A low trust society is what inevitably emerges when leaders sit idly by and fail to lead. This is why it's associated with corruption in society.
To move back toward a higher-trust society, we need church leaders who realize we're in crisis and act and preach accordingly, school principals who fight to ensure there's actually education happening in the classroom, and political leaders and business managers who are actually stewarding over the domain under their charge, rather than just trying to look good and move up.
Even how we think when we say "low trust society" illustrates the dual level of consideration. Many once trusted civic institutions are in decay as they have lost their way so we become cynical or start new ones. But what matters to most folks is, "Can I leave this load of lumber in my driveway tonight and it still be there in the morning?"
I think that we are in the process of a course correction. It has happened many times before, but this time it is far reaching. Trust without verification is always error. Leaders often lose the trust of their followers, because leaders are usually sociopaths, and when they gain the trust of a sufficient number of the folks they want to lead, they let their sociopathology take over. Getting people to trust you gives you power over them, and power always leads to abuse.
Power tends to corrupt both the wielder and those over whom power is wielded. As Hitler gained power his sociopathology became more obvious, and those who submitted to his power, willing or not, descended into their own sociopathology, and we are all subject to social pathologies. See https://link.springer.com/chapter/10 or Imposed Rationality and Besieged Imagination: Practical Life and Social Pathologies by Gustavo Pereira.
Trust is a shortcut. If we ignore the vital step of seeking verification, we are subjecting ourselves to being abused. The mantle of authority is often donned by those who have not earned it. The Catholic church has undermined its authority for years by allowing pedophiles to continue in the priesthood after having their pedophilia exposed. Evangelical and charismatic organizations, too, allow unchaste and larcenous behavior to continue after exposure. Wrong and perverted behavior is regularly exposed in politics, education, and business. And the news media has in many instances been complicit in covering up official malfeasance.
We are always at fault in blindly trusting those in positions of authority over us. Becoming a lower trust society is essential to becoming a healthier society. Trusting people is like walking with broken crutches.
Regarding your opening and closing paragraphs - - all I can say is, if this is what you can do with a cold, then I have a list of writers I'd like you to go sneeze on!
More seriously, I am curious about your use of the word infamous regarding Anton's essay. Did you mean that facetiously or ironically, or as an unacknowledged nod to the legacy media or deep state's response? If not it would be interesting to have you elaborate on this; my own take is that his thesis may not have been comfortable, but it was certainly *perceptive*.
Thank you for this short post, Aaron. It's nice to read someone who's doing more nuanced evaluations. I'm as guilty as the next man when it comes to reading highly partisan things, so I enjoy the way you engage in an irenic spirit.
This one was one of your best, Aaron, but I don't want to attribute it to your being sick. You have identified an important missing component in the civic renewal initiatives, yet you are able to commend the good intentions of these groups.
Another factor could be the borrowing of the stronger Christian faith of previous generations, creating that vague Judeo-Christian consensus, or what some call civic religion. That helps explain some of the leadership skills of an Eisenhower, or a Theodore Roosevelt or Grover Cleveland. I also see that Psalm 112:2 heritage in some of the greatest generation leaders of Indianapolis of the 1970s and 1980s -- Mr. Binford as one example.
There's a reason that civic renewal feels like the Underpants Gnome meme, and that's because we're not going to like the middle step. I've been to a good number of academic conferences on the topic and the overwhelming response to the question of middle steps is a new civic religion.
In the past, vague multi-denominational Protestantism was the unifying civic religion. Towards the 1940's and 50's, it was changed to Judeo-Christianity. Russell Kirk's book, the American Cause, has a section devoted to the precepts of the American Civic Religion, and I recommend that everyone read it if you get a chance. When I was in graduate school, ISI (isi.org) distributed the book to us and encouraged us to see it as a synopsis of the ideology we should be teaching our students. I remember being rather disturbed by the religion chapters because I couldn't accept many of the theological statements that were described as fundamental to what it means to be an American.
As mentioned, the question of a civic religion is a major theme in a lot of liberal and center-right political groups who discuss these things at our conferences. I'm not going to name names - these aren't fringe people, but the kind of folks who get invited to hold positions in the White House Office, albeit perhaps not the most prominent positions. The issue being discussed is how to compose a quasi-religious statement that can become the criteria of American-ness and will be accepted by the bulk of the population as a valid expression of their personal beliefs, or at least not against their personal beliefs. Obviously, this civic religion can't be overtly Christian, can't exclude sexual identities, and can't alienate important factions of the elite. If people have a problem with it, their marginalization in society would be justified and they would be outside the protection of Civil Rights legislation.
The reality on the ground is that Trump has probably derailed this for the time being, to our benefit, because the one group whose exclusion would unite all others is probably conservative Catholics and Evangelicals. John Rawls made the argument back in the 80's that a liberal supermajority consensus could probably be built on the exclusion of these groups from full participation in society. That's the real potential source of any civic renewal in America and so that's why I refuse to raise a finger in its service.
A low trust society is what inevitably emerges when leaders sit idly by and fail to lead. This is why it's associated with corruption in society.
To move back toward a higher-trust society, we need church leaders who realize we're in crisis and act and preach accordingly, school principals who fight to ensure there's actually education happening in the classroom, and political leaders and business managers who are actually stewarding over the domain under their charge, rather than just trying to look good and move up.
Even how we think when we say "low trust society" illustrates the dual level of consideration. Many once trusted civic institutions are in decay as they have lost their way so we become cynical or start new ones. But what matters to most folks is, "Can I leave this load of lumber in my driveway tonight and it still be there in the morning?"
"we are becoming a lower trust society"
I think that we are in the process of a course correction. It has happened many times before, but this time it is far reaching. Trust without verification is always error. Leaders often lose the trust of their followers, because leaders are usually sociopaths, and when they gain the trust of a sufficient number of the folks they want to lead, they let their sociopathology take over. Getting people to trust you gives you power over them, and power always leads to abuse.
Power tends to corrupt both the wielder and those over whom power is wielded. As Hitler gained power his sociopathology became more obvious, and those who submitted to his power, willing or not, descended into their own sociopathology, and we are all subject to social pathologies. See https://link.springer.com/chapter/10 or Imposed Rationality and Besieged Imagination: Practical Life and Social Pathologies by Gustavo Pereira.
Trust is a shortcut. If we ignore the vital step of seeking verification, we are subjecting ourselves to being abused. The mantle of authority is often donned by those who have not earned it. The Catholic church has undermined its authority for years by allowing pedophiles to continue in the priesthood after having their pedophilia exposed. Evangelical and charismatic organizations, too, allow unchaste and larcenous behavior to continue after exposure. Wrong and perverted behavior is regularly exposed in politics, education, and business. And the news media has in many instances been complicit in covering up official malfeasance.
We are always at fault in blindly trusting those in positions of authority over us. Becoming a lower trust society is essential to becoming a healthier society. Trusting people is like walking with broken crutches.
Regarding your opening and closing paragraphs - - all I can say is, if this is what you can do with a cold, then I have a list of writers I'd like you to go sneeze on!
More seriously, I am curious about your use of the word infamous regarding Anton's essay. Did you mean that facetiously or ironically, or as an unacknowledged nod to the legacy media or deep state's response? If not it would be interesting to have you elaborate on this; my own take is that his thesis may not have been comfortable, but it was certainly *perceptive*.
Infamous in some quarters - certainly controversial.
Thank you for this short post, Aaron. It's nice to read someone who's doing more nuanced evaluations. I'm as guilty as the next man when it comes to reading highly partisan things, so I enjoy the way you engage in an irenic spirit.
This one was one of your best, Aaron, but I don't want to attribute it to your being sick. You have identified an important missing component in the civic renewal initiatives, yet you are able to commend the good intentions of these groups.
Another factor could be the borrowing of the stronger Christian faith of previous generations, creating that vague Judeo-Christian consensus, or what some call civic religion. That helps explain some of the leadership skills of an Eisenhower, or a Theodore Roosevelt or Grover Cleveland. I also see that Psalm 112:2 heritage in some of the greatest generation leaders of Indianapolis of the 1970s and 1980s -- Mr. Binford as one example.
There's a reason that civic renewal feels like the Underpants Gnome meme, and that's because we're not going to like the middle step. I've been to a good number of academic conferences on the topic and the overwhelming response to the question of middle steps is a new civic religion.
In the past, vague multi-denominational Protestantism was the unifying civic religion. Towards the 1940's and 50's, it was changed to Judeo-Christianity. Russell Kirk's book, the American Cause, has a section devoted to the precepts of the American Civic Religion, and I recommend that everyone read it if you get a chance. When I was in graduate school, ISI (isi.org) distributed the book to us and encouraged us to see it as a synopsis of the ideology we should be teaching our students. I remember being rather disturbed by the religion chapters because I couldn't accept many of the theological statements that were described as fundamental to what it means to be an American.
As mentioned, the question of a civic religion is a major theme in a lot of liberal and center-right political groups who discuss these things at our conferences. I'm not going to name names - these aren't fringe people, but the kind of folks who get invited to hold positions in the White House Office, albeit perhaps not the most prominent positions. The issue being discussed is how to compose a quasi-religious statement that can become the criteria of American-ness and will be accepted by the bulk of the population as a valid expression of their personal beliefs, or at least not against their personal beliefs. Obviously, this civic religion can't be overtly Christian, can't exclude sexual identities, and can't alienate important factions of the elite. If people have a problem with it, their marginalization in society would be justified and they would be outside the protection of Civil Rights legislation.
The reality on the ground is that Trump has probably derailed this for the time being, to our benefit, because the one group whose exclusion would unite all others is probably conservative Catholics and Evangelicals. John Rawls made the argument back in the 80's that a liberal supermajority consensus could probably be built on the exclusion of these groups from full participation in society. That's the real potential source of any civic renewal in America and so that's why I refuse to raise a finger in its service.