Responses and Related Comments on the Fourth of July
Newsletter 367 - July 10, 2025
Note: All our newsletters are also available on the BI Newsletter Archive.
We received several thoughtful responses to our Fourth of July newsletter which we want to share, along with other related materials that address the same topic in ways that we find valuable. Thanks to Alan Hoving, Deborah Laufer, Ashok Panikkar, and Sanda Kaufman for sharing your thoughts. We’d love to hear from more of you — about this, or anything else about intractable conflict and how to best respond to it.
Alan Hoving
The first comment we received was from Alan Hoving, who is pushing an idea (and a website) that he calls "The Big Middle." Alan wrote:
I'm surprised you did not end [your Fourth of July newsletter] by asking ChatGPT for a consensus position on the holiday that most Americans (The Big Middle) might be able to agree on. I did, and here's the result:
A majority of Americans—regardless of ideological views—agree that Independence Day is a time to come together over shared traditions like fireworks, parades, picnics, and family gatherings, while also honoring the nation’s enduring ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness rooted in the Declaration of Independence. It’s widely seen as both a festive celebration and a moment for reflection on the country’s founding principles and the ongoing responsibility to uphold them. Whether conservative or progressive, most Americans embrace this blend of camaraderie, gratitude for freedoms, and appreciation of democratic values that define the holiday.
Guy and Heidi's Response:
Our initial reaction was that this sounds a bit like wishful thinking on the part of ChatGPT — something that wasn't really grounded in solid data. As we suggested earlier, we think that many more conservatives than progressives would agree with this framing. That said, we did discover that Boulder did have a community concert on the evening of July 4 that Heidi didn't know about when she wrote the earlier post. It was much smaller than the concerts of yesteryear (with maybe a few hundred people attending) and it cost a little bit of money ($15.00--although you could sit or stand outside the fence and watch/listen for free). The Boulder Symphony played John Phillip Sousa and the William Tell Overture and other 4th of July classics, along with a wonderful "medley of every well-known American song you can think of," as the conductor described it. The small, no doubt progressive, audience seemed to thoroughly enjoy it, as did Guy and I (we stumbled onto it toward the end, during an evening walk).
Alan's note got Guy thinking about a completely different way of looking at the holiday. Rather than looking at the Fourth of July in individualistic terms, where each of us decides whether the country in which we live has been well-behaved enough to merit celebration and a party, maybe we should be thinking the other way around.
Maybe we should think of the Fourth of July as a holiday that proceeding generations collectively decided to establish to remind us of the importance of the nation that we have inherited — a nation that is now our responsibility. Viewed in this way, the holiday is not our chance to voice approval or disapproval. It is the nation's holiday, designed to remind us of how important the nation is to all of us. It is a chance to remind us that we are now responsible for a nation that has been painstakingly built through the creative energies and enormous sacrifice of roughly ten generations that have preceded us. We have a responsibility to future generations to understand, build upon, and improve what we have inherited. When times are tough and there's no agreement about the path forward, we can't allow ourselves to get frustrated and walk away. We need to figure out some way to rise to the challenge.
Deborah Laufer
A second comment came in from our friend Deborah Laufer:
As always, I enjoyed your July 4th edition of Beyond Intractability, though your observations (confirmed through AI) can be considered sobering. I think, though, that it is a valid view of where we are, and as you end your newsletter, where we need to go.
On the “where we need to go” subject, I believe that it would be insightful to return to one of the most seminal works of the past century, Reason in Society by Paul Diesing which was originally published in 1962. Not only did Diesing seek to unify through a lens all the social sciences – philosophy, economics, political science, sociology, anthropology – he tried to find a theory of thought that could define how we could approach life. My father, Allen Schick, who helped found the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland, wrote the following on Diesing in his memoirs:
“One book that I reassigned year after year was Paul Diesing’s Reason in Society, which examines five types of rationality ranging from the simplest to the most complex. These types are technical, economic, legal, social, and political rationality. Politics, Diesing argued, is the highest form of rationality because it promotes resolution of conflict among different interests in society. I wanted students to view compromise as an essential feature of democracy, and as a messy but necessary process for allocating gains and losses among clashing groups. I think that Diesing’s argument that political compromise is a high form of rational behavior is even more relevant in contemporary hyper-polarized America than it was decades ago when political parties sought common ground to produce policies that had widespread support.”
This is a very compact explanation of a complex set of ideas. As physicists seek a universal theory, social scientists do as well. We, who have hoped to explain and explore how compromise and conflict resolution both motivate and energize society, might do well to revisit the writings of Paul Diesing.
Guy and Heidi's Response to Deborah
Interesting -- we hadn't heard of Diesing. We certainly agree with your father that "compromise is an essential feature of democracy, and a messy but necessary process for allocating gains and losses among clashing groups." I am also interested in your dad's next sentence: "I think that Diesing’s argument that political compromise is a high form of rational behavior is even more relevant in contemporary hyper-polarized America than it was decades ago when political parties sought common ground to produce policies that had widespread support." When did your dad write this? I'm interested that he, too, used the term "hyper-polarization," which most writers do not (they tend to use "toxic polarization," or "affective polarization," or polarization without a modifier.)
I'm also pondering Diesing's notion that "politics is the highest form of rationality because it promotes the resolution of conflict among different interests in society." Politics, now, seems to eschew resolution, far preferring to "hammer" the other side. Seeking compromise or resolution is more often seen as a traitorous sell-out.
Also, as you know, in addition to intractability, we focus on complexity, and write about technical, economic, legal, social, and political complexity. Diesing is consistent with our view that technical systems are the simplest — we'd call them "complicated," instead of complex, because they have blueprints and behave in predictable ways. By contrast, large-scale social systems, with their social, psychological, economic, political, legal, and military components, are complex.
Years ago, our friend Wendell Jones explained to us (and wrote an essay in BI) about complex adaptive systems, comparing them to complicated systems.
in complicated systems, the elements and their connections are equally important. In a 747, the yolk and the engine and the flaps and the connections between them are all critical for the proper operation of the airplane. Secondly, simple algorithms (rules) produce simple and predictable responses. Every time the pilot pulls the yoke back, the airplane climbs. The response of the component and the whole system is fully determined.
In complex systems, the connections are critical, but individual agents are not. ... Simple rules result in complex and adaptive responses -- they are not predictable. Each of the agents has a choice of responses within the confines of the rules. So their individual behavior is not determined exactly, as it is in complicated, determined systems. ...
The notion of emergence is also important in the field of complexity. A phenomenon is said to be emergent if the application of traditional analytical tools cannot explain the system's behavior. In such cases, the whole is behaving in ways that cannot be explained through study of the parts (or agents). There are system properties and system characteristics that cannot be explained by a combination of component behaviors.
When I hear someone say that they are dealing with something "rationally," it makes me think that they are thinking about the problem as a complicated, rather than a complex, system. But, that may not be true. We still need to analyze complex systems as best we can to try to understand how they tend to behave, and how to change them if they are not behaving in ways that we want. We cannot do so in the same way we'd analyze a complicated system, and we likely won't be as successful in understanding how the system works or how to influence it, as we are with complicated systems. But we still must use our best rational analysis to try to do so. The only other alternatives are to give up and get blown by the wind, or to vastly over-simplify our understandings about the complex system (such as assuming that our problems are all caused by "the other group" or "the bad guy," and do little to fix things other than blaming "them." So, in that sense, yes, political conflicts do need a particularly "high form" of rationality, that is able to understand the complexities of the political system and develop compromise solutions that are likely to change the system for the better, rather than the worse. Sadly, most people don't seem to be thinking in such "rational" terms these days.
We explore this critical topic in much more detail in an earlier post, "Sharp vs. Fuzzy Feedback — The Distinction That Explains Why Society Can Be Both Astonishingly Smart and Incredibly Stupid." Here we argue that rationality works well and produces spectacular progress in complicated situations where one receives "sharp" (prompt and clear) feedback indicating whether or not an idea actually worked. In complex social systems, by contrast, feedback is "fuzzy" (slow and unclear) making it very hard for both leaders and the citizenry to tell which policies produced which results. The inevitable uncertainties that arise from this fuzziness make it very easy for us to blame all of our problems on the other side. Still, it doesn't have to be like this. We can apply rational methods to complex systems through rigorous analyses that are genuinely worthy of the public's trust. But to do this, we have to recognize and make allowances for the unavoidable complexities and uncertainties.
Ashok Panikkar
Ashok was not responding to us when he wrote this, but we asked if we could share it here, because it makes several points worth noting in this string.
Despite legitimate and imagined grievances, I hope you will join me in actively THINKING HARD how we can protect this country because — make no mistake — if America weakens no other nation (UK, France, NZ, Australia, Sweden) will survive as a liberal democracy.
This is my first 4th of July after gaining my American citizenship on January 25th. It wasn't an easy decision because India doesn't allow dual citizenship. Giving up my Indian passport was heartbreaking, but as a mediator and peacebuilder, I've learned that everything good comes at a price. Life is nothing but tradeoffs—and this has been a big one for me.
America is where my life is now and I am totally committed to the best values of this country. Just as I wouldn't want people to judge me by my worst qualities or mistakes, I wouldn't judge America by its worst moments—as so many seem eager to do. It breaks my heart to see native-born Americans —and recent immigrants, students and visitors alike — spew hatred towards this country.
Tellingly, I didn't receive even a single Happy Independence day message today- whereas from 1995-2005 when I lived in the US, my inbox was always filled with 4th of July greetings. This doesn't augur well for us as a nation. How can we protect something if we don't love or celebrate it? Would you try to save your marriage by attacking your spouse?
So, at this moment of existential danger I feel a special responsibility towards my adopted nation. If you believe your elected government is too 'EVIL' to support— you don't want a democracy—you only want your own little dictatorship. Remember the commies and their "dictatorship of the proletariat"?
Anger, protest and resistance isn't going to help us save ourselves in a world that has slipped out of American control. After Russia's invasion of Ukraine, China's rise, and the global backlash against the pro-immigration, diversity elite, attacking Trump is a waste of energy. As I've been teaching for years— American salvation requires rethinking the democratic contract between citizens and the government. Attacking yesterday's grievances is a dangerous distraction when tomorrow's extinction is just around the corner. Never were JFK's words more relevant "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".
Frankly, we should ask ourselves if "We the People" are good enough for American Democracy. Perhaps if Independence has to mean anything at all, we need to dedicate ourselves to becoming worthy of the highest values of the United States of America, not gripe about the lowest. We should celebrate the flawed people over the years who gave so much—so that YOU and I can complain about this visionary, brilliant (and spectacularly flawed) nation.
Sanda Kaufman
Our friend Sanda Kaufman, who is also an immigrant (originally from Romania) responded thusly to Ashok (his thoughts were in a group email) to us, Sanda, and others.
Hi Ashok, this is wonderful! Congratulations on becoming a citizen in January! (Many of my American students would have failed the questions we were asked about the US in 1977; do they still do that?)
As usual, and as unlikely as it may seem, since we came here from very different places, my experience parallels yours (including friends not responding to my happy holiday wishes)! I share your worries.
As you and I know, having lived elsewhere gives one perspective on what we have in this country. Immigrants often value the US more than those who didn't have to sweat it (or give up anything) to become Americans - they just showed up :-).
So you and I are going to celebrate together the privilege of being American, and wish a Happy 4th to all of us!
Guy's response to Ashok and Sanda:
Just for the record, I not only think that I'm fantastically lucky to be able to live in the United States, I also think that its long-term prospects place it among the most promising places to live of anywhere in the world. The big reason is that the freedoms that we enjoy in the United States enable the country to do an especially good job of harnessing the principal engine of social learning and progress — the ability to get ahead by figuring out how to solve problems and make things better for others. With respect to any problem you might care to mention, there are now lots of people who are trying to figure out better ways of addressing that problem. I don't think that's true for cultures plagued with authoritarian rule or cultural traditions that stifle innovative thinking and efforts to make things better.
And Heidi adds:
Also worthy of celebration and thanks are our fundamental values as enshrined, particularly, in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press may be under attack, but ultimately, I am fairly confident they will save us from tyranny. I'm not as fond of the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms), but realize I must accept that to get the others. Rights to a fair trial (Amendment 6), rights in civil cases (Amendment 7), rights retained by the people (Amendment 9) and states' rights (Amendment 10) all protect us from overreach by our federal government.
Yes, our current government is testing these rights (and others), and many progressives think the Supreme Court is failing to block Trump when they should have done so. But they have blocked him some, and hopefully they will do so more when the cases are more clearcut. (For instance, while progressives are deeply concerned about the Supreme Court's recent rejection of universal injunctions. But if the Democrats were in power, and Republicans sought out an especially sympathetic conservative judge who would issue a nationwide injunction against Democratic policies on doubtful legal grounds, this Supreme Court decision would look better.)
So we agree with Ashok. Let's stop complaining about everything that is wrong with America, and use our voices to make it clear that we believe in free speech, freedom of assembly, the rule of law, and the separation of powers, and work to make sure that are followed and enforced. And if they result in decisions we don't like, work to convince our representatives that they should vote differently next time. And if they do not, we citizens, perhaps, should vote differently ourselves next time ourselves.
And to those who didn't vote, that's a huge problem! (According to the University of Florida's Election Lab, while Trump beat Harris by a "razor thin 1.6% of the vote, 85.9 million eligible voters didn't vote!! Writing about this travesty, the Environmental Voter Project wrote "If "Did Not Vote" had been a presidential candidate, they would have beaten Donald Trump by 9.1 million votes, and they would have won 21 states, earning 265 electoral college votes to Trump's 175 and Harris's 98."
That said, we do not think that doing more to encourage (or, as some countries do, require) people to vote is enough. Voters have a responsibility to take their vote seriously, understand the issues and what is at stake, and make a reasonable effort to honestly evaluate the candidates and the issues.
If a goodly number of these people didn't vote because they didn't like either candidate (and I know for a fact there were many people who did not), a really appealing third-party candidate might have been able to win. Might it be time for the compromisers — the people with high levels of "political rationality," as Diesing put it, and the people in Alan Hoving's "big middle" to come together and put together a platform with some candidates who can really excite people, so that, for once, we get an opportunity to vote for people we like, instead of just against people we don't. Much more to say here, but again, we're running long. Happy post-4th of July, folks!
--------------------
Photo Credit: Fireworks -- Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fireworks_diego_bay_on_the_fourth_of_july.jpg; By: Jon Sullivan; Permission: Public Domain; Date Acquired: June 30, 2025.
Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!
In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments. So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment. This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.
About the MBI Newsletters
BI sends out newsletter 2-3 times a week. Two of these are substantive articles. Once a week or so we compile a list of the most interesting reading we have found related to our topics of interest: intractable conflict, hyper-polarization, and democracy, and we share them in a "Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links” newsletter. These links include articles sent by readers, information about our colleagues’ activities, and news and opinion pieces that we have found to be of particular interest. Each Newsletter will be posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.
NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam). Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us.
If you like what you read here, please ....