Can a governmental institution be considered "at-risk" due to low confidence?

According to the Center for Disease Control, at risk behavior in teens is any behavior that puts youth at risk for negative consequences in the areas of health or in the areas of risks to life.  The CDC annually observes and reports on the status of risky behaviors in the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System.  

Preventing at-risk behavior is a critical aspect of parenting and of community leadership.  Indeed, most of us care about the future health of our children, and those of our neighbors. As a result, we support efforts to combat at-risk behaviors.  Although there are robust debates in society about what mechanisms are most effective, there is near universal agreement on the idea that we want children to avoid danger to themselves and others. 

Unfortunately, we don't use similar methods when thinking about society at large and the sustainability of our government institutions.  It would be interesting if we did.  

The Gallup Study entitled "Confidence in US Institutions Still Below Historical Norms"  found that confidence in the police is only at 52%. Confidence in the criminal justice system is at 23%.  Confidence in Congress is at 8%.  Confidence in the US Supreme Court is at 32%.

These low rankings are not only reserved for government institutions. Various private sectors share low rankings. Banks get 28%.  Organized labor is 24%.  Big Business is 21%. Organized religion is at 42%.  

Gallup provides the following assertion concerning its ratings: "From a broad perspective, Americans' confidence in all institutions over the last two years has been the lowest since Gallup began systematic updates of a larger set of institutions in 1993."

These results are difficult to discuss.  However, we need to talk about the results--and how to react to them.

It is this writer's belief that a social contract between members of a democratic society and its leaders depend on a trust -- and that is needed for functionality.  For instance, distrust in police can lead to more death and injury if potential victims feel the need to take things in their own hands rather than trust they can get assistance from government police forces. Additionally, if people don't trust banks, its questionable how they will protect their money -- and if people find alternatives to banks, will that make less capital available for loans for people to start small businesses? 

Furthermore, in general, individuals do not defend institutions they don't trust, and if those institutions are not defended, they are at risk of attack by individual with very problematic motivations.

In my opinion, small business ranks high, at 67%, primarily because of transparency. When I do business with an individual, I can discuss with him the basis for his prices. I can negotiate if necessary. Additionally, we're equals. I buy a product or service and he's likely to want to provide an adequate product or service at a reasonable price because he knows that I have the power to take him down. I could tell everyone not to do business with him, and he could tell everyone that I am trying to destroy his business. If we get in a serious dispute, we both can get lawyers or go to small claims court. 

The point is that there is a certain transparency and equality of power between the individual consumer and the small business owner. Thus, there is confidence.  

Large institutions should take major steps to demonstrate their transparency and vulnerability to critique. These steps in my opinion would do wonders for increasing institutional confidence.

I think readers of this blog site will recognize that I am not suggesting that there is an isolated solution to this problem. Instead, I am hoping a conversation will spread concerning how we strengthen confidence in our communal institutions.  

What I Realized About Democracy By Going to the Holocaust Museum

In my last blog post, I posited that for the west to defeat the Islamic State in the hearts and minds of the world citizenry, it must show that being part of western democratic society has a real moral value. My view is even more solidified this weekend after going to the Holocaust Museum and viewing the exhibit "Collaboration and Complicity During the Holocaust."

A viewing of that exhibit will direct one's mind to various moral challenges faced by German and Polish citizens during the time of the Nazi power.  Is it morally acceptable to hold one's to withhold your tongue when government officials appear to be engaging in injustice on the presumption that the government is doing what's right?  Is it right or wrong to cooperate with government officials in their efforts to round up individuals due to their racial or religious identification?  Furthermore, is there ever a case that failing to act is tantamount to endorsing an evil program?

Thus, the core of the exhibit is the stories of those individual Germans and Poles who bravely hid Jews, chose against supporting the regime, and those who were not brave enough to take the heroic step.

In some ways, these questions are easy to discus when studying history. After all, when we in the twenty-first century examine the Holocaust, we are studying a series of events that occurred seventy-five to eighty years ago.  Thus, as we are not faced with the situation, we can easily say, "if I were in that situation, I would do x; if I were in this situation, I would do y."  For sure it is a genuine question, but it is theoretical.  Or is it?

Every news story I read about the Islamic State brings me back to what I know about Hitler's regime. I venture to guess that many of the the subjects of the Islamic State (it wouldn't be right to use the word citizen) are faced with the dilemmas brought to our attention by this exhibit.

As Americans, we sometimes feel divorced from those problems. Our ability to save Jewish Germans then or Iraqis and Syrians now is very limited.  The individual American's role in saving individuals Jews or individual Yazidis and other Iraqis Syrians.

American are never truly divorced from the horrors of the successors of Nazi ideology. This nation has a very powerful military.  As citizens, we have the ability to impact what our government does with the military.

However, the exhibit also demonstrates something else about collaboration with evil courses of action. In society, there are always individuals who seek to bully who seek recognition or power. Like the Nazi's, they often find "the weakest link," attack them, and force members of a group to demonstrate their loyalty to the bully rather than to the individual being bullied.  This does not only happen in third world dictatorships, but happens all over America.  Great numbers of teenagers have killed themselves or attempted to kill themselves as a result of intense bullying.   I believe there are also numerous adults who find themselves requiring medical and psychological assistance as a result of workplace bullying.

The sign of a democracy is a place where individuals can act on his or her own beliefs without harming others or being harmed.  An essential aspect of a true democracy in my opinion is a place where someone's beliefs and views and looks are not limitations in his or her ability to function in society.

The purpose of this essay is not really to advocate for idealism, which is impractical. It is to reflect on the point that we are collaborators when we acknowledge and support mean and cruel behavior, whether or not that behavior stems from the government or our fellow citizen.

To Defeat ISIS, the West Must Make a Moral Case for its Survival

I am continuously reading articles in major newspapers trying to understand why Americans and Europeans would leave the comfort of the West to risk one's life an limb by joining the Islamic State.  The most recent such article came this week as CNN interviewed the sister of one of the bombers in Paris.  The article quotes the sister as saying: "He was generous, someone who loved to laugh and joke, a cheeky little boy," she said. That cheeky little boy turned into a mass murderer after traveling to Syria to join ISIS, where he's thought to have spent the past several years. She then asserts that he was brainwashed after connecting online with Syrian individuals loyal to the Islamic State. Of course, the article fails to discuss why someone in Europe would even be attracted to a murderous regime.  

An article on Vox also discusses this problem.  The author there writes that some people travel thousands of miles to join the Islamic State because they are "excited about religious ideas of a coming end times or about joining in the revival of what they imagine will be a glorious caliphate or they buy into ISIS's prolific internet propaganda portraying it as ever victorious." 

 The Vox article further quotes an exile democracy activist who asserts that ISIS members are often joining for "heroism, meaning, belonging, forgiveness, feeling like they have a purpose, feeling like they belong to something bigger than themselves."  The article further states, "the fact is that rules give structure, and they give meaning.  In the midst of all this chaos around you, there are these rules, and they're defined rules and they make sense."  

The article also discusses the role of feeling that one is "belonging to a marginalize community, especially if that community is overpoliced or treated as a suspect, or if your society expresses hostility towards Islam or religion generally."

The article also discusses the message "if your greatest wish is to commit murder and do it gruesomely, then join up with ISIS an you can do it," not to mention that some are attracted to participate in rape an violent adventure. 

These articles paint a very clear picture to me of men and women who, other than murderous psychopaths,might not have left the West if they found what they were looking for in the West, without having to look elsewhere.  

In other words, we need to promote ourselves!  We in the West need to show ourselves and others that the answers being sought can be found in the world of liberal democracy rather than in theocratic totalitarianism.  

Our Constitution provides for a Congress (Article I) and a Presidency (Article II) chosen by the individuals who exercise their right to vote.  "The right to vote shall not be abridge on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude."  Amendment 16, Section I.  It also "shall not be denied or abridged... on account of sex"; (Amendment 19, Section I) "by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax";(Amendment 24, Section I) and "on account of age."  Amendment 26, Section I).

Our Constitution assures that individuals are free to voice their opinions about society in other areas of society as well, not just in the voting arena. The Constitution's First Amendment provides for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom to petition the government to redress grievances.  

Our Constitution's Article VI specifically prohibits any religious test as a qualification for any office of public trust under the United States. 

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits an employer with 15 or more employees from failing or refusing to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate, on the basis of religion, including religious observance, practice, and belief.  

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion for landlords an real estate companies.

It is my opinion that these laws, among others, reveal a legal structure well situated to protect all sorts of religious practices.

Societies that fit in the category of being liberal republics are societies where individuals may chose their behavioral practices.  Unlike in repressive regimes, in the United States, one can find churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions strong and vibrant, strengthened by volunteers and donations, all possible due to personal liberty.

The notion that one should feel the need to leave the United States to live according to one's belief system is a sad state of affairs. The fact that one can find communities almost exclusively of Amish in Pennsylvania and Haredi Jews in New York reflect that if one feels the desire and need to live in a word of religious purity, one should not feel the need to leave the United States, but should instead take advantage of one's liberties and create the community one desires.  Indeed the United States even has a few communes and collectivist communities, although they are not as popular these days.

In writing this, I am not blind to the serious challenges that exist within the United States with respect to the level of respect being afforded various minority beliefs.  Almost every few days, I see a news story of an individual or group who feels bullied due to their expressed viewpoint on a topic of communal importance.  Some of this bullying rises to the level of illegality and some of it is not illegal but makes individuals fear for revealing their true viewpoints.

With regard to this last point, it suggest that the moral case for western-style democratic republicanism must be made not only to those who might choose to leave our way of life, but also to ourselves.  Viewpoint-based bullying is totally inconsistent with the values reflected in the governing documents of the United States.  When our society tolerates viewpoint based bullying, our society embarrasses its values and fails to represent a worldview that is more valuable for human dignity than the world of ISIS. 

Anyone who is considering joining ISIS or another similar regime on the basis of opportunity to live in a state of religious purity should strongly consider the above described Constitutional rights one has here. One should consider that the world of ISIS is one that constitutally endorses bullying those who question and consider viewpoints contrary to ISIS. In the United States, any bullying that exists is inconsistent with the essence of what the United States stands for.

Anyone who is considering joining ISIS because of a desire to stand for a purpose should consider that it is in the United States where one has the freedom to advocate for one's viewpoint.  In the word of ISIS, one has the opportunity only to stand as a slave to their viewpoint.  It has been said that some join ISIS because of the excitement of fighting for a cause, but in this country, the number of charities and organizations advocating on this or that issue means that one can devote themselves to socially-responsible fighting for issues they really care about.

Of course, there are also individuals traveling to ISIS because of sociopathic and violent tendencies.  If one is desirous of being in a society where one can bully all to observe Islam in a particular manner, it is hard to imagine an argument that would encourage that person to chose the life of liberty over ISIS.  For those folks, we must redirect their mindset to the appreciate the value of life and liberty, and for those where that is not possible, we sadly might need to find them in the words of prisons and mental institutions.

In writing this article, in no way did I intend to raise all the arguments or principles that justify favoring democracy over totalitarianism. I mean to start a discussion that is fairly absent in th discussion about ISIS.  Although many discuss moral cases for defeating ISIS, we should also discus moral cases for advancing liberal democratic society.