---

Crisis Rhetoric
Since 1981 a massive research project now ongoing in 78 countries called the World Values Surveys has been tracking changes in what our species believes. It breaks out two kinds of values: traditional ones like the importance of family, religion, and patriotism and what they call secular-rational ones like personal and political freedom and ethical choices about things like abortion, euthanasia, and divorce. Not surprisingly, they follow a shift from the first to the second kind of values as societies move into the industrialized world. They also track a more interesting shift within developed nations from “survival” values like physical safety and material well-being toward ones of “self-expression” like personal fulfillment, intellectual and spiritual openness, and acceptance of diversity and other people in general. The data it turns out, shows that trend to be true in every modern, post-industrial civilization, well, just about. Because with the sole exception of Ireland, Americans share the most traditional value systems in the 21st century “developed” world.
Since the survey’s inception, Americans have consistently maintained “some of the highest levels of religious belief, conservative family values, absolute moral standards, and other traditional values” says University of Michigan professor Wayne Baker in his new book “America’s Crisis of Values: Reality and Perception.” Studies by Baker and others show that “America’s attitudes about race, gender, crime, liberals and conservatives, and sexual morality have become less polarized over time” and are actually “converging, not separating.” 24 years of statistical evidence he says, prove that traditional values are not declining, nor are we deeply divided over them.
So why then is there such widespread perception the opposite’s true? To listen to the debate over Justice Sandra O’Connor’s replacement, one could think a cultural apocalypse is immanent. We’re not seeking to downplay the significance of that, the implications are as huge as most people think. But we hope people will both work and pray for the protection of our Constitution under our nation’s current leadership, whose ideas on civil liberties, privacy, human and reproductive rights, and church & state we find, frankly, terrifying. And the thought that the final opinions in these areas will soon be written by another justice as extreme in their views as Antonin Scalia or ClarenceThomas is almost too painful to bear. Especially disturbing to us is the early circulation of the name Alberto Gonzales, whose ideas on what protections our constitution does and doesn’t provide us we think are appalling.
If Professor Baker is right and our national values aren’t nearly as divided as we are politically, then why do so many of us think they are? Well Baker speculates that America may have developed a unique need for what he calls “crisis rhetoric.” Because our strong traditional values are constantly conflicting with our also strong self-expressive ones, the tensions that cause are expressed through the language of conflict and the appearance of irreconcilable difference. And so one or both sides of any wide scale debate often sound the alarm of cultural warfare, along with threats that our traditional values are under siege or fading fast. Most of the time, neither’s probably true. Instead what we’re hearing is the normal plurality of voices in a democracy and we thank God for that. But it’s what Baker says about the net effect of this that we find interesting. These false alarms ultimately and politically serve a consistent purpose; they weaken our self-expressive values like learning, personal growth, openness, and acceptance, and affirm and reinforce those that speak to family, religion, and patriotism. Our read of that is the more people yell that the past is in danger, the faster we’re headed back there for better or for worse.
So what lessons can we draw from this, here, this summer, in our somewhat strained mountain paradise? We thought you’d be asking. And while we won’t presume to offer answers, we will offer a few suggestions: Let us try and not judge too quickly, lest we be judged ourselves, ridiculously. Let us try and see all viewpoints as having some validity, until it becomes crystal clear they may not. Let us try and see crisis only where there is crisis, and not because someone tells us there’s a crisis. Let’s try and see conflict – especially conflict in values when it appears – as something to be avoided for it’s own sake. Instead let’s try and look at issues on their merits and not in the light of the crisis rhetoric in which they’re often framed. Finally, and we say this is view of the upcoming political season, let’s see if everyone can stick to the truth and try and show respect for each other and for themselves.
One final thought. Those World Values Surveys show that perhaps because of our unusual mix of national values, Americans at a higher rate than any other people in the world, spend more time and energy questioning and contemplating the meaning and purpose of life. If that’s not good news, we don’t know what is. And for that we thank every church, temple, and monastery around, and anyone else posing thoughtful questions, ethical perspectives and guidance. To us it’s a sign that whatever foolishness the collective dialogue may hold, in time we’ll find ourselves on the right track.