Topic: Politics
Individual actions like Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst should not be discouraged It is only from the full range of human action that the best choices can be promoted through generations. Homogenization and stagnation allow bad ideas to become just as valid as proven good ideas. Just look to academia for obvious examples.by Jahfre Fire Eater
(libertarian)
Sunday, September 20, 2009
I don't take much at face value. I don't take anything a congressman does at face value. The art of politics involves theater tricks and deliberate tactics. I think Wilson's recent behavior might be detrimental to the GOP's position on the debate at hand. Similarly, I highlighted this phenomenon throughout Ron Paul's Presidential campaign as the ruinous behavior of his poison fans undermined his appeal to disillusioned former Bush supporters (who were necessary to his success in the GOP primary). What I don't know is if advancing the debate at hand with the dems was Wilson's goal. From years of dealing with statists and neocons trying this tactic on me I recognize the fallacy in claiming someone's behavior is irrational without first knowing their goals.
What I can say is that Wilson's behavior damages the GOP's credibility in the media and amongst liberals. and maybe amongst some libertarians..but that isn't where politics happens...so who cares? Yes, Wilson's outburst hurt his cause, if his cause is to sway the masses through the media. If his purpose was to cause the GOP congress to begin discussing the reasons these things are wrong then maybe his outburst was effective. Maybe some politicians will recognize the similarities to their behavior under Bush and maybe there will be more room for the Ron Paul Republicans in the mid-term election. We can only know in the fullness of time...till then it is all speculation.
I disagree that Wilson's example should be discouraged. I mean, if one wants to discourage it, I'm fine with that too; I just don't think as a general rule for everyone that it is a good idea; certainly not for me.
Personally, I don't care if someone exhibits bad behavior. Another person's behavior is none of my business and certainly none of the government's business. I wouldn't join a herd that acted as though it were their business.
What I will do is use them as examples of behavior and consequences not being aligned. I think it is more effective to encourage constructive behavior than to attempt to control the specific behavior of any individual. I've found encouragement effective because no one wants to look silly. I simply point out the silliness I see, the absurdity, the incongruous positions, the disconnects between behavior and consequences.
Instead, I encourage individuals to act as individuals and illustrate how to avoid looking silly while doing so. If some of them still choose to be inappropriate or even harmful to the defense of my liberty, oh well. I don't like it but I can't change it. The best I can do is be quick to recognize them, point out how the consequences of their behavior are 180 degrees out of phase with their professed convictions and goals. My fight isn't with them; they are irrelevant. All I need to know is are they helping or hurting the defense of my liberty.
All it amounts to is political triage. With so many people claiming one thing then acting to cause another outcome instead I don't have time to waste on debate or evangelism. I need to identify them and dismiss them or embrace them in less than 5 minutes. I'm not about the debate or the chit chat or the gossip or networking or singing in choir. Those I'm interested in meeting know who they are and we recognize each other easily...there just aren't very many to be found and they are seldom found in a herd unless they were misguided.
Michelle Fire Eater, my wife, publishes a magazine, the Citizen Enabler. This has become a rallying flag, a flare in the night...it is drawing these non-herd joining individuals out of the woodwork here in our county. People like to know they are not alone even in their individuality. It is so heartening when we get calls from folks offering to volunteer to help as long as they don't have to attend a meeting or pledge to anything. We have found a vast untapped resource of individuals who want to be constructive, politically effective loners.
When they ask, "What can I do?" we never discourage anything. We ask what they like to do and what they are good at and what they absolutely will not do. A lot of people are shy and will not go door to door or speak out in a meeting...so we don't suggest anyone is obligated to do anything. We publish what is going on in the community and if people want to help out there is a number to call. Self-selection is a wonderful productivity tool. So is the chance to get a picture or an article in a published magazine.
The Citizen Enabler don't sell advertising because we are determined not to be beholden to anyone for our content or distribution. It is pure Fire Eater all the way. When businesses and individuals want to promote our magazine Michelle tells them the way it works: They do something for our community. What, is up to them. Michelle will write about it. If they like what she writes they can donate money towards our costs. The rep from Stone Brewery couldn't believe his ears. He asked, "Does that work?" Michelle held up a check and pointed, saying, "Roy just wrote me a check."
Anyway, my point, to repeat myself, is that I think it is more effective to encourage appropriate behavior than to discourage inappropriate behavior. After all, aiming to eliminate a certain behavior is futile, invites conflict and wastes energy that I'd rather devote to something constructive. Pursuing a futile goal is a setup for disappointment. I describe disappointment as a missed appointment with unrealistic expectations. When my goal is to promote, encourage and reward appropriate, constructive behavior I can never become disappointed or discouraged.
People come in all flavors. Someone will do anything so attempting to eliminate any particular behavior becomes a futile crusade. Comes the time, comes the fool; no matter how much energy is devoted to eliminating fools. So, the goal I pursue is to increase the ratio of acceptable behavior to unacceptable behavior. If, as I suspect, increasing this ratio has the added benefit of reducing the percentage of those who behave inappropriately, that's just a bonus accelerator.
I think seeing bad behavior blow up in someone's face is a very good example to see once in a while. Most folks seem to learn more from this kind of individual public spectacle than they do from the cookie cutter example set by a herd...both good and bad.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jahfre Fire Eater only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jahfre Fire Eater is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-09-21 14:24:56
Hi Jahfre,
With respect, I think your line, "If his purpose was to cause the GOP congress to begin discussing the reasons these things are wrong then maybe his outburst was effective" really misses the mark entirely. First, the GOP are a minority in Congress. Second, there is virtually no evidence to suggest that the GOP are discussing this in Congress as a whole. Third, it's not the GOP that Wilson was aiming to hit. And fourth, any discussion that manages to take place after the Wilson outburst must now do so in secret and in whispers or risk further retribution from the opposition.
So what exactly was "effective" about Wilson's outburst? Speculation is not evidence, and I see no evidence of any gain for the side he supports. You seem to think it has a positive effect, but your analysis lacks any concrete details as to what that effect might be. All you have to contribute is, "We'll have to wait and see." Wait and see what? Wait and see if the issue suddenly comes to the fore again in a more positive form? If that happens, what will it have proved? At most, it will prove that damage can be overcome, but why should the anti-heath care for illegal alien supporters have to wait for that? Your analysis doesn't address this question.
Further, if you don't think that it's important--from a political action perspective--for a particular side of an issue to be discussed in the media, can you explain why politicians are so eager to get onto the Sunday morning shows? Or to be quoted in the major papers? Is it your explanation that it's merely ego or a question of looking good to their constituents back home? Your explanation cannot include any hope of advancement of the political cause, or else you've contradicted your own assertion. Yet surely that must be part of a politician's motivation in making such an appearance.
On your other main point, I agree that promoting good behavior is more effective than discouraging inappropriate behavior, but I think you overlook the damaging effect of inappropriate behavior on a movement. If movements only moved based on logic and reason, then I agree that only appropriate behavior would need to be encouarged. Unfortunately, most of what happens in politics is emotional, and emotion rules logic in politics most of the time.
Politics is about coalition building toward common aims. I'll assume you agree on this point. If it's true, then the next question is: can inappropriate behavior undermine the momentum of a movement? When emotion plays such a large role, clearly the answer must be a resounding yes.
When people are angry and feel empowered, as you would empower them, to lose control and just fire off a shot because they're pissed, how do you see the counterproductive impact of their actions being muted within the dynamics of a movement? Since you don't indicate any particular positive benefits accure, then we only need to address handling the negative fallout. Movements need to grow by adding people. Will more people join Wilson's movement because of what he said? Will the movement lose support because of it? The former is extremely unlikely. The latter is almost certain. I'm sure the people who support his issue hope that the impact will be small, but that's not much to hang your hat on.
If movements are driven by emotion as much or even more than by reason, I don't see how negative actions CAN be muted after the fact. The most that can happen is that you try to repair the damage and hope to regain lost momentum and lost ground. I would define that activity as wheel spinning.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
