I have been listening to and discussing with friends, a packaged lecture series titled, “A Skeptic’s Guide To History”. We are 5 or 6 lectures deep into the 24 part program and the prospect of so many episodes is a little intimidating. People who create instructional material for online consumption, they give us more verbiage than necessary. A lot is just time consuming repetition. After all, 24 lectures require more time than 15 and they get paid by the minute. Still, it gives rise to the fact that one’s view on any subject depends not only on what information you have (believe) but also on what ever else there is that you didn’t know.
With American History, skepticism roots out controversial elements about the nation’s Founding Fathers (FF’s) that today would be extreme if not treason. Most colonists (large majority) considered themselves to be Englishmen, loyal to the crown. Their problem wasn’t with the king but with parliament and it wasn’t as much about taxes as having no say in North American oversight. They didn’t want a revolution or a democracy, only some wiggle room and a voice.
A good place to start with the Skeptic’s guide was; how did a bunch of farmers overcome the greatest army in the world? What Russia did (1962) in Cuba and the USA (2003) in Iraq is consistent with long standing precedent. France (1776) did the same thing in the colonies. They supported an underdog insurgency in a faraway place with military might and money, at the expense of their undeclared enemy (England). All things be told, King Louis XVI should be enshrined as an American Hero of the highest order. The role France played in our revolution has been grossly understated in terms of war ships, sailors, foot soldiers, supplies, command advisors and money. In France it has been conveniently dismissed for the sake of diplomacy, no less than American Imperialism (1900/1920) in Central America. But we want to claim our own heroic legacy and when you write your own history you get what you want.
America’s (FF’s) were never of a same mind. The 13 colonies identified as independent states, not as a union. They didn’t like, didn’t trust each other and never, ever wanted a democracy. For affluent, educated, land holding, white men of European descent, ‘Equality’ was not only a dirty word, it was an insult and a threat to their long standing aristocracy. It wasn’t until 50 years later, the 1830’s that President Andrew Jackson changed voting rights to include all white men, even common peasants. Each state saw themselves competing with each other in every category, slavery in particular and they aligned themselves accordingly, setting up the Civil War.
Without conceding to a ‘Conspiracy’ mentality, skepticism simply keeps asking questions that require valid, transparent, reliable resolution, even when the news is bad. Two nearly synonymous phrases that shed light on the concept are ‘Skepticism’ and ‘Scientific Method’. They guarantee a different practice than formalizing a solution before you frame the question, which fits the conspiracy model very well. I remember when, then Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Scalia was recognized as the champion of interpreting the constitution literally, as it was written. Every current court case must be ruled upon from the same precedent as put forth in the original constitution with no (not any) consideration for changing times, conditions or the needs of a diverse, evolving, cultural reality. The irony there; the (FF’s) again, they couldn’t agree on anything. By that time, the only glue to keep that marriage in tact (bullets flying, people were dying and choosing sides - not unlike 2008 Afghanistan) was their common foe, England. So everything written into the contract was left vague, in need of clarification which they intended to address, someday. We are still trying to agree on what vague language means but process designed to agree on something that defies description, to keep kicking the can down the road continues kicking the can down the road.
It’s hard to believe it took me so long to make the connection, Like Washington and Adams, Anthony Scalia didn’t want a democracy either. Modern day Republicans don’t want a democracy, it’s too messy, too inefficient. Democracy would reward undeserving losers with privileges that are rightly afforded to obviously, deserving winners. When the underclass prospers even a penny more than supply & demand would require, the privileged gentry suffers. By that measure, status quo should be not only sustained but also defended, at all cost. They (FF’s mentality) prefer a compromise between authoritarian rule and democratic principles (Federalism) where representatives are appointed or elected to carry on government business, to make and enforce laws. We know how that works, we have the best government money can buy, we know who has deep pockets and who prospers in that arrangement.
Democrats are different but no better. Right and wrong is whatever we decide and the real deciders have a lock on both power and wealth. Powerful Liberals are no less divisive or self serving than their Conservative counterparts. The give & take of the American freedom experiment has allowed for term limits and a peaceful transition of power until recently (January 6, 2021). So it should not surprise any of us that the rift between progressive people and (FF’s) disciples should turn toxic. This experiment with freedom is still in progress. Ten generations removed from the (FF’s), our leaders still wrestle with the same conflicted priorities. Where do we draw the line between greed and equity, when will enough be enough? I am a skeptic and those are the difficult questions. When Scalia read the “Liberty & Justice for All” part he defaulted to the original, intentionally biased “All” from the 1776 interpretation; wealthy, white men.
As a disclaimer I would add; the expert presenter was careful to avoid his own political bias, focussing on facts and obvious cause/effect scenarios that would not be thought controversial. My part here, on the other hand, is shaded by my ideological leaning which is to the left of course. But I try to be open and accepting of anything offered in the spirit of sharing. If you want to be taken seriously, you must be open to ideas that feel repugnant in the moment. Beyond that, you must be willing to be wrong. When the logic of an alternate view proves equal to your own bias, you must give it credit. If it changes your view even a little or a lot, it is what it is and you move on. If you can’t do that then all you do is swap insults to gain favor with like minded cohorts. Sadly, we don’t see much open ended dialogue in public discourse. The last thing I want to be is a partisan bigot. They squeal like pigs on their way to the pork chop man, for the sake of the party line, either party. Their bigotry requires nothing more than a deeply seated, tribal loyalty and someone else’s bias. Don’t be a partisan bigot! Reading, thinking, weighing, measuring and certainly reexamining your own beliefs is more work than watching a polarized media outlet but then you skip the squealing and the pork chop man.
With American History, skepticism roots out controversial elements about the nation’s Founding Fathers (FF’s) that today would be extreme if not treason. Most colonists (large majority) considered themselves to be Englishmen, loyal to the crown. Their problem wasn’t with the king but with parliament and it wasn’t as much about taxes as having no say in North American oversight. They didn’t want a revolution or a democracy, only some wiggle room and a voice.
A good place to start with the Skeptic’s guide was; how did a bunch of farmers overcome the greatest army in the world? What Russia did (1962) in Cuba and the USA (2003) in Iraq is consistent with long standing precedent. France (1776) did the same thing in the colonies. They supported an underdog insurgency in a faraway place with military might and money, at the expense of their undeclared enemy (England). All things be told, King Louis XVI should be enshrined as an American Hero of the highest order. The role France played in our revolution has been grossly understated in terms of war ships, sailors, foot soldiers, supplies, command advisors and money. In France it has been conveniently dismissed for the sake of diplomacy, no less than American Imperialism (1900/1920) in Central America. But we want to claim our own heroic legacy and when you write your own history you get what you want.
America’s (FF’s) were never of a same mind. The 13 colonies identified as independent states, not as a union. They didn’t like, didn’t trust each other and never, ever wanted a democracy. For affluent, educated, land holding, white men of European descent, ‘Equality’ was not only a dirty word, it was an insult and a threat to their long standing aristocracy. It wasn’t until 50 years later, the 1830’s that President Andrew Jackson changed voting rights to include all white men, even common peasants. Each state saw themselves competing with each other in every category, slavery in particular and they aligned themselves accordingly, setting up the Civil War.
Without conceding to a ‘Conspiracy’ mentality, skepticism simply keeps asking questions that require valid, transparent, reliable resolution, even when the news is bad. Two nearly synonymous phrases that shed light on the concept are ‘Skepticism’ and ‘Scientific Method’. They guarantee a different practice than formalizing a solution before you frame the question, which fits the conspiracy model very well. I remember when, then Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Scalia was recognized as the champion of interpreting the constitution literally, as it was written. Every current court case must be ruled upon from the same precedent as put forth in the original constitution with no (not any) consideration for changing times, conditions or the needs of a diverse, evolving, cultural reality. The irony there; the (FF’s) again, they couldn’t agree on anything. By that time, the only glue to keep that marriage in tact (bullets flying, people were dying and choosing sides - not unlike 2008 Afghanistan) was their common foe, England. So everything written into the contract was left vague, in need of clarification which they intended to address, someday. We are still trying to agree on what vague language means but process designed to agree on something that defies description, to keep kicking the can down the road continues kicking the can down the road.
It’s hard to believe it took me so long to make the connection, Like Washington and Adams, Anthony Scalia didn’t want a democracy either. Modern day Republicans don’t want a democracy, it’s too messy, too inefficient. Democracy would reward undeserving losers with privileges that are rightly afforded to obviously, deserving winners. When the underclass prospers even a penny more than supply & demand would require, the privileged gentry suffers. By that measure, status quo should be not only sustained but also defended, at all cost. They (FF’s mentality) prefer a compromise between authoritarian rule and democratic principles (Federalism) where representatives are appointed or elected to carry on government business, to make and enforce laws. We know how that works, we have the best government money can buy, we know who has deep pockets and who prospers in that arrangement.
Democrats are different but no better. Right and wrong is whatever we decide and the real deciders have a lock on both power and wealth. Powerful Liberals are no less divisive or self serving than their Conservative counterparts. The give & take of the American freedom experiment has allowed for term limits and a peaceful transition of power until recently (January 6, 2021). So it should not surprise any of us that the rift between progressive people and (FF’s) disciples should turn toxic. This experiment with freedom is still in progress. Ten generations removed from the (FF’s), our leaders still wrestle with the same conflicted priorities. Where do we draw the line between greed and equity, when will enough be enough? I am a skeptic and those are the difficult questions. When Scalia read the “Liberty & Justice for All” part he defaulted to the original, intentionally biased “All” from the 1776 interpretation; wealthy, white men.
As a disclaimer I would add; the expert presenter was careful to avoid his own political bias, focussing on facts and obvious cause/effect scenarios that would not be thought controversial. My part here, on the other hand, is shaded by my ideological leaning which is to the left of course. But I try to be open and accepting of anything offered in the spirit of sharing. If you want to be taken seriously, you must be open to ideas that feel repugnant in the moment. Beyond that, you must be willing to be wrong. When the logic of an alternate view proves equal to your own bias, you must give it credit. If it changes your view even a little or a lot, it is what it is and you move on. If you can’t do that then all you do is swap insults to gain favor with like minded cohorts. Sadly, we don’t see much open ended dialogue in public discourse. The last thing I want to be is a partisan bigot. They squeal like pigs on their way to the pork chop man, for the sake of the party line, either party. Their bigotry requires nothing more than a deeply seated, tribal loyalty and someone else’s bias. Don’t be a partisan bigot! Reading, thinking, weighing, measuring and certainly reexamining your own beliefs is more work than watching a polarized media outlet but then you skip the squealing and the pork chop man.
No comments:
Post a Comment