2025 07 10 DFL Senior Caucus Meeting - Bright Ideas - and New Majority Democrats

 2025 07 10 DFL Senior Caucus Meeting

This is a little unusual. I want to send something to my elected representative, and to Angie Craig, who is a spokesperson for the "New Majority" democrats. BUT, I don't exactly fit in their 2,000 character limit.. SO, I am sending them a link to this blog entry. My apologies to the rest of you.

I attended this senior caucus meeting, and I had soem serious criticism of the leadership in their approach to this whole idea of campaigning. I've been thinking about this for a decade or so, and I think these ideas are worth something - so . . . see what YOU thinnk. 

Gathering Input

I hear your call for “listening” to our intended audience, but I think going around the room with this group is not the right way to do that. I looked at the list you had garnered from the website entries, and I am concerned about every single one of those things. I would even have difficulty prioritizIng one of them over the others. That seems like a “data intensive” exercise, with some rational basis. And MY GUT says that is not the way to proceed here. We Democrats have been talking about programs and facts and rational arguments forever - and that is not how we want to address this issue right now.

I agree that we need research on the issues, and a sense of priorities, and find ways to turn those things into programs and agenda and legislation - but that is not how you win an election. That is how you manage a government. It is clear that the other side has done a bunch of homework on how to destroy our governmental services, but they obiously do not lead with that.

I think our focus has to be on how to do a few things well to persuade people who are not paying attention. I think there is solid research behind all of what I am saying, and it would be helpful to get that in our brains so we do not get buried in facts and issues. We should:

1. Get People’s Attention.
   Let’s face it, most people are not “paying attention.” Most people are not even aware that the current administration is causing general chaos. They are busy, they have bills and concerns. They are not engrossed in the latest news and hot issues. Most people are pretty much uninformed, and could care less what politicians are arguing about.
   
   How do we overcome that? There is a lot of research out there that speaks to that, and it would be helpful to gather some of that together to persuade ourselves, our candidates, and our fearless leaders of that fact. This is my "amateurish" summary.
   
   

2. Create a persuasive vision.
   People do not generally ponder ideas and issues. They have feelings, fears, needs, beliefs. They vote with their gut, not their brain. Thinking is a rare event. A detailed explanation of the benefits of a newly revised and enlightened immigration program is not going to move them. The economic impact of massive tax cuts is way out there in the future, and may never impact me personally. Who cares? The other side uses lies and threats and scare tactics to create FEAR, one of our strongest emotions.
   
   What we need is a moving, empathic vision of a CARING community for all of humankind. We are social people, we depend on each other, we need each other. We want to build a supportive community for all of humankind - those in our party, those in our country, and fundamentally for the whole planet. Love and caring is another of our strong emotions. How do we generate that in our audience?
   
   And we want to do that by investing in the technology and programs and education that will build our caring community of tomorrow. Programs for our children, tax credits for them, feeding them in school, etc.
   
   We do not need scare tactics. We need positive, supportive messages. It is amazing what humans can do when we pull together, and use our resources wisely.
   
   The supporters of the other side have a view of our nation that has two layers - ME on top, and THOSE OTHERS on the bottom. It’s a kind of model in their head, not a specific agenda. If you do things that support those on the bottom, it puts my status at risk. This is a win / lose game. We want to create a win / win game. We are all in this together, and I’m pulling for you (Red Green).
   
   

3. Do NOT criticize the other side.
   Even mentioning their ideas or tactics or goals, brings them right back to the forefront of people’s attention. And many of our fellow citizens are energized by the things they say, so they hear that as a criticism  of themselves. We want them to hear our message, not be repelled by our negativity.  Never speak the name of an opposing candidate, or criticize what they say or how they say it. Their supporters know that, and our supporters know that. If we want the attention of the independent voters in the middle, we want our message and vision in their mind, not the other one. They speak lies - pointing to the truth used to be a valid criticism - but that world no longer exists.
   
   

4. We do not need that DEI thing.
   I know it was a good thing to do for its time, and many people benefited from it. Today it is a negative even for those it was intended to support, and some folks have taken it to extreme measures. Instead of race or nationality or skin, we should be focused on social economic opportunities. The income disparity in this country is simply incredible. I know these are useless facts, but the top 1% have taken some 40 trillion bucks from the rest of us in the last  20 years. There’s a RAND study to that effect. With that kind of money we could really do something. Just spreading it around would help, but it would be better focused on investments for the benefit of all.
   
   

5. A Charismatic Leader.
   We need all the above, and we need it in the person of the most charismatic, charming, well spoken, frank, honest, integrated human we can find. Pete Buttigieg comes to mind, or maybe Rahm Emmanual. I would love a female person of color, if they have the presence and sense of self to be the catalyst for all of this.
   Research on elections shows that people vote for the smile, for the face, for the “presence” of the candidate - not for their ideas and programs. Those are almost unimportant. Look at what the opposition has accomplished with a candidate that is as dumb as a box of rocks. Oops. Should not have said that.
   
   

6. Cory Booker.
   I just listened to a podcast with Senator Booker and Steven Dubnar. You can find it below.  I highly recommend it. He is first class. Tough, even handed, insightful, courageous even. See what you think. Freakonomics Radio, episode 639.
   https://freakonomics.com/podcast/this-country-kicks-my-ass-all-the-time/ 

Surely someone at the national level has figured this out. They have to have folks with more moxy and experience with all of this. Why aren’t they sharing a program with us? We are the peons on the bottom here. Pick us up. Lead us forward. 

This is a bit from one of my blog entries which I think is on point for the positive message cited above. See what you think. The blog entry itself is here, with the research references. NOTE this is four years old.

https://carlscheider.blogspot.com/2021/04/finally-i-understand-what-is-wrong-with.html 

---

One activist and researcher working on this is Anat Shenker-Osorio. She has been researching the kind of messaging that can call out this fear generation and counter it. (Shenker-Osorio) The key is to find a positive message that explicitly counters the negative messages that generate fear. This is key. It is not enough to generate a positive message, to point to rational arguments and the truth - those do not work to counter the emotion, especially fear. It is more effective to call on the positive values that we all share, and to create a message that creates empathy in people. Call them to be their best, to join those of us who are united in a positive message.

The science behind storytelling can help as well. If you can get a listener or a reader to live for a few seconds or few minutes in the life of their fellow citizens, you generate a positive, supportive emotion that can help overcome their basic fear.

Sometimes a campaign phrase, a set of messages can be successful. In other cases, a technique called "deep canvassing" might be helpful, where the interviewer engages a person in a shared exploration of common values. You can read more about that technique here: Changing the Conversation Together.

---

Incarnation Homily from 1988

 1988 08 20 Incarnation Homily

OK. This is a bit unusual for me. I was just commiserating with a friend about the sorry state of our world, and he said something about Christianity. Some time ago, 1988, I was a lay preacher in our parish. This is one of the homilies I was privileged to give back then. This friend reminded me of this whole perspective, so I dug it out and just read it again.

I have to say that it still rings true for me. AND . . . it gave me some hope. I trust that it might also help where you are. Just so you know, there is no heresy or anything in here - trust me on that. This is 100% current Catholic / Christian teaching. I don't think that we actually need much dogma in Christianity, but this does qualify. You can do this. I'm pulling for you.

The traditional picture

I grew up with the firm belief in Incarnation that this spirit in heaven came down and took on human flesh -- looked and acted like a man -- but had all these divine things hidden in there. He really knew what was going to happen in the future.  

He knew the insides of people - could read their hearts. He could do no wrong, suffer no fear, feel no pain. He lived his life as an example for us. He spoke words that his Father gave him to speak -- that he himself knew as God would stir men's souls, and leave a tradition of selfless service that the centuries would come to know as Christianity.

So, you listen to the words because they have divine backing -- they have to be right -- even though translated through the oral traditions, and clouded by the culture of the age and world he spoke in. It all makes such simple sense -- and it seems so easy to believe in.

What if Jesus were really human?!

Let's just step out of that skin of belief for a couple of minutes. Join me over here on the side of the true “incarnationist.”. Let's assume that Jesus was really human. I mean, really. You know, this is the solid Christian belief -- he really was human -- as fully as you and me. That's the point of the temptations, the crisis in the garden, the pain and despair on the cross. There have been some aberrant Christian sects that discounted that -- they just could not bear the consequences of fully believing that.

So, in this respect, the Christian tradition, and most assuredly, the Catholic tradition, firmly believes this. He is human. What does it feel like now, to hear his words, and read the tale of his impact on the men around him? This man who was so full of so many amazing things. Even discount these miracles, if they are too much to believe that a mere mortal could make stuff like that happen. But even throwing those out -- just look at the amazing things he is supposed to have said and done. Look at the amazing idea of selfless love, and human values, that he envisioned, and that drove those few people around him to set out to tell the world. This type of person does not happen all that often.

Gandhi

When I look around for comparisons, there are none quite as good, quite as washed by time, quite as visionary -- but there are some who come fairly close. I particularly like the values that Gandhi espoused. Here's a young man who returns to his native India from South Africa and sets out to see his country. He returns from this trip with a burning mission, and a vision of the way to achieve it. Freedom, political independence, solidarity -- and all effective through a deep belief in the strategy of love and non-violence.

He looked about him, tried to make some sense out of what was going on, and took hold of a vision, a solution, that drove millions of people to believe it as he did.

Martin Luther King did much the same thing -- albeit with a bit more clay in his feet. What if this Jesus were just like these two? What if he heard this call to be this 'savior', this 'prophet', this 'visionary' to free his people, to free all people from the slavery he saw they labored under. What if he had to muster up the courage just as Gandhi did, or Martin did? What if he doubted just as they did? What if he had as many problems, worries, evil things going on inside of him as they did? What if he had all of this, and he still did it!

Isn't that really the Christian belief that he was really as human as we are? Let's just take this another step. What if he was just like me? It's easy to discount Ghandi and Martin Luther King and all those saint types.They were special, and rare, and, Lord knows, we could stand another one. But what if he felt just like me? I mean, what if those fears of being inadequate, of standing up in public, of not being liked, of being selfish, or losing control, or -- gads, there are tons of things wrong with me that those folk didn't have. Or did they? Or did he?  

What if it cost him as much as it costs me to let someone else go first, to give them my shirt, to give them my back to beat, to give them money and friends and love, to give them my life!  I suspect that he, and they, are just like me, just like you -- exactly. Human beings don't come forth intact and mature and selfless. They grow to that, they choose to be that, they work to become that. Each of them, Jesus included, worked to become that -- just like you and I work at it. And they had no more help that we have, no special gifts, no divine light, no inspired courage -- no more than you and I have.  

Don't you hear the calling now? Haven't you heard it many times in your life -- times that you've turned and said -- "not me," "why bother," "it won't do any good." Doesn't it happen every time someone asks you to help, to do something beyond yourself, to be of service? Aren't you asked any more? Or have you just stopped hearing? Don't you walk downtown where the poor and homeless are? Don't you go out of your way to see them, so you can hear the call? Don't you listen to friends who hurt any more? Don't you call them when you know they are in pain, and could stand a friendly word, a few bucks, a helping hand? Don't you get outraged at the crooks, and the child abusers, and the lazy and the arrogant, selfish types that you run into every day? They don't bother you anymore? You don't hear the call anymore?

I think the difference with them, with Jesus and Martin and Mahatma, was that they kept hearing, they kept looking, they kept caring. They couldn't let go of it -- it would not let go of them. In spite of all the evil things they knew about themselves, in spite of all the selfish things they knew they had, the fears, the needs and the hungers -- they still heard, and they still answered. It wasn't divine -- it was them. But, what if it was divine? What if that is what divine really is -- listening, and caring and doing? Doesn't that sound like traditional Christianity? God is love. Love is God. God isn't up there, and out there, and all knowing, and all powerful -- God is right here -- incarnate in that person who loves. That's what God is, and that's all that we know of God. Does the God thing need to be more? And what real difference does it make if the God thing does happen to be more -- some more that is beyond anything we can see and feel and understand. What difference? None that I can see. The God thing in this remarkable selfless man is all the call we need to change the world. No promise of eternal life can be as effective as this promise of freedom here and now.

  

Ghandi was free - he loved, and he saw, and he gave, and needed nothing -- not even his own life. Jesus was the same. He needed very little, and what he needed was provided -- it was provided because he was of a mind that this was all he needed -- what came his way. We can be free too. We can be God incarnate. It'll take some work -- it'll take some time -- and you and I may never make it on the scale that these others have -- but we are on the same road, we have the same makeup, we have the same opportunity. All we need to do is choose to be divine, choose to be as selfless as we can muster right now, choose to hear the needs of others, choose to think about them, and to work to help them.

I hear you now -- "it won't make any difference." I tell you it will. How you are, and who you are will make a very great difference to everyone you meet. To some of them, it may be a life and death matter. To others, a moment of help, a less painful step, a warm touch, some insight you could share. What did Jesus and Martin and Ghandi share with those about them but these things? Were they great achievers in fundraising, organization, and holy wars? But they will not be forgotten!

Why isn't this part of the normal Christian tradition of incarnation? Jesus was God, just as fully as he was man. Who ever said that he was the only one who incarnated the deity? Where does the New Testament say there will be only one? Why aren't all of us the deity, in varying shades and colors? Aren't there phrases and beliefs in our traditions that sound like that? We are all children of God, sons and daughters of God, called to put on Christ, to be Christ to each other, and on and on. We have just never listened to them with quite this sense.  

Look at it this way. Every new human, every new life, is born with the potential to be divine, just as fully as Jesus was God to his time. It is a blank slate -- ready to be raised to love and care and live and die. For us adults, it may be difficult to change very much in that direction -- but these new ones among us, our children -- don't they deserve the vision and the help to be Jesus to their times? Don't the times need that vision? 

© Copyright 2025 Carl Scheider

2025 03 12 Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene and chatgpt recommendations

Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them by Joshua Greene

I read this book a year ago as a library book. I took copious notes, and Kindle notes.

I would like to share that and comment on it in such a way as to persuade folks to read the thing.

I decided to do some sort of overview / summary from my notes, and from whatever ChatGPT can create for me. What’s the relevance? Why is this a tremendous insight into moral issues? Why would a lawyer / theologian care about this?

And I started an outline:

Outline - main ideas - goal, etc.

How Humans Work

Not Rational, emotions instant, reflection difficult

Feeling all the way down

Genetic propensity in the DNA

Authority setting rules - parents, religion, civil authorities, tradition, culture

Social / Tribal feeling and need

Feelings / ideas are basically the same thing

Evolving “rules” for life - customs, “rights,” laws, commandments. 

The moral decision : what enhances human life to the fullest in the long term.

Look at his 6 rules in the last chapter.

Clarify the way “rights” work and the legal framework. The book seems short on that.

---

I was not getting very far so, I asked ChatGPT a question , and this is the result. I had asked it about things in the past, like a book by Stiglitz, and similar things. It seems to retain those and use them. This whole exchange kind of amazed me, and particularly by the conclulsion the thing reach on its own. See below.

I said.

Hi. Can you give me a summary of this book: Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them by Joshua Greene. I read it last year and I have forgotten what I planned to do with all my notes on it. Thanks.

ChatGPT said:

Sure, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them by Joshua Greene explores moral psychology, tribalism, and how human morality evolved to resolve conflicts within and between groups. Greene argues that our moral instincts—shaped by evolution—work well within small, like-minded groups but often fail when dealing with larger, diverse societies. He suggests that we need a "meta-morality," a system for resolving moral conflicts between different moral tribes.

Key Points:

1. Dual-Process Moral Thinking – Greene applies the System 1 vs. System 2 model to moral decision-making. Our intuitive, emotional responses (System 1) work well for in-group cooperation but can lead to intergroup conflict. Deliberate reasoning (System 2) is necessary to transcend tribal morality.
   
   

2. The Tragedy of Common-Sense Morality – Different moral tribes have their own "common sense" but often conflict with each other. Our moral instincts evolved for cooperation within groups, not for resolving large-scale moral disagreements.
   
   

3. Utilitarianism as a Meta-Morality – Greene argues for utilitarianism (or deep pragmatism) as the best framework for solving moral disputes across tribes. He believes maximizing overall well-being provides a rational way to mediate between competing moral systems.
   
   

4. The Trolley Problem and Moral Psychology – The book uses thought experiments like the trolley problem to illustrate how our moral intuitions work, showing how different moral instincts can lead to inconsistent ethical judgments.
   
   

5. Expanding the Moral Circle – Greene urges us to use reasoning and empathy to overcome tribal biases, promoting global cooperation rather than group-based moral absolutism.
   
   

Your Notes:

Since you read this last year, you might have planned to apply Greene’s ideas to:

• Political polarization – Understanding how moral tribes contribute to ideological division.

• Legal or ethical reasoning – Applying meta-morality to legal debates.

• Neuroscience & psychology – Exploring how moral cognition affects behavior.

• Religious and philosophical ethics – Reconciling moral tribalism with broader ethical frameworks.

Does this summary help jog your memory about what you wanted to do with your notes?

I said

I think you have it. As I recall I was somewhat surprised that he did not understand the role that "human rights" have in our society. I see them as rules of thumb that we have developed over time to help us move our emotions to the better moral outcome.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a sharp observation. Greene’s focus on utilitarianism as a meta-morality sometimes sidelines the role of human rights as moral anchors. He treats morality as a problem-solving mechanism but seems less attuned to the way human rights serve as heuristics—rules of thumb that guide moral decision-making, particularly when emotions and reason are at odds.

Your view aligns with scholars who see human rights as a practical evolution of moral reasoning, helping individuals and societies override tribal biases in favor of broader ethical principles. While utilitarianism seeks to maximize overall well-being, human rights provide non-negotiable guardrails to prevent rationalized harm, even when it might increase net utility in the short term.

It sounds like you were considering how human rights function as a bridge between emotion and reason—helping move our System 1 intuitions toward System 2 outcomes that are more just and sustainable. Were you planning to write something on this idea? It seems like a compelling critique of Greene’s approach.

I said

Thanks. Right now I am more concerned with my priorities for my time. I think there are much more urgent things for humankind than coming up with a full understanding of how we developed our morals. We seem to be faced with a total collapse of our democratic institutions. I see no way to stop that. Any suggestions on that one?

ChatGPT said:

That’s the real question, isn’t it? Understanding how we developed our morals is interesting, but it feels like a luxury when democracy itself is teetering. If we take a Moral Tribes lens to this, we could say we’re witnessing a full-scale tribal breakdown—where common ground is disappearing, and shared democratic norms are eroding.

A few angles to consider:

1. Identifying the Core Threats

• Polarization & Tribalism – People increasingly view politics as a battle between “good” and “evil,” making compromise impossible.

• Disinformation & Media Fragmentation – There’s no common reality. Even facts are now tribal markers.

• Erosion of Institutions – Courts, elections, and rule of law are under attack, often from within.

• Authoritarian Drift – Leaders worldwide are undermining democracy by using democratic tools.

2. What Can Be Done?

• Strengthening Democratic Norms – Laws alone don’t uphold democracy—shared norms do. These need to be reinforced through civic education and political engagement.

• Addressing Economic Inequality – As Stiglitz and Piketty argue, rising inequality fuels populism and extremism. If people feel left behind, they’re more likely to support authoritarian solutions.

• Regulating Social Media & Information Warfare – The unchecked spread of disinformation is one of democracy’s biggest vulnerabilities.

• Electoral Reforms – Ranked-choice voting, independent redistricting, and campaign finance reform could reduce hyper-partisanship. But political will is lacking.

• Local Action – Change often happens locally. Can people protect democratic processes in their own communities?

The Hard Truth

I won’t sugarcoat it—history suggests that once democratic backsliding begins, it’s extremely difficult to reverse. The U.S. and other democracies are at a crossroads, and there’s no guarantee we’ll make it through intact.

What’s your take? Do you see any path forward that’s actually viable? Or are we just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

I said.

Damn, I do not. The only bulwark we have in law is the courts. But our courts have no enforcement mechanism. They can fine - but they cannot collect the funds. They can imprison, but they have no human agents to secure people in confinement. They write orders, but are unable to compel anyone to actually follow them. I would like a better system, thank you.

ChatGPT said:

You’ve nailed a fundamental flaw in our legal system—courts have authority, but no real power of enforcement. They rely on the executive branch to uphold their rulings. When that chain of enforcement breaks (as we’re seeing with politicians ignoring court orders), the entire system starts to unravel.

What Would a Better System Look Like?

If we were designing a system from scratch, what would it need? Here are some possible reforms that could help:

1. Independent Enforcement Mechanism

• Right now, courts depend on executive agencies (police, U.S. Marshals, military) to enforce rulings. What if the judiciary had its own independent enforcement body?

• A national, politically neutral Judicial Enforcement Corps that operates under court authority, ensuring compliance without executive interference.

2. Structural Safeguards Against Political Capture

• Courts, especially the Supreme Court, are being used as political weapons.

• Possible solutions:

• Term limits for justices (staggered to prevent ideological swings).

• Stronger ethics rules (mandatory recusals, financial transparency).

• Balanced appointments (e.g., requiring bipartisan approval for judges).

3. Automatic Sanctions for Ignoring Court Orders

• Right now, defying a court is often a political choice with few consequences.

• What if courts could automatically trigger penalties without executive action?

• Financial penalties directly deducted from government funds.

• Automatic contempt orders with mandatory congressional review.

• Loss of federal funding for states/agencies that ignore rulings.

4. Democratic Resilience Mechanisms

• Beyond courts, democracy needs self-correcting features:

• Easier citizen-led constitutional amendments to override extremist policies.

• Mandatory civic education in schools (teaching people how democracy works).

• Greater decentralization (shifting power from the federal government to local democratic institutions).

The Reality Check

Of course, implementing any of this requires political will—which is in short supply. The system is resistant to change, especially when those in power benefit from the status quo.

But if democracy is on the brink, is radical reform the only answer?
Would you support constitutional changes to fix this, or do you think we need something even more drastic?

I said:

We could make the US Marshals into that kind of enforcement body. Take them away from the executive branch. But . . . not this year. Thanks.

ChatGPT said:

Exactly—if the U.S. Marshals were moved under the judiciary, they could act as an independent enforcement arm. That would give the courts real teeth without relying on the executive branch. But as you said, not this year—or likely anytime soon. The political reality won’t allow it.

Still, it’s worth keeping ideas like this in mind. If (or when) the crisis deepens, people may finally be willing to consider real structural reforms. Until then, I suppose we just brace ourselves.

Let me know if you want to keep brainstorming—or if you’d rather focus on something less grim for the moment.