When Systems Break
As a software engineer I have had the opportunity to design and build a few systems. A system can be any organized combination of resources and energy intended to produce an output. A system is ultimately designed to produce what it produces, despite what our intentions for the system might have been, if the product does not match our desired intent then there is either a flaw in the design or in the implementation of the system that has to be corrected. Deceiving ourselves about the efficacy of a system when the output never meets the needs we want to satisfy only exacerbates the negative outcomes and causes all parties to descend further into chaos. Bugs become rampant, engineers frustrated and customers uninterested. System degradation is inherent, the laws of thermodynamics confirms this. Every system needs consistent maintenance, rarely can you implement something and expect it to continue to work indefinitely, or to get the same output without observation.
There are many systems in our society. Systems that provide public services, establish order, preserve liberty and fill many needs. Some of them have existed for a long time, and over time some have changed. Whether the changes come through neglect, intention or misinterpretation they are no less affected. Because of the state of many of these systems we see that their output no longer matches what was originally intended. And we see much chaos. Chaos represented in many ways - broken families, police brutality, systemic racism, mass incarceration, riots, violence, hypocrisy and war. These terrible events and situations are all symptoms, they are not causes. Any attempt to solve the problem by removing a symptom will not solve the problem. This does not mean the symptoms should not be treated, just as we do a common illness. But without targeting the source new symptoms will appear, existing symptoms will fester and spread. Leaderless organizations and movements that embrace the chaos will grow. And the degraded system that produces them will become further engrained in society.
We have a political system with two majority parties. It is my observation that each party system has evolved to produce the same objective: maintain the status quo, keep those with power in power and prevent meaningful change from disrupting the system. I do not believe this was its original intent. This is a system that was designed to survive, to resist change. And for good reason, it is important to not bend to every new trend that becomes a platform just because it is popular, but needs in the design will eventually be discovered and require resolutions (hence we have amendments). Our society is in desperate need of meaningful change in many ways, a need that will never be met by the condition of the current political system. Never has this been more visible to me than this year when the two competing products that have been delivered are so far away from capable leadership that neither can formulate a credible scientific or unbiased argument to justify their cause. To an extent I feel that promoting either output is to deceive ourselves and conform to broken system that produces something that was never intended to exist.
Candidates will continue to promise change, to declare a plan or platform, to make promises, but presidents do not create policy. That is the responsibility of the legislature, not the executive, this was established at the beginning of the system - Article 1 Section 1. When an executive promises to do such or through coercion and manipulation is able to do so it is another symptom of the broken system.
I am not hopeful that our society in general can produce a solution that triggers meaningful change. A return to the original principles that established the system of governance. In fact I believe the change we need will only come when enough people have turned their hearts over to Christ, and this may only happen when he comes again in power and glory (Luke 21: 5-36).
So what do the saints do about it? I believe we will continue to do what we always have, be a light shining in the wilderness, a voice of reason, a safe-harbor, a shelter of truth, a city on a hill. We will continue to invite all to come a partake of meaningful happiness without price (Isaiah 55:1).
There is something else we can do. Something I have sometimes shied away from in fear of offense, reproach or controversy. Mitt Romney dared to do it when he challenged the status quo. We need more people of faith to declare their position boldly and publicly. More people who are willing to sacrifice ego in favor of justice. We also need more compassion for those who do so with good intent and humility. We must resist the vacuum of dissent and argument, and replace it with meaningful discussion. This takes practice and we are not likely going to be good at it at first. So we need people who are willing to suffer through the practice, to gain the experiences necessary to have influence. Each person may do this in their own way, and it is likely that we will not agree with every opinion. This can be challenging in a circle of faith since - shouldn't we all believe the same thing? To an extent we should and do, but no, we will not always agree. Disagreements are expected and can be good, as long as all parties involved are able to maintain love and respect for each other.
"not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend" - George Washington,
Now more than ever the political system is in need of third party. A candidate willing to challenge the status quo. Such a candidate will not likely volunteer for such a position, but it would be granted them by the voice of the people, and "in obedience to public summons" they would shoulder the mantle of responsibility. So who would I choose? Who fits the bill? - I don't know. I am still practicing this theory and could not propose to have a real viable solution. But I hope that by sharing my thoughts and opinions, I make it easier for others to do the same. I hope that by writing this, and you by reading it even if you disagree, that it somehow moves us toward a better system.
As small as the steps may be I thank you for participating in movement.