or representative of the Church. However, individual members think and speak for themselves. Only the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles

speak for the whole Church.

Latter-day Saint ethical life requires members to treat their neighbors with respect, regardless of the situation. Behavior in a religious setting should be consistent with behavior in a secular setting. The Church hopes that our democratic system will facilitate kinder and more reasoned exchanges among fellow Americans than we are now seeing.

In his inaugural press conference President Monson emphasized the importance of cooperation in civic endeavors: “We have a responsibility to be active in the communities where we live, all Latter-day Saints, and to work cooperatively with other churches and organizations. My objective there is … that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together.”

If you liked this article, subscribe to posts here: http://thefactofmyignorance.com/post_notification_header/

Or sign up for the FactofMyIgnorance RSS feed here: feed://thefactofmyignorance.com/feed/

Or share it with others using the buttons below.

No related posts.

Of all issues in politics, this one is probably most dear to me.  No I’m not talking about healthcare, though that may be a close second, I’m talking about maintaining and improving the quality of our political dialogue.  For those who don’t know, healthcare town hall meetings have been held over the last week all across the country, and small groups of radical protesters have shown up at many of them with the express goal of “shouting down” their elected leaders.

To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with somebody being against the current healthcare bills being developed in congress.  If they’ve researched the issues thoroughly and have cut through the mists of misinformation and still come out thinking its not the best idea for America then more power to them.  I would welcome those people at a healthcare town hall and I would encourage them to go and speak their mind, even forcefully if they feel its appropriate.  But that’s not what this is.  This is just mobs of people screaming slogans and platitudes.  It’s people who are clearly unfamiliar with the content of the healthcare bill chanting things like “read this bill” for half an hour while their elected leader tries in vain to explain to them that they actually have read each and every iteration of the bill.  This news article, after the jump, will give you a picture of what’s going on:

From the St. Petersburg Times:  ”TAMPA – Bitter divisions over reforming America’s health care system exploded Thursday night in Tampa amid cat calls, jeering and shoving at a town hall meeting.

“Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!” dozens of people shouted as U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor struggled to talk about health insurance reforms under consideration in Washington, D.C.

“There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it,” Castor offered, immediately drowned out by groans and boos.  She pressed on, mostly unheard among the screams from the audience of more than 200.

“Tell the truth! Tell the truth!”

“Read the bill!”

“Forty-million illegals! Forty million illegals!”

The spectacle at the Children’s Board in Ybor City sounded more like a wrestling cage match than a panel discussion on national policy, and it was just the latest example of a health care meeting disrupted by livid protesters. Similar scenes are likely to be repeated across the country as lawmakers head back to their home districts for the summer recess.

Thursday’s forum/near riot was sponsored by state Rep. Betty Reed, D-Tampa, and the Service Employees International Union, who apparently had hoped to hold something of a pep rally for President Obama’s health care reform proposal.

Instead, hundreds of vocal critics turned out, many of them saying they had been spurred on through the Tampa 912 activist group promoted by conservative radio and television personality Glenn Beck. Others had received e-mails from the Hillsborough Republican party that urged people to speak out against the plan and offered talking points to challenge supporters…

She [Castor] left before the forum ended, which drew more boos. State Rep. Reed said she encouraged Castor to leave because nobody could hear her any way.”

Clearly shouting things like “tyranny!” and “tell the truth!” adds nothing to the debate.  And I’m still scratching my head about the “forty-million illegals” thing.  Are they under the impression that the bill would give free healthcare to illegal immigrants?  Because it specifically denies them healthcare subsidies.

Another important issue is the one brought up at the end of the article.  While some members of congress and certain partisan news organizations are trying to pass this off as a grassroots movement of citizens, it’s become clear that they’re nothing more than an organized group of traveling protesters, moving from town hall to town hall to create a public spectacle.  The conservative organization “Freedomworks” has already taken credit for several of the protests and has proudly posted a video of protesters shouting at a befuddled Arlen Specter, labeling it a “must emulate”.  They’ve also bragged about how their members have driven as much as 4 hours to disrupt town halls in other districts.  And the group “Conservatives for Patient’s Rights” has also admitted to being behind many of the protests, even going so far as providing lists of slogans and phrases for their members to shout out and encouraging people to interrupt and “drown out” their public servants.  Obviously there’s nothing wrong with organized protests, but it does irk me some when they then vehemently deny that they’re anything but regular ole town hall attendees.  Its very reminiscent of the Tea Parties that FoxNews and Freedomworks organized and promoted for months, and then covered as “an inspiring, spontaneous, grassroots call for liberty”.  But more than simply being dishonest, these shipped-in protestors deny the real constituents of that district their opportunity to participate.

To those who may be sympathetic towards these protesters, or who may be warming up their lungs for a town hall appearance of their own, I submit for your consideration this quote from one of our great founding fathers, John Adams:

“I fear that in every assembly, members will obtain an influence by noise not sense. By meanness, not greatness, By ignorance, not learning, By contracted hearts, not large souls.
There is one thing, my dear sir, that must be attempted and most sacredly observed or we are all undone. There must be decency and respect, and veneration introduced for persons of authority of every rank, or we are all undone. in a popular government, this is our only way”
–John Adams, from a letter to one of his constituents.

Is that really too much to ask?  While I was no fan of President Bush’s policies I always cringed when protesters would hold up signs comparing him to hitler, or when I’d hear someone call him an “idiot” or “ignoramous”.  And I cringe now that the tables have turned and it seems that in less than 6 months our country is already more comfortable disrespecting our elected leaders than we were 6 years into the Bush administration.  I mean seriously, when did we get to the point that a very friendly looking man like the one in the picture above feels comfortable being photographed while hanging his congressman in effigy at a town hall meeting?  Certainly this is not the direction our country should be headed in, and its not the kind of political discourse our founding fathers hoped we’d be engaging in 200 years later.  Whether you like your leaders or not, they were elected fairly and justly through the rules of representative democracy.  And whether you feel like their opinions mirror your own or not, to disrespect them to this degree is to disrespect the system laid down by our founding fathers.

Even pushing all that to the side, this kind of incivility is just plain stupid.  These protesters are complaining that their voice isn’t being heard and when they have the opportunity to make their concerns known directly to their elected leaders they opt instead to hurl insults and angry non sequiturs, missing an opportunity to contribute thoughtfully to the discussion and instantly identifying themselves as solution-less obstructionists.  Healthcare reform is an exceptionally complex issue, and the bills going through congress are actually impressively moderate.  There are certainly elements of them that are controversial, but as US Rep Kathy Castor tried to tell her incensed Tampa crowd, “There is more consensus than there is disagreement when you get right down to it”.  I think most people, including conservatives,  would find upon actually studying these bills that there is a lot to like.

So please, lets all calm down and take a deep breath.  If you’re concerned about healthcare reform then get educated using balanced and unbaised sources (this post: Some Basic Info on the House’s Healthcare Reform Bill  will get you started).  Then if you find that once you understand the bills circulating congress you still oppose them then by all means work to modify or even defeat them.  But please do so thoughtfully, with civility, sans fear-mongering and hyperbole, and with a healthy respect for those who disagree, and those your community has chosen to represent you.

No related posts.

Well while I’m on the topic of the future of Healthcare here’s another one for you.  The CEO of the CMA, Joe Dunn, came and spoke at the UCD School of Medicine several weeks ago and he gave a great speech.  And now, through the miracle of technology, that speech is available to all of you!  His speech was directed towards medical students but it really has relevance to anyone who wants to get something done in politics.  Its long but he’s a very engaging and entertaining speaker and the speech really gets better as it goes along so if you have the time its definitely worth watching it through.  You would be hard-pressed to find a better primer on how things get done in government.

No related posts.

Well with finals over and done with you can expect to get a lot more posts from me in the coming weeks!  And we start out today with some very exciting  news.  President Obama held a press conference today for what he called, “a watershed event in the long and elusive quest for health care reform.”  The American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association; PhRMA; AdvaMed; America’s Health Insurance Plans, the SEIU, and the Greater New York Hospital Association and the California Hospital Association announced a new cooperative effort to drastically reduce the rate of growth of healthcare costs beginning immediately.  They pledged to cut the rate of growth by 1.5%.  This may not seem like a lot but this means a cut from about 7% to 5.5%, bringing us much closer to the annual rate of income growth which tends to hover around 4-5% but which has at times grown to near 6%.  And that’s what really matters, that’s really our baseline here.  If healthcare costs can be reduced such that their growth is equal to the rate of income growth in the US then the future of healthcare suddenly gets a lot rosier.  And this commitment brings us much closer to that goal.

And this is also great news for America’s future financial security.  Many people don’t realize the huge impact that rising healthcare costs have on our country’s national budget.  The reasons why that is are a subject for another article but even a savings of 1.5% will mean much smaller deficits and less national debt.  One Obama aid put it this way:

“I don’t think there could be a more significant step to help struggling families and to help the federal budget than reducing the growth rate of healthcare spending by 1.5 percentage points per year. With regard to the federal budget… the only way that we are going to restore the nation to a sound fiscal path over the long term is to reduce the growth rate in health care costs… Reducing the growth rate of health care costs overall by 1.5% per year would virtually eliminate the nation’s long term fiscal gap. … This, by an order of magnitude, is far more important [than Social Security or related reforms] to the fiscal trajectory that we’re on, especially over the long term, than anything else that could be done.”

Perhaps a bit hyperbolic but nobel-prize winning economist Paul Krugman was almost as excited:

“And serious cost control would change everything, not just for health care, but for America’s fiscal future. As [Budget Director Peter] Orszag has emphasized, rising health care costs are the main reason long-run budget projections look so grim. Slow the rate at which those costs rise, and the future will look far brighter. I still won’t count my health care chickens until they’re hatched. But this is some of the best policy news I’ve heard in a long time.”   And later says, “…shaving 1.5 percentage points off the growth rate of health care spending. That may not sound like much, but it’s actually huge: achieving that goal would save $2 trillion over the next decade.”

So certainly nothing to sneeze at.  The details of how these savings will be accomplished were not released today but will be revealed over coming weeks.  As for why they’ve chosen to independently take this step?  The only answer from the industry was that they’re being “good Americans”.  This commitment will have no enforcement mechanism beyond the press and there will be no formal regulations.  Apparently the industry just came to this conclusion themselves.  Fantastic, if its that simple, but some fear this may be a preemptive attempt to block the healthcare reform that’s currently taking shape in congress.  Insurance companies can ask for patience first to see if their efforts are sufficient or they can claim that they tried to do their part but congress simply wouldn’t compromise.

I’m actually more optimistic.  In the industry’s statement on the issue they implicitly endorsed the healthcare economics currently being used by the administration to justify healthcare reform.  Which means that somewhere there has been a fundamental shift.  Previously, the insurance industry was holding up their own fringe economists to testify on their behalf against the wave of economic opinion opposing them.  Sort of like the tobacco industry doctors or the oil company ecologists.  But it seems they’ve accepted the fact that they’re part of the problem.  Of course the fact that they can suddenly reduce cost growth by 1.5% just for the heck of it seems to validate that idea as well. There’s been easily reducible waste in the private healthcare system for some time now, and this commitment just highlights that fact.

Healthcare reform plans will be presented in the next few months and I suppose the industry’s intentions will become clear then.  I’ll keep you updated as events unfold and as more details about these cost-reducing measures come to light.

No related posts.

Socrates - humble intellectual extraordinaire

Well after years of talk I’ve decided to finally start a blog.  Not the public diary kind mind you (we have one of those here) but the kind where I can discuss politics, philosophy, religion and other of life’s more weighty matters.  Even those who know me well are probably unaware of the enormous percentage of my daily free time that’s devoted to researching these subjects.  It’s far more than I’d care to admit frankly.  But I’ve long been without a significant outlet for the information and ideas that are constantly swirling around in my head and I’m hoping that this blog will rectify that situation.  But more than just an online sounding board, I’m hoping that this blog can become a place for similarly-interested individuals to discuss these complex issues with dispassionate rationality and constructive debate.  Which brings me to my next topic.

So why the stupid name?  After much thought I’ve decided to name my blog for one of the principles that I hold most dear: Intellectual Humility.  This is a perspective, born of knowledge and honest self-reflection, that recognizes that what we know about the world and life pales in comparison to what we still have yet to understand.  Its a principle that Einstein talked about frequently, and Lao Tzu touched on, but which Socrates said most succinctly when he said, “I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance”.

Interestingly, this kind of intellectual humility tends to grow with increasing knowledge.  This principle has been clearly demonstrated to me since starting medical school, as I’ve already learned far more about many subjects than I knew there was to learn.  The subject of immunology is an instructive example…  On the surface its simply a subset of human physiology, which is a subset of biology.  Couldn’t be too complex right?  Well I’ve got an entire class on it right now and my mind is regularly blown by the complexity of the human immune response.  But even more mind-blowing is the knowledge that there are probably a hundred PhD’s out there who have dedicated their entire lives to studying the details of each of the bullet points on each of our slides.  Those people could probably give an entire class on the content of one of our slides.  We think we’re getting the in-depth treatment but more and more I realize that we are just blowing through summaries of what is an almost unimaginably huge topic.  The end result of this experience is that while I objectively now know more about the immune system than I did before, the net effect is that I feel somewhat stupider, because I thought I knew a fair amount about the immune response before I started, and now I realize that I know 2% of what there is to know, max.

So we see that the acquisition of knowledge is fatal to unrealistic pride.  And an intensely impassioned, uncompromising, or unequivocal opinion about any given subject is almost always a sign of ignorance to the complexities of the topic.  The lesson learned is to be wary of those who seem sure of themselves when discussing complex issues, because its likely that the only reason for their confidence is that they don’t even know what they don’t know.

With that said you’ll likely read a fair amount of passion in my posts on this blog.  And I’ll likely express some strong opinions.  And part of that is because I, as an imperfect human being, am not always aware of what I don’t know.  But its also because including qualifiers before every single phrase is frankly cumbersome.  I’ve always thought that the short-hand for verbally expressed intellectual humility is an unspoken understanding that we are all uninformed human beings with limited understanding.

So while we may debate vigorously we must be able to divorce our own egos from our fallible ideas and tear apart and rebuild arguments without fear of personal offense.  We should always understand that our stances on issues are our stances “so far” and we must be willing to alter them when presented with new truths.  If we can debate serious issues with that unspoken understanding then there will be no contention, there will be no anger, we will be practicing intellectual humility, and we will grow that much closer to understanding the truth.

Now go to the Home Page and start reading/commenting!

No related posts.