On the Marine Corps: the leeway goes in many cases down to the NCO level, and even below that you learn that fixing a situation isn't merely something that you can do, it's something you're obligated to do.
I will comment that I think he's understating the institutional dysfunction of the Spanish Flu response and overstating the dysfunction in the modern COVID response, including on the local level. I think if you look at grassroots stuff like support for medical workers, volunteers for various care packages, vaccine center volunteering, cloth/vacuum bag mask makers, and various local efforts, the community stuff was comparable in intent with the internet meaning every area of the country got some of the bad and some of the good while you probably had brighter spots and darker spots in the much less connected 1918 period. The flipside is that the institutional distrust and reaction were that much worse.
There was outright federal censorship over much of the information about the Flu to avoid panic because of WWI. In fact, since Spain was neutral and not censoring information, that's why it got the name of Spanish Flu. Municipalities had wildly different approaches to the flu just like our states did. Philadelphia, San Francisco, and St. Louis were probably the best and most different examples within the US setting.
Philadelphia went straight to head in the sand and censorship, leading to extreme fear and social breakdown rivaling earlier times of plague. There were literal bring out your dead wagons and mass graves, for context. No restrictions or protocols were put into place and the city even held an Armistice Day Parade directly against health officials' advice that caused the caseloads to skyrocket. Cuomo could share beers with the Mayor of Philly for recklessness.
San Francisco initially took a strong social distancing and restrictions approach but then completely pulled all of the restrictions off at once, leading to it having one of the highest death rates after having some of the lowest. It was more open than Philadelphia about the risks, but urged social solidarity in lieu of abandoning one's neighbors to fend for themselves. So it had a high death rate, but retained a functioning society.
St. Louis took the approach most approximated by Senegal in terms of communications, which was to have extremely open communication about what was known and what was not known about the disease and situation at the time. Social solidarity was retained and the death rate was comparatively lower than San Francisco because people took a conservative approach personally since they could trust their municipal institutions including where they said "we don't know."
Where we most got in trouble was government actors speaking absolutely authoritatively without acknowledging the uncertainties in the situation, noble lies (like those around masks and N95s), and overt hypocrisy in public (the President of Mongolia early in January or February 2020 is a spectacular counterexample of a leader walking the walk.
Jon Barry's The Great Influenza is a tremendous resource on the institutional failures and successes, with the most notable success being the development of many modern medical institutions that had limited effects with the flu but spectacular benefits down the line.
There is no question that bureaucracy has stifled initiative in our organizations. Tanner Greer mentioned at least a couple reasons why this happens. Excessive bureaucracy not only blocks initiative with its rules, but it keeps people from developing important organizing skills as they move through their careers. As a result, they are kept in an undeveloped state such that that few are up to the task when big problems arise. Instead, people place their hope in ossified bureaucracies which cannot respond effectively. Another reason that should be mentioned is that the integration of women in the workplace has broken up and confused the camaraderie that men used to enjoy - camaraderie that enabled them to pitch their efforts together and solve problems. Women look at problems differently and feminists have injected an impractical, stultifying concern about equity and inclusion into many organizations. It's no coincidence that three effective groups that Greer mentioned are the Marines, the LDS church, and Silicon Valley startups - all mostly run by men.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I'll observe that evangelical churches (and the RCC) are also mostly run by men and yet it sounds like the LDS are doing something better here when it comes to youth involvement.
So the most obvious follow-up here, and the one we have the most ability to influence: what can our churches learn from the LDS?
It sounds like, at the very least, there is a youth group exercise here. As churches, we tend to ask little of teenagers besides showing up to youth group.
We could also compare to how Jews require a Hebrew Torah recitation at a kid's Bar Mitzvah. I'm not sure how spiritually edifying that is, but the fact that it's difficult causes them to take the whole thing more seriously, probably builds character while tying them more strongly to the community.
We shouldn’t demand more, we should ask why there isn’t more of a fire within to do more. Go inside out as opposed to outside in.
Saints are made because of an internal desire, it’s not some minimum bar per se but when you push minimum requirements past a certain point you wind up with whitewashed tombs of the Pharisees, Calvin’s Geneva, or the Mass Colony which Roger Williams left.
Whatever we do, we shouldn’t ask what God wants us to do. Much safer to look at “successful” institutions in the world.
On the Marine Corps: the leeway goes in many cases down to the NCO level, and even below that you learn that fixing a situation isn't merely something that you can do, it's something you're obligated to do.
I will comment that I think he's understating the institutional dysfunction of the Spanish Flu response and overstating the dysfunction in the modern COVID response, including on the local level. I think if you look at grassroots stuff like support for medical workers, volunteers for various care packages, vaccine center volunteering, cloth/vacuum bag mask makers, and various local efforts, the community stuff was comparable in intent with the internet meaning every area of the country got some of the bad and some of the good while you probably had brighter spots and darker spots in the much less connected 1918 period. The flipside is that the institutional distrust and reaction were that much worse.
There was outright federal censorship over much of the information about the Flu to avoid panic because of WWI. In fact, since Spain was neutral and not censoring information, that's why it got the name of Spanish Flu. Municipalities had wildly different approaches to the flu just like our states did. Philadelphia, San Francisco, and St. Louis were probably the best and most different examples within the US setting.
Philadelphia went straight to head in the sand and censorship, leading to extreme fear and social breakdown rivaling earlier times of plague. There were literal bring out your dead wagons and mass graves, for context. No restrictions or protocols were put into place and the city even held an Armistice Day Parade directly against health officials' advice that caused the caseloads to skyrocket. Cuomo could share beers with the Mayor of Philly for recklessness.
San Francisco initially took a strong social distancing and restrictions approach but then completely pulled all of the restrictions off at once, leading to it having one of the highest death rates after having some of the lowest. It was more open than Philadelphia about the risks, but urged social solidarity in lieu of abandoning one's neighbors to fend for themselves. So it had a high death rate, but retained a functioning society.
St. Louis took the approach most approximated by Senegal in terms of communications, which was to have extremely open communication about what was known and what was not known about the disease and situation at the time. Social solidarity was retained and the death rate was comparatively lower than San Francisco because people took a conservative approach personally since they could trust their municipal institutions including where they said "we don't know."
Where we most got in trouble was government actors speaking absolutely authoritatively without acknowledging the uncertainties in the situation, noble lies (like those around masks and N95s), and overt hypocrisy in public (the President of Mongolia early in January or February 2020 is a spectacular counterexample of a leader walking the walk.
Jon Barry's The Great Influenza is a tremendous resource on the institutional failures and successes, with the most notable success being the development of many modern medical institutions that had limited effects with the flu but spectacular benefits down the line.
There is no question that bureaucracy has stifled initiative in our organizations. Tanner Greer mentioned at least a couple reasons why this happens. Excessive bureaucracy not only blocks initiative with its rules, but it keeps people from developing important organizing skills as they move through their careers. As a result, they are kept in an undeveloped state such that that few are up to the task when big problems arise. Instead, people place their hope in ossified bureaucracies which cannot respond effectively. Another reason that should be mentioned is that the integration of women in the workplace has broken up and confused the camaraderie that men used to enjoy - camaraderie that enabled them to pitch their efforts together and solve problems. Women look at problems differently and feminists have injected an impractical, stultifying concern about equity and inclusion into many organizations. It's no coincidence that three effective groups that Greer mentioned are the Marines, the LDS church, and Silicon Valley startups - all mostly run by men.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I'll observe that evangelical churches (and the RCC) are also mostly run by men and yet it sounds like the LDS are doing something better here when it comes to youth involvement.
So the most obvious follow-up here, and the one we have the most ability to influence: what can our churches learn from the LDS?
It sounds like, at the very least, there is a youth group exercise here. As churches, we tend to ask little of teenagers besides showing up to youth group.
We could also compare to how Jews require a Hebrew Torah recitation at a kid's Bar Mitzvah. I'm not sure how spiritually edifying that is, but the fact that it's difficult causes them to take the whole thing more seriously, probably builds character while tying them more strongly to the community.
We shouldn’t demand more, we should ask why there isn’t more of a fire within to do more. Go inside out as opposed to outside in.
Saints are made because of an internal desire, it’s not some minimum bar per se but when you push minimum requirements past a certain point you wind up with whitewashed tombs of the Pharisees, Calvin’s Geneva, or the Mass Colony which Roger Williams left.
Whatever we do, we shouldn’t ask what God wants us to do. Much safer to look at “successful” institutions in the world.
I was thinking the same thing about the LDS youth involvement: "What can we learn from it?"
Your comment about the Bar Mitzvah being taken more seriously because it is difficult is interesting.
“So, how do we get to a Protestant work ethic, without becoming some stump ignorant Protestant?”