What is success? My wife asked me to go pick up the kids from school with her today.
She mentioned that she read an article where the author surmised what success is at different stages of life. He mused that at an early age, success means getting good grades in school, doing well on a test, getting a high GPA. Later, success could be considered getting into a reputable university, receiving a Ph.D. or a Masters degree. As an adult, though, he asserted that being successful meant not having to work overtime, having enough time to pursue your own interests, and having enough time to spend with your family..
ah, I see..
Her comments got me thinking, though, about a fury of headlines that were in the news stream today.. some political mumbo-jumbo that no one could agree on. And I realized, it's all connected..
Groupthink & Moral Relativism
If you live in the states or periodically go on the internet, you may have heard names like Robert Mueller, Donald Trump and 'investigation', or 'report.' Basically, there was a guy who did some digging into another guy's closet to see if there were any unsavory activities there, wrote a 400 page memo about it and handed it in to that guys lawyers...
Does that sum it up?.. I think that's about the gist of it, right?
Anyway, that second guy happens to hold one of the most powerful offices in the world, so of course he is constantly under scrutiny of the public eye.. but hey, that's what you sign up for when you throw your name into the hat.
The thing is, since the report wasn't made immediately available for public review, there was an outcry.. and people on both sides of the fence got up on their soapbox and started claiming that the report confirmed their beliefs.
Those who thought the guy was guilty, expected that the report would condemn him, and that's exactly what they claimed it did. In the opposing camp, there were those who are invested in this guy and back him, so they expected that the investigation would exonerate him. Therefore, when the findings were released, that's the interpretation they stood by.
I'm no psychology expert, but I know that sussing out moral and political issues can be confusing and difficult at times. There are always going to be nuances and repercussions to consider. There are extreme cases, and valid arguments made for and against any given policy. Often times emotions and maybe even the physical well-being of others are at stake. The stipulations that need to go into policy-making in order to produce a truly fair and just outcome are as varied as the people being governed by it. In truth, no two people have the same needs, wants, or circumstance.
However, if each and every policy to be enacted were to first be flesh out so thoroughly, it would take days.. months.. years.. or more to pass anything.. some would never make it off the table. So, to make things simpler, choices are removed, and issues are simplified down.. down.. down until we reach a dichotomy: "Are you for or against [fill in the blank]?"
To make it even more straightforward, issues that are seemingly unrelated get clumped together. Casting a vote "Pro-life" means a vote "Anti-Gay Marriage" and against "Universal Healthcare".. There is no middle ground.. it's black or white not grey.. It's left or right, red or blue.. this creates a system of partisanship that is largely divided but easier to sway and, therefore, govern.
A politician that tries to go the middle way, is seen as a weak candidate because he/she doesn't take a firm stance on the tough issues.. that candidate will never garner enough votes to make a difference.
