[EM] language/framing quibble

[Fred Gohlke]

Good Afternoon, Kristofer

re: "... you say that you think they can [be of sufficiently
      high quality ... and ... breadth].  I'm not so sure ..."

We live in an era so dominated by deceit and corruption it's easy to 
miss the fact that those characteristics are not typical of the people 
as a whole.  They are the putrid effluence of our political system.  We 
(in the United States) endure a political process where hundreds of 
millions of dollars are used to buy elections.  Those who supply the 
funds, and those whose favor they buy, have given us the financial 
cataclysm that engulfs us. Such horrors, and they seem neverending, are 
the direct result of a political system that puts a premium on lack of 
integrity.

It is a mistake to imagine the people we elect ... or those to whom they 
grant ascendancy over our society ... are good examples of the human 
spirit.  They're not.  We should not judge our society by its dregs.

The vast majority of humans are decent, honorable, law-abiding people. 
They have to be, for society could not exist otherwise.

When we give our society the means and opportunity to select the best 
among ourselves as our representatives, we will not fail to do so.  This 
may be most clearly understood by considering the human dynamics of 
method we've been discussing:

Because the process is repetitive, we can anticipate that the people who 
advance will be people who want to advance.  That may seem obvious, but 
we should not miss its significance.  It means, as the levels advance, 
the self-interest of the participants is integrated into their 
advancement.  Yet, as much as each person seeks advancement, their only 
role is to select one of the other two people they're grouped with.

When three individuals are given serious contemporary issues to consider 
and three or four weeks of close personal contact with two other people 
who may be called upon to resolve those issues, how will they evaluate 
each other and, at the same time, project themselves?  What must they do 
to encourage the other two people to decide they are the best choice?

There is only thing they can do:  They must demonstrate, by their words, 
by their opinions, and by their conduct that they are exemplary people.

Concomitantly, as they focus on and project their own commendable 
qualities, they will be acutely aware of the presence or absence of 
those qualities in others.  I believe the human dynamics of such an 
arrangement are compelling.  I am reminded of Dr. Alasdair MacIntyre's 
assertion that "... everyone must be allowed to have access to the 
political decision-making process" to experience the internal goods that 
enrich society and benefit the community.

To cite something I wrote some time ago:

   "My own view is that society and the individuals that compose
    it are a single dynamic entity.  When the individuals in the
    society are able to elevate those with the moral qualities
    they desire to positions of leadership, the process will
    improve the moral qualities of the entire society.  People
    will continue to pursue their own interest but will do so
    within a framework of acceptable actions which (1) have been
    jointly defined and (2) adjust to external circumstances that
    affect the society."

The difference in our perspectives may lay in, on the one hand, a focus 
on the quality of the people we elect to represent us, and on the other, 
the survival of the ideas that counterbalance the oppression of 
two-party systems.  The difficulty of accomplishing the former, combined 
with the events of the past century and a half, may make the latter seem 
the more imperative.

Fred

Footnote:  In the process we're discussing, I think the government 
should provide hotel and recreational facilities for the upper level 
groups to assure their ease of association.  flg