Coop wrote in pertinent part, in response to Post 5a:
"On the surface your arguments appear to hold some validity. But let’s look deeper."
"Let’s first look at times past to compare. Before Watergate the political news was dispensed through the three networks, newspapers and radio...."
"This is the advancement of the “Gotcha” game. As we see with much of the traditional mainstream media, the line between opinion and straight news reporting is all but gone...."
"This can be challenged with one name “Clinton.” [See Coop's Complete Comment.]
The essence of Coop's argument is that I focused on a relatively short time frame from which to examine the manner in which the news of political campaigns is disseminated. In his comment, he makes references to events during the last 30 years. However, in his original response, he referred to a Will Rogers comment in 1924. In my analysis, I assumed that we were going back to the beginning of politics, which I would submit, is generally the manner in which historical analysis is best conducted to gain perspective. Should you examine my comments in that light, I would submit that that are still worthy of consideration. That being said, I still value Coop's comments.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Post No. 8: Katrina, Chinese Style
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I’m going to try something a little different this time. We’ve witnessed two, major, natural disasters in foreign lands within the past week. Both inflicted damage, far beyond anything, in terms of loss of human life, that we have seen in the United States during any of our lifetimes. The property damage figures are still being calculated, and because of differences in the respective standards of living, it may be difficult to compare the physical damage in China and Burma to the damage in the United States due to Katrina.
For purposes of this discussion, let’s just focus on China alone. In late August of this year, it will have been three full years since Hurricane Katrina unleashed her fury on the Gulf Coast, with significant damage to the State of Louisiana. Additionally, we’ve all seen reports of what still remains to be done and the manner in which the lives of many have been disrupted and have not yet returned to normal. Here’s my question, or actually, series of questions:
1. Three years from now, do you think that China will have done a better job of responding to its disaster than America?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences in our cultures and governments that will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will China have repaired all of the physical damage within three years?
6. Will China have reconstructed the lives of all of the affected people within three years?
This should be interesting. Be sure to explain your position.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
I’m going to try something a little different this time. We’ve witnessed two, major, natural disasters in foreign lands within the past week. Both inflicted damage, far beyond anything, in terms of loss of human life, that we have seen in the United States during any of our lifetimes. The property damage figures are still being calculated, and because of differences in the respective standards of living, it may be difficult to compare the physical damage in China and Burma to the damage in the United States due to Katrina.
For purposes of this discussion, let’s just focus on China alone. In late August of this year, it will have been three full years since Hurricane Katrina unleashed her fury on the Gulf Coast, with significant damage to the State of Louisiana. Additionally, we’ve all seen reports of what still remains to be done and the manner in which the lives of many have been disrupted and have not yet returned to normal. Here’s my question, or actually, series of questions:
1. Three years from now, do you think that China will have done a better job of responding to its disaster than America?
2. What factors have you taken into consideration in arriving at your position?
3. Are there differences in our cultures and governments that will contribute to the differing responses?
4. How significant will the difference be?
5. Will China have repaired all of the physical damage within three years?
6. Will China have reconstructed the lives of all of the affected people within three years?
This should be interesting. Be sure to explain your position.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Post No. 7: You Asked for Religion, You Get Religion (and Politics)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
It has been said that if one wants to maintain good relations with others in social conversation, one should avoid a discussion of religion or politics. That is unless, of course, everyone in the room feels somewhat similarly about the subject matter. I’m a guy who never saw any reason for anger or tension in interpersonal relationships, and consequently I avoided discussing religion in the past. Why get into an argument unnecessarily that will not advance anyone’s interests? That being said, four recent events prompted me to share my thoughts, or perhaps I should say, my observations.
The first was obviously the frequent reference to religious issues in the current campaign for the presidency, above and beyond Mormonism, Jeremiah Wright, and John Hagee. The second was a surprisingly large number of regular readers of my blog who were interested in whether I thought God existed. Interestingly, all of the readers were women in their late forties or early fifties, who I had known for over twenty-five years. I was immediately intrigued by the fact that they would even ask the question. I gained the impression that they were not inquiring as to whether I believed, but rather whether there is a God. The mere asking of that question poses significant risks. I imagine that only friends over such a lengthy period can ask another friend a question so fraught with potential complications.
The third event was a simple, innocuous, two minute conversation in a gas station earlier this week. I asked a driver at an adjacent pump for change for a bill. He responded that, at that particular moment, he was doing the Lord’s work, and with his blessing, by providing it to me. I vaguely recall responding by saying, “Well good,” or something along that line. However, he surprised me by stating that my response and the tone of my voice suggested to him that I was a non-believer. He further indicated that it was my choice of words that led him to that conclusion. There was an accusatory tone in his voice, and a sense of disappointment that I had not yet chosen to believe, even though I said absolutely nothing to lead him to that conclusion.
Moving on to the fourth and most recent event or series of events, I watched two programs on C-Span2 Book TV, where the authors discussed religion. The first featured Randall Balmer, the author of God in the White House (http://books.google.com/books?id=MjvJGwAACAAJ&dq=%22God+in+the+White+House%22&lr=&ei=8GswSLW0K5CkzgTm3NC1Cg). During his discussion, Balmer suggested that politicians use and manipulate religion, in any manner that they see fit, to advance their political interests and goals. He also told the story of how evangelicals became a force in American politics. Apparently in the early 1960s, they were unsuccessful in having any influence on the abortion debate. However, according to Balmer, during the Johnson administration, the Voting Rights Act was passed. Shortly thereafter, the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling to the effect that any organization that practiced racial discrimination did not qualify as a charitable organization. Balmer further indicated that he had it on good authority, from the individual that sought the involvement of evangelicals in politics, that the IRS ruling was the precipitating event.
The second book discussion took place at the Discovery Institute. David Berlinski discussed his new book, The Devil's Delusion, wherein he argues that science does not disprove the existence of God or refute the Intelligent Design concept. (http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266). Roughly two years ago, I pulled out my sister’s old college philosophy textbook, and I started reading the section on the existence of God. There were many discussions of the issue by the great philosophers, on both sides of the argument. I quickly concluded that the discussions was far too intellectual for me, and did not address the issues of everyday, ordinary people, as well reasoned as they may have been.
I had the same feeling watching the Discovery Institute discussion. Virtually everyone in the room was an intellectual heavyweight, even the young college students. I was absolutely fascinated by the discussion, but finished watching the show feeling convinced that such an analysis does not take place in the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. I doubt that such a discussion even takes place amongst the talking heads and consultants on the news shows. I am reasonably sure that the vast majority of people make their decisions about religion in a different fashion – namely whatever works for them and provides them spiritual comfort.
At some early point in my life, I read something to the effect that religion serves the purposes of those who subscribe to it. It provides meaning, purpose, direction, hope, and structure to the lives of humans, and the events that surround them. While I recognize its function from a spiritual, operational, and anthropological perspective, there are many things that I do not understand. You see, I can’t really say that I am a believer. I would have to say that I am a “middle of the roader,” which is a very dangerous status. As another author once said, I thought that being a centrist would mean that folks on both sides of the aisle would find something with which they could agree in my writings. I now understand that it also provides both sides with something which they can both attack.
I recognize the possibility of a deity. I do not denigrate, criticize, or despise those who firmly believe, nor do I feel ill will to those who firmly do not believe. But I’ll tell you, I just wish that God did not work in such mysterious ways, not that I have any control over the subject.
I would like for God to talk to me, touch me, speak to me, or otherwise engage me. I’d just like a clear sign. Additionally, I should note that it does not help to have others tell me that if I simply gave my heart and mind to God, and let him in, he would come in. I just need something more, and I suspect that there are others who feel similarly. I am continually amazed at how confident and self-assured others are about their connection to God. My Father swears that he talks to God. Why has God not chosen to have that same level of connection and conversation with me? Was I left out, or is it about something that I failed to do? I’ve been trying valiantly for 56 years to figure this religion thing out.
I’m not going to get into all of the debates and discussions that have been held repeatedly for thousands of years. Far brighter people have addressed virtually every aspect of religion. I am also fully cognizant that when one raises questions about something, people naturally assume that you have a particular agenda. However, in this instance, and for purposes of this article, I am simply trying to understand the manner in which adherents of different religions treat others and the views of others. This took on a complexion of its own during the recent political campaigns. Interestingly, to my surprise, Balmer indicated that there are currently 4,500 different religions in the world. That being said, I would like to pose some questions to all of you who are more sophisticated and learned than I, to assist me in further developing my thoughts.
How are people chosen to be adherents to a particular religion? Are people born in a certain geographical area based on their acceptability to God? Should we blindly follow the religious views of our parents or should they be questioned and challenged? Is it acceptable for one to modify or adapt the basic tenets of their religion to fit their particular societal, operational, spiritual, and political needs, or should one strictly adhere to the religious tenets and practices that existed at the time that the religion was founded? Is it appropriate for one to be born in one religion, and to then switch to another? Is it necessary for members of one religion to demonize and attack adherents of other religions? Is there one “right” religion which would suggest that the others are “wrong?” Is there one religion that is “better” than the next? Is the basic underlying purpose of religion to ultimately guide people toward doing “good,” however that may be defined? Is physical violence, imposed on adherents to a particular religion who have strayed, or against those of a different religion, ever justified and acceptable in the eyes of God?
For those of you interested in such questions, I strongly suggest that you avoid watching the History Channel, because you will only become more confused. A recent show discussed the books of the Old Testament which could have been included in the Bible, but were left out for various reasons. The program discussed the individuals and groups who made those decisions, and why. I was stunned to find out that there was an earlier version of the legend of Adam and Eve in the Jewish tradition, where Eve’s predecessor was a woman named Lilith, who was Adam’s equal. According to the academic theologians (who interestingly appear to be less dogmatic than practicing religious leaders), the whole course of human history and the relationship of man to woman, including the concept of sex, were dramatically influenced by this “substitution” of Eve.
Additionally, in the same program, the theologians mentioned that the “devil” is never mentioned by name in the Book of Genesis. There is a reference to a serpent. They further noted that it was the practice at the time, when a new religion was being introduced and adopted, to “demonize” the former religion, and one way of depicting the other religion as less desirable was to depict it as a serpent.
Back to the political arena, are we so concerned about the stability of our constitutional form of government that we should be legitimately concerned about one single person’s religious beliefs? Should political candidates question the religious devotion and practices of other candidates during campaigns? Are we to assume that the conduct of the United States is backed by, and has the blessing of, God, and that the conduct of other countries, where other religions are dominant, is not? If God is such an important force in the lives of Americans, despite that piece of paper that suggests that there is a separation of church and state, why doesn’t our society function more like a theocracy? Why do we not have in excess of 600 religious rules and laws like some other major religions? Did we check with God, or the Bible, to determine the manner in which we should handle and treat the enemy combatants captured during our war on terror?
My concern is, and always will be, the provision by our leaders of a structure and a construct thus enabling others to follow and understand their conduct. I would suspect that it is also an issue for our children watching the religious exchange between our candidates. I don’t know, perhaps the lesson to be learned is that you can do whatever you want to do if you believe and feel that God will support it, and thus you do not have to explain your actions to others. As I am in connection with virtually all of my articles, I do not feel any more comfortable now than I felt at the beginning of the generation of this piece.
I will conclude by mentioning yet another book discussion involving Michael Meyerson, author of Liberty’s Blueprint. (Http://www.amazon.com/Libertys-Blueprint-Federalist-Constitution-Democracy/dp/0465002641/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6367001-4872918?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211136469&sr=1-1) In his work, Meyerson tells the story of how James Madison and Alexander Hamilton mounted a campaign to convince the citizenry of the need for a federal constitution and its parameters. Meyerson notes that they did not rely on sound bites and bombastic claims. They wrote 85 separate essays on the subject matter, and then physically traveled around the country making their case for federalism. Meyerson argues that the two patriots emphasized that the resultant product would not be a political compromise, but rather a system that would work. They wanted to convince their audience of the soundness of their concept by reason. Some of our political leaders, on both sides of their aisle, might benefit from employing a similar approach to the religious discussion and the role of religion in our government and politics. Virtually anything would be better than what exists today.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
It has been said that if one wants to maintain good relations with others in social conversation, one should avoid a discussion of religion or politics. That is unless, of course, everyone in the room feels somewhat similarly about the subject matter. I’m a guy who never saw any reason for anger or tension in interpersonal relationships, and consequently I avoided discussing religion in the past. Why get into an argument unnecessarily that will not advance anyone’s interests? That being said, four recent events prompted me to share my thoughts, or perhaps I should say, my observations.
The first was obviously the frequent reference to religious issues in the current campaign for the presidency, above and beyond Mormonism, Jeremiah Wright, and John Hagee. The second was a surprisingly large number of regular readers of my blog who were interested in whether I thought God existed. Interestingly, all of the readers were women in their late forties or early fifties, who I had known for over twenty-five years. I was immediately intrigued by the fact that they would even ask the question. I gained the impression that they were not inquiring as to whether I believed, but rather whether there is a God. The mere asking of that question poses significant risks. I imagine that only friends over such a lengthy period can ask another friend a question so fraught with potential complications.
The third event was a simple, innocuous, two minute conversation in a gas station earlier this week. I asked a driver at an adjacent pump for change for a bill. He responded that, at that particular moment, he was doing the Lord’s work, and with his blessing, by providing it to me. I vaguely recall responding by saying, “Well good,” or something along that line. However, he surprised me by stating that my response and the tone of my voice suggested to him that I was a non-believer. He further indicated that it was my choice of words that led him to that conclusion. There was an accusatory tone in his voice, and a sense of disappointment that I had not yet chosen to believe, even though I said absolutely nothing to lead him to that conclusion.
Moving on to the fourth and most recent event or series of events, I watched two programs on C-Span2 Book TV, where the authors discussed religion. The first featured Randall Balmer, the author of God in the White House (http://books.google.com/books?id=MjvJGwAACAAJ&dq=%22God+in+the+White+House%22&lr=&ei=8GswSLW0K5CkzgTm3NC1Cg). During his discussion, Balmer suggested that politicians use and manipulate religion, in any manner that they see fit, to advance their political interests and goals. He also told the story of how evangelicals became a force in American politics. Apparently in the early 1960s, they were unsuccessful in having any influence on the abortion debate. However, according to Balmer, during the Johnson administration, the Voting Rights Act was passed. Shortly thereafter, the Internal Revenue Service issued a ruling to the effect that any organization that practiced racial discrimination did not qualify as a charitable organization. Balmer further indicated that he had it on good authority, from the individual that sought the involvement of evangelicals in politics, that the IRS ruling was the precipitating event.
The second book discussion took place at the Discovery Institute. David Berlinski discussed his new book, The Devil's Delusion, wherein he argues that science does not disprove the existence of God or refute the Intelligent Design concept. (http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Delusion-Atheism-Scientific-Pretensions/dp/0307396266). Roughly two years ago, I pulled out my sister’s old college philosophy textbook, and I started reading the section on the existence of God. There were many discussions of the issue by the great philosophers, on both sides of the argument. I quickly concluded that the discussions was far too intellectual for me, and did not address the issues of everyday, ordinary people, as well reasoned as they may have been.
I had the same feeling watching the Discovery Institute discussion. Virtually everyone in the room was an intellectual heavyweight, even the young college students. I was absolutely fascinated by the discussion, but finished watching the show feeling convinced that such an analysis does not take place in the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. I doubt that such a discussion even takes place amongst the talking heads and consultants on the news shows. I am reasonably sure that the vast majority of people make their decisions about religion in a different fashion – namely whatever works for them and provides them spiritual comfort.
At some early point in my life, I read something to the effect that religion serves the purposes of those who subscribe to it. It provides meaning, purpose, direction, hope, and structure to the lives of humans, and the events that surround them. While I recognize its function from a spiritual, operational, and anthropological perspective, there are many things that I do not understand. You see, I can’t really say that I am a believer. I would have to say that I am a “middle of the roader,” which is a very dangerous status. As another author once said, I thought that being a centrist would mean that folks on both sides of the aisle would find something with which they could agree in my writings. I now understand that it also provides both sides with something which they can both attack.
I recognize the possibility of a deity. I do not denigrate, criticize, or despise those who firmly believe, nor do I feel ill will to those who firmly do not believe. But I’ll tell you, I just wish that God did not work in such mysterious ways, not that I have any control over the subject.
I would like for God to talk to me, touch me, speak to me, or otherwise engage me. I’d just like a clear sign. Additionally, I should note that it does not help to have others tell me that if I simply gave my heart and mind to God, and let him in, he would come in. I just need something more, and I suspect that there are others who feel similarly. I am continually amazed at how confident and self-assured others are about their connection to God. My Father swears that he talks to God. Why has God not chosen to have that same level of connection and conversation with me? Was I left out, or is it about something that I failed to do? I’ve been trying valiantly for 56 years to figure this religion thing out.
I’m not going to get into all of the debates and discussions that have been held repeatedly for thousands of years. Far brighter people have addressed virtually every aspect of religion. I am also fully cognizant that when one raises questions about something, people naturally assume that you have a particular agenda. However, in this instance, and for purposes of this article, I am simply trying to understand the manner in which adherents of different religions treat others and the views of others. This took on a complexion of its own during the recent political campaigns. Interestingly, to my surprise, Balmer indicated that there are currently 4,500 different religions in the world. That being said, I would like to pose some questions to all of you who are more sophisticated and learned than I, to assist me in further developing my thoughts.
How are people chosen to be adherents to a particular religion? Are people born in a certain geographical area based on their acceptability to God? Should we blindly follow the religious views of our parents or should they be questioned and challenged? Is it acceptable for one to modify or adapt the basic tenets of their religion to fit their particular societal, operational, spiritual, and political needs, or should one strictly adhere to the religious tenets and practices that existed at the time that the religion was founded? Is it appropriate for one to be born in one religion, and to then switch to another? Is it necessary for members of one religion to demonize and attack adherents of other religions? Is there one “right” religion which would suggest that the others are “wrong?” Is there one religion that is “better” than the next? Is the basic underlying purpose of religion to ultimately guide people toward doing “good,” however that may be defined? Is physical violence, imposed on adherents to a particular religion who have strayed, or against those of a different religion, ever justified and acceptable in the eyes of God?
For those of you interested in such questions, I strongly suggest that you avoid watching the History Channel, because you will only become more confused. A recent show discussed the books of the Old Testament which could have been included in the Bible, but were left out for various reasons. The program discussed the individuals and groups who made those decisions, and why. I was stunned to find out that there was an earlier version of the legend of Adam and Eve in the Jewish tradition, where Eve’s predecessor was a woman named Lilith, who was Adam’s equal. According to the academic theologians (who interestingly appear to be less dogmatic than practicing religious leaders), the whole course of human history and the relationship of man to woman, including the concept of sex, were dramatically influenced by this “substitution” of Eve.
Additionally, in the same program, the theologians mentioned that the “devil” is never mentioned by name in the Book of Genesis. There is a reference to a serpent. They further noted that it was the practice at the time, when a new religion was being introduced and adopted, to “demonize” the former religion, and one way of depicting the other religion as less desirable was to depict it as a serpent.
Back to the political arena, are we so concerned about the stability of our constitutional form of government that we should be legitimately concerned about one single person’s religious beliefs? Should political candidates question the religious devotion and practices of other candidates during campaigns? Are we to assume that the conduct of the United States is backed by, and has the blessing of, God, and that the conduct of other countries, where other religions are dominant, is not? If God is such an important force in the lives of Americans, despite that piece of paper that suggests that there is a separation of church and state, why doesn’t our society function more like a theocracy? Why do we not have in excess of 600 religious rules and laws like some other major religions? Did we check with God, or the Bible, to determine the manner in which we should handle and treat the enemy combatants captured during our war on terror?
My concern is, and always will be, the provision by our leaders of a structure and a construct thus enabling others to follow and understand their conduct. I would suspect that it is also an issue for our children watching the religious exchange between our candidates. I don’t know, perhaps the lesson to be learned is that you can do whatever you want to do if you believe and feel that God will support it, and thus you do not have to explain your actions to others. As I am in connection with virtually all of my articles, I do not feel any more comfortable now than I felt at the beginning of the generation of this piece.
I will conclude by mentioning yet another book discussion involving Michael Meyerson, author of Liberty’s Blueprint. (Http://www.amazon.com/Libertys-Blueprint-Federalist-Constitution-Democracy/dp/0465002641/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6367001-4872918?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211136469&sr=1-1) In his work, Meyerson tells the story of how James Madison and Alexander Hamilton mounted a campaign to convince the citizenry of the need for a federal constitution and its parameters. Meyerson notes that they did not rely on sound bites and bombastic claims. They wrote 85 separate essays on the subject matter, and then physically traveled around the country making their case for federalism. Meyerson argues that the two patriots emphasized that the resultant product would not be a political compromise, but rather a system that would work. They wanted to convince their audience of the soundness of their concept by reason. Some of our political leaders, on both sides of their aisle, might benefit from employing a similar approach to the religious discussion and the role of religion in our government and politics. Virtually anything would be better than what exists today.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Post No. 6: A Few Thoughts on the Qualifications for Parenthood
Being that I am 56 years of age, I am often asked whether I have ever been married and have a family. My response often surprises people, but it really is the truth. At some point between my late teens and early twenties, I had this vague notion of having a family with six or seven children. I formulated that notion due to the fact that both of my parents came from families of ten kids. I observed the close knit nature of their relationships, and all of the fun and craziness that took place during family reunions.
To further contribute to my desire to have a large family, I observed my high school girlfriend’s large family, and the manner in which the older kids worked to support and raise the younger ones. At an early age, I admired the values of team work and cooperation, and generally believed that the interests of the group or unit always outweighed the interests of the individual. To this day, that is a fundamental principle underlying many of my decisions.
However, at some point, I came to the realization that there were several prerequisites to having a family, no matter the size, including dating, finding the appropriate spouse, and then actually following through with marriage. At this point, folks usually laugh and inquire as to why these were stumbling blocks. Often times, they suggest that I was unwilling to “commit,” whatever that means. Quite frankly, it is far more complex than that, since I’ve been fully committed to lots of teams, units, causes, and issues in my life – just not to one individual.
In my early thirties, I still thought that it was theoretically possible that I might one day have a family, albeit with a smaller number of children. However, my whole approach to life began to fundamentally change once I began to travel to foreign countries. My whole sense of values, good and bad, right and wrong, rich and poor, began to take on more complexity. I became less rigid in my thinking, and perhaps far too curious about, and tolerant, of virtually everything. I often told my friends that my entire worldview appeared to change roughly every two years based on my new travels and experiences.
By my early forties, I was beginning to recognize the more “pragmatic “ aspects of having a family and all that it involves, particularly from a professional and career perspective. Additionally, more and more of my single friends were deserting the ranks. There was another development that ultimately led me to conclude that I would never be “qualified” to be a parent, and consequently I decided to avoid that venture. By this time, I had seen children at all levels of society in many countries, in virtually every imaginable condition, and I became confused as to the “proper” way to raise a child.
What plays over and over in my mind is the picture and sound of kids under the age of ten, working the streets of Rio de Janeiro in the wee hours of the morning, selling chewing gum, or offering to shine your shoes, for a few cruzados. In one sense, you were stunned by the youth of these kids, and the fact that their parents, assuming that they had parents, allowed them to be out, unescorted, at that hour of the night. On the other hand, they were always savvy, sharp, enterprising, witty, spunky, and far wiser than their ages would suggest.
I then began to question which situation was better for the kid. It also reminded me of the dilemma which my Mother often posed. Having grown up on a farm in rural Alabama during the Depression, she saw lots of poor families living in shotgun houses. However, after visiting many of her family members and friends who lived in the tenements and projects of Chicago and Detroit, she often wondered which version of poverty was preferable.
At some point I began to intellectualize the issue. This was aided by the fact that some close friends of mine, who were not particularly religious, explained how they planned to provide religious or spiritual guidance for their newborn daughter, despite their uncertainties about the whole faith issue. Using their model, I initially thought that I could provide my kids with some conceptual construct, outline the various competing factors for them to take into consideration, and assist them through the thought and decision process, utilizing something vaguely akin to the Socratic Method used in some academic settings.
However, I very quickly disabused myself of that notion. Parents have to establish clear parameters and define limits. There has to be, at varying points in time, and to varying degrees, specific amounts of black and white, and a continuum of grey. But it’s all a crap shoot, involving doing your best (perhaps with a little assistance from child psychologists, books, spiritual advisors, and close family members and friends), and we all know that there is no specific “how to” manual.
In my last article, I raised some issues about the qualifications necessary for one to run for elected office, particularly focusing on the highest office in the land, the presidency. With Mother’s Day approaching, I knew that I was going to hear a familiar statement. Hillary Clinton did not disappoint me. After her daughter Chelsea introduced her on the Saturday before Mother’s Day, Senator Clinton mentioned that one of her supporters had noted that being a Mother is the most difficult job on earth. She followed by noting that since she had done such a good job performing her parental responsibilities, handling the second most difficult job in the world would be a breeze.
We all recognize this type of statement for what it really is; however, it got me a thinking. We’ve spent the last year and a half examining, testing, questioning, scrutinizing, and just about every other “…ing” in connection with these candidates - why don’t we conduct a similar examination of potential parents before they are “permitted” to have children? Should society have some criteria? Should the criteria take the form of requirements or recommendations? Should parents have to participate in parenting courses before they screw it up?
When you stop to think about it, at least with respect to the presidency, he or she has all sorts of advisors and staff members. Additionally, the President has two other branches of government to keep him or her in check. His or her actions are relatively transparent and constantly subject to public scrutiny. We even have an impeachment mechanism for dealing with serious breaches of trust and inappropriate conduct, not to mention the court of public opinion and the media.
But the influence or impact that a President has on the citizenry is filtered, moderated, vicarious, derivative, and relatively indirect at best. Additionally, we have an opportunity every four years to reconsider our choice. On the other hand, parents have a direct, significant, immediate impact on human lives right from the day one. Most of their conduct is in private. We can all recall points in time where various government regimes have tried to control the number of children born, or their sex, or impose other restrictions. However, from a practical perspective, the parents rule, and in the event that their rule is not in the best interests of the child, it takes quite a bit of time for society to recognize it, and then to deal with it. Furthermore, society generally only deals with the most egregious cases, not the subtle ones. So why should we subject presidential candidates to more intense scrutiny than we do for those seeking to be parents?
I’ve also thought about this parental responsibility thing from another perspective, that being the legal one. For years, I have questioned the appropriateness of allowing individuals to sue business employers for various forms of discrimination, or perceived discrimination, in the workplace. You mean to tell me that a sexist or racist person all of a sudden becomes that way once they become employed by the company? And you mean to tell me that business entities, the legal fictions that they are, have the capabilities and sophistication to prevent that type of conduct once their adult employees join the workforce? What about holding the parents responsible financially? And the churches? And the grade schools? No, you say. Too impractical. But what about fairness, or comparative fault or responsibility?
Quite frankly, we all know that it is a game and a fiction inartfully crafted to serve some societal purpose, that we just don’t seem capable of addressing, or have the political will to address, in some more direct and relevant manner. My concern is that, as a general rule, games and fictions don’t serve us well very long. Their functionality lasts for brief spurts, and then we have to pervert the construct to continue to make it work. Not only is this approach not particularly efficient or effective, it engenders disrespect, by our citizens, for the system.
Getting back to presidential candidates, perhaps we should have a presidential academy which all those individuals interested in becoming president should be required to attend. By establishing such an institution, we could ensure that all of our candidates are properly trained for the job, so that we can avoid engaging in this free-for-all during which they are dissected and demonized. Perhaps that will also make us have more respect for our elected officials.
But that’s only the second most difficult job in the universe. But what should we do about the most difficult? We’re intelligent beings. We ought to be able to come up with some approaches, and not just continue conducting business as usual. We constantly try to improve in virtually every area of technology and human endeavor. Can’t we improve on this election process, and the development of parents? Or do we just leave it up to the individual prospective candidates and parents to make the call themselves, and decide that they aren’t qualified before entering the arena? I honestly don’t know. Do you?
To further contribute to my desire to have a large family, I observed my high school girlfriend’s large family, and the manner in which the older kids worked to support and raise the younger ones. At an early age, I admired the values of team work and cooperation, and generally believed that the interests of the group or unit always outweighed the interests of the individual. To this day, that is a fundamental principle underlying many of my decisions.
However, at some point, I came to the realization that there were several prerequisites to having a family, no matter the size, including dating, finding the appropriate spouse, and then actually following through with marriage. At this point, folks usually laugh and inquire as to why these were stumbling blocks. Often times, they suggest that I was unwilling to “commit,” whatever that means. Quite frankly, it is far more complex than that, since I’ve been fully committed to lots of teams, units, causes, and issues in my life – just not to one individual.
In my early thirties, I still thought that it was theoretically possible that I might one day have a family, albeit with a smaller number of children. However, my whole approach to life began to fundamentally change once I began to travel to foreign countries. My whole sense of values, good and bad, right and wrong, rich and poor, began to take on more complexity. I became less rigid in my thinking, and perhaps far too curious about, and tolerant, of virtually everything. I often told my friends that my entire worldview appeared to change roughly every two years based on my new travels and experiences.
By my early forties, I was beginning to recognize the more “pragmatic “ aspects of having a family and all that it involves, particularly from a professional and career perspective. Additionally, more and more of my single friends were deserting the ranks. There was another development that ultimately led me to conclude that I would never be “qualified” to be a parent, and consequently I decided to avoid that venture. By this time, I had seen children at all levels of society in many countries, in virtually every imaginable condition, and I became confused as to the “proper” way to raise a child.
What plays over and over in my mind is the picture and sound of kids under the age of ten, working the streets of Rio de Janeiro in the wee hours of the morning, selling chewing gum, or offering to shine your shoes, for a few cruzados. In one sense, you were stunned by the youth of these kids, and the fact that their parents, assuming that they had parents, allowed them to be out, unescorted, at that hour of the night. On the other hand, they were always savvy, sharp, enterprising, witty, spunky, and far wiser than their ages would suggest.
I then began to question which situation was better for the kid. It also reminded me of the dilemma which my Mother often posed. Having grown up on a farm in rural Alabama during the Depression, she saw lots of poor families living in shotgun houses. However, after visiting many of her family members and friends who lived in the tenements and projects of Chicago and Detroit, she often wondered which version of poverty was preferable.
At some point I began to intellectualize the issue. This was aided by the fact that some close friends of mine, who were not particularly religious, explained how they planned to provide religious or spiritual guidance for their newborn daughter, despite their uncertainties about the whole faith issue. Using their model, I initially thought that I could provide my kids with some conceptual construct, outline the various competing factors for them to take into consideration, and assist them through the thought and decision process, utilizing something vaguely akin to the Socratic Method used in some academic settings.
However, I very quickly disabused myself of that notion. Parents have to establish clear parameters and define limits. There has to be, at varying points in time, and to varying degrees, specific amounts of black and white, and a continuum of grey. But it’s all a crap shoot, involving doing your best (perhaps with a little assistance from child psychologists, books, spiritual advisors, and close family members and friends), and we all know that there is no specific “how to” manual.
In my last article, I raised some issues about the qualifications necessary for one to run for elected office, particularly focusing on the highest office in the land, the presidency. With Mother’s Day approaching, I knew that I was going to hear a familiar statement. Hillary Clinton did not disappoint me. After her daughter Chelsea introduced her on the Saturday before Mother’s Day, Senator Clinton mentioned that one of her supporters had noted that being a Mother is the most difficult job on earth. She followed by noting that since she had done such a good job performing her parental responsibilities, handling the second most difficult job in the world would be a breeze.
We all recognize this type of statement for what it really is; however, it got me a thinking. We’ve spent the last year and a half examining, testing, questioning, scrutinizing, and just about every other “…ing” in connection with these candidates - why don’t we conduct a similar examination of potential parents before they are “permitted” to have children? Should society have some criteria? Should the criteria take the form of requirements or recommendations? Should parents have to participate in parenting courses before they screw it up?
When you stop to think about it, at least with respect to the presidency, he or she has all sorts of advisors and staff members. Additionally, the President has two other branches of government to keep him or her in check. His or her actions are relatively transparent and constantly subject to public scrutiny. We even have an impeachment mechanism for dealing with serious breaches of trust and inappropriate conduct, not to mention the court of public opinion and the media.
But the influence or impact that a President has on the citizenry is filtered, moderated, vicarious, derivative, and relatively indirect at best. Additionally, we have an opportunity every four years to reconsider our choice. On the other hand, parents have a direct, significant, immediate impact on human lives right from the day one. Most of their conduct is in private. We can all recall points in time where various government regimes have tried to control the number of children born, or their sex, or impose other restrictions. However, from a practical perspective, the parents rule, and in the event that their rule is not in the best interests of the child, it takes quite a bit of time for society to recognize it, and then to deal with it. Furthermore, society generally only deals with the most egregious cases, not the subtle ones. So why should we subject presidential candidates to more intense scrutiny than we do for those seeking to be parents?
I’ve also thought about this parental responsibility thing from another perspective, that being the legal one. For years, I have questioned the appropriateness of allowing individuals to sue business employers for various forms of discrimination, or perceived discrimination, in the workplace. You mean to tell me that a sexist or racist person all of a sudden becomes that way once they become employed by the company? And you mean to tell me that business entities, the legal fictions that they are, have the capabilities and sophistication to prevent that type of conduct once their adult employees join the workforce? What about holding the parents responsible financially? And the churches? And the grade schools? No, you say. Too impractical. But what about fairness, or comparative fault or responsibility?
Quite frankly, we all know that it is a game and a fiction inartfully crafted to serve some societal purpose, that we just don’t seem capable of addressing, or have the political will to address, in some more direct and relevant manner. My concern is that, as a general rule, games and fictions don’t serve us well very long. Their functionality lasts for brief spurts, and then we have to pervert the construct to continue to make it work. Not only is this approach not particularly efficient or effective, it engenders disrespect, by our citizens, for the system.
Getting back to presidential candidates, perhaps we should have a presidential academy which all those individuals interested in becoming president should be required to attend. By establishing such an institution, we could ensure that all of our candidates are properly trained for the job, so that we can avoid engaging in this free-for-all during which they are dissected and demonized. Perhaps that will also make us have more respect for our elected officials.
But that’s only the second most difficult job in the universe. But what should we do about the most difficult? We’re intelligent beings. We ought to be able to come up with some approaches, and not just continue conducting business as usual. We constantly try to improve in virtually every area of technology and human endeavor. Can’t we improve on this election process, and the development of parents? Or do we just leave it up to the individual prospective candidates and parents to make the call themselves, and decide that they aren’t qualified before entering the arena? I honestly don’t know. Do you?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Post No. 5a: RESPONSE TO COOP’S COMMENT:
Coop Responded to Post 5: Your thoughts are written as if you think this is a recent problem with our political environment. I submit that it is simply politics as usual…. [See remainder of Coop’s Comment.]
My Response: You are essentially correct that some aspects of politics have not changed. However, I would submit that there are some differences which should be taken into consideration:
1. As compared to times past, we now have advanced communications technologies which permit far more citizens (numbers, regions, ages, literate, illiterate, deaf, blind, etc.) to examine the lives of the candidates, and allow a more detailed dissection.
2. Because of the same advances, and the large number of communication devices, media vehicles, and outlets available, the depth and the breadth of the examination and subsequent dissection of candidates has changed. A correlative consideration is that there are far more commentators and candidate advocates with positions which can be easily disseminated.
3. Because of the absence of technology and the limited communication vehicles available in times past, it would have been far easier for an alcoholic, philandering, profligate, immoral candidate to be elected, or possibly control or influence the news vehicles, because they were so limited. Additionally, because of the relatively slow speed of the communication, the candidate might have been able to be elected before the disqualifying character factors were thoroughly disseminated.
The issue about which I am not sure is whether the public’s tolerance of, or attitude about, the activities of candidates has changed. Are we a more judgmental nation than in the past? Are we a more polarized electorate than in the past? Are the infirmities, about which the commentators speak today, disqualifying factors as compared to the past? Just raising some issues….
My Response: You are essentially correct that some aspects of politics have not changed. However, I would submit that there are some differences which should be taken into consideration:
1. As compared to times past, we now have advanced communications technologies which permit far more citizens (numbers, regions, ages, literate, illiterate, deaf, blind, etc.) to examine the lives of the candidates, and allow a more detailed dissection.
2. Because of the same advances, and the large number of communication devices, media vehicles, and outlets available, the depth and the breadth of the examination and subsequent dissection of candidates has changed. A correlative consideration is that there are far more commentators and candidate advocates with positions which can be easily disseminated.
3. Because of the absence of technology and the limited communication vehicles available in times past, it would have been far easier for an alcoholic, philandering, profligate, immoral candidate to be elected, or possibly control or influence the news vehicles, because they were so limited. Additionally, because of the relatively slow speed of the communication, the candidate might have been able to be elected before the disqualifying character factors were thoroughly disseminated.
The issue about which I am not sure is whether the public’s tolerance of, or attitude about, the activities of candidates has changed. Are we a more judgmental nation than in the past? Are we a more polarized electorate than in the past? Are the infirmities, about which the commentators speak today, disqualifying factors as compared to the past? Just raising some issues….
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
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Post No. 4: THIS THING IS BIGGER THAN REV. WRIGHT (ISN’T IT?)
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
This will probably be the shortest article that I will ever write. That’s because I am at an absolute loss for words. One of the reasons that I started writing was because, for virtually all of my fifty plus years, I’ve been saying to myself, “People can’t possibly be concerned about this, or care about that…”
But having some minimal appreciation of reality, I have reluctantly concluded that people do, even thought I may not. Am I really that far out of touch?
In my first article, I revealed my difficulty in comprehending the enormity of the emotion expressed in connection with Michael Vick’s treatment of dogs, as compared to the relative paucity of outrage, almost to the point of indifference, expressed by our citizenry in connection with the treatment, on many levels, of our returning Iraqi war veterans. (We did not even get into the Vietnam discussion.) Folks are serving time for the dogs; yet, as of this date, I am unclear as to whether any charges… Well, I won’t go there.
After receiving numerous comments from you, I ultimately concluded that domesticated dogs were viewed as helpless creatures, which were involuntarily placed in harm’s way. (For those of you who feel that I should have used “who” instead of “which,” immediately after “creatures,” the spell check feature would not allow me to do it.) Additionally, dogs can provide what many consider to be “unconditional love,” or “obedience on demand,” depending on your perspective. I imagine that, in the eyes of many, it’s far more complicated, involved, and thus difficult, to love and care about a human being who is brutally injured and disabled.
To maintain my sanity, I’ve moved on past the public’s response to the dog issue; but I’m still having difficulty with this Jeremiah Wright thing. Of course, I understand how those individuals, with an agenda, might manipulate and place a spin on the issue. What I do not understand is the reaction of those of us, who are not associated with the leadership of either party, and who do not regularly appear in the media. I’m referring to you and me, the regular folks. After all, we’re all caught up in this argument. Everyone has an opinion.
I just heard on the news that the Wright issue is progressively affecting the attitude of more and more voters about Senator Obama, to his detriment. Let’s assume, purely for the sake of analysis, that all of the criticism leveled against Rev. Wright is warranted, and that we, as a society, are in agreement that he is a “really, bad human being.” In fact, let’s pretend that we are dealing with a modern day Rasputin.
Are we, as a populace, really that concerned about the effect or influence of one man on another? Is the Senator so young that we consider him to still be impressionable, and thus subject to the influence of an older individual? I realize that there was a close relationship there, but while in office, I would suspect that any responsible leader would listen to the views and advice of a larger number of advisors. Do we have any evidence to the effect that would not occur? (Eehh, I might concede that perhaps we do.)
Are we concerned that the influence of a spiritual leader might outweigh, not only the influence of the President’s Cabinet, staff, and other advisors, but also the other two branches of government? Is our Constitutional form of government incapable of withstanding the influence of a Rasputin? Should have all the meetings, between the Rev. Billy Graham and our former Presidents, been open to the public, so that interrogations could have been conducted? Should all candidates be required to “disclose” the views of the religious leaders with whom they have been associated during their lives? Should such a disclosure requirement apply to relationships over 10, 20, or 30 years? Should there be a different disclosure requirement for those spiritual relationships formed between ages 6 and 20, as opposed to 21 and 40, as opposed to 41 and 60?
We often judge others by the company that they keep. Should we disqualify, from running for elected office, all individuals who have a relative, close friend, or associate who committed some criminal offense, or engaged in some morally repugnant conduct? (Hmmm, what about adultery? Is that morally repugnant enough?) What about politicians with children who become substance abusers? Should they be required to step down from office? Should we conduct depositions of all individuals, including parents and relatives, who have had a significant influence on any individual desiring to run for office, to ensure that their personal views are in line with what the nation wants? Should this also apply to friends?
Many have argued that the Senator’s continuing relationship with Rev. Wright reflected poor judgment on his part. Let’s say a candidate’s daughter is a “call girl,” and the candidate knows it. Should the candidate (and the candidate’s family) disown her, or simply not run for office? Does the current discussion mean that it should be considered “good judgment” to jettison friends, with whom we have had lengthy relationships, when they make statements with which we disagree? How many statements, with which we disagree, are required for termination of the relationship? 3, 4, 5?…
I don’t know. I’m confused. (I’d appreciate someone admitting that they are just as confused as I am.) I can’t figure out the standard to be applied. You folks have obviously figured it out because the spiritual leader issue is having an effect on your opinion of the candidates. (Did I pluralize that?) However, for the far less sophisticated ones of us, I wish that someone would poll or survey the American people so that we could all get on the same page, and establish a standard. Prospective candidates would then be aware, before they file to run for office, of the standard to be applied, and we would all know how to think about the qualifications for at least the Presidency. Why didn’t someone think of this before the current campaign?
Additionally, I’m still not sure whether this inquiry is also applicable to other federal elected positions, as well as to state and local officials. (I can see how the inquiry would be appropriate for those running for dog catcher.) Despite my protestations, something tells me that a standard is not going to be established.
But I am more concerned about this national paranoia. What has happened to us? I know that these are troubling times, with the economy, terrorism, and all. But is there anyone worthy of being President of the United States? Can anyone pass muster? Maybe we can function without a President. Should our economy deteriorate further, or should the war on terror hit closer to home, should the scrutiny, of the spiritual leaders associated with our candidates, become even more intensive?
“Somebody help me!” I know that I am not particularly bright, but I just don’t understand! Where are we? It has to be something bigger than what I see.
This is wild… I really did think that this was going to be short. Don’t worry. I’m just venting. I know that nothing that I’ve said makes any sense… Later.
This will probably be the shortest article that I will ever write. That’s because I am at an absolute loss for words. One of the reasons that I started writing was because, for virtually all of my fifty plus years, I’ve been saying to myself, “People can’t possibly be concerned about this, or care about that…”
But having some minimal appreciation of reality, I have reluctantly concluded that people do, even thought I may not. Am I really that far out of touch?
In my first article, I revealed my difficulty in comprehending the enormity of the emotion expressed in connection with Michael Vick’s treatment of dogs, as compared to the relative paucity of outrage, almost to the point of indifference, expressed by our citizenry in connection with the treatment, on many levels, of our returning Iraqi war veterans. (We did not even get into the Vietnam discussion.) Folks are serving time for the dogs; yet, as of this date, I am unclear as to whether any charges… Well, I won’t go there.
After receiving numerous comments from you, I ultimately concluded that domesticated dogs were viewed as helpless creatures, which were involuntarily placed in harm’s way. (For those of you who feel that I should have used “who” instead of “which,” immediately after “creatures,” the spell check feature would not allow me to do it.) Additionally, dogs can provide what many consider to be “unconditional love,” or “obedience on demand,” depending on your perspective. I imagine that, in the eyes of many, it’s far more complicated, involved, and thus difficult, to love and care about a human being who is brutally injured and disabled.
To maintain my sanity, I’ve moved on past the public’s response to the dog issue; but I’m still having difficulty with this Jeremiah Wright thing. Of course, I understand how those individuals, with an agenda, might manipulate and place a spin on the issue. What I do not understand is the reaction of those of us, who are not associated with the leadership of either party, and who do not regularly appear in the media. I’m referring to you and me, the regular folks. After all, we’re all caught up in this argument. Everyone has an opinion.
I just heard on the news that the Wright issue is progressively affecting the attitude of more and more voters about Senator Obama, to his detriment. Let’s assume, purely for the sake of analysis, that all of the criticism leveled against Rev. Wright is warranted, and that we, as a society, are in agreement that he is a “really, bad human being.” In fact, let’s pretend that we are dealing with a modern day Rasputin.
Are we, as a populace, really that concerned about the effect or influence of one man on another? Is the Senator so young that we consider him to still be impressionable, and thus subject to the influence of an older individual? I realize that there was a close relationship there, but while in office, I would suspect that any responsible leader would listen to the views and advice of a larger number of advisors. Do we have any evidence to the effect that would not occur? (Eehh, I might concede that perhaps we do.)
Are we concerned that the influence of a spiritual leader might outweigh, not only the influence of the President’s Cabinet, staff, and other advisors, but also the other two branches of government? Is our Constitutional form of government incapable of withstanding the influence of a Rasputin? Should have all the meetings, between the Rev. Billy Graham and our former Presidents, been open to the public, so that interrogations could have been conducted? Should all candidates be required to “disclose” the views of the religious leaders with whom they have been associated during their lives? Should such a disclosure requirement apply to relationships over 10, 20, or 30 years? Should there be a different disclosure requirement for those spiritual relationships formed between ages 6 and 20, as opposed to 21 and 40, as opposed to 41 and 60?
We often judge others by the company that they keep. Should we disqualify, from running for elected office, all individuals who have a relative, close friend, or associate who committed some criminal offense, or engaged in some morally repugnant conduct? (Hmmm, what about adultery? Is that morally repugnant enough?) What about politicians with children who become substance abusers? Should they be required to step down from office? Should we conduct depositions of all individuals, including parents and relatives, who have had a significant influence on any individual desiring to run for office, to ensure that their personal views are in line with what the nation wants? Should this also apply to friends?
Many have argued that the Senator’s continuing relationship with Rev. Wright reflected poor judgment on his part. Let’s say a candidate’s daughter is a “call girl,” and the candidate knows it. Should the candidate (and the candidate’s family) disown her, or simply not run for office? Does the current discussion mean that it should be considered “good judgment” to jettison friends, with whom we have had lengthy relationships, when they make statements with which we disagree? How many statements, with which we disagree, are required for termination of the relationship? 3, 4, 5?…
I don’t know. I’m confused. (I’d appreciate someone admitting that they are just as confused as I am.) I can’t figure out the standard to be applied. You folks have obviously figured it out because the spiritual leader issue is having an effect on your opinion of the candidates. (Did I pluralize that?) However, for the far less sophisticated ones of us, I wish that someone would poll or survey the American people so that we could all get on the same page, and establish a standard. Prospective candidates would then be aware, before they file to run for office, of the standard to be applied, and we would all know how to think about the qualifications for at least the Presidency. Why didn’t someone think of this before the current campaign?
Additionally, I’m still not sure whether this inquiry is also applicable to other federal elected positions, as well as to state and local officials. (I can see how the inquiry would be appropriate for those running for dog catcher.) Despite my protestations, something tells me that a standard is not going to be established.
But I am more concerned about this national paranoia. What has happened to us? I know that these are troubling times, with the economy, terrorism, and all. But is there anyone worthy of being President of the United States? Can anyone pass muster? Maybe we can function without a President. Should our economy deteriorate further, or should the war on terror hit closer to home, should the scrutiny, of the spiritual leaders associated with our candidates, become even more intensive?
“Somebody help me!” I know that I am not particularly bright, but I just don’t understand! Where are we? It has to be something bigger than what I see.
This is wild… I really did think that this was going to be short. Don’t worry. I’m just venting. I know that nothing that I’ve said makes any sense… Later.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Post No. 3a: Link to Thought-Provoking Article
I did NOT write this article. It was referred to me by one of our blog's readers. Since the purpose of this blog is to address decisions, choices, responsibility, and consequences, I thought that you might find this thought-provoking. Check out The 545 People Responsible for All of America's Woes, by The Orlando Sentinel's Charley Reese. Of course, we elected them.
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/woes.htm
http://www.apfn.org/APFN/woes.htm
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
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Post No. 2: Why Racism, Although Problematic, Serves a Pragmatic and Utilitarian Purpose
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Hold tight, give me a moment while I put on my Kevlar protective vest and body armor. “Racism problematic!,” you say; that’s an understatement. I realize that I’m about to take a journey filled with land mines and sniper fire. As I have often said, sometimes you have to go to a place to appreciate that you don’t want to be there on a regular basis. At least I know that I am going to take some heat on this one. Well, maybe not…
I’ll tell you at this point – my intentions are good. Additionally, it is my hope that by the time that you finish reading this, you will consider at least some of what I have said, and return your weapons to their rightful and appropriate place. I’ll also warn you that this piece should be read while sitting on the toilet seat of your favorite bathroom. It’s a tad labyrinthine in nature. Addressing the entire racial history of humankind requires at least two pages.
You see, I’m 56 years of age, and I’ve never really given much thought to this thing called racism. It is a concept that I recognized from a theoretical perspective, and about which I had read. However, I simply could not imagine spending much of one’s time dwelling on it.
I also was afraid that by visiting the issue, even intellectually, it might have a “bittering” effect. Consequently, I came up with a construct in the 1950’s that worked for me, and I must say reasonably satisfactorily, at least for most of my years.
You will recall the recent furor generated by Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments during a sermon. In the context of the Obama campaign, many commentators reminded us that “America has never really dealt with the race issue,” or that we “have never had a conversation about race.”
I beg to differ. We’ve dealt with it in many different ways, and during the course of many conversations. The frustration expressed has really come about as a result of our inability to reach some satisfactory resolution, or at least some consensus about the issue.
I would submit that the reason that America has never really come to grips with the issue is because America has always dealt with it in a manner that results in it becoming an emotional issue at the very beginning of the conversation.
It is difficult to come up with an effective way to address a problem if you just focus on the symptoms, and do not really address the underlying sources. Approaching the subject from a little different perspective might enable us to formulate new solutions.
Quite frankly, although I do not have any empirical evidence to support this, it is my suspicion that we really have not made any progress in racial relations over the past fifty years. By relations, I mean how we feel about other races in our hearts and private thoughts.
That’s what really matters.
America has mucked this whole thing up in about as many ways as possible. There is plenty of resentment and seething anger out there, although it may be “inappropriate” to express or display it.
I actually hold my former secretary, Anne, responsible for setting me up on this racial thing. Virtually everyone who knows me knows that it is not a place that I like to go. (I’ve even been accused of denying that racism exists because of my philosophical attitude.)
Anne sent me an e-mail and inquired as to whether I thought that Obama (who I understand is African-American) was “for real.” She said that she was somewhat intrigued by him, but that she had her reservations, as she did with virtually all politicians. She was interested in my take.
I responded by first noting that at a very early age, I remembered someone saying that the most important thing that an elected leader can do is to convey an attitude or feeling to his or her followers. That person went on to describe the attitude that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill both displayed during their terms. They had the hearts and minds of their people. Both made their respective nations feel that certain goals were achievable. Some would say that Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, did the same thing for most of his years in office, whether you agreed or disagreed with his policies.
I continued by proposing to Anne, on a more personal level, that we might take some cues about this leadership thing from our parents. Fortunately, for most of us, when we were kids, we thought that they were the greatest people on earth. When we became adults, particularly when we had to deal with them during difficult times, we realized that they are just people, ordinary people, with all of the human flaws and problems that we see in others, and in ourselves.
However, during the period of time when their “leadership” was most important, and had its most significant impact, namely our developing, childhood years, they did what they needed to do to provide sufficient guidance for us to become decent, thinking, human beings and hopefully positive contributors to society.
Whatever our personal issues with them may be, that is about the best that you can ask where there is no instructional or operational manual, or even agreement as to what is right or wrong. I suggested to Anne that it’s not dramatically different with the Leader of the Free World. Stay with me, I’ll get back to this racial thing.
One other thing: When one observes celebrities and famous people, one person can say or do certain things, and you have some doubts about their sincerity. You’re just not quite sure whether it is about the celebrity and his or her ego, as opposed to their really being interested in doing things for the benefit of society.
On the other hand, you observe others, who might say or do some of the exact same things, and folks will say that he or she is sincere and really means it. Then again, there are some folks in whom you do not have much faith or confidence initially, and then you have to mature, or you see them mature over time, resulting in you having a different view.
I suggested to Anne that she had to follow her heart; feel it in her gut. I told her that if you think too hard, and look too long, you’re bound to find disappointment and flaws. It’s inevitable. They exist in us all – and we know it.
Actually, I had not paid much attention to Obama until Caroline Kennedy endorsed him. I had not even entertained the theoretical possibility that a black man might become President in America at this point in our country’s evolution. However, Caroline crystallized a nebulous uncertainty in my mind. Those few, carefully delivered words did the trick for me.
Paraphrasing, she essentially said that in her youth, she did not appreciate or comprehend what her Father meant to others. However, listening to the expression of feelings by others who were around when she was a youth, Obama instilled in her the same type of inspiration that those folks claimed her Father did for them. It’s obviously not about experience, is it?
Is he more qualified than any of the other candidates? Hell, I don’t know. I’m not sure, contrary to the case of race, that it really matters. (Parenthetically, I wondered whether a person, contemplating the selection of a spouse, might consider whether various potential “candidates” were more qualified than others, and whether experience would be a prime determinant.) But, then it hit me – the realization that race was not the primary, instinctive, instantaneous factor that I processed upon focusing on him.
Kennedy’s comment suggested that (1) he had the potential to inspire something in us to move beyond our personal crap; (2) this certain amorphous quality was rare; and (3) we really haven’t seen it for far too long a period of time, and yearned for it. It reminded me of Jack Nicholson’s comment to Helen Hunt, “You make me want to be a better person.” It draws or tugs on your whole being. For millions, Obama apparently makes a lot of people want to follow him, regardless of his position on issues, and irrespective of his lack of experience.
I told Anne that it was, quite frankly, transcendental, in nature.
It occurred to me that not knowing, or not paying attention to, Obama’s race, like the position that most of you occupy vis-Ã -vis me at this point, might be a good thing. But it also got me “athinking.” Are there some “good” things about racism? Well, “good” might be too strong a word. Although the academicians would question the appropriateness of this, I use the words “race” and “racism” interchangeably, since, as a practical matter, if you did not have the latter, the former would be a non-issue. Let’s get back to why racism, although problematic, serves a pragmatic and utilitarian function in all societies, and has done so since the beginning of humankind. Are you still angry with me now?
There is analysis, and then there is drawing a line for one’s self. A few years ago, I met this gal of a different race. A number of her friends had met me and said that I was “acceptable.” She was apprehensive and uncomfortable about meeting me, and had to get drunk and show up at 11:00 pm in order to face me alone. She reiterated that she had been brought up in a home in a working class town, where her Father had clearly expressed his disdain for members of other races.
Her Sister in the Navy had married a man of a different race, and they had an interracial child, who her Father refused to acknowledge or even see. The Father disowned his daughter. My friend struggled with our relationship for years. She frequently made reference to her internal conflict in getting to know me better, and what she had been taught by her Father. She also noted that the friend, who was most supportive of her Brother as he was dying of AIDS, was a member of a racial group that her Father despised.
What I told her, and what I have come to accept about folks who hold views with which I disagree, is that people adhere to the principles and values that they think or feel work for them. It does not advance our cause to be angry with them if our view of race is different.
While some might view it as ignorance, or a lack of sophistication, I call it “muddling through.” Some folks do not seek out information, education, or people of other races, because knowing more stuff complicates their thought process and ability to function in everyday life. There is, after all, only so much time in a day.
For some folks, occupying it with trying to understand what is really going on is problematic. If one has the benefit of being around certain groups of people, and the time, interest, and resources that permit you to engage others outside of your group, you will probably not view those new and different as threatening. However, if your position in life is less secure and more tenuous, the threat appears to be more real. That is not to suggest that it should, or that I am an apologist for racists.
However, for certain segments of the population, it is simply more efficient for them to deal with people and cultures that they recognize, and concepts that they understand, or take positions that someone else, or some other institution, controls. Does that sound familiar? I admit that it may not be the most palatable thing to say in certain settings.
There are two phrases that I have begun to use with more frequency now that I have reached my mid-fifties. They are, “Don’t try to make your issues my issues,” and, “It’s not the way that I want to spend my time.” Racism is frequently about efficiency, with respect to conduct, thought, and emotion.
We only have so much time or energy that we are willing to devote to relationships with folks outside of our known realm, or our realm of priorities. Racism is also about probabilities. Arguably, there are fewer complications and unexpected events associated with sticking with our own and what we know. Is it limiting? Perhaps it is, if that is an issue for you. However, for people who subscribe to it, racism “works.”
Additionally, there will always be a need for humans to feel that they are better than some group of people, and a recognition that they are less well off or fortunate than others, even though it might not be accurate, fair, or justified. Are there perhaps other ways, not comparative in nature, to establish one’s place in society and establish self-worth and value? That we are still uncomfortable with the subject of race, during an era when Obama might have a chance, is reflective of its enduring problematic legacy.
Have you ever watched any shows following animals in the wild, and wondered about their applicability to understanding human conduct? Imagine that you are a tiger, amongst other tigers. Let’s assume that there are other, different animals in your vicinity. If you are familiar with them, and have had other experiences with them, then your reaction or attitude will reflect that prior experience, however limited it may have been.
If the new animal in your midst is a total stranger, who you have not encountered before, then you need to size it up, your guard is immediately raised, and you must make a decision fairly quickly as to whether it is friend or foe. You may or may not be able to run away or successfully fight the strange new animal.
As humans, we have advantages over our animal counterparts. We can move to certain parts of town, join certain organizations, place our kids in certain types of schools, and otherwise take steps to reduce certain undesirable events, and to increase the probability or number of those events occurring that we consider positive in nature.
But having a larger and more complex brain, we can also do others things. We can depersonalize acts that might be interpreted as racist acts toward us, and realize that the act is really not about us, but about the actor. We can also try to address those systemic and structural issues or conditions that encourage the practice of racism, or that make it such a useful coping mechanism for so many.
Hope springs eternal. Laughingman, of the Institute for Applied Common Sense, wrote in a recent piece:
“[T]he dilemma that this Nation faces is significantly more apparent amongst us aging baby boomers, than amongst the kids who will be inheriting the future implications of our, and our parent’s, mistakes. Half of our racial perception problem is hard wired genetic preference. Those of our ancestors who sought out their own kind, (and we still do this on the basis of first blush visual similarity), were more likely to enjoy the support and protection of the group. Adherence to group think advanced the chances of finding a desirable mate and passing along one's genes through reproduction.”
“The other half of the boomers’ perceptual problem is environmental. We may have learned to shake off the fear driven prejudice and behavior, acquired as children from our less enlightened parents. However, acting equal and thinking equal are different things. This may help explain why the most libertine, least cautious, generation in recent memory (we were, after all, willing to swallow damn near anything put in front of us) has become the most compulsively concerned, micro-managing, group of parents...ever.”
“The good news is our kids seem to have inherited our best thinking, rather than our worst fears. So, the ground work put in by MLK, Muhammad Ali, Bill Cosby, and Malcolm X, is showing up as a very new irrelevance of the importance of racial background. Affirmative action has nothing to do with the value of Tiger Woods' endorsement contracts, Oprah's audience, Senator Obama's chances to be our next president, or with the extraordinarily talented Lewis Hamilton's probability of being the next Formula One World Racing Champion.”
“I can't think helping that this is a very good thing. As the population continues to divide into ever smaller tribes based primarily on personal interests, those who pick their leaders based on performance, and emulate their behavior by choice, will enjoy more than their fair share of economic prosperity, and the unfair advantage in the genetic crap shoot.”
“Those who limit their learning to conforming to a previous generation’s preferences may go the way of the Dodo.”
Earlier this week, the world witnessed a generational and philosophical chasm between Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Senator Barack Obama. Rev. Wright has personalized this whole of issue of race, and a result, feels that it is about him.
Obama on the other hand, and this is why he will probably not prevail, has recognized all along that the significance of him even being in the hunt is bigger than the racial factor. However, I don’t think that we are ready for that level of conceptual evaluation yet in this country. (Remember Adlai Stevenson?) That’s why many in the media have turned this into a media circus and resorted to demeaning and demonizing those with whom they disagree.
Yes, America, racism works; and it runs both ways.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Hold tight, give me a moment while I put on my Kevlar protective vest and body armor. “Racism problematic!,” you say; that’s an understatement. I realize that I’m about to take a journey filled with land mines and sniper fire. As I have often said, sometimes you have to go to a place to appreciate that you don’t want to be there on a regular basis. At least I know that I am going to take some heat on this one. Well, maybe not…
I’ll tell you at this point – my intentions are good. Additionally, it is my hope that by the time that you finish reading this, you will consider at least some of what I have said, and return your weapons to their rightful and appropriate place. I’ll also warn you that this piece should be read while sitting on the toilet seat of your favorite bathroom. It’s a tad labyrinthine in nature. Addressing the entire racial history of humankind requires at least two pages.
You see, I’m 56 years of age, and I’ve never really given much thought to this thing called racism. It is a concept that I recognized from a theoretical perspective, and about which I had read. However, I simply could not imagine spending much of one’s time dwelling on it.
I also was afraid that by visiting the issue, even intellectually, it might have a “bittering” effect. Consequently, I came up with a construct in the 1950’s that worked for me, and I must say reasonably satisfactorily, at least for most of my years.
You will recall the recent furor generated by Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s comments during a sermon. In the context of the Obama campaign, many commentators reminded us that “America has never really dealt with the race issue,” or that we “have never had a conversation about race.”
I beg to differ. We’ve dealt with it in many different ways, and during the course of many conversations. The frustration expressed has really come about as a result of our inability to reach some satisfactory resolution, or at least some consensus about the issue.
I would submit that the reason that America has never really come to grips with the issue is because America has always dealt with it in a manner that results in it becoming an emotional issue at the very beginning of the conversation.
It is difficult to come up with an effective way to address a problem if you just focus on the symptoms, and do not really address the underlying sources. Approaching the subject from a little different perspective might enable us to formulate new solutions.
Quite frankly, although I do not have any empirical evidence to support this, it is my suspicion that we really have not made any progress in racial relations over the past fifty years. By relations, I mean how we feel about other races in our hearts and private thoughts.
That’s what really matters.
America has mucked this whole thing up in about as many ways as possible. There is plenty of resentment and seething anger out there, although it may be “inappropriate” to express or display it.
I actually hold my former secretary, Anne, responsible for setting me up on this racial thing. Virtually everyone who knows me knows that it is not a place that I like to go. (I’ve even been accused of denying that racism exists because of my philosophical attitude.)
Anne sent me an e-mail and inquired as to whether I thought that Obama (who I understand is African-American) was “for real.” She said that she was somewhat intrigued by him, but that she had her reservations, as she did with virtually all politicians. She was interested in my take.
I responded by first noting that at a very early age, I remembered someone saying that the most important thing that an elected leader can do is to convey an attitude or feeling to his or her followers. That person went on to describe the attitude that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill both displayed during their terms. They had the hearts and minds of their people. Both made their respective nations feel that certain goals were achievable. Some would say that Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, did the same thing for most of his years in office, whether you agreed or disagreed with his policies.
I continued by proposing to Anne, on a more personal level, that we might take some cues about this leadership thing from our parents. Fortunately, for most of us, when we were kids, we thought that they were the greatest people on earth. When we became adults, particularly when we had to deal with them during difficult times, we realized that they are just people, ordinary people, with all of the human flaws and problems that we see in others, and in ourselves.
However, during the period of time when their “leadership” was most important, and had its most significant impact, namely our developing, childhood years, they did what they needed to do to provide sufficient guidance for us to become decent, thinking, human beings and hopefully positive contributors to society.
Whatever our personal issues with them may be, that is about the best that you can ask where there is no instructional or operational manual, or even agreement as to what is right or wrong. I suggested to Anne that it’s not dramatically different with the Leader of the Free World. Stay with me, I’ll get back to this racial thing.
One other thing: When one observes celebrities and famous people, one person can say or do certain things, and you have some doubts about their sincerity. You’re just not quite sure whether it is about the celebrity and his or her ego, as opposed to their really being interested in doing things for the benefit of society.
On the other hand, you observe others, who might say or do some of the exact same things, and folks will say that he or she is sincere and really means it. Then again, there are some folks in whom you do not have much faith or confidence initially, and then you have to mature, or you see them mature over time, resulting in you having a different view.
I suggested to Anne that she had to follow her heart; feel it in her gut. I told her that if you think too hard, and look too long, you’re bound to find disappointment and flaws. It’s inevitable. They exist in us all – and we know it.
Actually, I had not paid much attention to Obama until Caroline Kennedy endorsed him. I had not even entertained the theoretical possibility that a black man might become President in America at this point in our country’s evolution. However, Caroline crystallized a nebulous uncertainty in my mind. Those few, carefully delivered words did the trick for me.
Paraphrasing, she essentially said that in her youth, she did not appreciate or comprehend what her Father meant to others. However, listening to the expression of feelings by others who were around when she was a youth, Obama instilled in her the same type of inspiration that those folks claimed her Father did for them. It’s obviously not about experience, is it?
Is he more qualified than any of the other candidates? Hell, I don’t know. I’m not sure, contrary to the case of race, that it really matters. (Parenthetically, I wondered whether a person, contemplating the selection of a spouse, might consider whether various potential “candidates” were more qualified than others, and whether experience would be a prime determinant.) But, then it hit me – the realization that race was not the primary, instinctive, instantaneous factor that I processed upon focusing on him.
Kennedy’s comment suggested that (1) he had the potential to inspire something in us to move beyond our personal crap; (2) this certain amorphous quality was rare; and (3) we really haven’t seen it for far too long a period of time, and yearned for it. It reminded me of Jack Nicholson’s comment to Helen Hunt, “You make me want to be a better person.” It draws or tugs on your whole being. For millions, Obama apparently makes a lot of people want to follow him, regardless of his position on issues, and irrespective of his lack of experience.
I told Anne that it was, quite frankly, transcendental, in nature.
It occurred to me that not knowing, or not paying attention to, Obama’s race, like the position that most of you occupy vis-Ã -vis me at this point, might be a good thing. But it also got me “athinking.” Are there some “good” things about racism? Well, “good” might be too strong a word. Although the academicians would question the appropriateness of this, I use the words “race” and “racism” interchangeably, since, as a practical matter, if you did not have the latter, the former would be a non-issue. Let’s get back to why racism, although problematic, serves a pragmatic and utilitarian function in all societies, and has done so since the beginning of humankind. Are you still angry with me now?
There is analysis, and then there is drawing a line for one’s self. A few years ago, I met this gal of a different race. A number of her friends had met me and said that I was “acceptable.” She was apprehensive and uncomfortable about meeting me, and had to get drunk and show up at 11:00 pm in order to face me alone. She reiterated that she had been brought up in a home in a working class town, where her Father had clearly expressed his disdain for members of other races.
Her Sister in the Navy had married a man of a different race, and they had an interracial child, who her Father refused to acknowledge or even see. The Father disowned his daughter. My friend struggled with our relationship for years. She frequently made reference to her internal conflict in getting to know me better, and what she had been taught by her Father. She also noted that the friend, who was most supportive of her Brother as he was dying of AIDS, was a member of a racial group that her Father despised.
What I told her, and what I have come to accept about folks who hold views with which I disagree, is that people adhere to the principles and values that they think or feel work for them. It does not advance our cause to be angry with them if our view of race is different.
While some might view it as ignorance, or a lack of sophistication, I call it “muddling through.” Some folks do not seek out information, education, or people of other races, because knowing more stuff complicates their thought process and ability to function in everyday life. There is, after all, only so much time in a day.
For some folks, occupying it with trying to understand what is really going on is problematic. If one has the benefit of being around certain groups of people, and the time, interest, and resources that permit you to engage others outside of your group, you will probably not view those new and different as threatening. However, if your position in life is less secure and more tenuous, the threat appears to be more real. That is not to suggest that it should, or that I am an apologist for racists.
However, for certain segments of the population, it is simply more efficient for them to deal with people and cultures that they recognize, and concepts that they understand, or take positions that someone else, or some other institution, controls. Does that sound familiar? I admit that it may not be the most palatable thing to say in certain settings.
There are two phrases that I have begun to use with more frequency now that I have reached my mid-fifties. They are, “Don’t try to make your issues my issues,” and, “It’s not the way that I want to spend my time.” Racism is frequently about efficiency, with respect to conduct, thought, and emotion.
We only have so much time or energy that we are willing to devote to relationships with folks outside of our known realm, or our realm of priorities. Racism is also about probabilities. Arguably, there are fewer complications and unexpected events associated with sticking with our own and what we know. Is it limiting? Perhaps it is, if that is an issue for you. However, for people who subscribe to it, racism “works.”
Additionally, there will always be a need for humans to feel that they are better than some group of people, and a recognition that they are less well off or fortunate than others, even though it might not be accurate, fair, or justified. Are there perhaps other ways, not comparative in nature, to establish one’s place in society and establish self-worth and value? That we are still uncomfortable with the subject of race, during an era when Obama might have a chance, is reflective of its enduring problematic legacy.
Have you ever watched any shows following animals in the wild, and wondered about their applicability to understanding human conduct? Imagine that you are a tiger, amongst other tigers. Let’s assume that there are other, different animals in your vicinity. If you are familiar with them, and have had other experiences with them, then your reaction or attitude will reflect that prior experience, however limited it may have been.
If the new animal in your midst is a total stranger, who you have not encountered before, then you need to size it up, your guard is immediately raised, and you must make a decision fairly quickly as to whether it is friend or foe. You may or may not be able to run away or successfully fight the strange new animal.
As humans, we have advantages over our animal counterparts. We can move to certain parts of town, join certain organizations, place our kids in certain types of schools, and otherwise take steps to reduce certain undesirable events, and to increase the probability or number of those events occurring that we consider positive in nature.
But having a larger and more complex brain, we can also do others things. We can depersonalize acts that might be interpreted as racist acts toward us, and realize that the act is really not about us, but about the actor. We can also try to address those systemic and structural issues or conditions that encourage the practice of racism, or that make it such a useful coping mechanism for so many.
Hope springs eternal. Laughingman, of the Institute for Applied Common Sense, wrote in a recent piece:
“[T]he dilemma that this Nation faces is significantly more apparent amongst us aging baby boomers, than amongst the kids who will be inheriting the future implications of our, and our parent’s, mistakes. Half of our racial perception problem is hard wired genetic preference. Those of our ancestors who sought out their own kind, (and we still do this on the basis of first blush visual similarity), were more likely to enjoy the support and protection of the group. Adherence to group think advanced the chances of finding a desirable mate and passing along one's genes through reproduction.”
“The other half of the boomers’ perceptual problem is environmental. We may have learned to shake off the fear driven prejudice and behavior, acquired as children from our less enlightened parents. However, acting equal and thinking equal are different things. This may help explain why the most libertine, least cautious, generation in recent memory (we were, after all, willing to swallow damn near anything put in front of us) has become the most compulsively concerned, micro-managing, group of parents...ever.”
“The good news is our kids seem to have inherited our best thinking, rather than our worst fears. So, the ground work put in by MLK, Muhammad Ali, Bill Cosby, and Malcolm X, is showing up as a very new irrelevance of the importance of racial background. Affirmative action has nothing to do with the value of Tiger Woods' endorsement contracts, Oprah's audience, Senator Obama's chances to be our next president, or with the extraordinarily talented Lewis Hamilton's probability of being the next Formula One World Racing Champion.”
“I can't think helping that this is a very good thing. As the population continues to divide into ever smaller tribes based primarily on personal interests, those who pick their leaders based on performance, and emulate their behavior by choice, will enjoy more than their fair share of economic prosperity, and the unfair advantage in the genetic crap shoot.”
“Those who limit their learning to conforming to a previous generation’s preferences may go the way of the Dodo.”
Earlier this week, the world witnessed a generational and philosophical chasm between Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Senator Barack Obama. Rev. Wright has personalized this whole of issue of race, and a result, feels that it is about him.
Obama on the other hand, and this is why he will probably not prevail, has recognized all along that the significance of him even being in the hunt is bigger than the racial factor. However, I don’t think that we are ready for that level of conceptual evaluation yet in this country. (Remember Adlai Stevenson?) That’s why many in the media have turned this into a media circus and resorted to demeaning and demonizing those with whom they disagree.
Yes, America, racism works; and it runs both ways.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)