Posted by
Mike Silverman on Sunday, May 24, 2009 8:20:53 PM
Hello. I'm not sure if anyone reads my posts here anymore, but I felt that I needed to comment regarding recent statements made by Colin Powell about the Republican party and specifically that he feels it needs to "moderate" , to move to the middle ground and not be so strident in holding a particular point of view. I disagree with Powell. And here is my reasoning. In a basic sense, in accordance with societal admonitions, we are told, "if you must drink, then drink in moderation." Smoke in moderation. Eat in moderation. And so on. In schools, churches and at home from the time we are children we are instructed to resolve our conflicts, make peace with our enemies, seek a compromise. In many circumstances, all of this advice can serve a person very well. Today we face a world of economic uncertainty, and hostile governments with dangerous weapons. We live in a world where it seems to make sense that finding a way to compromise, to find a middle ground between light and darkness, where we can help each other economically and ease tensions by reaching out with friendship to those who mistrust us, is a common good. No one wants to fight a war every day. No one wants to wrestle with principles and ethics and personal values that sit outside of the accepted normal vistas of familes , friends, and nations. In this I'm reminded of a gentleman I used to work with. His name is Bob. A very mellow, easy going, likeable guy. A Grateful Dead fan, among other music. We got along quite well for about 1 month. We talked about all sorts of things, from music to politics, to science. And then, one day..., he asked me if i'd like to try some "mushrooms". I remember staring blankly at him for a long moment, and something welled up inside me as I looked at him. At first I wasn't sure what the feeling was. Later I realized it was shock, and a sudden deep mistrust. I told him I wasn't interested, that I didn't prefer to ingest things that warped my perception of reality and caused addiction. But, Bob..., being the nice guy that he is, tried in his own way to convince me of how wrong I was, in his opinion. Every day he would try to pursuade me as to the "health" benefits of both body and mind of ingesting these "magic mushrooms"" of his. He actually brought me in case studies done in other countries in an attempt to prove that his fungus was not addictive. It began to be a bit of a struggle to convince him that I simply had no interest in it. I tried in every way that I could think of to gently but firmly rebuke his offers. But I began to realize that this simply was not going to work. This issue was something he was so passionate about , that he could not let go of it. This was not a case for conflict resolution 101. He held a very specific, unwavering point of view. As did I, to the exact opposite of his. There was no middle ground to be achieved. There was no moderate view that we could both aspire to. This was not a bi-partisan matter. He was a partisan for his view, and I for mine. Now, the only reason I bring this up is to point out that moderation, making peace, conflict resolution... does not work in every case. In the real world, there are times when personal values clash, and do so without a means of reaching a middle ground. The clash of values can be important, as means of defining the argument for and against something. Going back to what I said at the start of this, we are raised with certain values pertaining to moderation. But we must not lose the line between moderation of activity we choose to do as individuals or within friendships and familes, and the personal ethics and values that form our individual perceptions of the world and the moral fabric of our souls. Within politics today we hear quite often from the "voice" of those who insist that moderation and middle ground is vital to great leadership. This is a case of carrying the lessons taught to us as children for survival in a basic sense, to find common ground with your friends, your family, don't overeat, or over-exert yourself, and taking it to the extreme and improbable command to compromise one's personal values and principles so as avoid the appearance of being hard and unreasonable. In other words, taking moderate views of anything that forces you to diminish and withdraw from your closely held and passionte principles is as being asked to barter your soul for the sake of avoiding an argument. This is not the lesson from childhood. Such a thing is a perverion of that lesson. Those who engage in this level of compromise have pared their individuality down to the form of a mime being pushed left and right according to the whims of others. To take a solid and principled stand based on the formative experiences of your life is the essence of leadership. And the remaining argument from childhood goes as thus, "always be open-minded". Open-minded is such an abused phrase today. Again it's vital to differentiate between what "open-minded" means in the informal vista of one's personal life, as opposed to the circumstance one would face in the role of a leader. Is the lesson from childhood of being "open-minded" that one must never maintain a solid value or principle that is worth fighting for? No. The admonition against failing to be "open-minded" is meant as a tool to use for the purpose of cooperation, to look beyond superficial things and welcome participation from those who have something constructive to contribute. But lest we confuse "cooperation" with "moderation" , let's look at it this way. Imagine you are an engineer designing a suspension bridge over san fransico bay. You bring your sound scientific principles of design and construction to bear in the plans for the bridge. Another bridge engineer opts to use a different design, one that has sweeping lines and grand curves, but a weakness and flaw in the basic design that will cause problems for the bridge in the future. Being "open-minded" you review the design of the other engineer and after careful consideration conclude that it's far too dangerous. Since people's lives are at stake, you insist that the bridge be built with the normal standard sound principles you have learned. The other engineer refuses to give up his own plan for the bridge. Rather than construct a problematic bridge that looks good but has flaws in its substance, you step away from the project and refuse to be part of it. It is a reasonable decision to refuse to participate in construction that you know is flawed and dangerous. Thus, it's important for those in a leadership position not to give in to the cries and shouts and demands for being moderate and open-minded if in any way such a thing requires you to abandon the principles and values that have carefully shaped and guided your intellect and ethics.
- Mike Silverman