I remember reading The Sword and the Shield (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10756.The_Sword_and_the_Shield), about the KGB...
And here's the thing. Our covert ops seemed awful, in comparison. Our networks penetrated, our spies found out. And yet we 'won'.
I put that in quotes because of our current situation, but when the Soviet Union fell that's what most thought.
And, it seemed to me, most of that was because of the flaws inherent in authoritarian systems. People afraid to stand out or draw attention, pressure to be 'yes-men' - or 'yes-people'. Reluctance to speak out when higher ups clearly don't want to hear it.
I used to think this was why, ultimately, democracy was better. There was a better chance of critical information being acted on in a timely fashion, better decision-making, better responsiveness.
I say 'used to', again, because of current events. We have some really foolish people (with more money than sense, and a really screwed up sense of what God wants) who seem bound and determined to destroy all that.
I struggle with feeling like it's worth saying anything more on that matter, though. I don't feel like preaching to the choir, and the rest seem too out of touch (and impervious to the thoughts of people like me) to bother with.
In my previous post, I indicating that sele for loyalty was actually a bad move. I figured I ought to lay out how/who I'd select instead.
Competence, ofc. And I'd want one with that whole 'servant leadership' mentality. Not loyal to me, but loyal to the Constitution and the laws of our nation.
And then I'd have my spiel. The 'you don't have to agree with me on everything, but before you decide to go outside with something, do me the courtesy of talking to me first. I'll give you a fair hearing'
(that could be a huge time commitment, but I don't think most people take you up on it unless it really matters to them, so it's generally worth listening when they do. Oh, and you also have to demonstrate that you really, really mean it. The first test case will either seal the deal, or convince everyone that it was just words, and not to bother).
And maybe I prioritized things differently, or was aware of something they didn't. Generally people want to feel heard, and understand that they can't always get what they want.
If they still strongly disagree, then I'd encourage them to find another position. No hard feelings.
Like, you can argue (preferably behind closed doors) right up until the decision is made, but once it's made that should be it.
Which is why I could see firing someone - not for lack of loyalty. Nothing I described was about being loyal to me - but for not taking me up on the offer to hear them out, and/or not being willing to accept a decision but refusing to leave (and instead trying to force the desired outcome).
I'm trying to think how this is different from wanting loyalty, and in some ways it prob looks and acts the same. I think the key difference is simply that 'loyalty' often ends up meaning 'be a yes-man/woman/person', so they hire people who do a good job of telling you what you want to hear. And generally value those people over others, who may be more opinionated and/or outspoken.
Idk, it's hard to say for sure without being on the inside of those decisions.
Oh, and btw... If someone decides to 'leak', I don't think I'd see it as a problem. Just means I'd have to explain that reasoning in a more public venue.
And really, I can't help feeling why politicians are so afraid of that is because their reasoning wouldn't hold up in the face of public scrutiny. Goes back to 'they really don't believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people' do they?
Lest someone think I'm hopelessly naive, I'll just add one last thing. The wikileaks of our diplomatic cables didn't get much public dissent. Most of what I heard was 'it seems reasonable to keep that private, I can see why.' The public is probably not going to be too upset unless your private decisions really are a problem, and I'd ask you to reconsider why you think it's necessary to do something they wouldn't be okay with.
I had an interaction on social media the other day, and there was a rather minor bit that's actually troubling me the more I think about it.
I've written a lot about group think, team building, the importance of eliciting feedback and opinions and so on and so forth...
But there has definitely been a trend in politics, on both sides of the political aisle, where they value loyalty more than anything else.
More than competence.
And it generally veers into valuing 'yes-men' (and women) who never trouble you with things you don't want to hear. After all, it's all too easy to paint that as a lack of loyalty.
I get why it's happened. I get how frustrating it must be, for staff members who disagree with a decision to go leaking to the press. To feeling like they're airing your dirty laundry, and/or trying to do a run around to get a decision changed.
But it def contributes to a culture where nobody can is in a position to 'speak truth to power', as the much desired cliche says.
And it contributes to the poor decision making we've seen, over and over again, among those who supposedly ought to know better.
But I didn't start this to write about the importance of having a government "of the people, for the people, and by the people."
I think far too many of those powers that be don't really believe that, or don't realize what it takes to make that happen. (Side note - we were seriously lucky, as a nation, to have George Washington as our first president, who se the unofficial policy of only serving two terms. It set a great precedent on how to transfer power. Something that, as just one example, the Russian Provisional Government utterly failed to do after Tsar Nicholas II abdicated.)
Anyways. I generally call myself an independent, and have criticized pretty much every president when they were in power. Not much point in doing so when they're not, after all. I tend to focus most of that on the current party (I think. Not like I've done an analysis of my posts to confirm that), so Democrats when there's a Democratic president and Republicans when it's Republican.
But during this interaction, it seemed clear someone seemed to think even criticizing the current president was bad.
I'm sure there were people who felt that way before (for example, that nobody should criticize President Bush. I'd say the same for President Obama, except that this is another case where the hypocrisy tends to show - people who feel this way tend to be conservative, and generally aren't upset about it when the President is a Democrat. And with Obama, some even go so far as to buy into that birther crap so they can even argue that he's somehow not legitimate, and criticizing him is okay), so maybe it's just that I've expanded my network.
Still, that tendency to see any criticism as somehow unpatriotic, or un-American, or whatever their claim, is deeply disturbing. After all, grouching about our political leadership is a time-honored American tradition, and it's my right to speak out as much as I want to.
Its yet another disturbing example of how some 'patriots' are throwing out everything that makes us great, are undermining our freedoms... And don't even seem to care, so long as it empowers someone they agree with.
As usual, the contrast between two different topics provoked a bit of thought. The biography of Stalin, after all, was fairly typical of powerful political people. (More or less. It's a thick tome and I haven't finished reading it, but for the most part it's in keeping with what I'd consider 'normal'.)
Mohammad, unsurprisingly, was not. I could go probably talk a lot about that. About how hard it is to expect such a proud culture to change, to bend the knee to a higher power (Muslim, after all, aim to live a life of complete submission to God).
About what a strange story it was, this movement that had to work within the 'real' world, and deal with conflict and power issues, while at the same time calling for a complete change in how people acted.
But the part I wanted to focus in on was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. I unfortunately don't have the book in front of me right now (I'm currently traveling), and it's been hard to find anything online focusing on the details in the book that I wanted to focus on. I'll just write what I recall, and hope any readers will forgive me if I misremember.
The pilgrimage to Mecca was important to Arab culture, even before Islam began, and Mohammed was living in exile in Medina. Relations were tense, occasionally violent, when he had a premonition that he participated in the pilgrimage, and decided to go.
Pilgrimage is not supposed to be violent, so Mohammed essentially put his opponents in a tough position - allow their enemy entrance as a pilgrim, or prevent it. Through force, if need be.
Mohammed's followers seemed to expect some sort of great victory, or a miracle, or something, but nothing of the sort really happened. Or rather, nothing obvious...
Mohammed met with his opponents, and they negotiated a treaty. Mohammed actually gave in on Every. Single. Point.
Submitted. Was defeated.
And yet, through that action, was able to return a year later and complete the pilgrimage... and eventually, ultimately, was the victor.
Sound familiar?
Isn't that the 'deep magic' I talked about in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? Isn't that the underlying mystery of Jesus's death on the cross?
The wikipedia link I gave above was rather sparse on the details, but iirc Mohammed even told his people that this was what was required of them. That they should accept conditions that were considered blatantly wrong, or unfair.
And he did, in the long run, win by doing so.
And yet, somehow, everyone seems to forget how to do that. I mean... I've never heard of a single Muslim nation say that following Mohammed means making treaties like that. Did they forget? Decide it doesn't really apply? Argue that he couldn't possibly have meant that for anyone other than their fellow Arabs?
I don't know... I will freely admit I'm not an expert, am only passingly familiar with any of it, and that you would probably want to consult a real scholar on the topic.
I brought that up because the quest to help a proud nation learn how to submit... is something that all of us struggle with. It's not an Arab or Muslim thing.
It's a human thing.
Well, I wanted to make that point, as well as add emphasis for my earlier points about 'deep magic', and actions that go against 'normal' human behavior.
There's more to it than that, too. Would Mohammed's actions have been as effective if he'd given in right away? Or did it only have an impact after he proved that he and his supporters were willing to fight in the first place?
I also don't want to gloss over how challenging this is. In one of my previous posts I'd talked about how you transform a society, and the thing of it is that people who choose to follow that path can and do 'lose'. By conventional standards. As individuals.
The early Christian martyrs, though, ultimately won. They still died, ofc, but the courage of their convictions and the example they set inspired more converts... and more people who tried living like they did.
It's sort of like that clip from the movie Gandhi, too:
It can hurt, it will hurt. It's hard to take it and not strike back, or lash out. But if enough people engage like this. If enough people take a stand, while at the same time not outright attacking, it can change everything.
One last thing. In my earlier post I mentioned the allegory of the long spoons. It is fairly easy to get those cooperating in 'heaven' to start acting like those in 'hell'. Heck, it may not even require deliberate effort. Someone's hand shakes while trying to feed someone else, and the food slides off. Pure accident, but the other person thinks its deliberate. They're friends with someone else, and so the next time their friend is feeding the initial offender, they deliberately let the food slide off. A bystander sees it and blames the friend...
Next thing you know, trust is destroyed and everyone's trying to feed themselves with spoons that are too long to do so.
Going the other way, though? Getting the ones in 'hell' to start cooperating?
That brings up all the questions I'm fascinated by. Like - how do you build trust? How do you convince people it really is in their best interests to work together? More importantly, how do you get them to believe it can really happen?
All that stuff I talked about earlier in my post? It touches on one singular answer... one we all know, already, but find really hard to put into practice:
Be the change you want to see. Trust that it will lead to something better, even though you might 'lose'. Even though you might get hurt, or suffer.
Perhaps especially so.
Despite all that, persist.
Be kind. Be cooperative. Don't react with more hate, or violence.
Stand up for your beliefs, but do so in a way that doesn't threaten those who disagree.
Turn the other cheek.
Give in.
Be open. Be vulnerable.
It can and will most likely hurt.
But you can't control anyone else, you can't make anyone else do the right thing. The only thing you control is yourself, and the choices you make, the choices we all make, create the world we live in.
If enough people choose the same, we can live in 'heaven'. If nobody else does, we'll all be living in hell.
With all the fuss over the Iowa caucuses, it reminded me of how important it is to see our elections as legitimate -
And how dangerous it is for one of the candidates to claim differently.
Its the sort of shortsighted tactic one might use to win, once, but damages the one who uses it in the long term.
After all, it opens the door for future claims, destroys trust in the process, and therefore destroys the legitimacy of whoever wins.
Kinda like the NC Republican strategy - which anyone could have seen was the kind of thing that only works once. Once you've shown your hand, the other side is likely to take countermeasure (they were apparently dumb enough to think they could do a vote without the Dems again, and somehow surprised the Dems made sure to have someone monitoring who could bring everyone back for the vote).
Like - aside from fair play and morality arguments - what sort of fools think these will actually work in the long run? How has our stereotypical problem with "winning the battle but losing the war* infected so many of our politicians that nobody was able to stop this crap before it even started?
BOTH parties ought to hope and pray for a secure 2020 election, because anything else undermines the legitimacy of everyone.
Not just for this election, but all future elections as well.
And I suppose there have been too many fools already, and I can't neglect to add a comment on how important legitimacy is. Which, obviously, is very... But it's the kind of thing that is impossible to quantify, and a government can succeed with a low level of it. It's just that you never know when the lack of legitimacy will break a system, so it's better to play it safe.
