Category Archives: Models

Examples we can productively study

red white blue bar

It is Time for a Convention of National Reconstruction

Models, , , , , , ,

Such an open-ended national effort would be a welcome breeze of fresh air to help clear out what our stale discourse presently allows.

The nation seems ready to lend support to a formal effort to rebuild traditions, norms and institutions that have been weakened by the Trump administration. It is time for individuals representing the nation’s cities, blue states, federal workers, unions and universities to start the necessary and arduous process of imagining and preparing priorities for quick action when the Congress and Presidency are able to restore civil values that have been honored over the decades. A smarter set of constitutional amendments would have already put us on this path. As it is, we must stand by idly to gain formal political leverage to act in defiance of the sabotage undertaken by this administration.

Obviously, a national convention of patriots to rebuild the nation would admittedly not have formal powers. But as The Guardian’s Thomas Geoghegan notes in his similar call for a convention of blue states, the first continental congress held in Philadelphia had “no apparent legitimacy or precedent,” but still had big consequences.1 The founders had to make a similar decision to act beyond what was possible within the political status quo.

My guess is that there would also be many Republicans who are anxious to reset the nation by considering new, productive, and suitably conservative ideas. Enlisting moderate Republican governors would be a good start. Many have clearly been inhibited by the hyperpartisanship of the Trump wing of the party.

2000px Vertical United States Flag.svg

We could assume that conservative and liberal sides would be willing to come together to make something better. Geoghegan notes that the result may be more theater than specifically deliberative, but such an organized national effort would be a welcome breeze of fresh air beyond what our fetid discourse from our entrenched politicians presently allows.

Initial concerns might include:

*whether the Presidency has the kinds of prerogatives and safeguards that the nation needs,

*whether Congress is too big or small to carry out legislative functions,

*whether money in campaigns should be limited, and

*if more federal functions supported by block grants should be taken over by the states.

Published recommendations receiving the most support could be distributed by receptive media.  Topics like these would benefit by having fresh and younger voices more clearly heard.

Organizations that could convene an ongoing conference of national reconstruction might include good government organizations like Common Cause, The National Conference of State Legislators, The United States Chamber of Commerce, The Brennan Center for Justice, and the Pew Research Center. All have traditionally presented credible work that cuts across rigid partisan lines. All would also have to propose some of the attendees, and sign on to the idea that the nation needs an extraordinary Convention of National Reconstruction.

There is also a tradition of calling on the services of respected former cabinet, state or Senate officials who could use their experience and wisdom to guide such an effort. We had such “wise old men (and women)” who helped the nation through the tough final years of the Nixon administration. We could find and enlist their contemporary counterparts again. Think of individuals like former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman or former CIA Director Leon Panetta. There are many former state and federal office holders who would answer the call to help. And there would be more agreement on ways forward than we might think. The current broken norms, like the politicization of the Department of Justice, go unchecked largely because of the current suppression of open dissent by a vindictive President.

Members could forward high-consensus recommendations to the political parties, the media, and interested trade and professional groups. Many would welcome a “third way” to reinvigorate our national politics.

__________

1https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/05/blue-states-democrats-trump

Because They Said So

Models, Problem Practices, Rhetorical Mastery, , , , , , , , ,

We assume we can be in charge because our language easily lets us imagine it.

Rhetoricians like to say that language has its way with us. The phrase is meant to be a reminder that everyday language steers us to conclusions that usually promise more than we as individual agents can deliver. Word choice can easily create perceptions that can make the unlikely more likely, the improbable possible, the fantasy an outcome that will surely happen. We can tie a wish to an action verb, and we are off and running, creating expectations for circumstances that probably will not materialize. Who knew that simple verbs like “is” and “will” can trigger phantoms of deceit?  The phrase “because I say so” is a pretty empty reason.

What seems inescapable is that the ease of committing ourselves to the control of events verbally is easy but difficult in actual practice. This reality is something we’ve come to know all too well in any period of war, where action verbs suggest more control than we actually have. In his recent speech to military leaders, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted that “Either we’re ready to win or we are not,” overstating a single two-tailed option the belies the functions of any military in these complicated times. Hegseth’s language fit the warrior ethos” and “male standard” that he was peddling. But problems associated with foreign policy and its entanglements are highly variable. These words hardly hint at the peacekeeping that arguably remains the long-term burden of the American military. In addition, the Secretary must know that nearly 20 percent of our troops are women. As is so often the case, circumstances on the ground tend to get lost in the neon glow of rhetoric too dim to clearly see the Truth.

Blame our overly deterministic language.

We construct the world as a web of causes and their presumed effects. It’s natural that we will place ourselves and our institutions in the driver’s seat. We assume we can be in charge because our language so easily lets us imagine it. Blame our overly deterministic language as well as the hubris it encourages. Both set up tight effects loops that seem clear on the page but elusive in life.

If we put individual verbs in a lineup, they look more or less innocent: words like affect, ready, make, destroy, are, causes, starts, produces, alters, stops, triggers, controls, contributes, changes, and so on. In the right company they are suggestive. But let them lose in the rhetoric of a leader determined to make his or her mark on the public stage, and they can be vacuous. This is the realm of the familiar idea of “unintended effects,” where what we intended and what actually happens are different. Verbs flatter us by making us active agents, but as President Trump has learned about Russia’s attacks on Ukraine, fantasies of power and control suggest more order in human affairs than usually exists.

There is another interesting twist here. The use of verbs to project expected outcomes is ironically aggravated by our devotion to the scientific method. As Psychologist Steven Pinker has observed, we can’t do science without buying into the view that we can identify first causes. That’s fine for discovering the origins of a troublesome human disease. But even though this logic has spread through the culture, it cannot hold when we immerse ourselves in the infinite complexities of human conduct. Discovering as opposed to fantasizing the reasons and motivations of others is difficult. Add in large entities such as nations or tribes, and first causes of their conduct are often unknowable. And so strategic calculations based on efforts to influence or control behavior are bound to produce disappointment.

It’s a great paradox that we are so easily outgunned by the stunningly capricious nature of the human condition. Take it from someone who has spent a lifetime writing and teaching why people change their minds. We have models, theories and loads of experimental research. But making predictions about any specific instance is almost always another case of hope defeated by extenuating circumstances. We may be able to say what we want, giving eloquent expression to the goals we seek. Our verbs may sing their certainty. But forces we can’t predict are going to produce their own effects.