Politics of protest
October 17, 2001 | 12:00am
Back in New York, it is impossible to go about life without remembering the great tragedy. The American flag flies proudly everywhere and it looks like business as usual. The brave attempts to look positive and upbeat veil the painful sadness. Perhaps the resolve to be united as a people and to be supportive of the leadership in a time of crisis gives everyone the sense of purpose needed to overcome the shock and great puzzlement over why America is hated so much.
There have been many recent analyses made on what American has done, what it has not done, what it stands for and as a result, why people are angry. Putting aside the complexities of the issues, could this simply be a tragic example of success breeding contempt? Think of this on a personal level. I am sure most everyone would be able to draw from personal experience when they were resented when things went well. The paradox is that a successful person, in this case a triumphant nation, goes about his merry way pursuing his goals and is last to know that he is not liked. What makes America particularly vulnerable to this kind of abhorrence is the transparency brought about by globalization and communication of what America has that others do not. The disparities of wealth, culture and lifestyles have just become so colossal and the probability of reaching similar levels of attainment so hopeless, that they have resulted in what Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek calls "a new politics of protest."
All of humanity continues to reel from the intensity of the rage brought about by this "protest," and it is frightening. The bottom line is that the survival of the fittest is just no longer viable. Is this the very strong message we are being given a wake-up call to realize that a radical change in how we do things is needed? Should not the successful individual, corporation, or nation-state pursue its goals wholeheartedly but find ways to bring a bigger community in as part of the "success equation" as well? Is not the traditional model of doing well and then helping others with charity obsolete and outmoded? What does this new model that I find best described as "enlightened self-interest" look like? Should we not rethink economic and cultural models so that globalization truly becomes a win-win possibility? If money and knowledge have become borderless, should the radical changes contemplated in borderless states be implemented to allow for borderless labor to give people of the world equal opportunity? Or can we solve this with a change in our ways of thinking so each and every one of our actions is win-win? Then should not our children be educated in win-win techniques in kindergarten today so the next generation can begin to build a new world?
We need not look far. There is so much to do in our own backyard to find ways to reverse the immense poverty of our people. Our own experience in the "politics of protest" should form the impetus of our resolve to do things differently because what we are doing so far is not enough and worse, is bringing us to self-destruction. The first part of the agenda must be an unwavering campaign to stop corruption that takes money away from serving the public good. This must be our minimum win-win standard. Then, we must search for new ideas of how to apply the principles of "enlightened self-interest" that transcends the traditional practices of giving charity and donations alone.
The increasingly complex terror that is gripping all of humanity must not distract us from looking within to see that the compassion we feel today should foremost be remembered at home. At my son’s parents weekend program, I learned a simple but profound geometry principle that I should have remembered from high school. Take a stick of uncooked spaghetti and break it into three parts. Then make a triangle. Lesson: In order to complete a triangle, the sum of two sides must be greater than the third side. This principle to me is a reminder that each piece that forms a triangle affects the whole. Each action we undertake, affects everyone, and must be more magnanimous than the actions outside ours, if we hope to attain stability, prosperity and equilibrium for our nation and for the world.
I appreciate receiving your thoughts at dorisho@attglobal.net..
There have been many recent analyses made on what American has done, what it has not done, what it stands for and as a result, why people are angry. Putting aside the complexities of the issues, could this simply be a tragic example of success breeding contempt? Think of this on a personal level. I am sure most everyone would be able to draw from personal experience when they were resented when things went well. The paradox is that a successful person, in this case a triumphant nation, goes about his merry way pursuing his goals and is last to know that he is not liked. What makes America particularly vulnerable to this kind of abhorrence is the transparency brought about by globalization and communication of what America has that others do not. The disparities of wealth, culture and lifestyles have just become so colossal and the probability of reaching similar levels of attainment so hopeless, that they have resulted in what Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek calls "a new politics of protest."
All of humanity continues to reel from the intensity of the rage brought about by this "protest," and it is frightening. The bottom line is that the survival of the fittest is just no longer viable. Is this the very strong message we are being given a wake-up call to realize that a radical change in how we do things is needed? Should not the successful individual, corporation, or nation-state pursue its goals wholeheartedly but find ways to bring a bigger community in as part of the "success equation" as well? Is not the traditional model of doing well and then helping others with charity obsolete and outmoded? What does this new model that I find best described as "enlightened self-interest" look like? Should we not rethink economic and cultural models so that globalization truly becomes a win-win possibility? If money and knowledge have become borderless, should the radical changes contemplated in borderless states be implemented to allow for borderless labor to give people of the world equal opportunity? Or can we solve this with a change in our ways of thinking so each and every one of our actions is win-win? Then should not our children be educated in win-win techniques in kindergarten today so the next generation can begin to build a new world?
We need not look far. There is so much to do in our own backyard to find ways to reverse the immense poverty of our people. Our own experience in the "politics of protest" should form the impetus of our resolve to do things differently because what we are doing so far is not enough and worse, is bringing us to self-destruction. The first part of the agenda must be an unwavering campaign to stop corruption that takes money away from serving the public good. This must be our minimum win-win standard. Then, we must search for new ideas of how to apply the principles of "enlightened self-interest" that transcends the traditional practices of giving charity and donations alone.
The increasingly complex terror that is gripping all of humanity must not distract us from looking within to see that the compassion we feel today should foremost be remembered at home. At my son’s parents weekend program, I learned a simple but profound geometry principle that I should have remembered from high school. Take a stick of uncooked spaghetti and break it into three parts. Then make a triangle. Lesson: In order to complete a triangle, the sum of two sides must be greater than the third side. This principle to me is a reminder that each piece that forms a triangle affects the whole. Each action we undertake, affects everyone, and must be more magnanimous than the actions outside ours, if we hope to attain stability, prosperity and equilibrium for our nation and for the world.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
