[This piece was originally written to the members of the NCWA Great Decisions discussion group I moderate, most of whom are of retirement age. One of our group inquired about a casual reference I’d made to my changed personal views--that is, how that happened and why? Because of it's relevance for a group like ours, I decided to follow abbreviated remarks with these more comprehensive, written reflections.]
Many of us have lived a lot of life, some more than others. But all have managed to negotiate many of life's passages, and the challenges and growth experiences that go with that. And I expect most have changed their views about some things, perhaps even their ideological, philosophical or faith perspectives, to one degree or another. Of course, some amount of opinion formation and change has to do with the personality and temperament of each of us as individuals. And some of it cannot be understood without reference to one's emotional stake or personal interests in a particular position, ideology or philosophy.
But changes in our opinions or perspective also have to do with the range of different places we find ourselves across a period of time, places that offer different experiences, work or life with people with different expectations and ideas, that offer different information, different incentives, even different identity. If we are also moved by certain values and interests in addressing national and societal issues--and many of us likely are--it is important that we are open and respond to the need to personally examine each place, the people and their perspectives. It is important for us to learn more and understand more about them and how they address resolution of those national and societal issues--not just to debate them, but to understand how they have changed or could change our own views or perspective.
In my case that took me from early '60s idealist about needed social change to Vietnam-era Marine trained and working in intelligence as a Chinese cryptologic linguist, then to college and the challenge of reconciling the first two experiences and the strong views about them prevalent on college campuses. Law school and graduate business school added a lot more information, new perspectives, as did a career that began as a tax lawyer, but was mostly spent as a corporate tax/finance executive and M&A project leader. And most of those later experiences moved me to a more conservative disposition and identity in most aspects of my life.
That was later rebalanced by leadership roles on nonprofit boards--independent school, college, philharmonic orchestra, literary magazine, faith organizations--and a particularly deep interest in education and issues of poverty. So much so that I left my career at age 54--at the peak of my income, and with another promotion likely--to pursue a doctorate in education policy. That formal education and research experience at that later point in my life, along with turning a corner in my life-long faith exploration, opened things up and were also influential in my changing perspectives. Earning a master’s, and a dissertation short of the doctorate, I had to abandon the program because of the onset of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I then founded Getting Kids to College, a nonprofit organized to work with parents of first-generation college students to better prepare them for academic success and college attendance. That too had to be abandoned after three years, and I was inadvertently, prematurely retired.
That is probably much more than you needed to know about my background, but many of us have walked personal life and career and paths of many turns. And it changes you, or at least it often does. That's the point. It's difficult to walk those many and varied paths without doing some serious assessment and reconciliation of the very different views, ideas, thinking and identities assimilated or assumed in those different places, those different worlds. At least it was for me. And throughout those years, I felt compelled to examine those very different experiences and the more characteristic views, ideologies, philosophies or faith perspectives identified with them. And that covered a considerable spectrum of perspectives and ideas.
But even if one is a willing learner of such things--and not all are--that process usually takes quite some time. Yet, most of us soon or later recognize that every approach, point of view, or policy answer--certainly every ideology and philosophy--is defined as much by its shortcomings and failings, its incomplete or insufficient answers, as it is by its trumpeted virtues and correctness, its political, cultural or philosophical acceptability. And I could not help but carry with me a good measure of understanding and respect for each experience and each perspective as I moved from one to the next to where I am today. And it is a process that continues to work for me today. Perhaps it does for you, too.
A sound approach to national and societal problem solving first honors the strength and virtue of the principal philosophical foundations of this greatest of representative democracies and most effective of market economies. It honors the necessity for robust, intelligently regulated markets, but also providing for the important needs of people, especially those who are poor, unable, ill or aged. That's what responsible, advanced societies do, and in that way strengthen our national identity and social fabric while advancing and strengthening our economy.
But then, so far as we can muster and manage the balance and will, it is important that we begin the issue resolution process with a statement of the problem and available information, the alternative solutions or answers, and their likely cost and probable results--but without constraining adherence to ideological, political or philosophical dogma. It is more useful to speak of market mechanisms, incentives, strengths and weaknesses, than ideological understandings or dictates. It is more useful to speak of societal challenges, problems or needs and, again, the alternatives, the costs and benefits, the wisest answers for society and the economy, not considerations of ideology or political platforms. It's the only way we can feel at all competent or accountable in approaching such issues or problems responsibly.
And this approach also makes it so much easier to effect course corrections or reverse field with changed information, alternatives or goals--because it's based on the best information and problem-solving processes, all of which can and do change. And we are much freer to change with them. Certainly that has been my general experience, and perhaps the experience of many of you as well. It is the power of seeking the best, most complete and unbiased information about an issue, identifying and understanding the implications of available alternatives, and then dispassionately exploring that information and those alternatives for the better solutions or answers. That is difficult enough without the procrustean constraints, the polarizing and sobotaging effects, of narrow ideological or philosophical imperatives.
I must also share with you how often in the last five years that approach in our discussion group and my previous group either changed my mind on the resolution of an issue, or brought me to a different conclusion than I might have predicted before the reading and discussion. And on at least one occasion a few years ago, I ultimately settled on a different position than the one I supported in discussion. I like the way the materials and the group process works and what often comes out of it. It works for me. I hope it sometimes works for you, as well.
It is easy to see that this approach or orientation more likely generates respect for, if not acceptance of, other views because there is understanding of and mutual respect for the process. And if you are like me, you are also likely to recognize a view you once held, or one you may yet support. When working with a common, credible body of information or facts, and similar understandings of alternative resolutions, it makes agreement on issues or problems more likely, or at least reduces the scope and depth of differences. There is more often a type of "regression to the mean" of resolutions or answers reached and agreed to when we mutually accept and respect a competent, open and fair process for reaching them. Let our identity be more that of competent, respectful and respected resolvers of issues and formulators of wise policies, than ideological drones. Integrated thinking and synthesis, informed and fair reasoning, transparent and respectful dialogue, all must rule our process.
First written and edited: March 2010, edited December 2010.
© Gregory E. Hudson 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment