The Webster dictionary defines the word naïve as "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment." A friend of mine attached this word to me not very long ago. To him, I was naïve. It came up when we were engaged in a lively exchange of thoughts. He propositioned that a large radio and television network was then putting all of its resources to back up a presidential candidate. When I countered that he could be wrong because, in my mind, all media outlets only wanted to give exposure to all political aspirants, he, by citing in litany the obvious preference of the company for the candidacy of Sen. Benigno Aquino III, then sadly made me understand that I lacked informed judgment.
My friend had no reason to hurt me, nor insult me. I was sure of that. In fact, he was just being an honest buddy like all true friends should really be. Since deep inside I, nonetheless, was hurt by his candidness, I have wanted to scrutinize personally the programs of the company in order to validate or better yet, repudiate his opinion and in the process, assure myself that I am not naïve.
Segments of interviews conducted by Ms. Karen Davila and Ms. Tina Monzon-Palma, much to my dismay, tended to suggest my friend right.
Ms. Davila, in a recent talk, on television, (of course), with candidate Sen. Manuel B. Villar, brought up the issue that, per her observation, the rich were supporting Aquino and against Villar's presidential aspirations. I could not remember the exact words she used but the essence was that those living in gated communities and homes with high walls did not favor the NP bet.
Did the lady TV host want to help the candidate by making him aware of a sector of voters averse to him? From where I sat, she was not. The volume of her questions did not indicate that direction. I thought that Ms. Davila angled her queries in an attempt to crucify the man who claimed to have risen from poverty. If her questions were rephrased, they would read, "Is it true that you were poor? Or words to that effect. Her body language showed that she was convinced her TV guest would not be able to quantify his script of modest beginnings.
Even so, because, perhaps, my mind was in search of something that would break it free from the label of naïvete, I imagined that her questioning was loaded and designed more to a specific action. I believed that she was harping the issue with the intention of asking the rich families, presumably landlords and employers, to give the marching orders to people under their influence to vote for Villar's opponent. But, woe to Ms. Davila, she met her unintended match. Rather than put Sen. Villar in an inexplicable situation, she gave him a rare opportunity to buttress his claim of poor origins with a plethora of hitherto less publicized trivia. If there indeed was a sinister design behind the way those questions were crafted to waylay a prey, the predator failed in her mission.
I was not concerned with whether or not Villar could find his way out of an apparent trap. Something far graver arrested my attention. By painting recklessly that the rich could not allow a poor boy from Tondo become a president, Ms. Davila instilled fear in me. I was afraid she might have unwittingly stoked the fire of a social upheaval. Why pit the rich against the poor in such a language that could heighten divisiveness if not promote hatred?
I could really be naïve and my ideas useless for the moguls in the gilded corporate world. But, in spite of my seeming innocence, I know that it does not profit any man's political ambition nor of his ardent supporters if the ploy used for his march towards the zenith of power, has the capacity to spark an unnecessary social struggle.