Quitting and Going Home: Failure or Success?
So the controversial Cindy Sheehan is quitting her one-woman crusade, maybe giving up her citizenship in disgust and moving to Canada? Did her 15 minutes of political celebrity make her a heroine, did it serve life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the American people, or just serve as spectacle?
"I have tried ever since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful," she wrote.
"Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.
"It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years, and Casey paid the price for that allegiance.
"I failed my boy and that hurts the most."
Whatever her failures and disillusionment, is there anything better one individual struggling within massively failing systems could expect? Not according to the 1990 holistic system thinking movie "Mindwalk" (which btw is airing this week on Showtime channels if you want to catch it and think about it in this updated context). . .maybe save the system, save the world?
Actor Sam Waterson's answer, after starring in Mindwalk, was to lend his celebrity to Unity08, trying to reform the whole system through new interconnections rather than win-lose adversarial elections. Both Democrats and Republicans (who together "are" the entrenched political system) are naturally resisting and ridiculing him in these efforts, as they have successfully done to Sheehan, manipulating all the media they can dominate to keep systemic change from being taken seriously by real, regular, reasonable people going about their private business and wondering who can save them from what they have wrought.
I think (though Sheehan doesn't seem capable of such analysis) the opening trick we can't manage is thinking well enough to understand what "saving" the system even means, in such complicated plotlines populated with infinitely interdependent characters, aka the Real World. Making it do -- what? Making it work -- how? Making it serve -- whom? Because we fail at that, we fail at everything we attempt after that.
This morning my expert public policy eye spots a (rare imo) right answer in the New York Times business news, real analysis and insight for all those of us who puzzle over public schools and party politics, religious wars, et cetera and just can't understand why we keep doing all the wrong things wronger, regressing rather than progressing.
"Overbooking, Bumped Fliers and No Plan B"
by Jeff Bailey
The whole story is about aggressive and insulated data analysts crunching endless numbers to create operational models that are statistically attractive to their own part of the "enterprise" but unfit for human consumption, thereby infuriating regular, responsible people just trying to participate in the system in good faith, in their own private, statistically insignificant roles.
Necessity being the mother of invention, savvy front line folks experiencing the fallout have to cope somehow. They create practical workarounds at their own lowly level that seem to compensate the consumer reasonably well and thus protect the system from its own longterm self-inflicted wounds. But that in turn makes the analysts redouble insistence on THEIR strategies, further infuriating users and further hurting the systems's credibility, requiring even more creative counterprogramming and loss of respect from the people caught up in it all. More and more regular people wise up to the system's escalating adversarial shortcomings, thus making it all even worse. Finally the system becomes neither workable nor fixable at any level . . Dörner's Logic of Failure.
"Stuck in a quagmire . . ."
"Scant credbility. . ."
"People view [it] as not on the up-and-up"
. . .what psychologist Dietrich Dörner shows, is that the problem lies not in the world, but in our own world-view . . .most of us are too simpleminded, especially when it comes to anticipating future trends or interactive processes. We don't think about the implications and consequences of what we want, or want to do, with results that come back to haunt us.
Nevertheless, and contrary to many current claims, Dörner also argues that there is no secret formula or mental trick . . . to overcome complacency or over-confidence. The world always has been very complex, but as the ambition and scale of our intentions has increased in modern times, the malevolent implications and consequences of our simple-mindedness becomes more and more frequent and compelling. . .
This is a book that public policymakers, politicians, planners, and the general public desperately need to read. We are squandering our environmental capital and undermining our social capital because we are trying to do things, or avoid doing things, that cannot be sustained for very much longer. . .
Remember that Kansas town that got wiped off the map by a giant tornado? Its mayor just quit, said he would not lead the rebuilding effort, wasn’t temperamentally suited to that kind of system work with competing ideas about what to do and how to do it. The town council said oh, don’t quit, we’ll just consider that you’re on sabbatical to get your own family squared away and then maybe you’ll come back and lead us. We’ll just wait.
HUH? But he is leading you, by example!
He’s doing a couple of smart, real, practical things. He has his priorities in order (family first) and he knows that not everyone is equally good at every task, “entitled†to it by system formula or not. And he knows that politics and government do not constitute leadership; it’s service.
Maybe Sheehan is quitting for some of the same good reasons as the mayor of Greensburg, and maybe in quitting she will find some leadership success that eluded her in public roles to which she clearly was not well suited, and from which we resisted her anguished message.
None of which is to say that individuals against the big bad system are always right, or even a better alternative for the public than government. Individuals can be our best hope when they are critical-thinking individuals, and public policy can be progressive and productive. Both are possible and desirable. I'm not anti-government or anti-system or anti-institutional. I'm certainly not anti-peace or anti-mom! 
But I am anti-Logic of Failure.
I know we have huge problems in the world; tornadic activity is tearing us apart all over the place. I am working toward finding ecologically sound human-serving solutions with the same fervor that I believe drives most activists. But it takes more than passion. Spinoza AND Descartes? The random, flailing, guiltridden, self-destructive, bathos-wallowing Logic of Cindy Sheeham is no less acceptable as The Right Answer than most of the rest of what passes for political discourse and analysis, which continues to fail us all.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Family | Home | Iraq war | Bush | Cindy Sheehan | Death of Common Sense | Democrats | Government | Greensburg Kansas | Logic of Failure | Public Education | Public Service | Republicans
You Sound Just Like
Submitted by JJ Ross on 30 May 2007 - 12:19pm.
the few remaining apologists for the School System. You can continue to defend the failing political system just as the airline statisticians continue to refine the bumping system for ever-greater profits no matter the human cost, and the way the State of Florida (et al) continue to pretend the standardized systems of accountability testing are public education rather than a public scourge -- or the way religious systems defend their power and privilege with "as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be . . ."
Or you could watch Showtime this week and maybe get a clue.
More Emotion? Not Good Enough
Submitted by JJ Ross on 30 May 2007 - 12:42pm.
From a parallel Snook discussion about ever-more spectacular school system failures that defy logic and increasingly alienate all those real, regular members of the public whether they join the damned PTA or not (the learned author wants his ideas out, so he's granted permission for use):
by Marion Brady -- long-time Florida teacher, administrator, publisher consultant, teacher educator, policy analyst, author of texts and
professional books, myriad journal articles, and six years of newspaper columns on education for Knight-Ridder/Tribune.
The real FCAT issue isn’t about accountability. All educators believe in it. Always have. Always will. It isn’t being held accountable that frustrates them, but the FCAT’s superficial, simplistic approach to it.
A source of even greater frustration for many is the degree to which the standardized testing fad has shut down dialog on education-related questions of great importance, questions bearing directly on student performance and societal well-being.
Here are some of those questions:
. The present thrust of education “reform†assumes the familiar curriculum, now locked in place by “standards and accountability,†is as appropriate
today as it was when it was adopted in 1892. Is it?. If there are problems with the traditional, same-thing-for-everybody curriculum, won’t “raising the bar†make the problems worse?
. The FCAT is part of a reform movement that assumes market forces can shape schools up. At least one Florida legislator is even considering introducing
legislation to pay students for passing scores. Does this mean that learning is unnatural and won’t happen unless teachers and kids are threatened or bribed?. Management experts say poor institutional performance almost always indicates unaddressed “system†problems. Poor FCAT scores aren’t being
blamed on the system but on the people in the system. Are the experts wrong?. The FCAT is rapidly pushing “frills†out of the curriculum. Has research now established that art, music, physical activity and so on have nothing to
do with developing reasoning ability?. On critical, instruction-related questions, local educators and school boards are increasingly being pushed out of the decision-making loop. Does the history of top-down, centralized control suggest this change strategy works?
. Statewide, thousands of kids are being held back because of poor reading and math scores. Is the ability to interpret symbols and fill in ovals on
multiple-choice tests the only way kids learn, and therefore sufficient reason to flunk them?. Education is supposed to teach kids to think for themselves, not just recall what they’ve been ordered to remember. Are corporately produced, machine-scored tests able to judge the relative quality of complex thought processes? If so, why aren’t they already doing that?
. Will manipulating the curriculum to “maintain America’s competitive position in world trade†be more likely to ensure America’s future well-being than helping kids love learning because it lets them pursue their abilities wherever they lead?
. Frantic to avoid the test-triggered “failing†label, educators use myriad strategies to “game†the system. For example, administrators, knowing ahead
of time which kids will and which likely won’t pass the FCAT, ignore them and flood the “marginals†with attention. Is it possible to track and counter all such score-distorting strategies?. If, as Acting Commissioner of Education Jeanine Blomberg says, state officials “…will go back and re-equate and rescale the 2006 third-grade FCAT reading exam…†isn’t this an admission of how open the scoring process is to political manipulation?
. The FCAT’s defenders insist that it’s legitimate because it’s tied to the Sunshine State Standards. Those “standards†have no overarching aim, fail to
capitalize on the mutually supportive nature of school subjects, and emphasize knowledge rather than what kids can actually do with what they know. Aren’t these problems sufficiently serious to warrant a fresh look at the Standards?Back in the 1980s, before the leaders of business and industry and the politicians hi-jacked education reform, thoughtful educators were beginning to explore ways to move student intellectual performance to a whole new level. The keys were World War II-developed General Systems Theory and research into how the brain organizes information. The FCAT’s “mother†- the No Child Left Behind legislation - stopped that effort dead in its tracks.
The new model for education reform is the 19th-century classroom of Charles Dickens’ “Mr. Gradgrind.â€
Future generations will look back on this era and shake their heads in disbelief at the educational naivete of the amateurs now writing education policy.
As much as I cheer
Submitted by NanceConfer on 30 May 2007 - 12:46pm.
when I see Al Gore talking about thinking and wish he would agree to be among the candidates for Pres . . . maybe he has the right idea of influencing from outside a system which isn't very quick on its feet when it comes to important changes.
Nance
Certainly
Submitted by JJ Ross on 30 May 2007 - 1:14pm.
it is "a" good idea! If not "the" idea --
As if he could ever be said to be outside the system. Surely all of us never elected to office at all, are more outside than he can be now? I guess it depends on what we mean by "system" -- to me it's our whole culture and community, not just government representatives and employees. As Nance knows, ruling class pretensions of grandeur are insignificant to my personal power of story these days.
That could be at the root of my difference with Mr. Wallner, and maybe mole, come to think of it. To me we're all interconnected and part of the governing and political systems whether we vote or not, whether we even register in the first place or read the major newspapers, much less go to party meetings and give money and meet candidates in person, etc. like their families and friends do.
(Nobody I know now does that, and few ever did. So are we ALL out of the system then, and it belongs only to the tiny fraction of active R and D party people currently holding office and giving money to those who do, or earning money from serving those who hope to?)
Similarly, private schooling and home education don't mean you are "out" of public educational systems, that you have no interest or claim or role or responsibility, that you are disenfranchised from our system, that you are a quitter hurting the public. Certainly not that you can stop paying your taxes!
So whose systems are they to change anyway? And how? Seems to me we're all here, even the non-citizens who CANNOT vote or run for office, and we all have an impact without needing the permission, much less the intercession of party priests and powerbrokers. . .
Defining "in"??
Submitted by NanceConfer on 30 May 2007 - 4:50pm.
He's on one level of outside the system and I'm on another and someone who doesn't follow the news and vote (or not) is on another -- etc. -- we're all "in" or under your big umbrella definition of system but outside of what I think most people mean when they say someone is "working inside the system."
Nance
Wherever he winds up
Submitted by JJ Ross on 30 May 2007 - 7:15pm.
it looks to me like he's got a good shot of making a real difference in a whole lotta systems, and real folks' lives. Have you seen his new book yet, Assault on Reason? Like so many others, it is on my reading list but not yet on top of the pile by my bed.
Lots More
Submitted by JJ Ross on 1 June 2007 - 3:41pm.
interesting connections (many of which are linked to still more good stuff) in the sister discussion continuing here --
Opposite of Progressive
Submitted by JJ Ross on 2 June 2007 - 11:32am.
I just noticed that I use the word "regressive" in this essay as the opposite of "progressive." Standard thesaurus fare, completely safe, no one could mark me wrong for that answer.
But in the very next sentence I use the word "aggressive" -- aha! Could it be from a different pov, one closer to my own perspective, that "aggressive" is the opposite of "progressive" and so when we get aggressive about the "progressive" agenda, we're contradicting our own efforts, perhaps even winding up regressive?
The neocon agenda obviously is the opposite of progressive, but it hadn't occurred to me before now that aggression in pursuit of it, might be part of what defines it as such?
Unity08
Submitted by Will Fogel (not verified) on 4 June 2007 - 10:56am.
JJ,
Thanks so much for posting about Unity08 and defending us from our critics. I agree of course with rwallnery: not all party members are hacks or idiots. In fact, most of the people involved in politics today are probably good people. The tragedy is that they are trapped inside a system in which the reflex reaction is to attack the other "side". They think that a well-timed gay marriage ad will go further in getting them elected than a real education or debt policy.
I'm inspired by your writing and we could very much use your help.
Please get in touch with me when you can so that we can talk about ways you can be more involved.
Thanks again for what you're doing,
Will Fogel
wfogel@unity08.com
Intriguing!
Submitted by JJ Ross on 4 June 2007 - 4:48pm.
I dropped you an email, Will. Wow, any help I can be with my writing is yours!
To quote Eeyore:
"Thanks for noticing . . ."
Unity '08
jj said: "manipulating all the media they can dominate to keep systemic change from being taken seriously by real, regular, reasonable people going about their private business"
See this is what gets politicos in both major parties upset. The republican and democratic parties have existed historically, and carry the influence they do, because they pretty accurately reflect the societal divisions in this country. There have been many other parties past and present, but the two party sytem has worked because the divisions are clear enough that people have come together in order to be more effective. Fiscal conservatives and evangelicals could have their own separate party, but they have more power working together as one party. Same with teachers and other labor union leaders. Both political parties have been ABOUT "real, regular, reasonable people" coming together to make common cause. Go to your local democratic or republican party committee meeting, and you will see "real, regular, reasonable people" You greatly insult the rank and file of both parties by acting as if they are brain dead idiots being manipulated by party brass. You wouldn't act that way if you attended lower level party functions and appreciated the historical role of each party. Why is it that when a party tries to play its role and build up support, all of a sudden it becomes "manipulative" and its leaders are treated like alien beings instead of human beings. I know people who have dedicated their lives to the Democratic Party, and have great influence in their own ways. They are "real, reasonable, regular" people. You don't lose your humanity by joining Party leadership!
I like Sam Waterson, but I disagree with his Unity '08 approach. There is not this great middle ground in America, where all the "real, regular, reasonable" people exist. There is a war going on in this country, and in war time when a great enemy army is out there, if you cannot come together in coalitions, form great armies, like political parties, then you will be destroyed. All Waterson's effort will do is pull moderates away from the Democratic side. The evangelical right wing isn't going moderate. Not when they have clear views on what is good and evil, what is god and anti-god. Unity '08 could do as much harm as Ralph Nader and the Green Party did in 2000.
Remember that? Nader said "real, regular, reasonable" people shouldn't belong to either of the two major parties. As a result, we've had eight years of Bush as president, instead of Al Gore. And you have seen the consequences. In a war you MUST come together in large coalitions, and accept all that is good or bad along with it. Because you win wars with big armies, not small ones.