Profoundly Unserious

“We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.”

John McEnroe made “You can’t be serious!” meme-worthy in 1981.

Today, we are a profoundly unserious country. That, and what to do about it, are the subjects of this edition of TBL.

If you’re new here, check out these TBL “greatest hits.”

• Rhyming Set to Music

• The Index Mindset

• Addition By Subtraction

• Words to Live By

If you like The Better Letter, please subscribe, share it, and forward it widely. Please.

NOTE: Some email services may truncate TBL. If so, or if you’d prefer, you can read it all here. If it is clipped, you can also click on “View entire message” and you’ll be able to view the entire post in your email app.

Thanks for visiting.

---

Profoundly Unserious

As President Andrew Shepard asserts in The American President, “We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.” But that’s not how you win elections. You win elections by stoking fear and casting blame.

First and foremost, politics is about winning elections – which explains the profoundly unseriousness of our public square today. As we saw in the previous TBL, truth is irrelevant to “get[ting] over on all these guys” because “people believe what they want to believe.” Politics in a nutshell.

But that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. God forbid.

We should aspire to truth for moral reasons, yes, but also because the truth usually works better, at least in the long run. You may think the earth is flat, but you still can’t see Kawaikini from the peak of Mauna Kea and sunsets in Seattle still happen at different times than they do in San Diego.

Beginning with statistical analysis and supercharged by the internet’s flood of unlimited data, we can aspire to a “God’s-eye-view” of the world – which often leads to the absurd view that we have God-like powers to control the world. And, if you think you’re doing God’s work (literally or figuratively), the temptation to play fast and loose with the truth can be simply irresistible.

The great insight of Austrian economics was that “information cannot be aggregated and stockpiled like gravel or canned peas – it is a lively, active, slippery, and often short-lived commodity, and it is dispersed throughout society, residing here and there in every household, firm, and shop.” The world is a messy place. Interpreting facts to find the best possible approximation of the truth can be astonishingly difficult.

What should we do, then, when faced with disputes as to what’s true? We should start with looking for it in good faith.

This should be obvious, but we don’t question ourselves and our views very often or very well.  As I often say, when confronted with something that supports what we already think, we merely ask if it can be true (if we question it at all) and carefully construct seemingly plausible schemes for why or how it could be true. That’s a very low bar. On the other hand, when confronted with something that seems to contradict what we think, we ask if it must be true and seek to explain it away. That’s a very high bar.

I want to offer an alternative approach for looking at such things – one to which I aspire (at least).

In his 1866 guide to the arts of etiquette, conversation, and being polite, Arthur Martine offered some timeless advice.

“In disputes upon moral or scientific points, let your aim be to come at truth, not to conquer your opponent. So you never shall be at a loss in losing the argument, and gaining a new discovery.”

We don’t see that approach much in the wild, especially today.

However, the legendary social psychologist, mathematician, and game theorist, Anatol Rapoport, developed a helpful set of rules for constructive criticism that conforms with Martine’s guidance (see here and here), best formulated by the philosopher, Daniel Dennett (see here). These are designed by and for serious people.

1.    You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way” [Rapoport attributes this rule to Carl Rogers].

2.    You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3.    You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

4.    Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Following these rules provides an excellent opportunity to “check your work” and might even – by treating your adversary honestly and fairly – make for a more receptive audience and allow for constructive dialogue. One of the ways to try to hedge against bias blindness is to force yourself to argue against your own interests. Doing so can shift your worldview and make you consider the best arguments on the other side.

Because today’s public square is a profoundly unserious place, instead of these excellent rules, what passes for criticism today is mostly caricature, virtue signaling, and preaching to the choir.

The problem is wide, deep, universal, and likely inevitable.

Just a few examples ought to suffice for a point that is beyond obvious.

Until recently, the standard for “hate speech” pitched by some on the political left was utterly subjective. The intent of the speaker was subservient to the feelings of the offended (if it was considered at all). Thus, the correct use of “niggardly” was an abomination, at least in the eyes of many, and bedrooms are “primary” rather than “master.” President Biden got into trouble, during his State of the Union address, for using the word “illegal” to describe an immigrant who came to this country – ahem – illegally.

Today, however, intentionally offensive language directed at Jews is deemed appropriate, necessary even, by many of the same groups who are otherwise most “aggrieved” at so-called hate speech.

The National Students for Justice in Palestine openly declares that campus protests are not merely exercises in solidarity with the terrorists who murdered, raped, tortured, and kidnapped civilians in Israel on October 7.

“We as Palestinian students in exile are PART of this movement, not in solidarity with this movement.” 

Yet few in the media and the political left (too often a distinction without a difference) refuse to state the plain fact that those students and they that support them are in league with terrorists.

The 2020 presidential election wasn’t stolen. Historical Christianity isn’t Christian nationalism. Conservatives who oppose Donald Trump don’t do so because of “mean tweets.” President Biden is pushing plenty of lousy policies, but he isn’t pushing Marxism. Voter ID laws aren’t Jim Crow.

And no, Katherine Maher, NPR’s greatest weakness is not that it simply cares too much about being smart and informative.

Gaslighting is the currency of the realm.

Fr. Roger Landry, Roman Catholic chaplain at Columbia University, is ministering in the midst of trying circumstances. Rightly, he insists “[t]he two most important things we do in any circumstance are to pray and to love.” In that spirit, I offer this prayer for our day and our world, with apologies in advance to St. Francis, for how we might mitigate the impact of universal spin.

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace:
where there is evil, let me sow resolve; 
where there is heat, light; 
where there is expectation, gratitude;
where there is greed, generosity; 
where there is outrage, understanding;
where there is obfuscation, clarity;
where there is duplicity, charity;
where there is deception, integrity;
where there is media, authenticity;
where there is spin, candor;
where there is hypocrisy, encouragement;
where there is accusation, repentance;
where there is ridicule, reverence;
where there is error, grace;
where there is bad faith, good faith. 

O divine Lord, grant that I may not so much seek
to destroy as to create,
to be right as to be kind,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive, 
it is in forgiving that we are pardoned, 
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Amen.

---

Totally Worth It

In 2019, my friend, Drew Dickson, wrote a wonderful piece about his son, Max. It’s called “Stay in the Game.” Jonathan Stern has taken that piece and created a terrific video of the story for the Hat Tip Podcast, Episode 1. Please watch it. Please.

You should read Drew’s original piece, too.

Feel free to contact me via rpseawright [at] gmail [dot] com or on Twitter (@rpseawright) and let me know what you like, what you don’t like, what you’d like to see changed, and what you’d add. Praise, condemnation, and feedback are always welcome.

Of course, the easiest way to share TBL is simply to forward it to a few dozen of your closest friends.

I’m a total sucker for people looking for a break. This example is spectacular.

You may hit some paywalls below; most can be overcome here.

This is the best thing I saw or read in the last week. The sweetest. If it weren’t so awful, this would be the funniest. The most harrowing. The most horrific. The most incredible. The most interesting. Privilege. The Travel Team Trap. #FART. Guilty. RIP, Richard Henderson.

Please send me your nominations for this space to rpseawright [at] gmail [dot] com or via Twitter (@rpseawright).

---

Benediction

We live on “a hurtling planet,” the poet Rod Jellema informed us, “swung from a thread of light and saved by nothing but grace.” To those of us prone to wander, to those who are broken, to those who flee and fight in fear – which is every last lost one of us – there is a faith that offers grace and hope. And may love have the last word. Now and forever. Amen.

As always, thanks for reading.

Issue 171 (April 27, 2024)