Category Archives: Moral Humility

Looking down on Others

Moral Humility, Polarization

 

In our CMU course with Will Braun, he said that in the spirit of expanding our capacity to see a wide range of people as the beloved of God, he asked us this question: “Have we ever enjoyed looking down on others?”   This question bit. Thankfully I could not remember a specific occasion but I had to admit to myself I probably had done that. Not one of my finer moments. People who can do that, Braun suggested were “confident in their own righteousness.”  That is what enables us to look down on others. Again, I must admit I have done that too. My bad.

Shamefully, I must acknowledge I have felt that satisfaction. But thanks to Will Braun, I won’t ever again have that easy confidence in my own righteousness. I am sure I will still have too much of it, but at least, I hope, a little less than I would have had before.  I will have to back off a bit. I will have to keep my hubris in check and release my humility instead. I hope I can do it.  Not sure I can.

 

We Seem to Disagree on Everything

Extremism, Gender Warfare, Moral Humility, Pluralism, Social Issues, Woke

 

The divisions in America keep growing in number and in the depth of those divides. As usual, Canada is the same just a little more gently. Polls have shown that many Americans think those divisions are so deep that the country will not be able to survive its problems.  In other words, because of polarization we are doomed.  But are things that bad?

 

Mark Edmundson writing for the New York Times pointed out that evolutionary biologists have determined that,

 

“binary behavior is an evolutionary adaptation. It inheres in the reptile brain. There was a time when it was incumbent on us to decide and decide quickly who was friend and who was foe. Will it eat me? Am I safe around it? Err, if you must, on the side of enmity. You don’t want to equivocate about a sabre-toothed tiger.”

 

But, he also said, he did not agree things were that bad. Edmundson suggested the famous philosopher Jacques Derrida had some important things to say on the topic.  Derrida hated the compulsion so many of us have to divide the world into binaries or polarities.  Life just was not that simple he said.  That is why according to Edmundson, Derrida was an “an enemy of simple, dualistic thinking.” That is not a bad thing. Such thinking deserves critics. Added to that, he said “Derrida worried that compulsive binary thinking, in which one seeks opposition everywhere, could readily lead to violence…”  Edmundson agreed with Derrida. So do I.

 

Edmundson preferred the position of that modern philosopher Ted Lasso, who said instead, we should “Be curious, not judgmental.” That is often good advice. As a result Derrida called for thinking that did not require polar opposites but instead “resembled a form of thinking that was not based on the tension of opposites but resembled an ever-expanding web of rich associations.” Derrida’s curiosity led him to affirm the free play of the interpreting mind.

 

I agree with both of them but put it just a little differently.  My take is that we should not think and see in black and white, nor even gray. We should think and see in colour. Glorious colour. But that is not what we do.

 

Instead of that we think in black and white. We think the world is either A or B. 2 choices no more.  Pick a side and stick with it. As Edmundson said,

 

“Our culture is amok with binaries. We have two major parties, just two, and they are forever opposed. When a group tries to start a third party, it can be summarily disabled by the existing powers. We love sports, generally the most binary of activities. One side wins; one side loses. Root hard for your squad and the devil take the opposition. We savor debates where one side wins and one side loses.”

 

In the larger world, we find allies and we find enemies. We are, as I say, Democrats or Republicans, realists or idealists, people of much faith or people of none. We wear our team jerseys with pride and scoff at the opposition’s colors.

 

 Such binary thinking is just plain impoverished and so are we if confine ourselves to black and white.  Yet it is everywhere.

 

There is one clear modern example of this deficiency which is pretty plain if you look. That is thinking about  sex and gender.  More and more people are saying there are only 2 sexes and 2 genders.  A person is a male or female. Oner or the other. The pendulum is swinging. There are no other choices. In fact this is an issue in the municipal elections in Steinbach this year, as odd as that seems.

 

But life is not that simple, even if we would like it to be.  It is an uncomfortable fact that some people are born with ambiguous sexual organs. It is just not clear whether the person is male or female. Such a person could be one or the other or some combination of both. Such people are called intersex.

 

The differences between the genders is even less clear. There seem to be a lot of choices when you look. As Edmundson said, “Insisting on purity — you must be one thing or another — will inevitably create confusion and resentment.” That really is the point.  Insisting on simple answers will just bring about a lot of unnecessary unhappiness and pain.  There is no need to insist upon a clear distinction. There is nothing to be gained by such simplified thinking. Its none of our business. Let others live and let live.

 

Edmundson had a better approach, which he found in eastern religions. This is what he said,

 

“A person influenced by the great Eastern texts, the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita, would be likely to see it differently. The best state of mind is one in which you can look out on all creation, other people in particular, and say to yourself: That, too, I am.

 

We are all part of one being; we all possess the same soul. This way of seeing does not cultivate opposition or conflict. It accepts what comes its way without picking sides and initiating strife.”

 

This does not just apply to issues of sex or gender. We should look at the other and keep our opinions to ourself.  If the other person is suffering from confusion let him or her or they choose. Be happy.

 

I am not sure the Bible actually says, as some suggest, “we are all God’s children,” but it could still be true. If you believe in God surely you would say we are all God’s creation. Is that not enough to give us all dignity? Sometimes, we should give up judging in favour of accepting. As the Beatles said, “Whispser words of wisdom. Let it be.”

 

Is that not enough?

A Gentle Revolution

Extremism, Moral Humility, Polarization, World of ideas

 

Vaclav Havel was a political genius.  He became the political leader of Poland when the Soviet empire collapsed. He was poet and dramatist.

 

Havel came from the world of extremes but he did not want to live there. He wanted to establish a politics based on morality.  That seems like a absurd idea doesn’t it? Particularly in this current age of polarization and rage.  People get so enraged with “the other side” that that they regard others who disagree with us as enemies. Or worse.

 

This is what he said in a New Year’s Day speech:

 

“Let us teach both ourselves and others that politics ought to be a reflection of the aspiration to contribute to the happiness of the community and not of the need to deceive or pillage the community. Let us teach both ourselves and others that politics does not have to be the art of the possible, especially if this means the art of speculating, calculating, intrigues, secret agreements, and pragmatic maneuvering, but that it also can be the art of the impossible, that is the art of making both ourselves and the world better.”

 

 

When was the last time you heard a political leader talk like that? It seems like it must have been a lifetime ago. Imagine trying to make ourselves and the world better. And without “pragmatic maneuvering.

 

Here is another part of that small speech:

“Our worst enemy today is our own bad qualities—indifference to public affairs, conceit, ambition, selfishness, the pursuit of personal advancement, and rivalry—and that is the main struggle we are faced with.”

 

And this is what he said as his country was embarking on a democracy after years of tyranny and abuse: “We are going into free elections, and an election battle. Let us not allow that battle to sully the still clean face of our gentle revolution….”

 

That is what he wanted—a gentle revolution or as some called it, a “velvet revolution.” Compare that to the bombast of our modern world.  All over, not just in America. We can do better. We can dissolve the polarities, but we have to work at it. Bombast and spite are much easier, but a lot less fruitful.

Viewpoint diversity is as good as biodiversity

Extremism, Liberalism, Moral Humility, Philosophy/Ideas, Pluralism, Polarization, syncretism

 

If we really want to find the truth, we need viewpoint diversity. It is as important as biodiversity and basically for the same reason. Cross fertilization breeds strength. As John Stuart Mill, the great philosopher of liberalism, said,

 

“He who knows only one side of the case knows little of that.  His reasons may be good and no one may have been able to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no good ground for preferring either opinion.”

 

Such an attitude automatically respects that others may have some truth. We may have something to learn from others. As a result, such an attitude automatically leads us away from extremism.  We then can’t just shout hooray for our side.

Mill makes the point that if you have no viewpoint diversity and listen only to one side, and as a result your ideas are not exposed to challenge, you get stupid! You get intellectually lazy and you just believe dogmatically and then, if you are pushed to explain your viewpoint or defend it, you can’t.

Mill says you should listen to the other side because you might be wrong and because the other side might be right. If you are wrong and you listen to another viewpoint your error might be exposed and then you might avoid making a mistake. That is good!  Similarly, if you are right and yet you listen to another opinion you learn how to defend your opinion and strengthen it. Your opinion will be more solid, more defendable. That is good too! Such humility is also the basis of syncretism and pluralisms, two of my favourite things.

 

Will Braun is a person who enjoys talking with the other side, because he is curious about them, but also because he realizes he might actually learn something from them that he did not know before.

 

Braun, like me, lives in a very conservative area of Manitoba.  When Justin Trudeau was first elected, he said we must remember, “Conservatives are not our enemies; conservatives are our neighbours.” In nearly every debate of substance we must remember, the other side is not our enemies, they are fellow travelers. In Steinbach it is literally true. The conservatives are my neighbours not my enemies. Sometimes I forget that. When I do forget, I am wrong. My bad. Maybe Trudeau forgot that later too. It is easy to forget these wise words. We all do it.

 

Remembering we might be wrong can temper the extremes. That is another good reason to have doubts. Doubts are good.

 

 

Frankenstein

Moral Humility, Movies

 

 

What is a monster?

As I have been commenting on how in nearly all of the films I have been reviewing that were nominated for Best Picture by the Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts, and Sciences for 2026 I have been struck by the fact that many of them depicted insane devotion to unreasonable goals.  The film Frankenstein certain complies with this analysis.

 

In 1857 a large ship is entombed in the ice of the far frozen north. In a very cold hell. No other word captures the utter madness of the endeavour. It was bound for the North Pole, on some mad chance for no rational purpose other than to be the first crew that accomplished this insane goal. The men are muttering, sensibly, because it seems hopeless. Only mad men would continue. And, of course, the Captain insists that they do what they signed up for. The men shout their compliance. Just as insane as the officers. Why do men do it? Why are men blinded by their goals. I do not have the answer to this question, and never will.

 

But there is an even madder goal in this film—creating a human life from dead parts.  How sensible is that?

 

The ship is surprised by an explosion a mile or so further out on the frozen sea.  A man near dead is seen freezing to death. The crew of the ship rescue the man, but a monster of a man or beast, comes out demanding Victor. Victor is the beast’s creator. He “made” him.  The monster kills 6 of the crew whose rifles are ineffective at killing the giant. 6 sailors die in the attempt. Victor wants the Captain to promise to release the monster to him. Why would he recklessly invite such danger? The only reason is men are mad. And watching this film will make you believe exactly that.

 

 

The man introduces himself as Victor Frankenstein, and tells the Captain, “I had determined that the memory of my evils should die with me. Some of what I tell you is fact. Some is not, but it is all true.”

 

He says his name means “conqueror. One that wins it all.”   He says, “Yes. It all started with me.” But what is he winning?

 

Young Victor, named after victor his Father, is punished by his Father with a whip against his face. Victor’s mother dies. And young Victor says, “she who was life was now death…her smile feeding the cold earth. Part of the universe had been hollowed out and the firmament was now permanently dark.”

 

Victor’s younger brother, William, grew out of sunshine and smiles. He was of a calmer, gentler, disposition, clearly favoured by my father… He was the breeze; I was the storm cloud. He was all laughter; I was all frowns.”

 

His mother died while being attended to by the finest surgeon in the land, his father.  Victor blamed him for failing. His father said, “No one can conquer death.” Does that not seem totally rational?  But young Victor, says, “I will, I will conquer it.” One more mad goal.  Among so many mad human goals.  Victor says I saw for the first time that night, “Dark Angel.”

 

He had a vision that he would be given the power over life and death. The vision was clearer than anything he had ever seen before. But it was made, of course, like so many human goals.  It was monumentally mad.

 

He told a group of scientists:

 

“We are not gods, are we?  But if we are to behave as immodestly as gods, we must at least deliver miracles. Ignite a divine spark in these young student’s minds. Teach them defiance rather than obedience. Show that man may pursue nature to her hiding places and stop death. Not slow it down. Stop it entirely.”

 

The young students clapped and cheered madly. Yes truly, madly.

 

One of the lords asked the question: “How exactly do you propose to teach what is impossible?”  The lords of the court declare his task, “unholy.” “An abomination.”  One Lord tells Victor that “God takes life and God takes it.” But Victor is not dissuaded. He says, “Perhaps God is inept.” Men should correct God’s mistakes. He urges the students, “Don’t let old fools extinguish your voice. The answers only come when coaxed by disobedience, free of fear and cowardly dogman.”   I actually agree with that. To some extent. It was the voice of every stroke of genius. But also, the voice of madness. He demonstrates to the Lords and students that an electrical current can bring life to a dead body.

 

 

Frankenstein’s brother comes to visit him with his lovely fiancé, Elizabeth.  She is not, as one might expect, and as Frankenstein suspected, a dimwit. She has bought a book in a bag and he guesses it is a romance. But it is a book about insects. She is interested in science for see wants to see and learn about the “The Rhythms of God.”   For the first time Frankenstein became a little more interest in life, and a little less interested in death.

 

Frankenstein was working hard on his research until “life interrupted.” Elizabeth showed up. He tells her that they both have “a belief in the marvelous.”

 

He believes that they have a bond between him, but she says, “believing it does not make it so.”  Now there is wisdom. Elizabeth says choice is from God. And she has chosen, and her choice is not him.

 

The creature said, “I want to know who I am. Where do I come from?”  The old man says, “Forgive. Forget. The true measure of wisdom to know you have been harmed by whom you have been harmed, and choose to let it all fade.” Don’t become a monster.

 

Frankenstein had never considered what came after creation. He created a creature. What now? Too often great minds ignore the consequences of what they do. Madness again. Elizabeth tells Victor, “Only monsters play God.” This is a film about monsters. Ordinary monsters. People like us. The essence of his story is that he is not a monster.  His maker, Frankenstein is the monster.  As Gary Kasparov said, “humans have a monopoly on evil.”

Only humans are monsters. Don’t be one. Be humble instead.

Mohács: A place of Syncretism

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Hungary, Moral Humility, Music, Philosophy/Ideas, Pluralism, religion, syncretism

 

After seeing the watermills, the next thing we did was to tour the town of Mohács. The first thing that struck me, was the lovely pastel colours of the buildings.  I could not remember seeing anything like them. I could not resist photographing them.

The most interesting thing in the city centre where we walked was a large concrete Catholic Church. What interested me is that the church was designed in the style of a mosque.  And as we know, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. It was not a case of a mosque being taken over by Christians; it was a case of Christians giving a nod to Islam.

 

This area of the world had been rocked by wars with a deep element of religious opposition for centuries, but here was a case of one religion admitting maybe the other religion had something good as well. This was a case of them living together in peace. A marvel. Imagine that, Christians admitting they could learn something from Muslims. For once, after the Christians took over Mohács they did not have to destroy a mosque or cover it with a new building, they could admit we can learn from each other. Could this herald a new world order? I sure hope so.

I have for a long time thought that syncretism, as a philosophy, is the way to go.  Syncretism refers to the  blending of elements from one culture, religion, or philosophy with another to create something new in the process. Religions, or philosophies, or cultures don’t have to compete, they don’t have to claim superiority. They can join hands and make something better.

One good example, is the celebration of Christmas in Europe and North America actually merges various traditions of their own with traditions in the Egypt or the Near East  and with traditions of the winter solstice in northern Europe.  Some claim this is heretical. Personally, I celebrate the combination. Another good example is combining elements of Christian religion with spiritual traditions of North American Indigenous people. The fusion can create wonderful new creations.

This photo is from inside that church.

Musicians and artists have been doing this forever . For example, combining  Jazz artists with European musical notations and African elements  to produce a unique sound. For another , I have long loved the combing of rock, country, and bluegrass music.

No single genre or culture has the secret to it all. No single religion has a monopoly on truth. No philosophy has all the answers.  Culture is always a rich tapestry of strands that multiply the magic.  James W. Loewen, the author of the book Lies My Teacher Told Me, said this: “ultimately syncretism illustrates he interconnectedness of human societies and the shared nature of cultural development.”

In my view, syncretism can be used to defeat the narrow-mindedness of those who live under the illusion that their philosophy, or their religion, or their ideas are the fount of all wisdom.

Nationalism and Pluralism

2025 Cruise up the Danube River, Croatia, Extremism, Hate, Moral Humility, Pluralism, Polarization, Serbia

 

I think we all know what nationalism is. It has been with us much longer than pluralism. Unfortunately, nationalism is also much more common than pluralism.

 

Nationalism is usually considered an ideology which emphasizes loyalty to a particular nation. It can be a force for good. Often it is a force for bad. It often promotes devotion to one’s own country above all.  The lates strong iteration of it, is the MAGA movement in the US. Make America great again. Or for those who already think it is a great, make it greater.  America First would be a more important principle for American nationalists. When it leads to feelings of superiority it has usually gone too far. A strong love of one’s own country is a natural feeling and unobjectionable.  But feelings of superiority are often unjustified and not very productive.

 

Pluralism is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a society, where different groups, interests, and beliefs coexist and interact peacefully. It sees strength in diversity which all can benefit from. It not only tolerates diverse views, and even peoples, it celebrates in diversity. Respect of other cultures is essential to the philosophy of pluralism.  Feelings of superiority are an anathema. Nationalism can be a fierce opponent of pluralism. In such a case, in my view, nationalism has gone too far. Pluralism is incompatible with extremism. You can one but not both. Pluralism is born out humility.

 

The struggle between nationalism and pluralism is often fraught. For example, recent examples close to home, are the relationship between Quebec and its separatists, who want to form the independent, or sovereign nation, as they like to call it, of Quebec. In Canada, Alberta is the latest example of where feelings are tending towards separation. How far those feelings will lead that province are not known.

 

In Yugoslavia feelings of pluralism were swamped by nationalism, except in those states where a yearning for separation by smaller groups  prevailed. After their leader Tito died, many Croats wanted to have Croatia secede from Yugoslavia. At the same time, Serbians within Croatia did not want to secede because they felt they would become a minority in the new country, when they had been a majority in power in Yugoslavia. As well, some Slovenians wanted to secede from Yugoslavia, and that was opposed by the Croats within as well as Serbians.

 

The struggle for separate national states often leads to serious political problems. It can, and has, frequently led to serious conflict. Around the world people have come to favor nationalism at the expense of pluralism. That is usually a serious mistake. In the former Yugoslavia after the death of Tito, clearly nationalism had the floor. Pluralism seemed dead. Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, all wanted to be sovereign states even if violence was the only way to achieve it.

 

There was no credible force for pluralism.  I often quote William Butler Yeats who described this phenomena well: The best lack all conviction while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.” Serbia claimed to be the leader for unity of the states, but all the others lacked confidence that its claims were not based solely on its interest in dominating the other states. No one argued for all for one and one for all that is the precondition pluralism requires.

Pluralism was dead; war of all against all commenced. And the people suffered.

Arrogant Ignorance

Death of Truth, Moral Humility, The Sleep of Reason

 

Andy Borowitz has written a book with a very interesting title: Profiles in Ignorance: How American politicians got Dumb and Dumber. With a title like that it is hardly surprising that the author is pretty arrogant. Horowitz has looked at how Americans have embraced anti-intellectualism. He thinks it is so bad the nation is in danger. He was interviewed by Walter Isaacson on Amanpour & Co. to discuss the subject broadly.

 

Borowitz said he could have gone back to the birth of the nation to show how this developed, but he held back and basically started with Ronald Reagan. That is as good a place as any.

 

Isaacson focused on the last 50 years of ignorance: ridicule, acceptance, and celebration. According to Borowitz Ronald Reagan really kicked off the ridicule phase. Until Reagan in the ridicule stage, politicians had to pretend to be smart. Reagan was good on TV. That was why some California millionaires recruited him to run for Governor. However, as Horowitz said, “…he did not know anything; he knew very, very little.” That did not matter to the millionaires. They wanted to sell the sizzle if they could not sell the steak. They liked what they saw.  Reagan sizzled.

 

As Horowitz said, “they had to pump him full of information. It seemed like he knew stuff and he won the election by a million votes. That really got the whole party started.”

 

Walter Isaacson challenged Borowitz on this claim. He asked him to say who was smarter Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan? After all, Reagan won the election. Did that not make him smarter? Borowitz said clearly Jimmy Carter was smarter, which of course, millions of American conservatives would never accept. Horowitz acknowledged that he was not a neurologist so was not qualified really to give that opinion, but of course, he was not shy about making it. He added this,  “And that is usually reflected in how much you read.”

 

According to Horowitz Jimmy Carter read a ton.

 

Ronald Reagan did not open a single book in college. That is deliberate ignorance. When his Chief of Staff James Baker prepared a briefing book for a big economic summit, he didn’t touch that and  then James Baker said, “Why didn’t you read that last night?” Reagan replied. “Well Jim the Sound of Music” was on TV.”

 

He was not ashamed of that. He just was not very curious about economics or policy. He was interested in how he sounded on TV. That is what mattered. That might have been smart. At least politically smart.

 

Again, Isaacson pushed back, and said Ronald Reagan was a very successful president even though he didn’t read much. And his adoring fans did not care that he read so little.  He was able to get done what he wanted to get done. Often Carter did not. In fact, according to Isaacson “Jimmy Carter was remarkably unsuccessful.”

Horowitz did not think Reagan was a very successful president. But he did get his agenda through. According, to Horowitz “that agenda was very redolent of his own ignorance.” He let the AIDs crisis spiral out of control because he was very unaware of what Aids was. As well, he really created homelessness in this country, according to Horowitz. He told David Brinkley, “the homeless just want to live outside.” That sound very doubtful to me.

Reagan was much better on TV than Jimmie Carter. He will be able to get an agenda through but his agenda was hopelessly inadequate. “That is why it would help, according to Horowitz, if he actually read a book.”

To this Isaacson posed an alternative  book, written by David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest.  These were those guys that John F. Kennedy relied to get his agenda done. You don’t’ get smarter than those guys but they were disastrous when in power and drew America into the swamp of Vietnam.  There was not much good about that.

To this Horowitz said, “Well smart people make mistakes.” Very true but is that enough?  Horowitz said Carter was an elitist who wanted people in power to be smarter than he was. According to Horowitz the guys who have been allergic enough to learning and who refused to read a briefing book and refused to read a book of any kind got us into a lot of trouble. They got us into things like the War in Iraq one of the biggest boondoggles in our history. At the same time, they ignored things like Aids and the Coronavirus. “Yes smart people make mistakes, but …I would still rather put my money on the guy who has read a book” he said.

 

Some are very smart and have very bad judgment like Hillary Clinton. George W. Bush didn’t read the presidential briefing book that said Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. And the US paid a very heavy price for that ignorance. Ignorance can be very costly, particularly when wedded to power.

 

Horowitz said that FDR was not that smart. He graduated with Cs in High school. But when he had to deal with a big problem like the Dust Bowl which the country had never seen before, FDR was smart enough to surround himself with experts who were smart. He wasn’t like Donald Trump who pretended that he was smarter than everyone else when he clearly wasn’t. “Arrogant ignorance” is a terrible disaster. This is what Trump exemplified he said. Horowitz said “that FDR was an example of a person who had intellectual humility.” That is a sign of being smart and it is something Trump definitely does have. I agree that this is very important. More leaders should have humility.

 

Now when I listened to Horowitz, I could not see him as modest or humble. Far from it in fact. So he does not qualify as smart.

 

When people think they are the best and the brightest and they don’t have anything more to learn that is very dangerous. As Horowitz said, “Smart people sometimes fall into that trap.”

 

According to Horowitz, with the arrival of George W. Bush and Sarah Palin we moved into the age of acceptance. Bush learned that accepting his ignorance was actually a political advantage. He bombed early in his career when he was unable to name some foreign leaders to a radio host, exposing his serious ignorance. His advisor came out and said “we are electing the president of the United States not a Jeopardy contestant”.

 

This led to an era where political candidates said I don’t know very much but I am like you. We have come to the place where political leaders who profess to be smart have a big disadvantage. Many people don’t like that. This is also dangerous.  Ignorance should never be glorified. Too many people do that now.

 

Who would you rather have a bee with. Al Gore a pointy headed intellectual or George W. Bush?  To most people in America the answer was clear. Sarah Palin moved us into the celebration phase.  As Horowitz said, “She really embraces the fact that she did not know many  things. She replaced facts with non-facts.” Embracing ignorance is very dangerous.  That to me seems to be our current status.

 

As Horowitz said, “With the celebration phase which we are now sadly in, ignorance now has become such an asset that it is preferable to people being well-informed.”  Americans like ignorance. It’s not just Trump. Many Americans agree with him on this point.

 

As Horowitz said, “Donald Trump has never read, he doesn’t know very much, so he combines ignorance with arrogance that he thinks he knows more than the generals and scientists and every expert. Marjorie Taylor-Green also comes very naturally to this phase. She is extremely ill-informed, and she thinks that a Petri dish is a peach tree dish and that Hawley, or a Ted Cruz, or Ron de Santis who have the finest education that money can buy in America but are wilfully trying to sound dummer than they are. That sort of spectacle is so regrettable. We looked up to people who we used it to look up to people who were smart, to experts.

 

This of course brings us to the ultimate question. What can we do about it?  Horowitz suggested we stop watching so much cable TV That is sound advice. Don’t spend so much time on Twitter. And we have to start getting active in our democracy. Stop always nationalizing our problems. We get obsessed with the national elections, but the other elections are very important. We have to start working locally where democracy really is at its best. As Horowitz said,

 

“In a town meeting you really can’t be jerk, because you might meet that person next week. I have to curb my natural tendency to be caustic and contemptuous and I have to be civil instead. I think that is the answer. We have had trickle down ignorance in our country where our leaders have said ignorant things. And we as a population have grown more ignorant because of that.”

 

The most important thing is not to cherish ignorance.