Our basic fundamental is:
deficits = debt = destruction…
…but there are others; many others.
Mr. Obama is a man with few fundamentals – by the
circumstance of birth, he found himself in an environment where the
fundamentals most of us learn were set aside for this dream of something
bigger, better, greater. There is
actually a fundamental about this form of dreaming – it has to do with the grass
being greener and so on. He didn’t learn
that one either. He had limited
childhood experiences coupled with slacker friends that, combined with his
intelligence, leads to laziness and, if one is really unlucky – dreams of
grandiosity.
Feedback is an essential of learning – we get it all the
time – it’s there in all sorts of ways. For
those of you who chose to trust Mr. Obama, with no reason other than his
rhetoric you now get to make a decision – do I stay with him even though I know
I shouldn’t or do I send him feedback
that he too needs to change – he is the problem, not the solution; most
certainly not the change “we have been hoping for.”
Mr. Obama, the man who dreams of hope and change, is not
open to change. At least not when it
comes to him; his posse; his policies; his past approach of always being right
and always finding someone else to blame when he clearly is not.
So we come to our title – trust.
All of us have some form of trust radar – it is in our DNA –
we need it to survive. Some of us go
overboard with it – we become too suspicious – too careful – too untrusting and
then it turns out we are the problem.
Most of us are willing to give someone a chance – an opportunity – but
we pay attention to what that someone does with the chance – with the
opportunity. We almost have to because
we are wired that way by nature.
We are wired to measure and assess this simple situation – can someone be trusted?
Earning trust is a fundamental and Mr. Obama now finds
himself with only the trust of those who do not bother with measurement or
assessment of results. He is rapidly
approaching that small group that says – we don’t care if it works; if it
produces results; we don’t even care if it fails – we don’t trust anyone else
so we trust Mr. Obama (they also don’t wish to admit they were wrong.) In that way he is almost the perfect
president for this group. He is the perfect leader for those who have rejected,
for whatever reason(s), this intrinsic, natural need to assess trust.
Think about it. Mr. Obama is the opposite of Bill Clinton,
who to this day, constantly needed the feedback and constantly changed course
to get the feedback and trust even if it were not very real (Monica Lewinsky;
Hillary; Mom – would you trust Bubba with your daughter or granddaughter?) Mr. Obama is much closer to GWBush and Dick
Cheney, than any of the three might like to think. Strange how this trust thing works. Bush has
disappeared; possibly pondering his mistakes – Cheney is still out there rattling on; he
and Obama are two peas in a pod. They didn’t
learn this lesson – without trust all that is left is fear. Fear now dominates the American government scene.
We wish to close with two fundamentals:
truth = trust
propaganda = fear
Take your pick but remember – you have to earn trust. Propaganda is the easy choice.
Take your pick but remember – you have to earn trust. Propaganda is the easy choice.
1 comment:
Mark Twain once said that it's easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled. His point was that nobody likes to own up to the fact that they were duped; indeed they would rather continue living with the deception than admit to having their trust betrayed.
When it comes to trusting in politicians, it is critical to know what to trust in terms of their NATURE.
For example, it is against a cat's nature to waltz. There is no way you can trust a cat to waltz, Not gonna happen. However, you can ABSOLUTELY trust a cat to catch mice, simply because it is a cat's nature to catch mice.
With politicians, you can absolutely count on them to do whatever is necessary to: 1. Get elected and 2. Get reelected. It is their NATURE to resort to any act, heinous as it may be, to achieve those goals.
On the other hand it is foolhardy to expect a politician to do anything heroic, as much as it is to expect a cat to be Fred Astaire.
It is only when the electorate has a firm hand on the scruff of the neck of these miscreants and convinces them that political survival depends on them heeding the commands of the voters can we expect them to do the people's business.
Just suppose that instead of "running for office" the voters put together a JOB DESCRIPTION for the office being sought. It would have firm, clear directions on how to approach the concerns of the day; vote to reduce spending, no new taxes, enforce the border, etc.
Candidates would apply for the position like any other job. We would select the one most capable of fulfilling the job and could fire them if they didn't perform as the job description dictates.
Instead of THEM telling US what they will do, WE would be telling them what THEY are going to do, or lose their position if they don't.
IT MIGHT WORK!!
Post a Comment