Many of us have lived a lot of life, some more than others. But all have managed to negotiate some of life's passages, and the challenges and growth experiences that go with it. And I expect most have changed their views about some things, perhaps even their ideological, philosophical or faith perspectives, to one degree or another. Of course, some amount of opinion formation and change has to do with the personality and temperament of each of us as individuals. And some of it cannot be understood without reference to one's emotional stake or personal interests in a particular position, ideology or philosophy.
But changes in our opinions or perspective also have to do with the range of different places we find ourselves across a period of time, places that offer different experiences, work or life with people with different expectations and ideas, that offer different information, different incentives, even different identity. If we are also moved by certain values and interests in addressing national and societal issues--and many of us likely are--it is important that we are open and respond to the need to personally examine each place, the people and their perspectives. It is important for us to learn more and understand more about them and how they address resolution of those national and societal issues--not just to debate them, but to understand how they have changed or might change our own perspective, even our sense of identity.
Many of us have walked personal career and life paths of many turns. And it changes you, or at least it often does. That's the point. It's difficult to walk those many and varied paths without doing some serious assessment and reconciliation of the very different views, ideas, thinking and identities assimilated or assumed in those different places, those different worlds. At least it was for me. And throughout those years, I felt compelled to examine those very different experiences and the more characteristic views, ideologies, philosophies or faith perspectives identified with them. And that covered a considerable spectrum of intellectual, political and spiritual thinking.
But even if one is a willing learner of such things--and not all are--that process usually takes quite some time. Yet, most of us soon or later recognize that every approach, point of view, or policy answer--certainly every ideology and philosophy--is defined as much by its shortcomings and failings, its incomplete or insufficient answers, as it is by its trumpeted virtues and correctness, its political, cultural or philosophical acceptability. And I could not help but carry with me a good measure of understanding and respect for each experience and each perspective as I moved from one to the next to where I am today. And it is a process that continues to work for me today. Perhaps it does for you, too.
A sound approach to national and societal problem solving first honors the strength and virtue of the principal philosophical foundations of this greatest of representative democracies and most effective of market economies. It honors the necessity for robust, intelligently regulated markets, but also providing for the important needs of people, especially those who are poor, unable, ill or aged. That's what responsible, advanced societies do, and in that way strengthen our national identity and social fabric while advancing and strengthening our economy.
But then, so far as we can muster and manage the balance and will, it is important that we begin the issue resolution process with a statement of the problem and available information, the alternative solutions or answers, and their likely cost and probable results--but without constraining adherence or reference to ideological, political or philosophical direction. It is more useful to speak of market mechanisms, incentives, strengths and weaknesses, than ideological understandings or dictates. It is more useful to speak of societal challenges, problems or needs and, again, the alternatives, the costs and benefits, the wisest answers for society and the economy, not considerations of ideology or political platforms. It's the only way we can feel at all competent or accountable in approaching such issues or problems responsibly.
And this approach also makes it so much easier to effect course corrections or reverse field with changed information, alternatives or goals--because it's based on the best information and problem-solving processes, all of which can and do change. And we are much freer to change with them. Certainly that has been my general experience, and perhaps the experience of many of you as well. It is the power of seeking the best, most complete and unbiased information about an issue, identifying and understanding the implications of available alternatives, and then dispassionately exploring that information and those alternatives for the better solutions or answers. That is difficult enough without the procrustean constraints, the polarizing and sobotaging effects, of narrow ideological or philosophical imperatives.
It is also easy to see that this approach or orientation more likely generates respect for, if not acceptance of, other views because there is understanding of and mutual respect for the process. And if you are like me, you are also likely to recognize a view you once held, or one you may yet support. When working with a common, credible body of information or facts, and similar understandings of alternative resolutions, it makes agreement on issues or problems more likely, or at least reduces the scope and depth of differences. There is more often a type of "regression to the mean" of resolutions or answers reached and agreed to when we mutually accept and respect a competent, open and fair process for reaching them. Let our identity be more that of competent, respectful and respected resolvers of issues and formulators of wise policies, than ideological drones. Integrated thinking and synthesis, informed and fair reasoning, transparent and respectful dialogue, must rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment