Inclusive patriotism. What a concept! And yet, when you think about it, it is the foundational patriotism that was baked into our Constitution and expanded with our nation's collective evolution out of institutionalized oppression. So, while it is foundational, I don't think it's ever been labeled so accurately! I hope it's a phrase and idea that you're able to expand, and that it catches fire. Progressives need to reclaim their rightful share of patriotism and this terminology really nails it.
OK. I'm listening before stating my "why". What are the values you've been raised with and the experiences you've had that, for starters, lead you to believe/assert that:
*we all want to get along
*we all need to get along
*that deep conversations about opposing values can produce revisions in those values
After some thought, I can confidently say that I do not attribute my beliefs and assertions to any of the values with which I was raised. Whatever “values” my parents or extended family intended to pass on were derailed by what derails many families: mental health neglect, divorce, and a “sweep-it-under-the-rug” mentality and practice. If honesty, empathy, nurturing, and patience with different views were meant to be the hallmarks of my familial experience, they were blocked by judgment, distrust, manipulation, and a refusal to hear the voices of those hurt most by these selfish choices.
However, I did find some solace in time spent with my grandfather, and that is probably why I consider his memory before every decision I still make. But what he gave me most was space without fear or harm. Unfortunately, his values I have had to discern and discover through limited memories, as I was not his to raise, and I learned early on that busy men make poor “would-be” mentors as they only have so much time to “give.” No, my empathetic and inclusive values were born almost exclusively through real-world interactions with the public via my career in hospitality and customer service.
Anyone who has worked a shift in either of these professions knows that most of your career is dealing with customers who are behaving less than their “best,” especially since the beginning of the pandemic. That said, I always considered the “most difficult” customers to be my favorite - I love an opportunity to “turn a frown upside down!” My experience has been predominantly in a managerial role, and anyone who has worked with me will tell you that I considered myself “bulletproof” to difficult situations, preferring to take the challenge head-on myself, freeing my employees from any mistreatment. In facing down a myriad of harrowing and eye-opening experiences with the public, I have learned things I will never forget - unresolved pain only causes more pain (in yourself and others), anger often reveals where that pain is, and that all those overwhelming feelings could only be resolved in the moment by an outside someone willing to patiently listen. I made this an unofficial part of my job description, no matter where I worked, and I have solved more “issues” in my career by simply listening than I ever have by imposing my point of view or what I think - even if I was “right.”
In short, my answers below are founded not in blind faith, but beliefs tempered by lived experiences that have only reinforced to me the realities of our human condition and the enduring promise of our American experiment. These are not assertions born of naive optimism, but rather from a lifetime of observing the American spirit and a profound belief in the potential that resides within all people to find balance in all relationships, even in these trying times.
DO PEOPLE ALL WANT TO GET ALONG?
Perhaps not in every fleeting moment of passion or frustration, no. We see today, as we have seen in times past, forces that seek to divide us, to pit neighbor against neighbor, and to sow suspicion. Underneath the surface of these turbulent currents lies a deeper, more fundamental human yearning for connection, for community, for mutual respect. The common man, the farmer in the field, the worker in the factory, the teacher in the classroom - they are not, at their core, driven by a desire for perpetual conflict. They seek security, yes, but also a sense of belonging, a feeling that they are part of something larger than themselves, something good and decent. When basic needs are met, and even when they are not, the human spirit looks for more than just material sustenance; it looks for meaning, for shared purpose, for the warmth of human fellowship. These were the hopes and possibilities of the internet, social media, and smartphones before the greedy established monetization as the only goal for these inventions. In fact, despite these modern forms of manipulation, people still flock to them for the very meaning, shared purpose, and human fellowship that is inherent within all people to seek. The divisions we see are often stoked by those who profit from them, or by a genuine fear that one's way of life and deeply held beliefs are under siege. But the desire for peace, for understanding, for a community where one is valued, is a powerful, often unspoken, undercurrent.
DO PEOPLE ALL NEED TO GET ALONG?
Yes, absolutely. In a democracy as vast and varied as ours, a nation built upon the ideal of "E Pluribus Unum," out of many, one - our very survival and progress depend on our ability to find common cause. The challenges we face today - a changing economy that leaves too many behind, the health of our planet, the education of our children, the security of our nation in a complex world – these are not challenges that can be met by a people fractured and at war with itself.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
If we are to build a society where every individual's dignity is honored and the pursuit of happiness is a reality for all, then we must find ways to bridge our divides. Our strength has always been in our unity, not in our uniformity. To retreat into warring camps, defined by ever-narrowing identities and unyielding dogmas, is to forsake the very promise of America. We need each other's strengths, each other's perspectives, if we are to navigate “the fierce urgency of now,” I spoke of in my introductory piece.
CAN DEEP CONVERSATIONS ABOUT OPPOSING VALUES PRODUCE REVISIONS IN THOSE VALUES?
This is probably the most challenging - most hopeful - part of the equation. I don’t believe that these kinds of conversations will magically erase all differences, nor should they. A vibrant democracy thrives on a diversity of thought, but I do believe that genuine, respectful dialogue, rooted in a willingness to truly hear another’s “why,” can lead to profound and productive shifts in thought and relationships. It can chip away at the caricatures we hold of one another, thereby fostering empathy, and empathy is a powerful catalyst for change. That said, it may not necessarily lead to a wholesale abandonment of core beliefs, but it can lead to a revision of how those beliefs are understood and applied, to a broadening of perspective, and possibly a recognition that our own truth may not be the only truth. But we will only discover and learn any of this if we start listening.
When people feel heard and respected, even in disagreement, the ground becomes more fertile for finding common solutions. The alternative - what we’ve been increasingly experiencing the last 10+ years - has led only to greater polarization and paralysis.
The American experiment is - and has always been - a call to the hard work of citizenship, to the courage it takes to listen, and to the conviction that, together, we can indeed forge a more perfect union.
Thank you again, Eric. Incisive questions like these give us all much to ponder as we strive for that more inclusive patriotism. ;)
Well done, Short Change Hero. Well thought and well put. May I extend my lisrening exercise with a little more probing?
You state that your beliefs are based upon experience, not blind faith. Fair enough.
What about your core values (what is good bad)/fundamental explanatory principles (your basic truths about how people think and act)--at least those that undergird your argument above (just a sample, not a complete exposition 😁):
*What might the most important of these be? For example, do you believe that forces beyond our direct experience influence human affairs, and yours in particular?
*Are there any of those you consider "non-negotiable", in the sense that you hold them deeply and they are the bedrock of how you think about the world?
*Are there any you would fight to implement or at least protect?
Ah, you wish to understand the soil from which my current convictions have sprung! A fair request deserves a fair response:
"WHAT MIGHT THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE BE? FOR EXAMPLE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT FORCES BEYOND OUR DIRECT EXPERIENCE INFLUENCE HUMAN AFFAIRS, AND YOURS IN PARTICULAR?"
The inherent dignity and potential of the common individual:
My life has shown me time and again that extraordinary wisdom, resilience, and decency reside in ordinary people. This isn't a romantic notion; it's an empirical one. People, by and large, possess an innate desire for fairness, for purpose, and for connection.
The fundamental interconnectedness of our endeavors:
Whether in an ecosystem, an economy, or a community, actions create ripples. The well-being of one is ultimately tied to the well-being of all. This understanding breeds a sense of shared responsibility, a recognition that "going it alone" is often a path to collective detriment.
As for forces beyond our direct experience, I am a man who has always seen a spiritual dimension to life, though perhaps not in the orthodox manner many might expect. I do believe there are currents, let us say, deeper tides in human affairs that are not always visible on the surface. Call it the collective aspiration of humanity, the slow bending of the moral arc, or simply the emergent properties of countless individual strivings and ethical choices. I sense a persistent, though often challenged, impulse towards greater understanding, justice, and cooperation. In my own life, perhaps due to the example set by my grandfather, I have felt guided by a profound sense of duty to this larger, unfolding human drama, a conviction that my efforts must align with these more constructive currents. The "American experiment" itself, at its best, feels like an attempt to consciously engage with such a moral trajectory.
"ARE THERE ANY OF THOSE YOU CONSIDER 'NON-NEGOTIABLE,' IN THE SENSE THAT YOU HOLD THEM DEEPLY AND THEY ARE THE BEDROCK OF HOW YOU THINK ABOUT THE WORLD?"
Indeed, there are.
The principle of empathy as a prerequisite for just action:
To act without first striving to understand the perspective and pain of others is to risk grave error and injustice. This, for me, is non-negotiable. Before policy, before pronouncements, before solutions, there must be a genuine attempt to walk in another's shoes.
The pursuit of truth, grounded in evidence and open inquiry:
In an age of rampant misinformation, where algorithms often amplify echo chambers rather than understanding, the commitment to seeking what is factual and honestly engaging with those facts is sacrosanct. Without it, all other efforts are built on sand.
The conviction that progress requires both individual liberty and collective responsibility:
These are not opposing forces but two wings of the same bird. To champion one to the exclusion of the other leads to an imbalance that harms the common good. Finding that dynamic equilibrium is a constant, non-negotiable task for a thriving society and a fair democracy.
"ARE THERE ANY YOU WOULD FIGHT TO IMPLEMENT OR AT LEAST PROTECT?"
“Fight” is a strong word, right? In the spirit of encouraging more temperate discourse, and to consciously avoid contributing to our nation's current regrettable drift towards escalating rhetoric, I will say that I have always preferred the tools of peace and persuasion. BUT if by “fight” you mean to dedicate my energies, my voice, and apply whatever limited influence I have towards their realization and defense, then yes, absolutely. Fighting should be a last resort, and I hope that this never occurs on a national or global scale in the future.
• I would tirelessly advocate for policies and systems that ensure a baseline of dignity and opportunity for every single American. This includes access to quality education, affordable healthcare, nourishing food, and fair wages for honest work. An economy that leaves vast swathes of its people behind, struggling for basic necessities while others accumulate unprecedented wealth, is an economy that has lost its moral compass. The "general welfare" is not a suggestion; it is a constitutional imperative.
• I would defend, with every fiber of my being, the democratic institutions and norms that allow for peaceful dissent, the open exchange of ideas, and the transfer of power. This means protecting voting rights, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and fostering a robust, independent press. These are the very mechanisms by which we, the people, can bring about change and hold power accountable.
• And I would champion the creation and preservation of forums for genuine dialogue across our divides. This means pushing back against the forces of polarization, whether they come from media seeking profit from outrage or political actors who benefit from an "us versus them" mentality. Creating spaces, both physical and digital, where listening is valued as much as speaking, is essential if we are to revise our understanding of one another, as discussed in my previous thoughts.
These principles are what animate my current perspective and work here on Substack. They are not, I hope, static dogmas, but living values that must be continually tested and applied to the ever-evolving challenges of our time.
Very good. I think I understand better where your ideas come from.
I started this chain because you called for us to "listen" before immediately responding, and to try to understand why others think the ways they do. I thought practicing that was a useful exercise.
In fairness, I should answer my own questions, and then return to the nuts and bolts discussions tou'v initiated (thanks for doing that, by the way).
My own values and "fundamntal prinviples" hve been formed frim family conversations, reading carefully some thoughts of others, and my own experiences.
I'll start big and deep. I think we are on our own here in our bit of space dust. There is nothing driving our physical space but its own inner workings. There is nothing guiding our affairs but our collective choices and actions. We've built the arcs of history or justice. We can change them. They are impermanent.
I think "good" and "evil" are created by us. They are what we agree they are. But there is very little we ALL agree upon, for a variety of reasons.
Our social and political interactions are products of the acreted decisions of those that came before us ("institutions") and our thoughts about our current experiences within them.
None of us are capable of seeing the whole situation, hence the fundamental need for free thought and debate.
Generally, people interact with each other from within "bubbles". The weaker our awareness of others, the shorter our time horizon, the smaller the bubble. And vice versa. There are limits to everyone's bubbles.
Some conflicts between people spring from misunderstandings and relatively minor differences in interests and can be overcome with more or less effort. Others are rooted in more fundamental differences of interests, and are extremely difficult to overcome.
Most people fear conflict, especially violent conflict and react to avoid it. Others learn they can use that fear to control their behavior.
So, we go through life bumping int each others' bubbles, seeking to negotiate ways through our lives with the least hassle and pain as possible, and the most happiness as possible.
Some things are given. Some can be changed. The future is unwritten. Here is where hope lies.
Inclusive patriotism. What a concept! And yet, when you think about it, it is the foundational patriotism that was baked into our Constitution and expanded with our nation's collective evolution out of institutionalized oppression. So, while it is foundational, I don't think it's ever been labeled so accurately! I hope it's a phrase and idea that you're able to expand, and that it catches fire. Progressives need to reclaim their rightful share of patriotism and this terminology really nails it.
OK. I'm listening before stating my "why". What are the values you've been raised with and the experiences you've had that, for starters, lead you to believe/assert that:
*we all want to get along
*we all need to get along
*that deep conversations about opposing values can produce revisions in those values
First, I want to thank you for your questions!
After some thought, I can confidently say that I do not attribute my beliefs and assertions to any of the values with which I was raised. Whatever “values” my parents or extended family intended to pass on were derailed by what derails many families: mental health neglect, divorce, and a “sweep-it-under-the-rug” mentality and practice. If honesty, empathy, nurturing, and patience with different views were meant to be the hallmarks of my familial experience, they were blocked by judgment, distrust, manipulation, and a refusal to hear the voices of those hurt most by these selfish choices.
However, I did find some solace in time spent with my grandfather, and that is probably why I consider his memory before every decision I still make. But what he gave me most was space without fear or harm. Unfortunately, his values I have had to discern and discover through limited memories, as I was not his to raise, and I learned early on that busy men make poor “would-be” mentors as they only have so much time to “give.” No, my empathetic and inclusive values were born almost exclusively through real-world interactions with the public via my career in hospitality and customer service.
Anyone who has worked a shift in either of these professions knows that most of your career is dealing with customers who are behaving less than their “best,” especially since the beginning of the pandemic. That said, I always considered the “most difficult” customers to be my favorite - I love an opportunity to “turn a frown upside down!” My experience has been predominantly in a managerial role, and anyone who has worked with me will tell you that I considered myself “bulletproof” to difficult situations, preferring to take the challenge head-on myself, freeing my employees from any mistreatment. In facing down a myriad of harrowing and eye-opening experiences with the public, I have learned things I will never forget - unresolved pain only causes more pain (in yourself and others), anger often reveals where that pain is, and that all those overwhelming feelings could only be resolved in the moment by an outside someone willing to patiently listen. I made this an unofficial part of my job description, no matter where I worked, and I have solved more “issues” in my career by simply listening than I ever have by imposing my point of view or what I think - even if I was “right.”
In short, my answers below are founded not in blind faith, but beliefs tempered by lived experiences that have only reinforced to me the realities of our human condition and the enduring promise of our American experiment. These are not assertions born of naive optimism, but rather from a lifetime of observing the American spirit and a profound belief in the potential that resides within all people to find balance in all relationships, even in these trying times.
DO PEOPLE ALL WANT TO GET ALONG?
Perhaps not in every fleeting moment of passion or frustration, no. We see today, as we have seen in times past, forces that seek to divide us, to pit neighbor against neighbor, and to sow suspicion. Underneath the surface of these turbulent currents lies a deeper, more fundamental human yearning for connection, for community, for mutual respect. The common man, the farmer in the field, the worker in the factory, the teacher in the classroom - they are not, at their core, driven by a desire for perpetual conflict. They seek security, yes, but also a sense of belonging, a feeling that they are part of something larger than themselves, something good and decent. When basic needs are met, and even when they are not, the human spirit looks for more than just material sustenance; it looks for meaning, for shared purpose, for the warmth of human fellowship. These were the hopes and possibilities of the internet, social media, and smartphones before the greedy established monetization as the only goal for these inventions. In fact, despite these modern forms of manipulation, people still flock to them for the very meaning, shared purpose, and human fellowship that is inherent within all people to seek. The divisions we see are often stoked by those who profit from them, or by a genuine fear that one's way of life and deeply held beliefs are under siege. But the desire for peace, for understanding, for a community where one is valued, is a powerful, often unspoken, undercurrent.
DO PEOPLE ALL NEED TO GET ALONG?
Yes, absolutely. In a democracy as vast and varied as ours, a nation built upon the ideal of "E Pluribus Unum," out of many, one - our very survival and progress depend on our ability to find common cause. The challenges we face today - a changing economy that leaves too many behind, the health of our planet, the education of our children, the security of our nation in a complex world – these are not challenges that can be met by a people fractured and at war with itself.
“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
If we are to build a society where every individual's dignity is honored and the pursuit of happiness is a reality for all, then we must find ways to bridge our divides. Our strength has always been in our unity, not in our uniformity. To retreat into warring camps, defined by ever-narrowing identities and unyielding dogmas, is to forsake the very promise of America. We need each other's strengths, each other's perspectives, if we are to navigate “the fierce urgency of now,” I spoke of in my introductory piece.
CAN DEEP CONVERSATIONS ABOUT OPPOSING VALUES PRODUCE REVISIONS IN THOSE VALUES?
This is probably the most challenging - most hopeful - part of the equation. I don’t believe that these kinds of conversations will magically erase all differences, nor should they. A vibrant democracy thrives on a diversity of thought, but I do believe that genuine, respectful dialogue, rooted in a willingness to truly hear another’s “why,” can lead to profound and productive shifts in thought and relationships. It can chip away at the caricatures we hold of one another, thereby fostering empathy, and empathy is a powerful catalyst for change. That said, it may not necessarily lead to a wholesale abandonment of core beliefs, but it can lead to a revision of how those beliefs are understood and applied, to a broadening of perspective, and possibly a recognition that our own truth may not be the only truth. But we will only discover and learn any of this if we start listening.
When people feel heard and respected, even in disagreement, the ground becomes more fertile for finding common solutions. The alternative - what we’ve been increasingly experiencing the last 10+ years - has led only to greater polarization and paralysis.
The American experiment is - and has always been - a call to the hard work of citizenship, to the courage it takes to listen, and to the conviction that, together, we can indeed forge a more perfect union.
Thank you again, Eric. Incisive questions like these give us all much to ponder as we strive for that more inclusive patriotism. ;)
Well done, Short Change Hero. Well thought and well put. May I extend my lisrening exercise with a little more probing?
You state that your beliefs are based upon experience, not blind faith. Fair enough.
What about your core values (what is good bad)/fundamental explanatory principles (your basic truths about how people think and act)--at least those that undergird your argument above (just a sample, not a complete exposition 😁):
*What might the most important of these be? For example, do you believe that forces beyond our direct experience influence human affairs, and yours in particular?
*Are there any of those you consider "non-negotiable", in the sense that you hold them deeply and they are the bedrock of how you think about the world?
*Are there any you would fight to implement or at least protect?
Ah, you wish to understand the soil from which my current convictions have sprung! A fair request deserves a fair response:
"WHAT MIGHT THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE BE? FOR EXAMPLE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT FORCES BEYOND OUR DIRECT EXPERIENCE INFLUENCE HUMAN AFFAIRS, AND YOURS IN PARTICULAR?"
The inherent dignity and potential of the common individual:
My life has shown me time and again that extraordinary wisdom, resilience, and decency reside in ordinary people. This isn't a romantic notion; it's an empirical one. People, by and large, possess an innate desire for fairness, for purpose, and for connection.
The fundamental interconnectedness of our endeavors:
Whether in an ecosystem, an economy, or a community, actions create ripples. The well-being of one is ultimately tied to the well-being of all. This understanding breeds a sense of shared responsibility, a recognition that "going it alone" is often a path to collective detriment.
As for forces beyond our direct experience, I am a man who has always seen a spiritual dimension to life, though perhaps not in the orthodox manner many might expect. I do believe there are currents, let us say, deeper tides in human affairs that are not always visible on the surface. Call it the collective aspiration of humanity, the slow bending of the moral arc, or simply the emergent properties of countless individual strivings and ethical choices. I sense a persistent, though often challenged, impulse towards greater understanding, justice, and cooperation. In my own life, perhaps due to the example set by my grandfather, I have felt guided by a profound sense of duty to this larger, unfolding human drama, a conviction that my efforts must align with these more constructive currents. The "American experiment" itself, at its best, feels like an attempt to consciously engage with such a moral trajectory.
"ARE THERE ANY OF THOSE YOU CONSIDER 'NON-NEGOTIABLE,' IN THE SENSE THAT YOU HOLD THEM DEEPLY AND THEY ARE THE BEDROCK OF HOW YOU THINK ABOUT THE WORLD?"
Indeed, there are.
The principle of empathy as a prerequisite for just action:
To act without first striving to understand the perspective and pain of others is to risk grave error and injustice. This, for me, is non-negotiable. Before policy, before pronouncements, before solutions, there must be a genuine attempt to walk in another's shoes.
The pursuit of truth, grounded in evidence and open inquiry:
In an age of rampant misinformation, where algorithms often amplify echo chambers rather than understanding, the commitment to seeking what is factual and honestly engaging with those facts is sacrosanct. Without it, all other efforts are built on sand.
The conviction that progress requires both individual liberty and collective responsibility:
These are not opposing forces but two wings of the same bird. To champion one to the exclusion of the other leads to an imbalance that harms the common good. Finding that dynamic equilibrium is a constant, non-negotiable task for a thriving society and a fair democracy.
"ARE THERE ANY YOU WOULD FIGHT TO IMPLEMENT OR AT LEAST PROTECT?"
“Fight” is a strong word, right? In the spirit of encouraging more temperate discourse, and to consciously avoid contributing to our nation's current regrettable drift towards escalating rhetoric, I will say that I have always preferred the tools of peace and persuasion. BUT if by “fight” you mean to dedicate my energies, my voice, and apply whatever limited influence I have towards their realization and defense, then yes, absolutely. Fighting should be a last resort, and I hope that this never occurs on a national or global scale in the future.
• I would tirelessly advocate for policies and systems that ensure a baseline of dignity and opportunity for every single American. This includes access to quality education, affordable healthcare, nourishing food, and fair wages for honest work. An economy that leaves vast swathes of its people behind, struggling for basic necessities while others accumulate unprecedented wealth, is an economy that has lost its moral compass. The "general welfare" is not a suggestion; it is a constitutional imperative.
• I would defend, with every fiber of my being, the democratic institutions and norms that allow for peaceful dissent, the open exchange of ideas, and the transfer of power. This means protecting voting rights, ensuring the integrity of our elections, and fostering a robust, independent press. These are the very mechanisms by which we, the people, can bring about change and hold power accountable.
• And I would champion the creation and preservation of forums for genuine dialogue across our divides. This means pushing back against the forces of polarization, whether they come from media seeking profit from outrage or political actors who benefit from an "us versus them" mentality. Creating spaces, both physical and digital, where listening is valued as much as speaking, is essential if we are to revise our understanding of one another, as discussed in my previous thoughts.
These principles are what animate my current perspective and work here on Substack. They are not, I hope, static dogmas, but living values that must be continually tested and applied to the ever-evolving challenges of our time.
Very good. I think I understand better where your ideas come from.
I started this chain because you called for us to "listen" before immediately responding, and to try to understand why others think the ways they do. I thought practicing that was a useful exercise.
In fairness, I should answer my own questions, and then return to the nuts and bolts discussions tou'v initiated (thanks for doing that, by the way).
My own values and "fundamntal prinviples" hve been formed frim family conversations, reading carefully some thoughts of others, and my own experiences.
I'll start big and deep. I think we are on our own here in our bit of space dust. There is nothing driving our physical space but its own inner workings. There is nothing guiding our affairs but our collective choices and actions. We've built the arcs of history or justice. We can change them. They are impermanent.
I think "good" and "evil" are created by us. They are what we agree they are. But there is very little we ALL agree upon, for a variety of reasons.
Our social and political interactions are products of the acreted decisions of those that came before us ("institutions") and our thoughts about our current experiences within them.
None of us are capable of seeing the whole situation, hence the fundamental need for free thought and debate.
Generally, people interact with each other from within "bubbles". The weaker our awareness of others, the shorter our time horizon, the smaller the bubble. And vice versa. There are limits to everyone's bubbles.
Some conflicts between people spring from misunderstandings and relatively minor differences in interests and can be overcome with more or less effort. Others are rooted in more fundamental differences of interests, and are extremely difficult to overcome.
Most people fear conflict, especially violent conflict and react to avoid it. Others learn they can use that fear to control their behavior.
So, we go through life bumping int each others' bubbles, seeking to negotiate ways through our lives with the least hassle and pain as possible, and the most happiness as possible.
Some things are given. Some can be changed. The future is unwritten. Here is where hope lies.