(Responsive Comment by Guest Author The Laughingman to Post No. 30, “The Dangers Associated with Being ‘Peculiar’”)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
[In “Peculiar,” The Logistician submits that our fear of the unknown, or that which we consider to be “peculiar,” may be hard wired to promote survival in a complex world. He also suggests that as humans, we should be able to think and reason beyond our primal fears. He further employs us to do this as we approach the upcoming presidential election, and ignore the static.]
Peculiar?
Seems we have hit a tipping point in American Politics.
Both of our presumptive candidates are roundly detested by significant minorities within their own parties.
Both campaigns have been taken over by the Political Pros...presumably to protect their money bases...while the likes of Tom Delay do their penance wandering in the wilderness.
The money people are back in charge...so Obama is linked to Paris and Brittany, and McCain is linked to Bush.
Ostensibly, all of this paid for "crap" is deemed necessary by the money boys who are scared to death they will wind up Mr. Abramoff's [(http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff)] new neighbors, should the other side win.
Jesse Jackson has similar, and significant, concerns.
So...every Sunday morning, we are treated to the posers that be, on both sides of the aisle, who drag their candidates back into the muck that we call Presidential Politics.
So, characters whose goals are subject to varying interpretations, like Carl Rove, are now advising John McCain; and the Clinton machine seems to have an unwelcome, and useless (except for the Clintons) impact on the Obama campaign message.
With all due respect to the people who have effectively run this country’s economic and social strategy for as long as this humble ad weasel can remember, why not let the boys simply debate the issues?
Why not let them do it for free, on national TV?
Why not let Obama be Obama?
Why not let McCain be McCain be McCain?
Would the country really suffer from a few delayed episodes of "Can You Survive a Japanese Game Show?"
Like it or not, Senator Obama has the hard core Democrat vote in his pocket.
Like it or not, Senator McCain has a similar lock on the Republicans, and the evangelical right wing.
They have no where else to go, other than to sit home...which might not be that bad an outcome. The current economy surely suggests so.
As a practicing ad weasel, I can assure you most of the money they have spent so far on paid media has been directed at their secured bases...and is indistinguishable from what Saturday Night Live is running as pure parody.
Again, I am but an humble ad weasel, but the first of these two, to break this time honored tradition of taking all the money guys out of the public pitch, will be the guy able to deliver at least some of what the money guys are trying to buy.
Of course, I could be wrong...but the people who are buying what I sell suggest not....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Showing posts with label political campaigns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label political campaigns. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Post No. 27: The Inability of our Leaders to Please (or Lead?) Us
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
As simple as we like to make things for comprehension and managerial purposes, we all recognize the complexities associated with anything that involves human emotion. Such is the case with respect to those with whom we at least partially identify, and in whom we place our hopes.
Politicians are unusual animals. The circumstances surrounding their ascension to power virtually require that they be something less than straightforward and transparent. They are the personification of the Transformers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_%28toy_line%29) toy line. They simply have far too many different individuals and groups, not to mention interests, to please, other than their own. As the old 70’s song indicated, “Everybody wants me to be what they want me to be.”
Several months ago, this notion was brought home to me while conducting one of my regular bookstore walk-throughs. Roughly two or three times a week, I travel to the nearest Border’s or Barnes & Noble, and aimlessly walk through the various stacks. I came across a book about Hillary Clinton. It was actually a collection of roughly thirty articles written by thirty different female writers, about their perceptions of Senator Clinton, since she was catapulted on the national scene. As I thumbed through the pages, the thing that struck me was how virtually every writer did not like something about her, and suggested that she had failed to perform or behave in the manner desired by the writer, or the group which the writer felt she represented. (I conducted a Google Book Search to locate the book, and could not find it. However, take a look at the number of books written about her, and just scan the summaries to get a sense of the tone. (http://books.google.com/books?q=%22hillary+clinton%22&lr=&sa=N&start=0)
It appears that Senator Obama faces the same dilemma. Certain segments of the African-American population, which is clearly not monolithic, have certain expectations of him. Various groups within the Democratic Party have other expectations. The poor and the disenfranchised, along with the disillusioned, probably feel that he represents certain of their interests. The academic, intellectual types have different thoughts.
That we had two potential Democratic candidates, who would have been the first within their respective large subsets of our population, presented all sorts of problems for the voting public. Lots of folks, including former Clinton supporters, and perhaps even some moderate Republicans and Independents, now expect Senator Obama to champion their cause. It will not happen, and it is unrealistic to expect it to happen. Yet, we keep pressing them, meaning all politicians, as if they can represent the interests and desires of us all. John McCain has been criticized for seemingly backing away from his straight talking, maverick image, into a clone of the current President. Quite frankly, it would be great if the candidates could just be themselves. Those of us serving as parents to multiple children recognize the ridiculousness of such a concept.
What also happens is that when the various groups supporting a particular candidate have far too many expectations of their candidate, it opens the door for the opponents of that candidate to attack another aspect of the candidate’s platform. Every issue becomes an easy target. Of course, we all realize that all of these issues do not have equal weight and significance. If somehow, we as citizens could reduce what we expect out of a candidate to perhaps five or six primary positions, we might be able to reduce all of this irrational slicing and dicing that is the political campaign. A candidate focusing on those five or six primary positions might also do the voting public a service, in that he or she would remind us to focus on what is most important, and to avoid sweating the small stuff.
In the very first article which appeared on this blog, we discussed this issue in another context. In his overlooked work, The Disuniting of America, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v44/ai_12122328), legendary Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556940/Schlesinger_Arthur_Meier_Jr_.html) wrote of how the pursuit of individual self-interests by special interest groups has lead to America’s inability to unify its efforts. He wrote of the continuing disintegration of our society driven by the pursuit of individual goals, not collective goals. He wrote of how the first Gulf War was an aberration in terms of recent events which caused us to rally together, and also resulted in the first President Bush’s 82% approval rating at the time. Unfortunately, the current war in Iraq has had the opposite effect. Be that as it may, continuing in the direction of further dissection of our candidates does not bode well for either party. Perhaps, that is why an independent, third party may hold the most promise for America’s future.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
As simple as we like to make things for comprehension and managerial purposes, we all recognize the complexities associated with anything that involves human emotion. Such is the case with respect to those with whom we at least partially identify, and in whom we place our hopes.
Politicians are unusual animals. The circumstances surrounding their ascension to power virtually require that they be something less than straightforward and transparent. They are the personification of the Transformers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_%28toy_line%29) toy line. They simply have far too many different individuals and groups, not to mention interests, to please, other than their own. As the old 70’s song indicated, “Everybody wants me to be what they want me to be.”
Several months ago, this notion was brought home to me while conducting one of my regular bookstore walk-throughs. Roughly two or three times a week, I travel to the nearest Border’s or Barnes & Noble, and aimlessly walk through the various stacks. I came across a book about Hillary Clinton. It was actually a collection of roughly thirty articles written by thirty different female writers, about their perceptions of Senator Clinton, since she was catapulted on the national scene. As I thumbed through the pages, the thing that struck me was how virtually every writer did not like something about her, and suggested that she had failed to perform or behave in the manner desired by the writer, or the group which the writer felt she represented. (I conducted a Google Book Search to locate the book, and could not find it. However, take a look at the number of books written about her, and just scan the summaries to get a sense of the tone. (http://books.google.com/books?q=%22hillary+clinton%22&lr=&sa=N&start=0)
It appears that Senator Obama faces the same dilemma. Certain segments of the African-American population, which is clearly not monolithic, have certain expectations of him. Various groups within the Democratic Party have other expectations. The poor and the disenfranchised, along with the disillusioned, probably feel that he represents certain of their interests. The academic, intellectual types have different thoughts.
That we had two potential Democratic candidates, who would have been the first within their respective large subsets of our population, presented all sorts of problems for the voting public. Lots of folks, including former Clinton supporters, and perhaps even some moderate Republicans and Independents, now expect Senator Obama to champion their cause. It will not happen, and it is unrealistic to expect it to happen. Yet, we keep pressing them, meaning all politicians, as if they can represent the interests and desires of us all. John McCain has been criticized for seemingly backing away from his straight talking, maverick image, into a clone of the current President. Quite frankly, it would be great if the candidates could just be themselves. Those of us serving as parents to multiple children recognize the ridiculousness of such a concept.
What also happens is that when the various groups supporting a particular candidate have far too many expectations of their candidate, it opens the door for the opponents of that candidate to attack another aspect of the candidate’s platform. Every issue becomes an easy target. Of course, we all realize that all of these issues do not have equal weight and significance. If somehow, we as citizens could reduce what we expect out of a candidate to perhaps five or six primary positions, we might be able to reduce all of this irrational slicing and dicing that is the political campaign. A candidate focusing on those five or six primary positions might also do the voting public a service, in that he or she would remind us to focus on what is most important, and to avoid sweating the small stuff.
In the very first article which appeared on this blog, we discussed this issue in another context. In his overlooked work, The Disuniting of America, (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v44/ai_12122328), legendary Harvard historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556940/Schlesinger_Arthur_Meier_Jr_.html) wrote of how the pursuit of individual self-interests by special interest groups has lead to America’s inability to unify its efforts. He wrote of the continuing disintegration of our society driven by the pursuit of individual goals, not collective goals. He wrote of how the first Gulf War was an aberration in terms of recent events which caused us to rally together, and also resulted in the first President Bush’s 82% approval rating at the time. Unfortunately, the current war in Iraq has had the opposite effect. Be that as it may, continuing in the direction of further dissection of our candidates does not bode well for either party. Perhaps, that is why an independent, third party may hold the most promise for America’s future.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Post No. 26: Did I Miss Something Here – So to Speak?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I’m neither particularly bright nor sophisticated. I often miss things that others consider obvious. Presumptive Democrat Party nominee Barack Obama suggested yesterday that American parents encourage their children to study Spanish as a second language. For our purposes at this point, let’s assume that you read nothing further in the paper or online, or that you listened no further to any news broadcasts, as to the circumstances surrounding his statement, or the context in which it was uttered. What would you have reasonably thought was the underlying motivation for his statement?
During the 1960’s, the study of a second language was a requirement in many secondary schools. By the time that I completed my first two years of college, I had six years of French under my belt. French made the transition to Spanish far easier when I lived in California. During the 1990s, various businesspeople, out of a desire to acquire business from Japanese firms, took Japanese immersion courses. Before traveling to Brazil and Italy, I studied conversational Portuguese and Italian in preparation for the trips. Probably of most relevance to this discussion is the fact that while teaching adult students seeking their GEDs at a local community college, I frequently recommended that they encourage their children to study Mandarin Chinese in light of the rising importance of China in the world.
Consequently, when I first heard of Senator Obama’s suggestion that parents encourage their children to study Spanish, I assumed that it was a positive suggestion, and perhaps benign at worst. Silly me. I naively thought that learning to communicate, with a significant segment of our Nation’s citizens and a major segment of the people living in this hemisphere, was a good thing. Silly me, again. By the end of yesterday, the media outlets were full of talking heads framing the Senator’s comments as those of an individual who supported illegal immigration, and necessarily opposed the effort to make English the official language of the United States.
Somebody please explain to me how any responsible, self-respecting commentator, or elected representative, could make such an argument. Is denigrating this man that important? Are the stakes that high? What message is conveyed to the youth of our Nation? We most certainly have an immigration problem. We most certainly need to figure out a way to ensure the assimilation and integration of other cultures into our “melting pot.” However, quite frankly, this appears to be the wrong vehicle to highlight our legitimate concerns about these issues. Do they regard us, the listening and voting public, as fools willing to accept any framed argument asserted against any candidate? Let’s hope that those of us listening to this crap maintain the ability to apply a little common sense.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I’m neither particularly bright nor sophisticated. I often miss things that others consider obvious. Presumptive Democrat Party nominee Barack Obama suggested yesterday that American parents encourage their children to study Spanish as a second language. For our purposes at this point, let’s assume that you read nothing further in the paper or online, or that you listened no further to any news broadcasts, as to the circumstances surrounding his statement, or the context in which it was uttered. What would you have reasonably thought was the underlying motivation for his statement?
During the 1960’s, the study of a second language was a requirement in many secondary schools. By the time that I completed my first two years of college, I had six years of French under my belt. French made the transition to Spanish far easier when I lived in California. During the 1990s, various businesspeople, out of a desire to acquire business from Japanese firms, took Japanese immersion courses. Before traveling to Brazil and Italy, I studied conversational Portuguese and Italian in preparation for the trips. Probably of most relevance to this discussion is the fact that while teaching adult students seeking their GEDs at a local community college, I frequently recommended that they encourage their children to study Mandarin Chinese in light of the rising importance of China in the world.
Consequently, when I first heard of Senator Obama’s suggestion that parents encourage their children to study Spanish, I assumed that it was a positive suggestion, and perhaps benign at worst. Silly me. I naively thought that learning to communicate, with a significant segment of our Nation’s citizens and a major segment of the people living in this hemisphere, was a good thing. Silly me, again. By the end of yesterday, the media outlets were full of talking heads framing the Senator’s comments as those of an individual who supported illegal immigration, and necessarily opposed the effort to make English the official language of the United States.
Somebody please explain to me how any responsible, self-respecting commentator, or elected representative, could make such an argument. Is denigrating this man that important? Are the stakes that high? What message is conveyed to the youth of our Nation? We most certainly have an immigration problem. We most certainly need to figure out a way to ensure the assimilation and integration of other cultures into our “melting pot.” However, quite frankly, this appears to be the wrong vehicle to highlight our legitimate concerns about these issues. Do they regard us, the listening and voting public, as fools willing to accept any framed argument asserted against any candidate? Let’s hope that those of us listening to this crap maintain the ability to apply a little common sense.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Post No. 25: Does Everyone Necessarily Have a Point of View?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Some years ago, a documentary aired exploring President Johnson’s inheritance of the Vietnam War, and the manner in which he dealt with the conflict. I mentioned to a buddy that, despite the fact that I was in the Army during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, I did not fully understand the forces in operation at the time, and that the documentary provided me with a better understanding. My buddy immediately inquired as to the “point of view” of the documentary film maker. At the time, it really had not occurred to me. It was simply “information.” While I recognized that it theoretically might have been produced with a particular slant, or a particular political purpose in mind, those factors did not loom large in my appreciation of the piece.
There are two types of people who I generally hold in high regard. Those without an “agenda,” and those who recognize that everything is bigger than their pedestrian concerns. My particular definition of those individuals with an “agenda” includes folks who are always proselytizing, disseminating dogma, or passing extreme judgment on others. (Is judgment being passed on them now through this process?) Like those individuals who recognize that the world is bigger than their concerns, those without an “agenda” seemingly have a tendency to listen more, acquire information, and be slow to judge. Those rushing to judgment have always concerned me, and arguably, should concern us all.
We encountered this reactionary phenomenon recently while observing various discussions about our presidential candidates, and reviewing some comments in response to some of our recent posts. In the political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything good about the candidate who they do not support. Is the recognition of any positive attributes of the opposing party’s candidate a fatal thing to do in an elective contest? The number of times that we have heard commentators mention that neither Obama nor McCain has done anything worthwhile in life is absolutely fascinating. (Of course, many talk radio hosts behave as if they have made tremendous contributions to science and humankind, and the advancement of society’s long term interests.)
In one of our recent posts, we presented the views of a particular citizen and inquired as to whether that individual’s views fell within the range of acceptable positions for a particular political party. One of the positions expressed was that of mandatory service in the armed forces, by all citizens, to protect and defend our nation, and consequently those freedoms which we all enjoy. We simply raised some rhetorical questions regarding one’s identification with certain political parties, and examined potential positions that might be taken by a third, independent party. Interestingly, some readers felt that we were advocating treating citizens as slaves, and branded us totalitarian pigs. Some others assumed that we had taken a position in line with Osama bin Laden and that we were not patriotic. Some frequently assume that simply because we mention someone’s name, or quote them on an issue, we support their position. To borrow a phrase, “Au contraire, mon frere.”
One thing which we have learned during the publishing of this blog is that when you raise theoretical questions and issues, you run the risk of people assuming that you have taken a position along one particular line regarding the issue. Why is that? They obviously have not read the piece from an unbiased perspective. Some have even suggested that no writer can achieve objectivity and put aside their personal biases. I wonder how judges do it, or do they? (Interestingly, it often seems that those individuals who are most offended by the posing of rhetorical questions are those who have hard and fast, unyielding positions themselves.) Our experience also highlighted something said by another writer, that being that in taking a moderate or centrist position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side, but rather has to fend off attacks from both. Perhaps that’s why we get so little accomplished in the political arena these days, and why partisanship appears to rule. Let’s all rally around groupspeak.
There is so much negative, outlandish, and critical information disseminated daily about virtually every candidate in virtually every election in this nation. The reason is that negative information, particularly bearing on emotional, hot button issues, works. Does anyone really think that McCain plans to open up the border in Arizona and permit all undocumented workers to enter the country, as some of his detractors have argued? Does anyone really believe that should Obama be elected President, more Islamic mosques than Christian churches will be built during his tenure?
This junk is just that; however, it appears to work, at least for a significant segment of our population. We should all be concerned that the innermost “fears” of many may have an influence on the outcome of this election. (Maybe it always has. You will recall that there was a concern that by electing a Catholic, i.e. John Kennedy, the Pope would have too much of an influence in American politics.) What’s more troubling is that the manipulation of our fears is being orchestrated by heretofore, somewhat respected, well educated folks, on both sides of the aisle, who are more concerned about winning, than appealing to our good sense, logic, and fairness. Of course, America loves a winner, but are lies and misinformation any different than steroids in the quest to win?
It’s amazing that these “public servants” have any interest in running for office. The mere fact that they are willing to subject themselves and their families to this abuse suggests that something is a tad different about them. However, it may also keep prospective leaders, who could actually accomplish something of value, from coming up to the plate. Is this the environment in which we want to conduct the selection of our leaders? A totally objective viewer might conclude that none of the candidates in any election is worthy of being elected. What kind of “transformers” and actors are these folks, along with their handlers and consultants? Perhaps we deserve the lies and false promises fed to us so that they can get elected. Perhaps this can be viewed as a necessary evil and simply a means to an end, so that they can actually do something of value once they win the position. Hmmmh, is truth still the better choice, even if you do not win? Is there some value to being a noble loser who took the high ground?
One of my best friends was a college and professional level coach for many years. The phrase which I recall him repeating most frequently is, “Don’t judge.” What he was really saying was to listen, acquire and be open to more information, and do not rush to judgment. As the professor noted to Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, there are issues bigger than those which we now face, and which have a longer term impact.
The next time that you read or hear something, try to avoid processing it from your point of view. Try to avoid assuming that the writer has a particular point of view. Simply view it as information. The next time that you hear something with which you disagree, assume for a short period of time that you misheard it, or that there is a reasonable explanation for the position taken by the speaker. Consider the prospect of your brain functioning like a hard disk on a computer. Just take in the information, store it there, and process it later when you have additional information and time to reflect. As the old song during the 1970’s used to say, “Expand your mind, you might be surprised at what you might find.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Some years ago, a documentary aired exploring President Johnson’s inheritance of the Vietnam War, and the manner in which he dealt with the conflict. I mentioned to a buddy that, despite the fact that I was in the Army during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, I did not fully understand the forces in operation at the time, and that the documentary provided me with a better understanding. My buddy immediately inquired as to the “point of view” of the documentary film maker. At the time, it really had not occurred to me. It was simply “information.” While I recognized that it theoretically might have been produced with a particular slant, or a particular political purpose in mind, those factors did not loom large in my appreciation of the piece.
There are two types of people who I generally hold in high regard. Those without an “agenda,” and those who recognize that everything is bigger than their pedestrian concerns. My particular definition of those individuals with an “agenda” includes folks who are always proselytizing, disseminating dogma, or passing extreme judgment on others. (Is judgment being passed on them now through this process?) Like those individuals who recognize that the world is bigger than their concerns, those without an “agenda” seemingly have a tendency to listen more, acquire information, and be slow to judge. Those rushing to judgment have always concerned me, and arguably, should concern us all.
We encountered this reactionary phenomenon recently while observing various discussions about our presidential candidates, and reviewing some comments in response to some of our recent posts. In the political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything good about the candidate who they do not support. Is the recognition of any positive attributes of the opposing party’s candidate a fatal thing to do in an elective contest? The number of times that we have heard commentators mention that neither Obama nor McCain has done anything worthwhile in life is absolutely fascinating. (Of course, many talk radio hosts behave as if they have made tremendous contributions to science and humankind, and the advancement of society’s long term interests.)
In one of our recent posts, we presented the views of a particular citizen and inquired as to whether that individual’s views fell within the range of acceptable positions for a particular political party. One of the positions expressed was that of mandatory service in the armed forces, by all citizens, to protect and defend our nation, and consequently those freedoms which we all enjoy. We simply raised some rhetorical questions regarding one’s identification with certain political parties, and examined potential positions that might be taken by a third, independent party. Interestingly, some readers felt that we were advocating treating citizens as slaves, and branded us totalitarian pigs. Some others assumed that we had taken a position in line with Osama bin Laden and that we were not patriotic. Some frequently assume that simply because we mention someone’s name, or quote them on an issue, we support their position. To borrow a phrase, “Au contraire, mon frere.”
One thing which we have learned during the publishing of this blog is that when you raise theoretical questions and issues, you run the risk of people assuming that you have taken a position along one particular line regarding the issue. Why is that? They obviously have not read the piece from an unbiased perspective. Some have even suggested that no writer can achieve objectivity and put aside their personal biases. I wonder how judges do it, or do they? (Interestingly, it often seems that those individuals who are most offended by the posing of rhetorical questions are those who have hard and fast, unyielding positions themselves.) Our experience also highlighted something said by another writer, that being that in taking a moderate or centrist position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side, but rather has to fend off attacks from both. Perhaps that’s why we get so little accomplished in the political arena these days, and why partisanship appears to rule. Let’s all rally around groupspeak.
There is so much negative, outlandish, and critical information disseminated daily about virtually every candidate in virtually every election in this nation. The reason is that negative information, particularly bearing on emotional, hot button issues, works. Does anyone really think that McCain plans to open up the border in Arizona and permit all undocumented workers to enter the country, as some of his detractors have argued? Does anyone really believe that should Obama be elected President, more Islamic mosques than Christian churches will be built during his tenure?
This junk is just that; however, it appears to work, at least for a significant segment of our population. We should all be concerned that the innermost “fears” of many may have an influence on the outcome of this election. (Maybe it always has. You will recall that there was a concern that by electing a Catholic, i.e. John Kennedy, the Pope would have too much of an influence in American politics.) What’s more troubling is that the manipulation of our fears is being orchestrated by heretofore, somewhat respected, well educated folks, on both sides of the aisle, who are more concerned about winning, than appealing to our good sense, logic, and fairness. Of course, America loves a winner, but are lies and misinformation any different than steroids in the quest to win?
It’s amazing that these “public servants” have any interest in running for office. The mere fact that they are willing to subject themselves and their families to this abuse suggests that something is a tad different about them. However, it may also keep prospective leaders, who could actually accomplish something of value, from coming up to the plate. Is this the environment in which we want to conduct the selection of our leaders? A totally objective viewer might conclude that none of the candidates in any election is worthy of being elected. What kind of “transformers” and actors are these folks, along with their handlers and consultants? Perhaps we deserve the lies and false promises fed to us so that they can get elected. Perhaps this can be viewed as a necessary evil and simply a means to an end, so that they can actually do something of value once they win the position. Hmmmh, is truth still the better choice, even if you do not win? Is there some value to being a noble loser who took the high ground?
One of my best friends was a college and professional level coach for many years. The phrase which I recall him repeating most frequently is, “Don’t judge.” What he was really saying was to listen, acquire and be open to more information, and do not rush to judgment. As the professor noted to Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, there are issues bigger than those which we now face, and which have a longer term impact.
The next time that you read or hear something, try to avoid processing it from your point of view. Try to avoid assuming that the writer has a particular point of view. Simply view it as information. The next time that you hear something with which you disagree, assume for a short period of time that you misheard it, or that there is a reasonable explanation for the position taken by the speaker. Consider the prospect of your brain functioning like a hard disk on a computer. Just take in the information, store it there, and process it later when you have additional information and time to reflect. As the old song during the 1970’s used to say, “Expand your mind, you might be surprised at what you might find.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Post 23: What Views Would the Members of a Truly Independent American Political Party Hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following is a partial list of the views, controversial though some may be, of a particular, well-educated, middle-class American citizen:
1. Men and women who choose to have heterosexual sex make a “choice” when they do so, and society should not interfere or be responsible in any way for what happens to them following pregnancy. The fathers and mothers should negotiate all further responsibility or lack thereof.
2. All citizens of the United States should be required to serve a minimum term, in a combat role, in our armed forces to defend the interests of America, but only on a domestic basis, and not outside of our country and her possessions.
3. At some point in the not too distant future, we should start dividing the states in half, and all liberals shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as liberal, and all conservatives shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as conservative. Over time, perhaps 100 years, when the process has been completed, the country should be divided in half into two separate nations, with each functioning separately, harmoniously, and independently.
4. Students should be strongly encouraged to pursue certain academic areas, through government incentives, based on carefully calculated predictions of the needs of our society over the next 50 to 100 years, and those who choose not to avail themselves of those incentives should be left to fend for themselves.
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, along with the Equal Protection Clauses, and all forms of discrimination should be permitted depending on the individual’s desires.
6. Marriage should be outlawed, along with all sexual interaction between any citizens. The societal costs (spousal abuse, child abuse, out of wedlock births, legal system, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse) associated with interpersonal relationships is far too high, and society should not have to pay that price for individual decisions.
7. Working together, the armed forces of committed nations should provide advance notice, and with the agreement of the Palestinians and Israelis, simply surround the Palestinian Territories and Israel, allow those individuals not currently living there to enter before the containment, and those not wanting to be part of the fight to exit, and then allow the two sides to fight as hard and long as they deem necessary.
Is this individual a male or a female? Is this person a heterosexual, a gay or lesbian individual, or a bi-sexual? Are these the views of a Republican, a Democratic, a Libertarian, an Independent, or perhaps a member of the Green Party? Do you agree with this individual with respect to any of their views? There is an odd number of opinions expressed, thus permitting you to choose four with which you most closely agree. If you were told that four of them were the positions or the party platform for a particular party, would you consider yourself a member or adherent of that particular political party? Can you identify an underlying philosophical theme or thread running through all of these positions?
Earlier this year, there was a rather interesting device circulating on the Internet, when there were still more than fifteen candidates competing against one another for their particular party’s nomination. The reader was asked to indicate his or her position on roughly 20 to 25 issues. Based on the positions taken by the various candidates up to that point, the device advised the reader of the name of the candidate who most closely supported the reader’s positions. Would you be willing to have a president elected through such a mechanism, with the candidate scoring the highest combined percentages of support in all areas deemed the winner?
Let’s get back to our citizen? Is our citizen a male or a female? Located in the South, North, or West? Is this individual a Christian? Is this individual of good moral character? Would you allow your son or daughter to marry this individual? Would you be willing to work with this person? At what point did you decide that you disliked or liked our citizen? At some point, as you proceeded down the list of seven positions, did you change your mind, and perhaps change it again?
Not only have we entered an era where we dissect anything and everything associated with a political candidate and those connected with or supporting that candidate, we also make assumptions about the totality of individuals based on individual issues. Let’s assume that either Candidate McCain or Candidate Obama truly and honestly held any one of the views held by our citizen above, and the candidate had the guts to express that to the American people. Could either one still manage to get elected? Which one would be a disqualifying factor? Would two, or three, or four of the views held subject the candidate to disqualification? Let’s assume that two remaining candidates following a primary process both held these personal views, but agreed to abide by and pursue the platform determined by their respective parties, despite their philosophical differences. Could they still be elected?
Is there some value to categorizing someone as good or bad based on a few factors or a few opinions? You can be reasonably certain that the views expressed by our citizen are held by millions of others, if they honestly disclosed their views. However, are the views too radical and too controversial for any sensible member of our society to openly embrace without fear of retribution? How many of you said to yourself, “We don’t do things like that in America”?
I ask you, are all of these attacks on individual statements and opinions necessary? Do we really get the honest views of our candidates in America? Should a politician pursue, once elected and after disclosing their true views to the American people, his or her personal goals, or simply those of the people, or are they one and the same? Some would argue that we have reached a point in out society where we really don’t truly know who we are electing these days. Consider the possibility that the best actor, with the best handlers and PR people, could probably manage to get elected, by saying just the right things, and playing it safe. You tell me. Do you like this, or is it that we can’t do any better?
Oh, by the way, for those of you who know me personally, which one of the seven opinions do I hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
The following is a partial list of the views, controversial though some may be, of a particular, well-educated, middle-class American citizen:
1. Men and women who choose to have heterosexual sex make a “choice” when they do so, and society should not interfere or be responsible in any way for what happens to them following pregnancy. The fathers and mothers should negotiate all further responsibility or lack thereof.
2. All citizens of the United States should be required to serve a minimum term, in a combat role, in our armed forces to defend the interests of America, but only on a domestic basis, and not outside of our country and her possessions.
3. At some point in the not too distant future, we should start dividing the states in half, and all liberals shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as liberal, and all conservatives shall have the opportunity to start moving their families and assets to those states designated as conservative. Over time, perhaps 100 years, when the process has been completed, the country should be divided in half into two separate nations, with each functioning separately, harmoniously, and independently.
4. Students should be strongly encouraged to pursue certain academic areas, through government incentives, based on carefully calculated predictions of the needs of our society over the next 50 to 100 years, and those who choose not to avail themselves of those incentives should be left to fend for themselves.
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed, along with the Equal Protection Clauses, and all forms of discrimination should be permitted depending on the individual’s desires.
6. Marriage should be outlawed, along with all sexual interaction between any citizens. The societal costs (spousal abuse, child abuse, out of wedlock births, legal system, divorce, mental health, and substance abuse) associated with interpersonal relationships is far too high, and society should not have to pay that price for individual decisions.
7. Working together, the armed forces of committed nations should provide advance notice, and with the agreement of the Palestinians and Israelis, simply surround the Palestinian Territories and Israel, allow those individuals not currently living there to enter before the containment, and those not wanting to be part of the fight to exit, and then allow the two sides to fight as hard and long as they deem necessary.
Is this individual a male or a female? Is this person a heterosexual, a gay or lesbian individual, or a bi-sexual? Are these the views of a Republican, a Democratic, a Libertarian, an Independent, or perhaps a member of the Green Party? Do you agree with this individual with respect to any of their views? There is an odd number of opinions expressed, thus permitting you to choose four with which you most closely agree. If you were told that four of them were the positions or the party platform for a particular party, would you consider yourself a member or adherent of that particular political party? Can you identify an underlying philosophical theme or thread running through all of these positions?
Earlier this year, there was a rather interesting device circulating on the Internet, when there were still more than fifteen candidates competing against one another for their particular party’s nomination. The reader was asked to indicate his or her position on roughly 20 to 25 issues. Based on the positions taken by the various candidates up to that point, the device advised the reader of the name of the candidate who most closely supported the reader’s positions. Would you be willing to have a president elected through such a mechanism, with the candidate scoring the highest combined percentages of support in all areas deemed the winner?
Let’s get back to our citizen? Is our citizen a male or a female? Located in the South, North, or West? Is this individual a Christian? Is this individual of good moral character? Would you allow your son or daughter to marry this individual? Would you be willing to work with this person? At what point did you decide that you disliked or liked our citizen? At some point, as you proceeded down the list of seven positions, did you change your mind, and perhaps change it again?
Not only have we entered an era where we dissect anything and everything associated with a political candidate and those connected with or supporting that candidate, we also make assumptions about the totality of individuals based on individual issues. Let’s assume that either Candidate McCain or Candidate Obama truly and honestly held any one of the views held by our citizen above, and the candidate had the guts to express that to the American people. Could either one still manage to get elected? Which one would be a disqualifying factor? Would two, or three, or four of the views held subject the candidate to disqualification? Let’s assume that two remaining candidates following a primary process both held these personal views, but agreed to abide by and pursue the platform determined by their respective parties, despite their philosophical differences. Could they still be elected?
Is there some value to categorizing someone as good or bad based on a few factors or a few opinions? You can be reasonably certain that the views expressed by our citizen are held by millions of others, if they honestly disclosed their views. However, are the views too radical and too controversial for any sensible member of our society to openly embrace without fear of retribution? How many of you said to yourself, “We don’t do things like that in America”?
I ask you, are all of these attacks on individual statements and opinions necessary? Do we really get the honest views of our candidates in America? Should a politician pursue, once elected and after disclosing their true views to the American people, his or her personal goals, or simply those of the people, or are they one and the same? Some would argue that we have reached a point in out society where we really don’t truly know who we are electing these days. Consider the possibility that the best actor, with the best handlers and PR people, could probably manage to get elected, by saying just the right things, and playing it safe. You tell me. Do you like this, or is it that we can’t do any better?
Oh, by the way, for those of you who know me personally, which one of the seven opinions do I hold?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Post No.13: No More Smoke and Mirrors, Please
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Truth be Told. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, I wrote a piece which I shared with some friends, but did not publish or otherwise make available to the public. In that piece, I spoke of how the citizens, most severely affected by Katrina, would soon be forgotten, and ultimately dismissed. Why? They are, for the most part, a class of people who do not “matter” or have much influence in our society. Let me chat for a minute about what “matter" means.
The reality is that in America, we have neither the political will nor the motivation to ensure that everyone maintains at least some subsistence level of existence. Recognizing that practical reality, we as a society take whatever steps to ignore, sweep aside, or cover the sore that is poverty, with no real intention of addressing it.
This segment of the population, on a practical level, does not matter. It is not a battle worth fighting from the perspective of the power structure. It’s not cost-effective. There are other ways, perhaps not particularly pleasant, but at least effective, to deal with it.
But this is nothing new. What’s new or different about now? It is actually reflected in the brave young men and women who make up our military. I’ve had the opportunity to meet many a soldier in airports over the last couple of years. Virtually all of them served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The story is the same every time. Initially, they saw themselves as patriots, performing a valuable service. They envisioned that the probable rewards were worth the personal risks. As time went on however, their purpose and mission became less clear. The service drilled into them that they should not question authority, nor speak derisively about their leaders, and therefore they did not do so.
This is a volunteer force – they stepped up and answered the call, and we still dismiss them. The vast majority of them are from the same type of families and situations that comprised the vast majority of those most severely affected by Katrina – the poor and disenfranchised. (I guarantee you that if we still had the draft, drawing from a far wider cross-section of society, this whole situation would be treated very differently.)
John Kerry actually got it right when he flubbed the “joke.” It wasn’t a joke. It would have been helpful if he had the guts to acknowledge that.
I am sure that last week most of you missed that the Pentagon and the Administration opposed a proposal that an education bill, similar to the G.I. Bill enacted after World War II, be extended to our Iraq War vets. On what grounds you ask? They were concerned about how such a “benefit” might discourage continued service in the military. God forbid these folks come back to the States, get an education, and truly enter the ranks of the middle class.
Being the optimist, I actually see a positive side to this. Virtually nothing that this Administration promised the American people, during it campaign, has come to fruition. Eight years of confusion and misdirection have paved the path for the re-emergence of that rare, but powerful, force in politics – the Truth, which translates into credibility. We’re at the point where we can not take it any more, and do it with a straight face. That translates into abysmal approval ratings. We’re spending money on maintaining order in some foreign land, and can not maintain order in the streets of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Detroit. We’re building an infrastructure in a foreign land, while ours crumbles. We’re investing capital in some other nation’s long term interests, while we ignore ours. This is not to mention that we’re letting others in our borders, while many of our citizens hunt for jobs on a daily basis. I wish that someone would explain this situation to me with a straight face.
Fortunately, the young folks fighting over there are pretty sharp, and they see through the spin and magic. One has to be on high alert, and not asleep at the switch, in order to simply survive. They also have friends and relatives, and the hearts of the American public. As my friend Laughingman recently noted, “We taught these youngsters to live their lives so that they would have no regrets for past actions, or remorse for lost opportunities. They took us at our word, but they are now holding up our record of performance, or lack thereof, to an unforgiving light. Do not be surprised if they come out en masse to beat the drums for a man whose very presence on the political platform epitomizes change.”
Our children are mad as hell, and they aren't willing to take it anymore. They know that doing the right thing is not rocket science, and that it is not that difficult a concept to appreciate. As legendary ad man Bill Bernback once suggested, "I've got a neat gimmick - let’s tell the truth."
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Truth be Told. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, I wrote a piece which I shared with some friends, but did not publish or otherwise make available to the public. In that piece, I spoke of how the citizens, most severely affected by Katrina, would soon be forgotten, and ultimately dismissed. Why? They are, for the most part, a class of people who do not “matter” or have much influence in our society. Let me chat for a minute about what “matter" means.
The reality is that in America, we have neither the political will nor the motivation to ensure that everyone maintains at least some subsistence level of existence. Recognizing that practical reality, we as a society take whatever steps to ignore, sweep aside, or cover the sore that is poverty, with no real intention of addressing it.
This segment of the population, on a practical level, does not matter. It is not a battle worth fighting from the perspective of the power structure. It’s not cost-effective. There are other ways, perhaps not particularly pleasant, but at least effective, to deal with it.
But this is nothing new. What’s new or different about now? It is actually reflected in the brave young men and women who make up our military. I’ve had the opportunity to meet many a soldier in airports over the last couple of years. Virtually all of them served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The story is the same every time. Initially, they saw themselves as patriots, performing a valuable service. They envisioned that the probable rewards were worth the personal risks. As time went on however, their purpose and mission became less clear. The service drilled into them that they should not question authority, nor speak derisively about their leaders, and therefore they did not do so.
This is a volunteer force – they stepped up and answered the call, and we still dismiss them. The vast majority of them are from the same type of families and situations that comprised the vast majority of those most severely affected by Katrina – the poor and disenfranchised. (I guarantee you that if we still had the draft, drawing from a far wider cross-section of society, this whole situation would be treated very differently.)
John Kerry actually got it right when he flubbed the “joke.” It wasn’t a joke. It would have been helpful if he had the guts to acknowledge that.
I am sure that last week most of you missed that the Pentagon and the Administration opposed a proposal that an education bill, similar to the G.I. Bill enacted after World War II, be extended to our Iraq War vets. On what grounds you ask? They were concerned about how such a “benefit” might discourage continued service in the military. God forbid these folks come back to the States, get an education, and truly enter the ranks of the middle class.
Being the optimist, I actually see a positive side to this. Virtually nothing that this Administration promised the American people, during it campaign, has come to fruition. Eight years of confusion and misdirection have paved the path for the re-emergence of that rare, but powerful, force in politics – the Truth, which translates into credibility. We’re at the point where we can not take it any more, and do it with a straight face. That translates into abysmal approval ratings. We’re spending money on maintaining order in some foreign land, and can not maintain order in the streets of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Detroit. We’re building an infrastructure in a foreign land, while ours crumbles. We’re investing capital in some other nation’s long term interests, while we ignore ours. This is not to mention that we’re letting others in our borders, while many of our citizens hunt for jobs on a daily basis. I wish that someone would explain this situation to me with a straight face.
Fortunately, the young folks fighting over there are pretty sharp, and they see through the spin and magic. One has to be on high alert, and not asleep at the switch, in order to simply survive. They also have friends and relatives, and the hearts of the American public. As my friend Laughingman recently noted, “We taught these youngsters to live their lives so that they would have no regrets for past actions, or remorse for lost opportunities. They took us at our word, but they are now holding up our record of performance, or lack thereof, to an unforgiving light. Do not be surprised if they come out en masse to beat the drums for a man whose very presence on the political platform epitomizes change.”
Our children are mad as hell, and they aren't willing to take it anymore. They know that doing the right thing is not rocket science, and that it is not that difficult a concept to appreciate. As legendary ad man Bill Bernback once suggested, "I've got a neat gimmick - let’s tell the truth."
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Post No. 5: The Triangular Box in Which America Finds Itself Circumscribed (Why We Really Don’t Like Any of the Political Candidates)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
If we were honest with ourselves, we’d admit that there is something about political candidates which we dislike long before they are ever elected. I first developed a sense of this during the late 1970s, when I became excited about a particular candidate running for the U.S. Senate. I was a fresh, idealistic youth, excited about what this candidate could do for America.
I attended a reception in the lobby of a beautiful, historic office building downtown with high ceilings, filled with campaign supporters and the press. When I finally managed to get a close up view of the candidate who I planned to support, I noted a certain detachment in his eyes, taking on an almost Zombie- type quality. I watched him as he navigated the room, smiling, shaking hands.
I still did not connect with him on a personal level, because he just didn’t seem real. I also noticed the entourage, consisting of enthusiastic “grinners.”
I chalked up that initial experience to a lack of charisma on the part of that particular candidate. A couple of years later, I got excited about a gubernatorial candidate. This time around, the candidate was even more Zombie-like than the first. Of course, once again, there was an adequate supply of grinners. Although still idealistic, I decided that participation in political campaigns was not for me.
Some years later, the husband of one of my best friends in school decided to run for state office. Since I really admired this guy, and knew his views prior to his decision to run for office, I enthusiastically supported his candidacy. He was successful, and fortunately, he never changed. I always felt that he looked at me, and others, straight in the eye, and not past us looking for the next hand to shake. I viewed him as a real person. It probably helped that I knew him before, during, and after his political life.
Interestingly, after a subsequent unsuccessful bid for higher office, I asked him how he liked being out of politics. After letting out a big sigh, he said that he loved it. My sense was that there was nothing he hated more than being a politician. He obviously had a passion about serving his constituency, but the politician hat never quite fit him. I got the impression that it was a contorted existence, full of twisting and turning – almost unnatural in a sense. I then realized - that we have created an unattainable standard, with unreasonable expectations, or perhaps inappropriate expectations.
I have always felt, from a theoretical perspective, that serving one’s country, or serving the needs of others, was the highest form of societal contribution that one could make. Consequently, when I began to get this sense that being a politician was not a particularly good thing, it began to bother me.
I doubt that I ever actually looked up the word “political,” until roughly ten minutes ago. However, it always seemed to me that “being political” meant saying whatever one needed to say, that would offend the fewest people, and result in the least amount of noticeable criticism. (That’s coming from someone who does not consider himself cynical.) That’s not only bad from a public relations perspective, but it also creates a mood of alienation amongst our voters. Cynicism about politics is not a good thing. It makes one not care.
I have often joked with my friends that the primary reason that I have never been married is because I have no political skills. Knowing that, I made a decision never to get married. I’ve concluded that I’m not qualified for marriage.
In a similar vein, maybe we should come to the realization that the standard that we have artificially created for our candidates does not really make them qualified as functional leaders, although they might be, at least superficially, good moral leaders. (I’d be just fine with delegating all of the morality talk to the religious professionals - our ministers, priests, and rabbis.)
Maybe candidates can not really connect with us since they fear that we might see them for who they really are – less than perfect people. (They may know it, but their handlers may not want us to see it.) Perhaps they’ve got to hit you with something superficially positive, and move on before you figure out the real deal. Additionally, we all recognize that it is a numbers game.
For many years, we have spoken about election decisions involving choosing the lesser of evils. We often assume that they are all egomaniacs. We also frequently assume that they are all on the take. We even suggest that the system is at fault, and that lobbyists and big corporations ultimately corrupt even the most capable of politicians.
I would suggest something different. They’re not like us; but we, as a country, have put ourselves in a box. (Maybe they really are like us, but we do not allow them to express that quality, since we would immediately attack them as having character flaws.) Let’s take our recent primary experience.
Admittedly, the leader of the free world, or any country for that matter, should be held to a higher standard of conduct and prior achievement. However, this notion of a saint with a perfect success rating, who has never made a mistake, who has never associated with someone who made a mistake, and who has never misspoke about a sensitive subject, and who has never had a business failure, has effectively eliminated all of the people who could really do an effective job.
Every individual citizen’s concept of morality and success becomes a nebulous and amorphous standard, and when compounded, becomes a virtually unattainable one.
Quite frankly, I have often joked that I would like to see a straight-talking candidate, who admitted that he was a philander, a former drug-addict, a former homeless person, a former bankrupt who failed at business, and who had many prior indiscretions, take a stab at the presidency.
That candidate would probably have better skills, and have a better appreciation of the issues affecting the majority of the citizens in our society. (All the perfect, successful people out there, with ideal families really don’t need a leader. Their lives are ideal. They are just afraid of those with non-ideal lives creeping over into their neighborhoods.)
We need a leader to address problems and improve conditions. To address problems, one needs to understand the underlying causes of problems. To address problems, a nation (meaning its citizenry) also needs to accept responsibility for its structural and systemic contribution to the problem.
On the contrary, what we have today is the constant blame game, “The other guy or other party did it. They’re the reason that we are in this condition today.” I don’t know about you; however, I’ve never found that criticizing the conduct of others solved crap. Come up with a suggestion of something different that might work.
There’s another problem with our candidates unrelated to the moral box. Most folks running for our highest office do not have a clue as to who you are. They may have at one point at time, prior to embarking on their road to success. However, you don’t enter the arena of presidential pretenders being an ordinary Joe, nor do you enter that arena with many setbacks under your belt. They’ve fought long and hard. They are generally successful financially and professionally, and they are focused.
They are not your average American with average issues, hopes, and desires. There’s a disconnect. There is thus, also, a class box. (Tangentially, I should note that the political commentators and consultants, on all of the shows dealing with politics, aren’t ordinary Janes or Joes either. Talk about a disconnect from the American public. I just love it when they say, “What the American people want….”
I hope that you do not view me as an apologist for some notion of immoral behavior, or prior personal setbacks. That’s not the argument that I am making. I’m just saying that we have created an unachievable standard. I doubt that anyone is truly “qualified” to be president.
I’m no academic historian; however, my sense is that some of the greatest leaders of this country were not saints, and they were not always successful in every aspect of life. They were not professional speakers and hand shakers. They didn’t always speak in politically correct terms. My suspicion is that all things considered, they had more positive about them than negative.
In a nation where we judge our potential leaders by a superficial, illusive, personal standard which most of us can not attain ourselves, how do we expect to find someone to address the real issues affecting our society, and on which probably most of us can agree. As Wag the Dog showed us, it is too much about “the show.”
Personally, I like doers, not avoiders. I like risk takers, not risk avoiders. I like straight talkers, not talkers about high moral values, when in fact they are just like the rest of us, human, and subject to mistakes and foibles.
Hypocrites, please move aside. And for God’s sake, find me a candidate who will occasionally say, “My fellow Americans, I apologize, but I made a mistake.” Aren’t we capable of accepting apologies in this society, or have we made it too difficult to apologize, resulting in a bunch of deniers? Folks generally know when they messed up.
The continual condemnation, requiring the hypocritical, self-serving painting or characterization of political candidates, does not really advance any societal interests, just short-term, personal ones. It also contributes to the perpetuation of false images on the part of our candidates. (I still have not decided whether it is a good quality in a candidate to be able to ignore or deflect public criticism, and persevere when they believe that they are doing the “right thing.” I used to think that was a good quality, and that thinking in terms of the long term was generally the way to go. Our current president has made me re-evaluate that factor.)
Let’s see if we get beyond this beauty and morality contest. How about a switch to someone who can simply get things done, even if he or she does not fit within the politically correct box in which we currently find ourselves confined? How about a switch to someone whose primary goal is not to get elected? Our denial, or failure to admit that we are not a perfect, successful, moral society, might be our downfall.
By fighting our way out of this restrictive, but amorphous box in which we find ourselves, we might actually get more accomplished as a nation. We can not continue to allow outside forces, and the current world environment, dictate the fate of America, while we sweat the “small stuff.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
If we were honest with ourselves, we’d admit that there is something about political candidates which we dislike long before they are ever elected. I first developed a sense of this during the late 1970s, when I became excited about a particular candidate running for the U.S. Senate. I was a fresh, idealistic youth, excited about what this candidate could do for America.
I attended a reception in the lobby of a beautiful, historic office building downtown with high ceilings, filled with campaign supporters and the press. When I finally managed to get a close up view of the candidate who I planned to support, I noted a certain detachment in his eyes, taking on an almost Zombie- type quality. I watched him as he navigated the room, smiling, shaking hands.
I still did not connect with him on a personal level, because he just didn’t seem real. I also noticed the entourage, consisting of enthusiastic “grinners.”
I chalked up that initial experience to a lack of charisma on the part of that particular candidate. A couple of years later, I got excited about a gubernatorial candidate. This time around, the candidate was even more Zombie-like than the first. Of course, once again, there was an adequate supply of grinners. Although still idealistic, I decided that participation in political campaigns was not for me.
Some years later, the husband of one of my best friends in school decided to run for state office. Since I really admired this guy, and knew his views prior to his decision to run for office, I enthusiastically supported his candidacy. He was successful, and fortunately, he never changed. I always felt that he looked at me, and others, straight in the eye, and not past us looking for the next hand to shake. I viewed him as a real person. It probably helped that I knew him before, during, and after his political life.
Interestingly, after a subsequent unsuccessful bid for higher office, I asked him how he liked being out of politics. After letting out a big sigh, he said that he loved it. My sense was that there was nothing he hated more than being a politician. He obviously had a passion about serving his constituency, but the politician hat never quite fit him. I got the impression that it was a contorted existence, full of twisting and turning – almost unnatural in a sense. I then realized - that we have created an unattainable standard, with unreasonable expectations, or perhaps inappropriate expectations.
I have always felt, from a theoretical perspective, that serving one’s country, or serving the needs of others, was the highest form of societal contribution that one could make. Consequently, when I began to get this sense that being a politician was not a particularly good thing, it began to bother me.
I doubt that I ever actually looked up the word “political,” until roughly ten minutes ago. However, it always seemed to me that “being political” meant saying whatever one needed to say, that would offend the fewest people, and result in the least amount of noticeable criticism. (That’s coming from someone who does not consider himself cynical.) That’s not only bad from a public relations perspective, but it also creates a mood of alienation amongst our voters. Cynicism about politics is not a good thing. It makes one not care.
I have often joked with my friends that the primary reason that I have never been married is because I have no political skills. Knowing that, I made a decision never to get married. I’ve concluded that I’m not qualified for marriage.
In a similar vein, maybe we should come to the realization that the standard that we have artificially created for our candidates does not really make them qualified as functional leaders, although they might be, at least superficially, good moral leaders. (I’d be just fine with delegating all of the morality talk to the religious professionals - our ministers, priests, and rabbis.)
Maybe candidates can not really connect with us since they fear that we might see them for who they really are – less than perfect people. (They may know it, but their handlers may not want us to see it.) Perhaps they’ve got to hit you with something superficially positive, and move on before you figure out the real deal. Additionally, we all recognize that it is a numbers game.
For many years, we have spoken about election decisions involving choosing the lesser of evils. We often assume that they are all egomaniacs. We also frequently assume that they are all on the take. We even suggest that the system is at fault, and that lobbyists and big corporations ultimately corrupt even the most capable of politicians.
I would suggest something different. They’re not like us; but we, as a country, have put ourselves in a box. (Maybe they really are like us, but we do not allow them to express that quality, since we would immediately attack them as having character flaws.) Let’s take our recent primary experience.
Admittedly, the leader of the free world, or any country for that matter, should be held to a higher standard of conduct and prior achievement. However, this notion of a saint with a perfect success rating, who has never made a mistake, who has never associated with someone who made a mistake, and who has never misspoke about a sensitive subject, and who has never had a business failure, has effectively eliminated all of the people who could really do an effective job.
Every individual citizen’s concept of morality and success becomes a nebulous and amorphous standard, and when compounded, becomes a virtually unattainable one.
Quite frankly, I have often joked that I would like to see a straight-talking candidate, who admitted that he was a philander, a former drug-addict, a former homeless person, a former bankrupt who failed at business, and who had many prior indiscretions, take a stab at the presidency.
That candidate would probably have better skills, and have a better appreciation of the issues affecting the majority of the citizens in our society. (All the perfect, successful people out there, with ideal families really don’t need a leader. Their lives are ideal. They are just afraid of those with non-ideal lives creeping over into their neighborhoods.)
We need a leader to address problems and improve conditions. To address problems, one needs to understand the underlying causes of problems. To address problems, a nation (meaning its citizenry) also needs to accept responsibility for its structural and systemic contribution to the problem.
On the contrary, what we have today is the constant blame game, “The other guy or other party did it. They’re the reason that we are in this condition today.” I don’t know about you; however, I’ve never found that criticizing the conduct of others solved crap. Come up with a suggestion of something different that might work.
There’s another problem with our candidates unrelated to the moral box. Most folks running for our highest office do not have a clue as to who you are. They may have at one point at time, prior to embarking on their road to success. However, you don’t enter the arena of presidential pretenders being an ordinary Joe, nor do you enter that arena with many setbacks under your belt. They’ve fought long and hard. They are generally successful financially and professionally, and they are focused.
They are not your average American with average issues, hopes, and desires. There’s a disconnect. There is thus, also, a class box. (Tangentially, I should note that the political commentators and consultants, on all of the shows dealing with politics, aren’t ordinary Janes or Joes either. Talk about a disconnect from the American public. I just love it when they say, “What the American people want….”
I hope that you do not view me as an apologist for some notion of immoral behavior, or prior personal setbacks. That’s not the argument that I am making. I’m just saying that we have created an unachievable standard. I doubt that anyone is truly “qualified” to be president.
I’m no academic historian; however, my sense is that some of the greatest leaders of this country were not saints, and they were not always successful in every aspect of life. They were not professional speakers and hand shakers. They didn’t always speak in politically correct terms. My suspicion is that all things considered, they had more positive about them than negative.
In a nation where we judge our potential leaders by a superficial, illusive, personal standard which most of us can not attain ourselves, how do we expect to find someone to address the real issues affecting our society, and on which probably most of us can agree. As Wag the Dog showed us, it is too much about “the show.”
Personally, I like doers, not avoiders. I like risk takers, not risk avoiders. I like straight talkers, not talkers about high moral values, when in fact they are just like the rest of us, human, and subject to mistakes and foibles.
Hypocrites, please move aside. And for God’s sake, find me a candidate who will occasionally say, “My fellow Americans, I apologize, but I made a mistake.” Aren’t we capable of accepting apologies in this society, or have we made it too difficult to apologize, resulting in a bunch of deniers? Folks generally know when they messed up.
The continual condemnation, requiring the hypocritical, self-serving painting or characterization of political candidates, does not really advance any societal interests, just short-term, personal ones. It also contributes to the perpetuation of false images on the part of our candidates. (I still have not decided whether it is a good quality in a candidate to be able to ignore or deflect public criticism, and persevere when they believe that they are doing the “right thing.” I used to think that was a good quality, and that thinking in terms of the long term was generally the way to go. Our current president has made me re-evaluate that factor.)
Let’s see if we get beyond this beauty and morality contest. How about a switch to someone who can simply get things done, even if he or she does not fit within the politically correct box in which we currently find ourselves confined? How about a switch to someone whose primary goal is not to get elected? Our denial, or failure to admit that we are not a perfect, successful, moral society, might be our downfall.
By fighting our way out of this restrictive, but amorphous box in which we find ourselves, we might actually get more accomplished as a nation. We can not continue to allow outside forces, and the current world environment, dictate the fate of America, while we sweat the “small stuff.”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Post No. 3: Some Lessons to be Learned by Kids in the Current Political Environment - Or Should They Be?
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I have always found the phrase, “Do as I say, not as I do,” interesting. I have often tried to remember whether I actually really heard anyone, who I respected, utter it. I’m pretty sure that I never heard it from my parents, although I may have seen the concept in action. I’m fairly convinced that it is something that we’ve all heard in various television shows or movies, but not in real life.
I had a conversation with my good friend Gail in Wisconsin today about the tone of the current political campaigns. It occurred to me that depending on the particular side of the aisle on which you sit, you might find certain conduct, on the part of the party with which you disagree, as “objectionable.” But I asked myself, are there some universal principles, which kids of parents, across the entire philosophical and political spectrum, should be able to take away from this period in our history, as examples of appropriate and acceptable conduct. I further asked myself whether the principles were inspirational in nature. Finally, I asked whether these principles advanced our societal interests and encouraged civic participation.
Before trying to identify some of these principles, I was reminded of the fact that each generation seems to think that the following generation is going to hell in a hand basket. I also thought about the fact that with technological advances, there are always good and bad ramifications associated therewith. With respect to the printed word, few would argue against the proposition that the invention of the printing press, and the resultant dissemination of information and knowledge through books, was overwhelmingly a positive thing. At the same time, we also recognize that some of that information may not be appropriate for children, and may actually have a deleterious effect. It is the same with computers and access to the internet.
So in thinking about the current political discourse, I tried to think of similarities and differences for purposes of analysis. In the case of books, someone or some authority has historically controlled the availability of books. There have been bans, or burnings, of various sorts over the course of history. We have restricted the ability of various citizens to gain access to certain books and information. The same might be said about some content on our media vehicles and the internet. Parents have technological devices permitting them to deny their kids access to certain channels and content. Additionally, parents can track the surfing habits of their kids.
I also recalled that many historians have provided evidence to support their contention that political mudslinging has been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and has always been hardball in nature. However, in the case of the Lincoln – Douglas debates, we did not have the incredible technologically sophisticated media vehicles that we have today. The communication of the vituperative nature of the discourse was not as widely distributed, and with far less speed. In the case of our current presidential political campaigns, much of what is broadcast appears on the regular, non-cable channels, available to all, including those with rabbit ears, or even those without. Additionally, many outlets can be viewed, or heard in the case of radio, twenty-four hours per day. In fact, some might consider viewing or listening by our youth to be a good thing in that it helps them appreciate and fulfill their civic responsibilities.
Well, I’m glad that you’re convinced. I’m not as comfortable with that notion. Let’s look at some of the lessons to be learned from the practices that we see today:
(a) Individuals in the public arena who have managed to acquire masters’ degrees, raise families, be elected to national office, and make efforts to have an impact on American society have “done nothing in life worthwhile.” I would imagine that the argument could be advanced that they have not done anything worthy of being elected president. However, if that is the case, why not state that clearly.
(b) Anything done in the world of politics is acceptable and justified, including negative campaigning, because “politics is a tough business, and participants should realize that,” and because “negative campaigning is effective.”
(c) It is acceptable during the course of political discussions to refer to others whose views you do not accept as “liars, vermin, unpatriotic, commies, pinkos,” and various and sundry other descriptors which need not be repeated here.
(d) Someone willing to sit down with our adversaries or enemies to discuss possible resolution of our differences is “selling out,” and will “surrender our values,” and consequently discussion should not be had until your opponent bends to your rules.
(e) Americans expect, and respect, those who fight back, even if the level of the respondent attack is of the same quality and kind as the precipitating attack, no matter how negative. We don’t respect those who take the high ground, because it will not help you achieve your goals.
(f) Should you seek a position of high visibility or public office, you should ensure that you agree with, and accept, all statements made by those close to you or your campaign, during public events, and in the event that you do not, you should immediately denounce or fire them, and consider forfeiting your membership in the groups or organizations with which they are associated.
(g) If you are a member of any party or group, it is unacceptable to espouse views that differ from the “group speak,” or the party’s or group’s platform or principles.
Of course, I’m being ridiculous here even trying to formulate positive principles for our kids to take away from these campaigns and their attendant activity. None of the “principles” outlined above is really an acceptable principle, to be utilized in our examination or evaluation of our political candidates, or anyone in a high position for that matter. But that’s exactly the problem. I can not, with a straight face and with a clear conscience, identify any principle worth holding that is to be gleaned from this experience. And that’s sad… If the parents have tuned out, and find the discourse nasty and distasteful, imagine what the kids are thinking. If they are paying attention at all… Not to mention those worthy and dedicated (but imperfect) individuals who might consider entering public life…
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I have always found the phrase, “Do as I say, not as I do,” interesting. I have often tried to remember whether I actually really heard anyone, who I respected, utter it. I’m pretty sure that I never heard it from my parents, although I may have seen the concept in action. I’m fairly convinced that it is something that we’ve all heard in various television shows or movies, but not in real life.
I had a conversation with my good friend Gail in Wisconsin today about the tone of the current political campaigns. It occurred to me that depending on the particular side of the aisle on which you sit, you might find certain conduct, on the part of the party with which you disagree, as “objectionable.” But I asked myself, are there some universal principles, which kids of parents, across the entire philosophical and political spectrum, should be able to take away from this period in our history, as examples of appropriate and acceptable conduct. I further asked myself whether the principles were inspirational in nature. Finally, I asked whether these principles advanced our societal interests and encouraged civic participation.
Before trying to identify some of these principles, I was reminded of the fact that each generation seems to think that the following generation is going to hell in a hand basket. I also thought about the fact that with technological advances, there are always good and bad ramifications associated therewith. With respect to the printed word, few would argue against the proposition that the invention of the printing press, and the resultant dissemination of information and knowledge through books, was overwhelmingly a positive thing. At the same time, we also recognize that some of that information may not be appropriate for children, and may actually have a deleterious effect. It is the same with computers and access to the internet.
So in thinking about the current political discourse, I tried to think of similarities and differences for purposes of analysis. In the case of books, someone or some authority has historically controlled the availability of books. There have been bans, or burnings, of various sorts over the course of history. We have restricted the ability of various citizens to gain access to certain books and information. The same might be said about some content on our media vehicles and the internet. Parents have technological devices permitting them to deny their kids access to certain channels and content. Additionally, parents can track the surfing habits of their kids.
I also recalled that many historians have provided evidence to support their contention that political mudslinging has been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, and has always been hardball in nature. However, in the case of the Lincoln – Douglas debates, we did not have the incredible technologically sophisticated media vehicles that we have today. The communication of the vituperative nature of the discourse was not as widely distributed, and with far less speed. In the case of our current presidential political campaigns, much of what is broadcast appears on the regular, non-cable channels, available to all, including those with rabbit ears, or even those without. Additionally, many outlets can be viewed, or heard in the case of radio, twenty-four hours per day. In fact, some might consider viewing or listening by our youth to be a good thing in that it helps them appreciate and fulfill their civic responsibilities.
Well, I’m glad that you’re convinced. I’m not as comfortable with that notion. Let’s look at some of the lessons to be learned from the practices that we see today:
(a) Individuals in the public arena who have managed to acquire masters’ degrees, raise families, be elected to national office, and make efforts to have an impact on American society have “done nothing in life worthwhile.” I would imagine that the argument could be advanced that they have not done anything worthy of being elected president. However, if that is the case, why not state that clearly.
(b) Anything done in the world of politics is acceptable and justified, including negative campaigning, because “politics is a tough business, and participants should realize that,” and because “negative campaigning is effective.”
(c) It is acceptable during the course of political discussions to refer to others whose views you do not accept as “liars, vermin, unpatriotic, commies, pinkos,” and various and sundry other descriptors which need not be repeated here.
(d) Someone willing to sit down with our adversaries or enemies to discuss possible resolution of our differences is “selling out,” and will “surrender our values,” and consequently discussion should not be had until your opponent bends to your rules.
(e) Americans expect, and respect, those who fight back, even if the level of the respondent attack is of the same quality and kind as the precipitating attack, no matter how negative. We don’t respect those who take the high ground, because it will not help you achieve your goals.
(f) Should you seek a position of high visibility or public office, you should ensure that you agree with, and accept, all statements made by those close to you or your campaign, during public events, and in the event that you do not, you should immediately denounce or fire them, and consider forfeiting your membership in the groups or organizations with which they are associated.
(g) If you are a member of any party or group, it is unacceptable to espouse views that differ from the “group speak,” or the party’s or group’s platform or principles.
Of course, I’m being ridiculous here even trying to formulate positive principles for our kids to take away from these campaigns and their attendant activity. None of the “principles” outlined above is really an acceptable principle, to be utilized in our examination or evaluation of our political candidates, or anyone in a high position for that matter. But that’s exactly the problem. I can not, with a straight face and with a clear conscience, identify any principle worth holding that is to be gleaned from this experience. And that’s sad… If the parents have tuned out, and find the discourse nasty and distasteful, imagine what the kids are thinking. If they are paying attention at all… Not to mention those worthy and dedicated (but imperfect) individuals who might consider entering public life…
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)