=A9 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Some years ago, a do***entary aired exploring President Johnson=92s
inheritance of the Vietnam War, and the manner in which he dealt with
the conflict. I mentioned to a buddy that, despite the fact that I
was in the Army during the late 1960=92s and early 1970=92s, I did not
fully understand the forces in operation at the time, and that the
do***entary provided me with a better understanding. My buddy
immediately inquired as to the =93point of view=94 of the do***entary film
maker. At the time, it really had not occurred to me. It was simply
=93information.=94 While I recognized that it theoretically might have
been produced with a particular slant, or a particular political
purpose in mind, those factors did not loom large in my appreciation
of the piece.
There are two types of people who I generally hold in high regard.
Those without an =93agenda,=94 and those who recognize that everything is
bigger than their pedestrian concerns. My particular definition of
those individuals with an =93agenda=94 includes folks who are always
proselytizing, disseminating dogma, or passing extreme judgment on
others. (Is judgment being passed on them now through this process?)
Like those individuals who recognize that the world is bigger than
their concerns, those without an =93agenda=94 seemingly have a tendency to
listen more, acquire information, and be slow to judge. Those ru****ng
to judgment have always concerned me, and arguably, should concern us
all.
We encountered this reactionary phenomenon recently while observing
various discussions about our presidential candidates, and reviewing
some comments in response to some of our recent posts. In the
political arena, party loyalists appear incapable of finding anything
good about the candidate who they do not sup****t. Is the recognition
of any positive attributes of the opposing party=92s candidate a fatal
thing to do in an elective contest? The number of times that we have
heard commentators mention that neither Obama nor McCain has done
anything worthwhile in life is absolutely fascinating. (Of course,
many talk radio hosts behave as if they have made tremendous
contributions to science and humankind, and the advancement of
society=92s long term interests.)
In one of our recent posts, we presented the views of a particular
citizen and inquired as to whether that individual=92s views fell within
the range of acceptable positions for a particular political party.
One of the positions expressed was that of mandatory service in the
armed forces, by all citizens, to protect and defend our nation, and
consequently those freedoms which we all enjoy. We simply raised some
rhetorical questions regarding one=92s identification with certain
political parties, and examined potential positions that might be
taken by a third, independent party. Interestingly, some readers felt
that we were advocating treating citizens as slaves, and branded us
totalitarian pigs. Some others assumed that we had taken a position
in line with Osama bin Laden and that we were not patriotic. Some
frequently assume that simply because we mention someone=92s name, or
quote them on an issue, we sup****t their position. To borrow a
phrase, =93Au contraire, mon frere.=94
One thing which we have learned during the publi****ng of this blog is
that when you raise theoretical questions and issues, you run the risk
of people assuming that you have taken a position along one particular
line regarding the issue. Why is that? They obviously have not read
the piece from an unbiased perspective. Some have even suggested that
no writer can achieve objectivity and put aside their personal
biases. I wonder how judges do it, or do they? (Interestingly, it
often seems that those individuals who are most offended by the posing
of rhetorical questions are those who have hard and fast, unyielding
positions themselves.) Our experience also highlighted something said
by another writer, that being that in taking a moderate or centrist
position, one does not receive some degree of praise from either side,
but rather has to fend off attacks from both. Perhaps that=92s why we
get so little accomplished in the political arena these days, and why
partisan****p appears to rule. Let=92s all rally around groupspeak.
There is so much negative, outlandish, and critical information
disseminated daily about virtually every candidate in virtually every
election in this nation. The reason is that negative information,
particularly bearing on emotional, hot button issues, works. Does
anyone really think that McCain plans to open up the border in Arizona
and permit all undo***ented workers to enter the country, as some of
his detractors have argued? Does anyone really believe that should
Obama be elected President, more Islamic mosques than Christian
churches will be built during his tenure?
This junk is just that; however, it appears to work, at least for a
significant segment of our population. We should all be concerned
that the innermost =93fears=94 of many may have an influence on the
outcome of this election. (Maybe it always has. You will recall that
there was a concern that by electing a Catholic, i.e. John Kennedy,
the Pope would have too much of an influence in American politics.)
What=92s more troubling is that the manipulation of our fears is being
orchestrated by heretofore, somewhat respected, well educated folks,
on both sides of the aisle, who are more concerned about winning, than
appealing to our good sense, logic, and fairness. Of course, America
loves a winner, but are lies and misinformation any different than
steroids in the quest to win?
It=92s amazing that these =93public servants=94 have any interest in
runnin=
g
for office. The mere fact that they are willing to subject themselves
and their families to this abuse suggests that something is a tad
different about them. However, it may also keep prospective leaders,
who could actually accomplish something of value, from coming up to
the plate. Is this the environment in which we want to conduct the
selection of our leaders? A totally objective viewer might conclude
that none of the candidates in any election is worthy of being
elected. What kind of =93transformers=94 and actors are these folks,
along with their handlers and consultants? Perhaps we deserve the
lies and false promises fed to us so that they can get elected.
Perhaps this can be viewed as a necessary evil and simply a means to
an end, so that they can actually do something of value once they win
the position. Hmmmh, is truth still the better choice, even if you do
not win? Is there some value to being a noble loser who took the high
ground?
One of my best friends was a college and professional level coach for
many years. The phrase which I recall him repeating most frequently
is, =93Don=92t judge.=94 What he was really saying was to listen, acquire
and be open to more information, and do not rush to judgment. As the
professor noted to Captain Nemo in 20,000 Leagues under the Sea, there
are issues bigger than those which we now face, and which have a
longer term impact.
The next time that you read or hear something, try to avoid processing
it from your point of view. Try to avoid assuming that the writer has
a particular point of view. Simply view it as information. The next
time that you hear something with which you disagree, assume for a
short period of time that you misheard it, or that there is a
reasonable explanation for the position taken by the speaker.
Consider the prospect of your brain functioning like a hard disk on a
computer. Just take in the information, store it there, and process
it later when you have additional information and time to reflect. As
the old song during the 1970=92s used to say, =93Expand your mind, you
might be surprised at what you might find.=94
=A9 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
|
