Politics As Usual (10 August 2009)
If, in your effort to be a good citizen in a democracy, you’ve been watching the news to develop an understanding of the current political process, you may be both confused and dismayed. While this blog entry focuses on U.S. politics, my guess is that things are much the same (or worse) everywhere. In “In Memoriam A.H.H.” Tennyson said that Nature is “red in tooth and claw.” The same seems to be true for politics. That may be because politics are part of the natural system of organizing cooperative living. All creatures have political systems. I doubt that plants are political, but they might be and are just keeping it a secret. Creatures, on the other hand, create political systems to provide ways of allocating territory and resources. Chickens (and other birds) have a “pecking order.” The big (and usually—but not always—male) birds eat first and get first dibs on the best looking females. In wolf packs, the big (and usually—but not always—male) wolves eat first and get first dibs on the best looking females.
Primates other than humans have a more complex social hierarchy that includes a variety of cooperative behaviors. The same is true for herd animals, such as antelopes, deer, and elephants. The main thing to note is that politics are inherent in creatures, including humans, that live together. The principal function of political systems seems to be the allocation of resources. The “Big Dogs” insist on eating first.
The question for humans has always been how to create a political system that rises above the prerational concept that “might makes right,” which leads to a tooth-and-claw approach to political decision-making. Fear of scarcity, which in humans, chimpanzees, or wolves, leads to the “Big Dogs” grabbing what they can while the grabbing is good. In many cases, the big chimpanzees and wolves are actually better at sharing than the “big” (powerful) humans.
I don’t know about you, but I would like to know what’s actually in the so-called “Health Care Reform” bills. I am not especially responsive to fear-based appeals (such as “Obama’s Death Panels”) or the snarling and growling of those who are afraid that there won’t be enough to go around. My sense is that civil discourse will help us (through our elected representatives) produce a bill that will serve all our purposes (what’s often called “The Greater Good”).
One of the things I like about the “PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer” is the Friday evening exchange between Mark Shields (a liberal editorial writer for The Washington Post) and David Brooks (a conservative columnist for The New York Times). They manage to maintain civility even when they disagree. If they can disagree with courtesy and respect, the rest of us should be able to do the same.
In an article I have written for the September Beyond Master Newsletter (“Ready, Fire, Aim”), I addressed strategies, with emphasis on sequence and outcomes. If you’re driving down the highway and want to spit out the window, it’s best to roll the window down before spitting. In our political lives, we need to consider whether our strategies are getting us the results we most desire. On a personal basis, Dale Carnegie (How to Win Friends and Influence People, 1936) observed that the only argument you can win, is the one you don’t have. The same thing, of course, is true on a larger political scale: The only war you can win is the one you don’t have. Arguments and wars simply determine who is hurt more.
The path to peaceful agreement is through civil discourse. Only in peaceful agreement can everyone see abundance where once they saw scarcity and lack.
To subscribe to the SCS Beyond Mastery Newsletter, complete the form at the following Web address: http://www.scs-matters.com/beyondmastery.shtml As the newsletter is “opt-in,” watch for the confirmation e-mail that ensures you’re the only one who can sign you up.
joel@scs-matters.com
www.scs-matters.com
