Bottom up – Top down
Since it is Saturday, the regular reader of this blog might correctly assume that I have now listened to this week’s podcast of On Being at least two and possible three times. That would be an accurate assumption. This week’s podcast is part of a gathering at which the goal and title was “Repairing the Breach”. The Podcast features a conversation between the host of On Being, Krista Tippett, Heather McGhee, president of the public policy organization Demos and Matt Kibbe, president and chief organizer of “Free the People”. Mr. Kibbe’s books include, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto and Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff: A Libertarian Manifesto. I have not read any of his books nor have I read any of the articles of Ms. McGhee which has been published in The New York Tikes, The Hill and The Nation.
I want to encourage the reader to listen to this podcast. I think both of these guests and Ms. Tippett raise questions which we all need to be discussing. The three people during the course of this conversation demonstrate how to have a meaningful, mutually respectful, discussion in which they address questions to those with whom they disagree and to themselves. One of the questions which Ms. Tippett asks is “… what can you see that is good in the position of the other, and what troubles you about your own position and the position of your group?” This question, in my opinion, identifies the core of both self-respect and respect for others. What appears obvious to me is that both Ms. McGhee and Mr. Kibbe have essentially the same goal or creating a mutually respect community. One of the questions Mr. Kibbe raises which struck an important chord in my own thinking is whether change comes about from the bottom up or the top down.
The United States Congress and the legislative bodies of many states including that of West Virginia are now meeting. These representatives of the body politic are considering legislation which about state and national budgets and various law, programs and in the case of the national body appointments of individuals to key leadership positions such as the Supreme Court. I have been not only cognizant of the divide between fractions but, especially, in the state legislative, of the number of new or revised laws which are being considered. While I am happy to see, some laws easing the attempt of government to regulate the behavior of people, I was not surprised to see that there are also some proposals to increase punishment for certain types of behavior or to begin to punish behavior which has not previously been punished. One example is a bill proposing to make sharing naked photos of individuals without their permission and with intent to harm (I have not seen the final wording.) a crime. I agree that it is very mean spirited, unkind, and just plain wrong to attempt to share what was very private with the general public, a boss, a family member or others with the hope that the person will suffer negative consequences. Do we, however, want to legislative one more behavior. I certainly understand the reasoning. When us humans do not make decisions, which are respectful of other or which result in serious emotional, physical, harm to a person or to the entire community I want to do something to protect the person or persons harmed. The goal of the law often is to punish the person who behaved in an unkind and/or harmful manner. Sometime the goal is to protect the person from their own behavior. Again, the thinking is that if we promise or threaten punishing it will deter future behavior of the individuals or others. Some laws are passed just because us humans have decided that certainly behavior is displeasing to the God of one’s understanding and it is our job to act as God’s agent in stopping or punishing that behavior. Sometimes, a law is enacted because we are just plain mad at the offender because he or she has offended our sensibilities.
Enacting of law whether it is the guarantee of health care or the protection of the abused child or adult, is a top down approach. Individuals such as Mr. Kibbe are in favor of a bottoms up approach. He says that: “Well, I think the American experiment is premised on the idea that there are some fundamental rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and those are very important to Tea Partyers and Constitutional Conservatives and Libertarians. But those are negative rights. It’s the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s not the right to an affordable healthcare plan or a college education. And those are fundamentally different things.” One could and many do argue that health care and a college education may be necessary in order to have life, maintain the liberty to take care of self and to pursue happiness. In fact, one can and many do wax on eloquently and very convincingly for many thousands of words and may, in fact, convince others that this is the case. One can use basically the same argument to justify the many laws criminalizing certain behavior. Mr. Kibbe might then argue that the sum total of the laws does not result in greater freedom or more mutual respect in the overall body politic. If fact, he and other Libertarians might argue that, in fact, the top down approach impeded life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for man.
I have elsewhere argued that criminalizing a wide range of behavior and punishing for often long periods of time does not create a safer, more just, or more free society. Others can and do argue, more eloquently, just the opposite.
Yet, the goal which both Mr. Kibbe and Ms. McGhee are recommending is, I believe, essentially, the same. They are both recommending that we do all we can to respect each other and create the conditions which make it more likely that we will recognize our common humanity and, thus, our common goals.
If I am accurate, the primary question then becomes whether a top down or bottom up approach is more likely to help us attain this goal. Neither one is suggesting that we focus on whether a particular behavior is offensive to us, whether any approach will guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to everyone in the society, or whether any approach will create a community of saints. They are both suggesting that we quit focusing on symptoms and look for causes. Both would suggest that the recent contentious and often divisive presidential election as well as the outcome of that election point to symptoms. They were not and are not the primary problem.
It will be interesting and challenging for me to give more of my thought and research to whether a top down, bottoms up, or a mixture of the two approaches will more likely bring about a society which is more in line with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Again, I am indebted to Ms. Tippett and her guests for inviting me to think outside of my often-tiny boxes.
Written April 8, 2017
Since it is Saturday, the regular reader of this blog might correctly assume that I have now listened to this week’s podcast of On Being at least two and possible three times. That would be an accurate assumption. This week’s podcast is part of a gathering at which the goal and title was “Repairing the Breach”. The Podcast features a conversation between the host of On Being, Krista Tippett, Heather McGhee, president of the public policy organization Demos and Matt Kibbe, president and chief organizer of “Free the People”. Mr. Kibbe’s books include, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto and Don’t Hurt People and Don’t Take Their Stuff: A Libertarian Manifesto. I have not read any of his books nor have I read any of the articles of Ms. McGhee which has been published in The New York Tikes, The Hill and The Nation.
I want to encourage the reader to listen to this podcast. I think both of these guests and Ms. Tippett raise questions which we all need to be discussing. The three people during the course of this conversation demonstrate how to have a meaningful, mutually respectful, discussion in which they address questions to those with whom they disagree and to themselves. One of the questions which Ms. Tippett asks is “… what can you see that is good in the position of the other, and what troubles you about your own position and the position of your group?” This question, in my opinion, identifies the core of both self-respect and respect for others. What appears obvious to me is that both Ms. McGhee and Mr. Kibbe have essentially the same goal or creating a mutually respect community. One of the questions Mr. Kibbe raises which struck an important chord in my own thinking is whether change comes about from the bottom up or the top down.
The United States Congress and the legislative bodies of many states including that of West Virginia are now meeting. These representatives of the body politic are considering legislation which about state and national budgets and various law, programs and in the case of the national body appointments of individuals to key leadership positions such as the Supreme Court. I have been not only cognizant of the divide between fractions but, especially, in the state legislative, of the number of new or revised laws which are being considered. While I am happy to see, some laws easing the attempt of government to regulate the behavior of people, I was not surprised to see that there are also some proposals to increase punishment for certain types of behavior or to begin to punish behavior which has not previously been punished. One example is a bill proposing to make sharing naked photos of individuals without their permission and with intent to harm (I have not seen the final wording.) a crime. I agree that it is very mean spirited, unkind, and just plain wrong to attempt to share what was very private with the general public, a boss, a family member or others with the hope that the person will suffer negative consequences. Do we, however, want to legislative one more behavior. I certainly understand the reasoning. When us humans do not make decisions, which are respectful of other or which result in serious emotional, physical, harm to a person or to the entire community I want to do something to protect the person or persons harmed. The goal of the law often is to punish the person who behaved in an unkind and/or harmful manner. Sometime the goal is to protect the person from their own behavior. Again, the thinking is that if we promise or threaten punishing it will deter future behavior of the individuals or others. Some laws are passed just because us humans have decided that certainly behavior is displeasing to the God of one’s understanding and it is our job to act as God’s agent in stopping or punishing that behavior. Sometimes, a law is enacted because we are just plain mad at the offender because he or she has offended our sensibilities.
Enacting of law whether it is the guarantee of health care or the protection of the abused child or adult, is a top down approach. Individuals such as Mr. Kibbe are in favor of a bottoms up approach. He says that: “Well, I think the American experiment is premised on the idea that there are some fundamental rights guaranteed to us in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and those are very important to Tea Partyers and Constitutional Conservatives and Libertarians. But those are negative rights. It’s the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s not the right to an affordable healthcare plan or a college education. And those are fundamentally different things.” One could and many do argue that health care and a college education may be necessary in order to have life, maintain the liberty to take care of self and to pursue happiness. In fact, one can and many do wax on eloquently and very convincingly for many thousands of words and may, in fact, convince others that this is the case. One can use basically the same argument to justify the many laws criminalizing certain behavior. Mr. Kibbe might then argue that the sum total of the laws does not result in greater freedom or more mutual respect in the overall body politic. If fact, he and other Libertarians might argue that, in fact, the top down approach impeded life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for man.
I have elsewhere argued that criminalizing a wide range of behavior and punishing for often long periods of time does not create a safer, more just, or more free society. Others can and do argue, more eloquently, just the opposite.
Yet, the goal which both Mr. Kibbe and Ms. McGhee are recommending is, I believe, essentially, the same. They are both recommending that we do all we can to respect each other and create the conditions which make it more likely that we will recognize our common humanity and, thus, our common goals.
If I am accurate, the primary question then becomes whether a top down or bottom up approach is more likely to help us attain this goal. Neither one is suggesting that we focus on whether a particular behavior is offensive to us, whether any approach will guarantee life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to everyone in the society, or whether any approach will create a community of saints. They are both suggesting that we quit focusing on symptoms and look for causes. Both would suggest that the recent contentious and often divisive presidential election as well as the outcome of that election point to symptoms. They were not and are not the primary problem.
It will be interesting and challenging for me to give more of my thought and research to whether a top down, bottoms up, or a mixture of the two approaches will more likely bring about a society which is more in line with “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Again, I am indebted to Ms. Tippett and her guests for inviting me to think outside of my often-tiny boxes.
Written April 8, 2017
RSS Feed