Confirming our location

Welcome to CivCon!  But, know that City Beat / The Reader events section sometimes gets our location wrong.  Our permanent mtg spot is the Panera Café at 5620 Balboa Ave., at the Genesee intersection in Claremont.  Also, see the next post down for some optional background readings for this Monday’s mtg.

Monday’s Mtg: Thomas Jefferson and his legacy.

April 13 was Thomas Jefferson’s 273rd birthday. I sent a card and signed all your names.  On Monday, Jim Zimmerman, our historian, will be our guide as we discuss Jefferson’s life and legacy. In the past few years, Jefferson’s complex legacy has become fodder for a new generation of historians that hate the guy, love the guy, or condemn/claim various pieces of him.

Outside of the academy, both Right and Left have wrestled with Jefferson in recent years. Conservatives sometimes claim him as the founding father most opposed to centralized big government and as much more traditionally Christian than historians generally allow. Liberals struggle with the paradox of the towering polymath that authored the Declaration of Independence and founded the Democratic Party while keeping a plantation full of slaves, some of whom he raped (Sally Hemings) and few of which he even bothered to free in his will.

So, lots to chew on.  I’ll be there on Monday. But, I will leave it to Jim to run the meeting and you all to discuss history through any lenses you wish to peer through. I think our discussion should be wide-ranging, like Jefferson’s intellect, his accomplishments, and his dark side.

Here are a few basic readings on Thomas Jefferson and commentaries on aspects of his legacy that have been in the news lately.

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Next Week: Causes of deteriorating U.S. race relations/politics

Monday’s Mtg: From Bundy to Black Lives – When Is Civil Disobedience Justified?

Breaking the law in order to highlight its injustice (one, but not the only, definition of civil disobedience) is all around us these days. In our crowded media environment, many individual acts or organized campaigns of civil disobedience don’t break through to the mass media. But, some that did in a big way are:

  • Black Lives Matter;
  • Occupy Wall Street;
  • Protestors disrupting Donald Trump rallies;
  • Cliven Bundy, et. al., facing down authorities in Nevada and Oregon to protest federal govt land policies;
  • Local government officials (like Kim Davis in Kentucky) refusing to sign same sex marriage licenses;
  • Edward Snowden leaking classified information on NSA eavesdropping programs.

Some of thee efforts involved many legal as well as illegal acts, of course, and some have achieved a lot more than just publicity. Black Lives Matter has had a major impact on the Democratic presidential primary and renewed efforts to reform policing. (We will discuss police reform and oversight on June 8.) The anti-Trump protestors have influenced the Republican presidential primary process, just maybe not in the way they intended. Others either fizzled out (Bundy) or just need more time to grow support (Snowden, perhaps).

The perpetrators of all of these illegal acts done for a higher purpose routinely cite as their inspirations famous civil disobedience actions of the past by abolitionists, civil and women’s rights activists, etc.   As the author of one recent book on the subject puts it, civil disobedience is an American Tradition.

Now, I believe we may be entering a new era of political activism. Why is a subject for another days – many, actually.  But I see this new era as arising from widespread public discontent with our political system and parties, income stagnation, and rapid demographic and cultural change. I think civil disobedience will play a heightened role in our politics because of the Internet and social media.  Even if I’m wrong, the recent big protest movements cited above are well worth a meeting.

My idea here is for us to see if we can identify some universal principles on when civil disobedience might be morally and politically justifiable. We’ll look to our own values and our current political and social environment, sure. But we also can use our history, others’ histories (e.g., from Gandhi all the way to terrorism!), religion, and philosophy. The latter two have been arguing about when civil disobedience is and is not justified for generations. There are many interesting questions we can pose. For example…

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

  1. DEFINITION: What is “civil disobedience [CD]?” How does it differ from passive resistance or non-cooperation?
    a.  Must CD be non-violent? What is non-violence, anyway?
    b.  When does CD become something else, like insurrection?
  2. CURRENT: What major CD movements/acts are occurring right now?
    a.  How have they been justified by their perpetrators?
    b.  Are they helping or hindering budding political movements?
  3. PAST: Are there any major lessons from U.S. history on when civil disobedience is justified? Do all Americans agree on them?
    a. Has it all depended on the object of the disobedience; i.e., on the morality of the goal? What else has mattered?
    b. Has CD ever worked by itself, unattached to a big political movement?
  4. RELIGION and PHILOSOPHY: What do they say about civil disobedience? When is it justified and within what limits?
  5. LAW/GOVT/YOU/ME: Should the law treat acts of civil disobedience differently from ordinary law-breaking?
    a.  What about when there is no democracy or no way to redress grievances?
    b. Is CD ever morally or religiously required?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Movements involving civil disobedience [CD]:

Justifications:

  • MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham jail, 1963. Highly recommended because notice how he justifies taking direct action.
  • Still, civil disobedience involves many thorny issues. Recommended.
  • Civil disobedience in philosophy. A hard read from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Problem with + limits to civil disobedience:

Building grass roots political movements

Next Week: Thomas Jefferson and His Legacy.  Jim Z. will guide us!

Monday’s Mtg: The Supreme Court and the 2016 Election.

The Supreme Court was always going to be the big prize of the 2016 election. Justice Antonin Scalia’s death on February 13, 2016, just raised the already high stakes to an unequaled plateau because we now know the Court’s 20+ year-long conservative ideological majority hangs in the balance.

I originally scheduled this topic to discuss the string of 5-4 conservative decisions on major cases that everybody expected to come down the pike in April to June. These cases included ones on Obama’s climate regulations, the 1-person-1-vote redistricting standard, union rights, abortion and contraception access, affirmative action, and the death penalty. Oops. Now, those cases either will be reargued next term, remanded to lower courts, or let stand because SCOTUS is tied.

So, I think it might be fun to re-purpose this meeting to look more broadly at the relationship between the Supreme Court and elections – and public opinion. We kind of did this 2012 (Whose side is SCOTUS on?). But, that was more about how public opinion influences SCOTUS and how often the Court has defied majority public opinion to make unpopular rulings.

On Monday, I’d like us to begin by asking about the reverse relationship: How much does the public care about SCOTUS and how do high-profile Supreme Court issues influence voting? As the first link or two below explain, typically SCOTUS is not a very visible issue in our elections except for political activists, the most well-informed voters, and the economic interests intimately affected by Court decisions. But, given the historic moment, it might be different this time. Especially with presidential candidates running on issues that are before the Court but in limbo because of Scalia’s death, like Ted Cruz running on abortion and immigration and Bernie Sanders demanding that the next SCOTUS justice commit to overturn Citizens United.

I will give a short introduction to our meeting that focuses on the public’s view of the Supreme Court and whether/why that matters. Then, we can discuss if that is changing.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

  1. Stakes: How high are the stakes in this election for the future of SCOTUS and American law and policy? Re:
    1. High-profile cases next term?
    2. Big areas of constitutional law, like civil rights, civil liberties, presidential power, natl security, voting rights and campaign finance, reproductive rights, labor unions, federalism, etc.?
    3. Obama’s achievements (many are reversible by SCOTUS)?
    4. Lower federal courts?
    5. Is a “constitutional revolution,” either progressive or conservative, at stake?
  2. History: Traditionally, how big an issue is SCOTUS in voters’ minds? Which voters care the most and why?
  3. 2016 Rhetoric: What are the candidates saying about SCOTUS stakes and who is the rhetoric aimed at (voters, activists, Media, donors)?
  4. 2016 Receptivity: Will it have any effect – how will we know? Will it raise expectations that have to be met?
  5. 2017 and beyond:
    1. What kinds of justices would Hillary/Bernie or Cruz/Trump/other nominate? Any chance of picking a moderate?
    2. Will GOP refuse any nominee, keeping a 4-4 Court?
    3. How would your answers to Q1/ a-e be different with a GOP or a Democratic Supreme Court?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Next Week: When is civil disobedience justified?

Monday’s Mtg: The Sources of Islamist Radicalism.

In a new century of dizzying changes, the Middle East remains the world’s most unstable and destabilizing region. More than a dozen large and strategically important countries were frozen in time for half a century by their cruel, post-colonial autocrats and the corrupt, hypertrophic states they created to cling to power. A great thaw is inevitable and can only be welcomed. Despite the violence and disappointments of the aborted Arab Spring five years ago, the Ancien Régimes’ days are all numbered. The urgent question we will consider on Monday is what will replace them?

The consensus I read is that, at least for a while, the heirs to power in many of these nations will be “Islamist” political parties.  Islamism, or political Islam, refers to the philosophy that the legal and political systems in a Muslim country must be based on Islamic principles. Obviously, since no society ever agrees on exact religious principles, there is no single Islamist set of beliefs or unified movement (despite the dreams of Al Qaeda and ISIS). Each country has multiple, competing Islamist parties and/or social movements that represent different philosophies, sects, ethnic groups, and societal interests.

Are any of them compatible with democracy and a peaceful foreign policy? Well, so far the most radical and even revolutionary and terroristic Islamist movements have gained the strongest positions. These include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian territories, and – most hideously – ISIS and other Al Qaeda offshoots in Syria and parts of Sunni Iraq. And let’s not forget the crusty old radical Shiite regime in Iran and the new one we created in Iraq, or the radicalized messes in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But, there is hope. More moderate Islamist political parties are sprinkled throughout the Middle East. Most notably, Turkey’s Justice and Development Party has won elections in Turkey for a decade, mostly in a democratic manner. Still, I’m not sure any one is confident that Islamist political parties can become or remain democratic – especially in the traumatized, divided, and chaotic nations they will inherit all over the Middle East.

So, I thought we could start with the most basic and probably most important question: What are the sources – the causes – of radical Islamism?  I’ll open with some brief remarks on (1) the main strains of radical Islam, and (2) conventional wisdom on the main drivers of that radicalism. I hope we can discuss the role religion plays in spurring Muslim radicalism without getting stuck in the stupid gear that our political system is stuck in, “Is the Islam religion itself the sole cause of radicalism and terrorism, Y/N?” Islam plays a big role, sure. But, what role, why, and what else contributes?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Next Week:   The Supreme Court and the 2016 election. 

Monday’s Mtg: Is Our Legal System Being Privatized?

I’ve mentioned many times that in my view the modern conservative political program can be (simplistically, of course) described as in three words: Cut, deregulate, and privatize. Cut taxes, especially on investment. Deregulate industry, especially President Obamas new ones on Big Finance and the health care industries. Privatize public services at all levels of government. This week John S. wants us to talk about a little-understood but very important part of the last part of this three-pronged agenda: The growing privatization of our legal system, especially of the right to sue.

We’re all familiar with the growing private control over the making of our laws, due to lobbying and loosened campaign finance rules. John’s idea should spur us to talk about the increasing private control over the enforcement of our laws. This is true of both civil and criminal law.

In civil law, tort reform (a major conservative political priority) and the now-ubiquitous use by big corporations of binding arbitration clauses in consumer agreements and even employment contracts has severely limited your ability to sue for damages when you are wronged by a big company. Use of class action lawsuits, another check on corporate power, also have been curtailed. I suppose you also could add the rise of secretive investor dispute settlement panels in international trade agreements to this list, since they basically privatize a part of what used to be strictly government-to-government trade law enforcement.

In criminal law, we have privately-owned and operated prisons housing almost 10 percent of all prisoners, and outsourced probation enforcement. The incentives built into this privatizing of legal punishments can lead to sometimes disastrous results (see links). I’m sure I’m missing some of the ways our penal system has been turned over to private contractors.

Finally, and analogous to what is happening with corporations, we have seen our right to sue government when it harms us restricted. Government officials have always had qualified immunity from lawsuits when they are performing their statutorily-mandated duties. But, recent court decision have expanded this type of immunity, as well.

I don’t want to exaggerate these trends. Our entire legal system has not been handed over to corporations and private interests. Yet. Nor, of course, should they all be automatically condemned nor laid at the feet of political conservatives.  The public good may benefit from some of these developments.  But, I think you will learn some unsettling things about the bowels of our legal system on Monday.

Since I’m low on time this weekend, my research (and the readings, below) will focus on the binding arbitration and class action issues. My intro on Monday night will emphasize them. In addition, you may want to read one of the articles on the consequences of state/local governments privatizing the enforcement of probation.

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Next Week: What Are the Sources of Islamist Radicalism?

Monday’s (3/27/16) Mtg: Is Political Correctness a Real Problem?

Debating the meaning and importance of “political correctness” (PC) is James’ idea. It’s well-timed. Conservatives are practically obsessed with it these days. When they’re not beating up on each other, all the remaining GOP presidential candidates routinely accuse Democrats of failing to honestly face the true causes and culprits of our national problems out of fear of offending someone. Usually that someone is either minorities, foreigners, or the Democrats’ own PC posse.

This is the accusation even on terrorism. Donald Trump: “We’re losing the war on terror because of political correctness.” Ted Cruz, as part of his post-Belgium call to have U.S. law enforcement patrol “Muslim neighborhoods,” said “We need a president who sets aside political correctness [and] tries to deny this enemy exists out of a combination of political correctness and fear. The days of the United States voluntarily surrendering to the enemy to show how progressive and enlightened we can be are at an end.” I could scare up dozens of similar quotes on most major political topics. I really believe Republicans will try to make political correctness and its allegedly grip on Democrats the main theme of the entire 2016 election. Not kidding.

Still, I think (some) accusations of being politically correct deserve more of a response than sarcasm. Just because the GOP is abusing the term does not mean there is no such thing as PC or that it isn’t a problem – at least in some contexts. A number of progressive commentators have expressed concern about the chilling effects of political correctness on intra-Party debates. President Obama has called out political correctness on college campuses as an impediment to honest, inclusive debate. Regular people complain about PC, too, not just bigots and professional political rabble rousers.

To be sure, other progressives have pushed back hard on the notion that leftists have hijacked honest political dialogue for any reason, much less petty ones. I will take a little time to explain their arguments in my opening remarks Monday night. They are important because there are much larger issues here than just peer pressure over nouns and adjectives. Language is a tool of power, often invisibly so. The terminology we use and feel constrained not to use when we talk about politics or culture (or rights of justice) tends to reflect who has power and who doesn’t. To me, the issue of power is just one of many subterranean aspects of our escalating political correctness war – and nt all of them favor the progressive POV. If we are to take both sides of this conflict seriously (they sure take themselves seriously), then we need to explore these larger issues percolating below the surface.

In my opening, I’ll try to

  1. Explain the traditional meaning(s) of political correctness and, to the extent I grok it, the conservative arguments as to why it’s such a big problem; and
  2. Briefly lay out the arguments people on the Left use to argue that PC is just a slur and an excuse to be rude or biased.

I’m really looking forward to hearing what you all think of this issue.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

  1. What has being “political correctness” traditionally meant? Who/what was the label directed at and what actual problems were attributed to it?
  2. CONS:
    1. How do conservatives use the term today? What specifically do they say the term means and what problems do they say it causes?
    2. Do they have a point? Are progressives too quick to argue by accusing others of bad faith or bigotry?
    3. Why is fighting PC so urgent to the Right? Which individuals, institutions, and events are driving this obsession?  Root causes?
  3. LIBS WHO AGREE:
    1. Why do some progressives agree that PC is out of hand?
    2. Who do they say is being harmed by it and how much?
  4. IN DEFENSE OF PC:
    1. Politeness: Is being PC benign, mostly an insistence on respecting people?
    2. Power: Is PC really about trying to broaden our dialogue by dropping labels that bias discussion and perpetuate some peoples’ power and privilege? Are growing diversity and minority power in U.S. society the real story here?
    3. Past: Is PC really worse today and on the Left? Don’t both sides police rhetoric and accuse each other of bad faith?
    4. Offense/defense: Is crying “PC” itself PC, an effort to silence/delegitimize critics? Is it a sword instead of a shield?
  5. ISSUES: Is there anything to the PC accusation conserving terrorism, illegela immigration, etc.?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Next Week: Is our legal system being privatized?

Monday’s Mtg: Fear-Mongering As a Political Strategy.

No matter what else happens in this train wreck of an election, experts will spend years trying to understand what happened and why. There are a lot of causes and culprits. But, the causes and consequences of political fear-mongering might be subject number one. How big a role has Donald Trump’s appeals to plain old fear of foreign and domestic enemies (immigrants, foreigners, traitorous U.S. elites, etc.) played in his rise, and why have his incitements worked so well?

The answers, in my view, are complex and go well beyond Trump to some core issues warping our politics. Yes, Trump fear-mongers a lot, it’s ugly, and it’s working. But, two things. First, fear is not the only basis of the man’s appeal. Polls reveal that his supporters are not just mindlessly seeking a strongman to crush our enemies, although support for Trump does correlate strongly with authoritarian personality traits. Trumpistas are more pessimistic in general about their own future and the country’s future than any other group of voters. They express zero trust in our political or corporate elites. Many seem to harbor deep resentments of recent cultural/demographic changes in our country and feel that “political correctness” has delegitimized their fears. None of these beliefs are likely to disappear when Trump does. The Donald is the punishment, not the problem.

Second, it’s not just Trump! His fearmongering has fallen on fertile ground because the Republican Party’s leaders at all levels has spent years priming its own voters to be paranoid. Especially lately, from ISIS to Ebola to China to our disloyalmuslimkenyantraitor president, the GOP – and the conservative news media – has become The Party of Fear. Democrats are starting to use some scare-mongering tactics of their own, IMO, arguably including some of the stuff that Bernie Sanders says. (Our democracy is “dead?” Really?)

My point is that a high level of fear and fear-mongering is a loaded gun in politics. Eventually, somebody will pick it up and, deviously or innocently, start blasting away at the fabric of our democracy. Trump is just really good at it.

As for us, I think a discussion of fear-mongering has to ask the right questions to be useful. I propose we start on Monday night by asking the first couple of discussion questions, below: What does and does not constitute political fear-mongering, and under what conditions is it effective? Then, I’m sure we’ll have ample time to debate how one of our political parties – and maybe, eventually, the other – came to use fear-mongering as a central pillar of its existence.

I will be brief in my little opening remarks, summarizing the 3-4 main theories of why appeals to voter anxieties (which are used in every election, obviously) are so much more prominent/prevalent in today’s political environment. I definitely will give a few jaw-dropping, sky-is-falling quotes from the Republican presidential candidates this year. They are amazing to behold; they’re just not the whole story or the only thing to worry about.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

  1. WHAT: What is fear-mongering? Is it about (a) fake/exaggerated threats, (b) scapegoated culprits, or (c) phony solutions?
  2. WHAT NOT: How does fear-mongering differ from what politicians should do: Raise awareness of our problems, criticize the other side’s failures, and proposing solutions?
  3. WHO/WHEN: When does fear-mongering work and on whom?
    1. When: Foreign threats/war? Rapid social change, in times of rapid social change and economic stagnation?
    2. Who: A vulnerable psychological type? People on the botto of our society? On the top but losing their privileged status?
  4. TODAY:
    1. What are people afraid of? Legit fears?
    2. Who is doing the fear-mongering? Why?
  5. ON/OFF: Is fear-mongering controllable? Can politicians turn it on an off at will, or is it like riding a tiger? Does it make our politics hostage to events?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Next Week: Political Correctness – A serious problem, an excuse, or a little of both?

 

Monday’s Mtg: Is Russia Turning Fascist?

This was James’ idea and I’m off this week. It’s a good topic for the obvious reason that Russia is an important country and more and more analysts are using the F-word to describe both Vladimir Putin and the political system he is creating.

A second reason James’ idea matters is because far-right political parties are a bit on the march these days in Europe and in a few others countries, too. Several openly fascist parties have done well in elections in the years since the continent’s economy went into the toilet. The recent immigrant crisis has provided additional impetus. Far-right parties have gained strength in the Netherlands, the U.K. and France, just to name a few off the top of my head. People are worried all over Europe an outside of it, too.

Gee, we sure are lucky that no crypto-fascist politician is surging in American politics these days, amirite?

The articles linked to below discuss all of these issues and more. Enjoy the meeting, everybody, except the Trump abomination. I hope we can save that topic for our meeting in two weeks on fear-mongering as a a political strategy, which I will be back for.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

It’s James’ meeting, but I was thinking some obvious questions are

  1. WHAT: What is fascism in the 21st century of globalized economies, open borders, internet networks, etc.? How would it differ from, say, Mussolini’s version?
  2. In what ways is Putin’s Russia fascist, as opposed to a garden variety authoritarian government?
  3. WHY: Whose fault is this? What elements of Russian society support this swing to fascism; e.g., elites like the military, oligarchs, and the Orthodox Church hierarchy?
  4. EFFECTS: Who’s harmed by Russia’s fascist drift, besides Russians?
    1. Its neighbors, like Ukraine?
    2. NATO/Europe?
    3. U.S. interests? ** Is Russia’s threat to us exaggerated? **
  5. FUTURE:
    1. Will Russia turn back or plunge into full-blown fascism?
    2. Will fascism spread to other parts of Europe via far-right and anti-immigrant political parties? Why?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Next Week: Fear-Mongering as a U.S. political strategy. 

Monday’s Mtg: Would a Female President Govern Differently?

This topic was Linda’s idea, and Hillary Clinton helped us out a month ago by answering several questions on how she would operate differently as the USA’s first female president. Specifically, she said

I think that there are certain issues that we are more attuned to one of the things that I did in the State Department is increase resources to cases involving child abductions, trying to do more to promote international adoptions where appropriate. I just think there are some areas where our own life experiences really prepare us to be more receptive. I do think there is something in the governing or organizing approach. I just think women in general are better listeners, are more collegial, more open to new ideas and how to make things work in a way that looks for win-win outcomes. That has been my experience.

Hillary added that that as a woman president she would focus more on issues of importance to America’s working families than a male president might. Regardless of whether Hillary believes what she said, it’s significant that she said it because she must think that some voters believe it and would thus expect her to push hard to accomplish things in these areas.  Read the whole thing.

This is pretty weak tea, IMO. It’s hardly some expansive claim that as a woman she would govern in a way radically different from a man. Notice also what she did not say: That she could somehow cajole better cooperation from the Republicans in Congress by virtue of some feminine emphasis on inclusiveness and collaboration. After the 7-year brick wall of obstruction President Obama faced, there would be no point in making that promise.

Yet, Linda’s question still stands. Hillary is the first woman poised to win the nomination and the presidency, but she won’t be the last. A future female president might not be so constrained by rabid partisanship – or could take office with her own party in control of Congress. So, someday we might find out if any differences in male/female governing styles translate into changes in policy with a woman in charge.

It’s relevant for other reasons. For one, the USA has far fewer female politicians in positions of real power than almost any other industrialized country. I think it’s worth discussing why that is and whether/how our politics might change if more than the current 20%-25% of elected leaders were women. President Obama has appointed record numbers of women to key positions and Hillary surely would continue the trend. So, we might find out sooner than we imagine whether a government led by women would be any different.

I’ve broken down our topic into some discrete discussion questions, below, that try to get at cause and effect. After I do my usual brief opening to frame the topic I’ll try to guide us through them in discussion, more or less in order.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

  1. Do female politicians operate differently from men? What is the evidence?
  2. If so, why? Different personality traits? Different life experiences? Different public and/or news media expectations?
  3. Would these differences extend to the presidency? To Hillary Clinton?
  4. Could it extend to today’s gridlocked politics in which partisanship trumps all other considerations?
    –>  Say Hillary wins. Could a change of presidential style overcome all of this?
  5. Why does the United States have so few female politicians compared to other OECD countries? How big an effect does this have on political outcomes? On progressive versus conservative agendas?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Next Week: Is Russia turning fascist?

Monday’s Mtg: Is Americans’ Trust In Each Other Declining?

“Social trust” is a term sociologists use for the confidence we all have in each other within the social networks that comprise our everyday lives. Social trust is the lubricant that allows communities to function and thus one of the glues that holds societies together. If we trust other members of our social networks we’ll do business with them, respect their interests, work with them to maintain our community, join civic organizations with them, and trust them when they hold cultural and political power over us. Social trust is vital in developing our “social capital,” the good will, sympathy, and connections in our communities that we can (reciprocally! use to our advantage.  High levels of social trust/social capital leads to better lives, stronger communities and a more united nation.

Okay, maybe I’ve been reading too much Sociology for Dummies. Still, a lot of observers are really worried that Americans’ trust in each other is falling apart. The political polarization that we talk about a lot is just one part of it. On Monday I will explain in a little more detail what I mean. I’ll lay out why experts think social trust is so important and whether/why we may be losing ours.

Here are some targeted discussion questions to ponder and a little basic reading on social trust.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –

  1. CONCEPTS: What is social trust? What are its components and how is its level measured? How does it relate to social capital?
  2. IMPORTANCE: Why does social trust matter? Historically, who has had high/low levels of it in America? What do individuals and societies lack when social trust is low?
  3. DECLINED? Has our social trust fallen? Evidence?
  4. WHY? What caused the fall? Is it rational or irrational (are people less trustworthy?), cause or effect (of other problems like rising inequality or higher immigration), temporary or enduring?
  5. EFFECTS:
    1. INSTITUTIONS: Trust in most major U.S. institutions (govt, big biz, news media, etc.) has collapsed. Is this related to falling social trust?
    2. POLITICS: Is falling trust a cause or effect of our political polarization and paralysis?
  6. FUTURE: Will social trust keep declining? Could the internet reverse that?

SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –

Next Week: Would a female president govern differently?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.