Lead us not into Temptation

Within a few months, we will have to learn a change to the Lord’s Prayer. Every so often, liturgical changes come down from on high, and we have to respond. It is difficult, because one of the purposes of ritual is repetition; we are supposed to murmur our prayers from familiarity, only occasionally thinking more deeply about their meaning.

It takes years to embed a change. It must be ten years now since “of one being” became “consubstantial” in the Nicene Creed. I still murmur it wrongly now. Listening to others reciting the Lord’s Prayer, I still hear a mixture of who’s and which’s and thy’s and yours’s, from changes introduced decades ago but not consistently across congregations.

Understanding all this, liturgical committees only change when they see a very good reason, although I would argue that consubstantial fails that test pretty clearly. The impending change is to the line “lead us not into temptation”, which will change, I believe, to “let us not be led into temptation”. The logic is that God loves us, so would hardly lead us to sin; rather it is we who are sinners, perhaps influenced by Satan, who need God’s protection. I guess if we can accept that God seems to allow an awful lot of suffering for no obvious purpose into the world, we can also buy into this logic. Still, I wonder if I will be flawless in the new rendition before God chooses to end my mortal life.

Anyway, considering the change made me think about the nature of temptation, so perhaps some good has come of it. The main outcome has been amazement at how poor we are at resisting temptation, and to wonder why that might be.

Even though we know what causes obesity, humanity moves from malnourishment to widespread obesity within two generations. We cannot fail to know by now the harm that smoking causes, yet still many partake. The same is true of drugs and alcohol. Most of us find ourselves attracted to forms of pornography, and many find it hard to remain fully honest within a monogamous relationship. We understand something about debt and the odds around gambling, but many succumb. Social media has created a large class of purveyors of vitriol. Our phones lead us so easily into idle wasting of time, even when we know we should be sleeping. We would rather binge watch junk than educate ourselves with anything that makes us think. We become very tribal in how we respect others and constantly seek affirmation of views that the slightest thought would have us reject. We text while driving despite knowing the risks. Some of us too easily become violent, and a few even contemplate suicide. Most will undertake unprotected sex at some point in our lives despite being aware of the potential consequences of such recklessness.

It is hard to read this list and to feel righteous. There are clearly differences between thoughts, occasional actions and habitual actions, but most of us would have to admit to at least a few habitual actions from the list.

The bible apparently does not list seven deadly sins, but we have Pope Gregory I in the sixth century to thank for pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath and sloth as our list of shame. No wonder he did, he must have been perplexed at how strong each of these temptations is, no doubt even for himself. All of the list above can be classed under one or more of the seven sinful categories.

Most of the potential pitfalls above feel to me like manifestations of the classic child experiment about self-control. The child is offered one marshmallow now, or two later, and many cannot resist the urge for instant gratification. We are those children, when we binge or pig out or flirt or get out the credit card or condemn others.

That might lead to a more helpful way of looking at temptation than self- flagellation. Most are natural consequences of humanity, our evolution and our chemical make up. Many urges emerged as necessary ways to develop our own species, either through reproduction, nurturing or just surviving. Many remain good things in moderation. Even some of those we have come to proscribe in excess are merely societally imposed constraints, some with arguable benefits except for those making the rules.

Is temptation getting worse? I don’t know, but some trends don’t help. We don’t trust our elders and our clerics so much nowadays, so the old constraints around sin don’t work so well, especially when we see those same clerics as flawed and hypocritical. An open and free society creates all sorts of tempting situations, and technology brings some to our fingertips. Stressful lives lead us towards options for easy relief.

Most of all, it seems that modern capitalism is almost designed to encourage temptation. That single marshmallow is so often gift-wrapped, and its opportunity cost obscured. My car dealer is paid handsomely by a bank to persuade me to buy with a financial package. He gets his sale, the bank might get lots of interest when I default later, both sets of shareholders make their 6% real, and I even have some new shiny wheels, but might be in debt for life. States are rushing to promote lotteries, casinos, sports betting and legalised drugs. Facebook designs everything to keep me hooked, and coca cola supersizes my gut. They all pay lip service to moderation only in their small print, though even the state pays in the end through higher medical and law enforcement bills.

Back to the marshmallow experiment, which kids demonstrated most self-restraint? It was the educated ones from stable and affluent families. And this trend reinforces itself, because waiting for two marshmallows is also a good predictor for future affluence.

This leads to a different way to think about temptation. We are humans, so we are all tempted, and the most vulnerable are the most tempted. It is not a sin be to be human. If we want to be good humans, we should work to make sure that the things we condemn are really those that damage us, and that more of us can understand this and have tools to make better choices. Some marshmallows are just nice and can be enjoyed in abundance. Some we can indulge in moderation as a choice, but with good disclosure about consequences. And others are just poisonous, primarily that ones that harm the young.

We should not cast the first stone, but be honest about our own temptation, and the fact that if we have better self-control than others that probably reflects our lucky legacy more than our godliness. Indeed, we should accept that if others err, there will usually be good reasons. There are few health food stores in Baltimore but plenty of loan sharks. If your life is likely to be brutal and short, then it is only common sense to be reckless and enjoy today. A sweet marshmallow is very tempting to someone who is hungry.  

As usual, I am optimistic. Education can help successive generations make smarter choices. Health science has huge and imminent scope to work on our chemical make-up and to improve therapy. There are plenty of good tools available already, and more will follow. Humanity is progressing quickly, with or without help from God.

But the risks are also obvious and perhaps increasing. Populism offers a huge sweet marshmallow with beautiful wrapping. Populists in power only want to make those marshmallows sweeter still and to consume plenty of them too, while the planet burns. Authoritarians can reduce marshmallow consumption, but only by fiat.

We do indeed lead ourselves into temptation. We can be honest in accepting that, even embracing it, and then helping ourselves and those more vulnerable to limit marshmallow intake to a healthy level. It is not a bad social manifesto. And that way we can forgive trespasses and be delivered from evil too, no matter how Pope Gregory I’s successor chooses to word those phrases.

Socialism and Conservatism: Dead and Deader?

There have been various articles recently about crises in the two philosophies represented by dominant political parties in developed countries since 1945, or even since 1918. I decided to think about how much I believed these doomsayers, why they might be right or wrong, and what might happen in the future.

From 1945-2000, in most developed nations, there were two dominant political parties, one of which could be described as conservative, and the other socialist. In the USA, the socialist party was much less progressive than elsewhere. Most places had a centrist party, occasionally sharing power. Places with proportional voting systems had a higher number of viable parties, representing a few specialised interests and a few shades of conservatism or socialism, but the two blocs plus close clones dominated power and retained vote shares of 80% or more.

The degree to which this has changed depends on how proportional the voting system is. In places used to many parties such as the Netherlands, the number of viable parties has only grown fractionally, but the ones associated with socialism and conservatism have seen reduced vote shares. Spain and Germany might be the most representative of the trends. In both places, two plus a few pieces have fractured into five or six, with the traditional two losing dominance. In the USA, Australia and the UK, the two historical parties have retained power, but vote shares are slipping and the internal coalitions within each party are fraying. It is fair to argue that only the advantages of incumbency have prevented a mass splintering there as well.

What is wrong with socialism and conservatism? Each has its own sorry story, and in my opinion each deserves its fate.

Socialism came to prominence after 1900 as a philosophy of resistance, specifically in the field of work. Workers deserved fair conditions regulated by the state, with a goal of reducing the power, often inherited, of the class owning most capital. Towards the same goal of a society of more equality of opportunity, socialists succeeded in growing the range of services provided publicly for all, such as education and much healthcare, with the obvious trade off of higher taxes.

One problem with socialism is always that it seems to start from a position of envy and resentment, and that its passion seems to come more from depriving the privileged than building up the rest. Hence high progressive taxes are presented as a goal or lead policy, rather than as necessary funding for the real goals.

Then came a series of chinks in the power of socialism. The collapse of communism showed that state control is no panacea and that people ostensibly working for common people can be as corrupt as anybody else. Socialists advocated trade unions as a sound means to balance the rights of workers with employers, but stayed wedded to those unions as they abused power, protected insiders and blocked progress, even as mass industrial employment declined in importance. As globalisation created investors as a crucial stakeholder, many of the weapons of socialism were blunted, and those regimes that denied that reality failed dismally. A breed of socialists such as Blair and Schröder accepted that reality and did some good but splintered their internal coalitions as a result, as did others prepared to prop up conservative led governments. The urban, doctrinaire branch of socialism, often pacifist and pro immigrant, lost touch with the regular working families they claimed to represent. Wedded to unions, socialists were slow to embrace important issues such as the environment and flexible education. Some socialists, such as Hollande, became impotent when in power, with no practical solutions compatible with both global finance and their own interest groups.

It is hard to see a way forward for socialism, even though its goals remain as noble as ever in an age of rising inequality. Socialists can seem from another era, with outdated talk of nationalisation and bashing the rich. They can still win with charismatic leaders and propitious circumstances, such as recently in Spain, but in power their room for manoeuvre is often limited by the threats from mobile capital and internal luddite interests.

But if things look bad for socialists, they may be worse for conservatives, for they have been invaded from within.

Conservatism is a bit harder to define than socialism. Maybe a good start is the word moderation. The Economist, natural conservatives appalled by its recent demise, tried to craft a defence of conservatism a few weeks ago. There were references to common sense, established science and respect for evidence, avoiding bleeding edges, and respect for institutions like a civil service, churches, universities, lawyers, business leaders, the military and even monarchy. It all read very smug and “Daddy knows best”, and helped me to understand its demise. I certainly wouldn’t want much to do with a party that embodies all of that paternalism.

Before 1979, many conservatives “did a Blair”, and accepted the validity of the socialist agenda, only modifying its pace of implementation. Then Thatcher and Reagan gave conservatism a harder edge, advocating a smaller state, strong business and markets, and individual responsibility. This can initially be argued as a necessary correction to a nanny and union dominated state created by socialists. But since then conservatives have simply kept their foot hard down on that pedal, even as inequality and hardship multiplied, and while lurching to failure even on their own terms of economic growth. We were left with greed, smug paternalism, social denial and failed economics.

This ugly cocktail could still win elections, especially as its few beneficiaries could increasingly buy up media and politicians, but was obviously running out of steam. This can explain the embrace of racist nationalism in some countries, together with opportunism such as loss of fiscal discipline and vilification of elites. Conservatives have always put power first and principles second, but now the naked need for power has jettisoned many of the most important principles. This is a crisis indeed, and one with no sign of an exit door, given the complete absence of any genuine agenda that a majority could support, and the insatiable demands from global capital that pays to control its representatives.

I believe we might be starting to see an endgame for these twin crises, with France the forerunner, and the recent European elections also a signal. Greens have finally become mainstream, and have learned to combine practical environmental policies with the less doctrinaire aspects of socialism (improved affordable public services, humanism) and conservatism (data driven approaches, markets with regulation). Meanwhile, most of the rest of the electorate is open to a message driven by fear of immigrants and resentment of elites. Instead of class against class we now have agile against rooted.

The labels will be different in different countries. The speed of realignment will also vary, notably because of the degree of incumbency advantage and how easy it is for big money to poison debate. But the change is real and accelerating. The greens in Germany have been credible for years and might lead the next government. Macron versus Le Pen fits the new model. The Spanish socialists have moved closer to the green ideal. In the US, Italy, Hungary and the UK the conservatives have been defeated, either from within or without, by nationalists. Also in the UK, the most recent bi-election saw a pact between greens, liberals and others defeat the new nationalists.

It is often a fools game to predict a major realignment of global politics, such are the advantages of incumbents and establishments. But we might just be witnessing such a moment now. It is just possible that socialism and true conservatism might really be dead and deader. I might shed one small tear for one, and none at all for the other.    

The summer of 1969, and of 2069

This summer has seen a number of TV shows remembering events of 50 years ago. Quite a few have been about the Apollo moon-landing programme. I have not been especially interested in those, apart from the sad observation that anybody could think it was smart to put the flag of a nation on another planet, as if this was a triumph for just a part of humanity. Imagine if we ever have alien visitors, and the first thing they tried to point out was that they were from some small part of some other planet. It makes no sense.

This week is the anniversary of Woodstock, and PBS showed a fascinating retrospective about it that had me laughing out loud. It was also fun to have visited Woodstock ourselves earlier this summer, to witness a town full of folk who still behaved as though it was 1969, and that they were still 25 instead of 75.

I had a couple of takeaways from the Woodstock documentary. One was to note just how stoned everybody appeared to be. This era was certainly an expression of freedom, fired up by marijuana. Like so much in history, this rather extreme moment led to a backlash, so my generation grew up rather frightened of soft drugs, probably due to some establishment propaganda arising from the Woodstock crowd. The long cycle may be turning again now, with legalisation in the US and elsewhere. I have never partaken myself, but I started a discussion about it with my family this week, because a part of me is challenging the taboo and wondering why we should deny ourselves a low-risk pleasure.

The funniest expression of the stoned crowd organising Woodstock came in interviews about the final planning for the event. They seemed to forget about security, and then hired this bunch of rank amateurs, hippies themselves, from New Mexico, whose approach to security seemed to be centred upon asking everyone if they felt good. Then in the last week, they fell so far behind that they had to decide whether to complete the stage or the fence. They wisely chose the stage, so at least they had a concert rather than a riot, but the upshot was that nobody paid an entrance fee. Overall it was striking how lacking in commerciality the whole event was, with hardly any food concessions or corporate support. That could not happen today, which is sad in a way but has its advantages – such as available toilets.

My other takeaway concerned what led to the mass rebellion that was the hippie movement, and that was how far society had moved away from its youth. The establishment remit was absolute and rather ridiculous, whether in church doctrine, parental norms, dress codes, available entertainment or pursuing the war in Vietnam.

In that environment it is not surprising that the rebellion was so intense, but perhaps it is surprising how quickly the cycle turned afterwards, despite few concessions by the conservative establishment. My theory is that the main thing to change after 1969 was better parenting. Thank goodness for that.

Earlier in the summer there were other shows about Stonewall and the repression of the nascent LGBT movement. These shows were also made more interesting because of a current connection – each Sunday I sing around the corner from the Stonewall Inn, so we get to know the Village a little bit, and to greatly admire it.

The Stonewall retrospectives are more jarring, which ultimately is for a good reason. It seems unconscionable that just 50 years ago, in my lifetime, society could perpetrate such barbarity against people who were only looking for love. I remind myself that I have also followed a journey in first tolerating and then celebrating LGBT, but it was still shocking to see just what fear and cruelty homosexuality engendered so recently (and, we must remind ourselves, still does in many parts of the world).

Watching scenes from 50 years ago that now seem unconscionable made me pose a question for myself. In 2069, what will seem unconscionable about 2019? I have thought of three, all mainly pertaining to developed countries. But some developing countries will not be far behind.

The first is homelessness. I see this on the streets of New York every day, and have become somewhat inured to it, but in reality it is a disgrace to humanity that we go about our daily lives ignoring people suffering so much. In 50 years time, people will see pictures of our subways and alleys and be horrified that we let this happen. It is not hard to fix. If we start with the attitude that a home, like an education or basic healthcare, is a human right, then we can eliminate the problem.

Many trends will help. Start with mental health and addiction, the twin scourges behind much homelessness. Medicine will advance on both fronts, so the vulnerable number will quickly diminish. Then cities will become more liveable, not least because the end of the age of the car will free up space. Then, society can find solutions in the form of affordable housing, smarter rent laws, universal basic incomes and continuing education, and the problem can almost vanish.

Next is racism and nationalism. One striking feature of the Woodstock programme was how lily white it all was. In the cities of many developed countries, that has changed a lot, even if gaps in privilege are still everywhere. We see more mixed marriages and a generation growing up finding mixed race heritage an exotic blessing. The world is getting smaller and people are travelling and building a wider picture.

In this environment, the narrative of loyalty to a military nation state and demonization of other races and colours will gradually lose all credibility. The current spasm of racist nationalism in the US will eventually snap the rubber band back quickly, and such nonsense will be seen for what it is, the last rumblings of an establishment losing its younger people.

I also believe we can make some progress towards global open borders, a natural consequence of the factors above. It just needs some smart thinking about economics, in which migrants have some obligations to the countries they leave and those they arrive in, and both of those countries have some obligations as well. Rich countries will get older and will have a need for immigrants, so this sort of deal will go through, because corporations will slowly push them through over the complaints of some of the public. Then we can start to say goodbye to nationalism, and, more slowly, to racism. In 50 years we will have come a long way, and the ugly scenes of the Trump presidency will seem unconscionable.

I have hopes for a third revolution, in the areas of sex, chid rearing and cohabitation. I think there might be a medical breakthrough to essentially remove the chance of pregnancy from sex, unless both participants enable the possibility. So the default will reverse, from one where pregnancy is possible unless proactively disabled (with the responsibility in practice on the woman), to one where the default is safe sex (since disease can also be made much less likely) unless both parties actively seek pregnancy, in which case the odds of pregnancy can also be increased.

This could have wide-ranging consequences. It can further the cause of gender equality. It can radically reduce the number of kids born into tough circumstances. And it can enable a revival of sex itself as a pleasurable pursuit, something the Woodstock kids embraced perhaps rather too strongly but which today’s youth have lost a bit. Then we might see more imaginative sexual couplings, including more bisexuality and more BDSM (Fifty shades will be laughed at in fifty years for sure but its popularity does point a way forward in a way).

At the same time, lifetime partnerships may become more unusual, partly because of the cost of city housing, so we might start seeing long-term cohabitation by groups of four or six, with flexible sexuality and roles including child-rearing.

This last prediction for 2069 might be a bit less likely and also a bit less clearly defined than the other two, but it does feel possible to me, with the key step being the decoupling of sex from pregnancy. And this third prediction would be the one that raised the biggest cheer from the 1969 folks I’ve been watching on TV this summer.

If I am alive in 2069 I will be 109. It is not so unlikely, there will be many centenarians around by then. If I still alive and still have some senses, I can look at old film and feel guilty for tolerating homelessness and celebrate the demise of racism. I might have been a marijuana user, though by then most likely in a medicated form. But I can't imagine being in any shape to embrace the next sexual revolution!