by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
“Silence is argument carried out by other means.” – Che Guevara
“Hello darkness, my old friend,
I’ve come to talk with you again,
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seeds while I was sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence.”
– “The Sound of Silence”, by Simon & Garfunkel, lyrics by Paul Simon
“Darkness isn’t the opposite of light, it is simply its absence.” – Terry Pratchett
“In human intercourse the tragedy begins, not when there is misunderstanding about words, but when silence is not understood.” – Henry David Thoreau
Just as darkness is the absence of light, silence is an absence. We’ve considered the word and the image as propaganda up to this point, so let us pause to consider their antithesis as a form of propaganda. The phrase “[t]he only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” is often attributed to 18th Century Irish born English statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke, although what he actually wrote in Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents was that “when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Regardless of the apocryphal attribution, the quote goes right to the heart of the issue of silence being a form of propaganda. Like most tactics of propaganda, silence has multiple forms and uses. Let us examine some of these variations on a theme.
What is “silence”? According to Webster’s it is:
silence \ˈsī-lən(t)s\, n.,
1: forbearance from speech or noise : muteness —often used interjectionally
2: absence of sound or noise : stillness
These are the common meanings of silence that automatically leap to mind when one reads the word, but more to the point in discussing propaganda, we need to consider the full definition of the word and even enhance it a little bit. Consider the third meaning of the word “silence” . . .
3: absence of mention: a : oblivion, obscurity b : secrecy
With this fuller definition, it becomes clear that silence is more than the absence of sound or stillness. For discussion of propaganda, let us use an expanded specialized definition to have silence mean not just the absence of sound, but rather the absence of information. All propaganda is aimed at shaping the flow and content of information. With this expanded definition, we can see the broader scope of silence as a propaganda tactic. As you will see, this can lead to an interesting contradiction.
The first use of silence as a tactic is what you’d expect and the traditional definition of silence: the “No Comment” maneuver. You see this all the time coming from Hollywood and the entertainment industry as well as in the political arena. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t and this is dependent upon a variety of factors. The public’s perception of the speaker, the relative severity and the public or private nature of the topic not being discussed, any associated value loading that can go with a scandal, how amenable to obscuration or obviation is the topic in general and are there any related topics currently drawing the public’s attention that may either attract or detract attention are some of the mitigating factors that influence how well playing the “No Comment” card will work out. Let us consider a couple of examples from both the entertainment and political realms and why or why not they succeeded.
Movie stars are well known (or not) for their scandals (real or imagined) popping up from time to time in the tabloid press. Very often, attempts to mitigate the damage of an embarrassing disclosure do more harm than good. An example of this is the current Kristen Stewart/Robert Pattinson/Rupert Sanders story. After photos of Stewart and Sanders (a married man with children) surfaced, naturally her relationship with her Twilight co-star Pattinson became somewhat complicated. In an effort to mitigate the damage, Stewart made a very public apology to Pattinson. This effort backfired as she caught criticism for everything ranging from the public nature of what most would consider a private message to the content for not being apologetic enough concerning the impact on Sander’s marriage and children to the impact the negative press would have on the forthcoming installment of the Twilight series. This in turn led to speculation that the studio might be reconsidering her for future roles as well as much distress among the Twilight fans. To complete this study in contrasts, consider the recent development in this story where Stewart (possibly after taking advice from her former co-star and actress/director well acquainted with the silence strategy, Jodie Foster) is now refusing to answer questions about her and Pattinson’s relationship.
In the political arena, silence is playing a larger part than usual in the Presidential campaign. The Romney campaign is trying silence as a tactic on his business dealings, his tax returns and the more extremist views of his choice in Vice Presidential running mate Paul Ryan. So far this application of the tactic has generally backfired miserably. For his business dealings, silence makes him look like a liar and a fraud considering it is his past business dealings that make up the bulk of his alleged experience and skill set to lead a nation. With his taxes, silence simply makes him look like he has something to hide in addition to the arrogance he has displayed on the issue showing him to be massively out of touch with the American people and an elitist with remarks about “you people” and “trust me”. With silence about the points of view of his running mate, Paul Ryan? It is early in the use of that strategy to see how well it will work, but early indications are it is going to only serve to highlight Ryan’s extremist views as the media and the public start asking questions. Another spectacular backfire as Ryan’s stance come under greater scrutiny including his budget proposals (even attacked by Conservative King of Trickle Down Economics – David Stockman), the privatization of Social Security, replacing Medicare with a voucher system (also a form of privatization), cutting funding and participation in Medicaid, his dubious and manifestly politically expedient disavowal of his nearly life long love for Ayn Rand and all things Randian, his hypocritical support for economic stimulus when Bush was for it but attacks on it when it is Obama for economic stimulus, and reports of general dissatisfaction among voters of all persuasions about his selection.
There is a second variation on silence as a tactic and that limited silence or partial disclosure. A fine example of this is the career of Michael J. Fox in its post-Parkinson’s phase. Since his diagnosis, he was careful with the media but remained largely silent. After announcing his condition, he carefully controlled his media presence until the scope and effect of his condition and the effectiveness of his treatment could be assessed. What started with silence became partial disclosure of his progress, using his celebrity to draw attention to the condition and support for research, and eventually a slow and partial reintroduction into promoting active acting projects. This illustrates that in the process of information management, what you don’t say and when you don’t say it can be as important to image management as what you do say and when you say it, and that balance in tactics can be crucial.
The third use of silence is a close variant to the “no comment” form of silence and that is the tactic of externally enforced silence. Oddly enough, this tactic can arise from tactical missteps as well as situational elements and there is a perfect example of this going on in the current Presidential campaign. Consider Mitt Romney’s camp and their inability to mention one of his (few) great successes in political leadership without having it blow up in their face and that is the so-called Romneycare he shepherded to life while Governor of Massachusetts. Their silence on this issue is externally enforced because of the similarities to Obama’s ACA plan. Romney cannot attack Obama for actions incredibly similar to actions he took as governor and then tout his actions as governor without tactically shooting himself in the foot with his target audience.
The fourth use of silence is where silence as the absence of information comes to the forefront as well as the previously mentioned interesting contradiction. Sometimes silence can be noisy. Another way to create silence in the sense of an absence of information are the strategies of obfuscation and distraction (which can employ many tactics from white noise to straw men to simple misdirection). In this regard, when evaluating information it is just as critical to ask “what does this speaker not want me to think about or discuss” as it is to look at the explicit content of what they are saying.
Consider in a broader media sense the contrast between the television news coverage of World War II, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, and Iraq/Afghanistan. The media kept silent about a great many details of World War II and in those days of analog media dominance, it was possible to maintain such silence. To the credit of those in government who controlled the flow of information during World War II, the bulk of what was kept silent was validly done so in the name of operational security and once Allied troops were out of danger fuller disclosure was usually forthcoming. Contrast this with the media coverage of Vietnam and the then relatively new medium of television. The collapse of public support at the end of the Vietnam war was due in part to the inability of the government to exert control over television. Once the images of what was really going on over there and the cost it was taking on our citizen draft military with daily visions of caskets being broadcast into a majority of American homes, it was only a matter of time before any public support for that war evaporated.
Fast forward to the first Gulf War. The war mongers in government had learned their lesson from Vietnam and the Draft was not a concern with a volunteer force – removing some of the direct impact into American homes from a war abroad. True, many civilians were against conscription, but getting rid of it came with a hidden cost to civic duty and a hidden opportunity for the unscrupulous to make war easier because of less public challenge. Add to this a high level of embedded journalists, a whole new bag of technology that made showing night actions possible and a theater conducive to night actions and relatively low casualties and you get the first war sold to the American public as essentially a video game. This war as an exercise in modern media control can only be termed a success from the point of view of policy hawks. Silence was kept where needed to keep public support flowing and the flow of information out was carefully controlled. The effectiveness of pro-war propaganda was back to WWII levels.
Now comes the invasion of Iraq. America was reeling in the aftermath of 9/11, but anyone who focuses on intelligence in looking at foreign policy issues knew that Iraq didn’t have a damn thing to do with those heinous terrorist attacks. The general public was in a state of fear and the Bush Administration seizing upon that opportunity forced through Congress the purposefully vague Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as well as the arguably prime facie unconstitutional Patriot Act. Using their media savvy sharpened by the Gulf War, little if any media mention was made of the pure irrationality of attacking Iraq was mentioned during the lead up to that action and once again the television was ablaze with video game warfare images. However, that silence about the cost and irrationality of this invasion had to deal with a change in technology analogous to what transpired in Vietnam with television: the Internet. Although it had technically been around for a while, the World Wide Web hadn’t reached maturity until roughly the same time the war in Iraq started. Due to the very nature of the medium, government found it difficult to control the message and enforce silence, but also due to the massively increased number of media outlets, the impact of negative reporting of the true costs of invading Iraq were somewhat diluted compared to the impact of television on Vietnam. Combined with the lack of impact created by a conscription military, a situation ensued where dissent against the invasion slowly built though the alternative information channels the World Wide Web provided, but instead of ending the war in 13 years (1962-1975) in Vietnam, the pressure to end the invasion of Iraq took 8 years (2003-2011) to “officially” end – seemingly an improvement. But is it? We still have troop presence there so anyone paying attention knows that it is not over. A lesson learned in Vietnam is the euphemistic language of calling a war something other than what it really is, like “police action”, “liberation”, and “nation building”.
This is not to mention that we are still in Afghanistan, a country well known to military history buffs both professional and amateur to be a place practically impossible to occupy due to both terrain and a fractured culture in part created by that terrain. So here we are, still involved in two wars, one an invasion of questionable legality and unquestionably bad tactics (unless you’re in the oil business) and the other an attempt at occupation against a legitimate target but a target that historically has been shown highly resistant to occupation strategies. Unlike Vietnam though, the propaganda masters in government rapidly adapted to the World Wide Web. If you look only at MSM Web sources for news, you might be minimally aware of some sanitized facts of what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you only watch television, you might be hard pressed to even realize there are two wars going on at all. In either case, you can hear the media’s politically driven drumbeat starting already for war with Iran.
The propaganda masters have learned their lessons and put them into application. Where they could not directly silence, they sowed confusion. Where they could not sow confusion, they manufactured false support with tactics like hiring propaganda trolls and astroturfing. Where they could not manufacture support, they outright lied. And when their lies where exposed by whistle blowers like Bradley Manning and Wikileaks, they resorted to that old standby of fascists and totalitarian regimes to enforce silence about their misdeeds and malfeasance in representing the best interests of the general citizenry: threats and intimidation.
In being or seeking to become a critical thinker and a responsible citizen in the age of modern media and propaganda techniques, silence as an absence of information is your enemy. It can be overcome by diligent research, practiced evaluation, supporting whistle blowers who bring the public evidence of institutional and personal wrong doings by government, industry and its members and to practice through and proper analysis (in context) of as many sources of information as your mind can handle. But is it enough to overcome the silence of information to make your decisions about such matters? As George Orwell so famously noted, “Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Is it enough to find the truth behind the silence? Or is it your civic duty to speak truth to power?
I think the answer is quite clear if you are following the sage advice of Marcus Aurelius and “seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed.”
What do you think?
________________
Source(s): E!, The Daily Beast, Times Live, Huffington Post (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), Politico, New York Times, League of Women Voters, CNN (1, 2), Slate, Vanity Fair, The Raw Story
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
The Propaganda Series;
Propaganda 105: How to Spot a Liar
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Streisand Effect and the Political Question
Propaganda 104: Magica Verba Est Scientia Et Ars Es
Propaganda 103: The Word Changes, The Word Remains The Same
Propaganda 102 Supplemental: Holly Would “Zero Dark Thirty”
Propaganda 102: Holly Would and the Power of Images
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Child’s Play
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Build It And They Will Come (Around)
Propaganda 101: What You Need to Know and Why or . . .
Related articles of interest;
Mythology and the New Feudalism by Mike Spindell
How about Some Government Propaganda for the People Paid for by the People Being Propagandized? by Elaine Magliaro
Tony,
Here’s a summary paper submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science
You find it fairly easy to read but might want to skip approx. 2/3rds down to Democratic Theory and 5 Person Committees right before “245”.
There is also some in-depth work done on committees in the Federalist Papers
I’m in favor of the 5 member committee as opposed to 3 or 9 but would like to read your opinion on structuring.
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/3595/Institutional_Effects_on_Committee_Behavior.pdf.txt?sequence=2
Tony C, although you wouldn’t call it fighting, for a poet (who gets to use words any way at all if it “works” for the poem), that word will do for now.
Thing is, I’m not really getting inspiration — have to get into the mood I guess.
@Blouise: One could generalize that same primary system to a committee election, I think. If the field of registered candidates is more than twice the number of seats, even by just one, then a non-partisan primary is used that narrows the field down to twice as many candidates as seats. That is followed by a non-partisan election where the seats are filled by those with the most votes. If there is a tie for last place, have a runoff or cast lots. (An actual solution still invoked in 2010, I have read.)
@Malisha: I wouldn’t call it fighting; I think I am pointing out bad logic, mythology, sexism and naive childishness of his statements and claims, and he is taking offense because he is invested in that belief system. He is upset that I took offense at his intentionally offensive, derisive, and dismissive “joke” aimed at MY proposal.
“I do not even think that political parties should have access to public equipment for primaries. … the parties should be private corporations and responsible for their own marketing and informational systems to get their voters or members to know their own candidate.” (Tony C.)
I agree 100%. I once lived in a community that, by City Charter, mandated all elections to public office, mayor, councilman, etc. be non-partisan. It worked/works very well and has done so for decades.
In fact, from what I understand, their last mayoral race had three candidates and since none of the three received 50%, a special election between the top 2 candidates was held. Not liking how close that final election came to the actual transfer of power, an amendment was offered to the voters this month that would change the Charter so that if more than two individuals were seeking an office, a non-partisan primary election would be held early (I want to say August but I’m not certain as to the month the primary would be held) and the top two would then advance to the November election. The electorate voted to accept the amendment by a huge percentage. (Political parties are not at all necessary to well run elections.)
Now that’s a living City Charter … just as our Constitution should be.
Wow, Tony C and Curious are fighting on the “Sound of Silence” Thread?
I feel a poem coming on — I’ll check back in a few hours but now I have to go buy a rhyming dictionary. 😉
@Blouise: I agree, I think ALL elections should be non-partisan. I do not even think that political parties should have access to public equipment for primaries. I also think all ballots should be required to list the people running for an office without any designation, and with order chosen by lot (or in modern times, randomized per ballot); the parties should be private corporations and responsible for their own marketing and informational systems to get their voters or members to know their own candidate.
I do not even agree with partisanship within Congress, it should be prohibited. Each Congressman should have an assigned seat for their position, and sit in it, whether they are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Communist, Socialist, whatever.
I do not mind caucuses, that is fine, but I do not think they should be afforded any legal recognition or rights whatsoever. I disagree with all official or legal recognition of Majority Leader, Minority Leader or any other manifestation of political party in the rules of Congress or of any state.
@Slart: I would add, btw, that if one’s “dream job” is to be an Army General we do not allow that without basically a lifetime of service in the army, first. One cannot just wake up one morning and say, “I think I will be an Army General!” unless that thinking includes about a 35 year career plan.
Just because somebody wants to run for elected office does not mean we should be obligated to allow that without any prerequisites.
Even the founders were clearly advocates of some prerequisites, they did put age minimums on Representatives, Senators, and the Presidency (25, 30, 35). I presume to overcome the brashness, risk taking and ignorance of youth.
There is much to overcome when considering new ideas.
Tony’s suggestion regarding experience in public service makes sense but I found myself hesitant to fully agree so I had to consider why I would hesitate over a sensible idea.
After going through pros and cons I discovered the hesitancy was purely cultural … we’d never had any requirements for the executive except citizenship and age. In fact the initial seekers of that office pretended not to be seekers and had to be drafted.
I was stuck in the “but, we’ve never done that before” mode without even realizing it.
Our government is huge and the services it provides are vast so yes, of course it makes perfect sense that those who want to seek election to the committee have years of experience working within the system in one form or another. Besides, such a requirement does, as someone mentioned earlier, make it a little more difficult to simply buy a seat. I didn’t say it makes it impossible … just a little more difficult.
Also, if the committee is 5 members serving staggered 6 year terms with an election every two years (2 member – 2 members – 1 member), the makeup of the committee changes every two years making it that much more difficult to establish one party control while still maintaining the stability of continuallity. (I’m not sure continuallity is a word)
I would wildly support the rule/law that all elections for membership on the committee be non-partisan! 😈
@Slart: To my knowledge, I have read all of Heinlein. 🙂 (although more than three decades ago, so pardon me while I check the Wik…)
The ideas are different. In Heinlein’s story you cannot VOTE if you have not done two years of public service. I think it is always wrong to limit voting rights to any class of people defined by anything but citizenship and legal adulthood (with perhaps an exception for the incarcerated).
The reason I oppose such restrictions is because the law is necessarily coercive, and coercing people that cannot vote is (in my mind) slavery.
Mine is an idea about requiring public service as a prerequisite to running for public office. I do not think that is slavery.
To become a board certified medical doctor, one must complete medical school after a bachelor’s degree, then an internship and a residency, with more exams along the way.
To become a PhD after a bachelor’s degree, one must pass a certain number of academic hours in specified classes, pass the qualifying exam, pass the dissertation proposal, and pass the dissertation defense. Most advisors require a certain number of publications as well.
We require prerequisites for people that are going to care for our health or teach our kids or train our professionals, we demand accreditations, exams and inspections.
Why should running the country (which can have enormous impact on our lives, including the lives of soldiers) have the same prerequisites as becoming a fry cook at McDonalds?
The prerequisite I proposed is less onerous than most educational requirements to practice medicine, teach engineering or teach mathematics. It is just time in grade, at any job from janitor or garbage collector on up to managing multi-billion dollar budgets, programs and tens of thousands of people. Elected officials might have the imprimatur of being in charge, but in truth most of us know that the real full time work is done by a full time hire and career bureaucrat. In business we would call that “CEO” and “COO,” Chief Operating Officer.
I do not think a prerequisite work period to run for office diminishes freedom any more than requiring licenses and experience for other jobs where incompetence could ruin lives. My requirement is (IMO) intellectually easier to accomplish than becoming licensed to practice medicine, get licensed to be an architect, or lawyer, or a professor in an accredited university. Heck, we demand more commitment, training and intellectual achievement for high school art teachers than we do for Congressmen or Mayors (no offense intended by that comparison, high school art teachers).
Tony,
Your idea about requiring public service sounds suspiciously familiar… Have you read Starship Troopers? (by Heinlein)
@Curious:
I am not from the military, I served in the military. There is a difference.
I have no three candidates to name, I do not have one. If the system were in place, we would have candidates, that is the whole point. They name themselves as willing to run for the office.
You seem to constantly be focused on the wrong thing, the minutia instead of the picture. Who cares who the people are in this discussion? The discussion isn’t about specific people, the discussion is about how people interact.
In designing the system of government for the United States, the founding fathers did not design it for specific people, they did not pick candidates that would run to be the Senators or Congressmen. You should not design any system, in business or politics, with specific people in mind, you define abstract roles that somebody will play and how the people in those roles will interact, and their responsibilities.
You ask, where are the women? That is a ridiculous question, there are millions of women working for the government, many working in jobs that require high education, business management, or people skills. Claiming that the jobs of women in government do not qualify them to be leaders is just stupidly derogatory, they do the same jobs as men. If you aren’t being derogatory to women, then the alternative is that you do not think ANY government job qualifies men or women to be leaders, which is derogatory to a all government workers.
So what is left? Do you believe the only thing that qualifies people to be government leaders is commercial work? If you believe that then I think you have an inordinate amount of reverence for money that borders on mental illness. Government agencies should not be led like businesses, because their goals are different; government agencies are not out to make a profit by cutting corners, adding features, or even pleasing customers. They do not do the things we do in business, their job is to get as much good done as possible within the budget they have. I have run businesses, and I have consulted for government services, and we run them differently because they have very different goals.
I am not out to get you, I am just pointing out what I read in your posts, and what I infer from the language you use. Namely, that you come across as a sexist that thinks women are weak, and if they aren’t, they must be lesbians. And that you are sneeringly dismissive of new ideas.
Tony,
I just found an email that I sent to a friend in 2006. It was about a senator that I heard wonderful things about that wanted to run for president. I wondered if he faced too tough a handicap….he was an African American.
Well, there you are. I guess I am a bigot.
Tony,
Name your three candidates for the committee. Then we can discuss whether it seems reasonable that they would toil in the post office or the DMV for 15 years before attempting to rise to national office.
Before you named some criteria, I named three. FAIL. Fallows (sorry no journalists allowed), Michael Sandel (oops, private university) and Charlie Pierce (oh dear. another journalist and worse, he indulges in sarcasm)
There must be an appropriate poker term here. Does let’s see ’em work?
Tony, you are a most disagreeable fellow…
My characterization of a woman general was a great mistake in dealing with a less than honest correspondent such as you. I give you Gen. Tammy Smith, you idiot. Saying someone is a homosexual is NOT akin to saying they are “unclean” unless of course they are talking to you. In this country (and to those occupying “reality” as you assure us you do) it does often serve as something of a handicap in being able to serve your phucking country. (Why I seem to remember it was just a few short months ago when one was subject to dismissal from the military if you were a homosexual before the object of your irrational rath deliberately betrayed you with an executive order.) Such a prohibition would make it rather difficult to rise in the ranks, you jerk. Sally Ride was a homosexual, Dan Savage is a homosexual, Barney Frank is a homosexual, Andrew Sullivan is a homosexual. They are outstanding, smart, wonderful, funny (possibly an unfamilar term to you) Americans in which I take great pride, you smuck. Dr. Ride may have taken issue with me, the other GENTLEMEN (in case you forgot thre are such things) would not. A homosexual is only a terrible accusation if you believe a homosexual is something less than human. But it does tend to come up if you run for office and you’re from Missouri, say.
Oh yeah. I screwed up in carelessly using that with such a cad as you. You must be a prosecutor. One of the unpleasant ones we read about here. You are not interested in discussion, you are interested in “the opening”, the “slip”, which will allow you to demean, bully and attack and then retire to your cave, once again, the smartest guy in the room.
To the other readers (if there are any left) I apologize for my rant. But this guy, who got all twisted when I had the timerity to offer a small little joke in response to an idea that he wanted to discuss as A Very Serious Person finally exhausted my patience. ….What could possibly go wrong? Silly me. Yeah. What could possibly go wrong, Tony?
Tony, you’re like the guy who settles an argument about Israeli policy by calling his opponent an anti-semite. You condescending, sneering, insufferable bigot. (There. I think I have replied in kind.)
Oh, yeah. What a surprise you’re from the military. The place where you don’t talk back (thanks for the indepth assessment of how the military works, Tone)
@Curious: Oh, and being a lesbian would be a “handicap?” Are you so self-unaware that you can write something like that and think you are NOT a bigot?
@Curious: I think the pool is much too limited,
The pool would be the entire population. A politician is a public servant, if you want to BE a public servant, if you are committed to that path, then 15 years of labor is not too much to ask.
@Curious: the permitted career path lacks challenging experiences (mostly),
And what “challenging experiences” do we require of existing politicians? None, really. The vast majority of them are millionaires, which mean they have hardly any challenges in their lives. A public servant, after 15 years, is typically a manager of other public servants. Their lives are plenty challenging, they often deal with the poor, sick and elderly, and most of them are living around the median wage and alongside the people they are supposed to serve.
Or do you only think that millionaire’s lives are challenging and only they are qualified to rule? That is called “plutocracy,” rule by the rich. Is that your position?
@Curious: the rules demand 15 years in maybe cruddy jobs before you can get started in your hoped for career,
Oh, I see, you are an instant gratification kind of guy. The founding fathers disagreed with you, that is why they put age limits on the offices: 25 years, 30 years, 35 years (Rep, Sen, Pres).
In any case, you mistake my intent: That 15 years is not a preamble to a career, it is part and parcel of the career. You do not get to be a medical doctor without putting in a similar amount of time and effort, you do not get to be a general without it, and I think you do not get to step into the role of leading public servants without having been one first.
@Curious: best leadership experience will come from the military,
More bigotry. Leading a country is not being in charge of an army, in fact being in charge of an army may well be a bad experience for leading the country, because the army is hierarchical from the top down, authority is unquestioned and command is complete. The country does not work that way, States do not work that way, and the world does not work that way. They demand negotiation among equals, and there is no five-star at the top that can give arbitrary orders. When we negotiate with France or Russia or Israel, we negotiate as equals.
The military is NOT the best leadership example. I have been in the military, and I followed orders. I was “led” because it was illegal to refuse, I could be fined, stripped of rank, even jailed for refusing to follow an order. You cannot order a fellow Congressman to do anything he doesn’t want to do, the mayor cannot order the police chief to ignore the law, the governor cannot fire the (elected) Treasurer or State Supreme Court Justice.
The best leadership will come from the ranks of public service, where managers have to deal with employees that can quit (soldiers cannot quit), and has to negotiate with other agencies and civilian suppliers as equals.
@Curious: I also can’t think of too many women generals. I know there are some, but they may have the handicap of being homosexuals.
And you wonder why I call you a bigot. Perhaps you are just an idiot. Either way, with an attitude like that, that a women that rises to the rank of general is likely to be a lesbian (or not a “real” woman), you are not harmless.
Tony,
Sorry that I’m always three or four notes behind.
I wonder if we can clear something up. I’m sure you’re entirely unaware of it and it is just a reflection of my shortcomings that I remember these things, but you have called me: childish, gullible, naive, a bigot , linked me to racist, anti-semetic, anti-gay, and now a misogynist – all in this thread. Tony, you are taking a howitzer to destroy a mosquito. I am harmless. You have nothing to fear from me and you certainly won’t be bombarded with a bunch of new ideas or devilishly clever arguments. So lay off, will ya? You can take care of me with little effort and without embarrassing your mother by calling me names.
So back to my query… I was thinking of what becomes the pool of possible candidates for national office. I had not overlooked the positions that you mentioned. But I didn’t think too many candidates for senator would spend 15 years at the DMV nor 15 years as an unelected prosecutor. I also can’t think of too many women generals. I know there are some, but they may have the handicap of being homosexuals. I can’t think any female cop who has risen to national prominance. Let’s stretch….Janet Reno. I can’t even think of too many male Police Chiefs. There was the guy who was a crook and a friend of Guillanni and Daryl Gates. But I will give you one mighty prejudice…..I am not at all happy of having the VAST majority of national lawmakers coming from 15 years as LEO or the military. NO WAY. That leaves the DMV, TSA, public school teachers, (Wilson was from Princeton – private school) city service employees, prosecutors, congressional staff, Washington bureaucrats, cabinet members No governors, no senators, no state legislators, none from local elected government.
I think the pool is much too limited, the permitted career path lacks challenging experiences (mostly), the rules demand 15 years in maybe cruddy jobs before you can get started in your hoped for career, best leadership experience will come from the military, and WHERE are the women?
****************************************************************************
Gurl….
Didn’t mean to suggest we disagreed on translations. My comment was directed at an earlier commentor who was rather skeptical of the importance/difficulty of a good translation.
@Curious: I just stop reading (or listening) after the second or third false premise or non sequitur. What is the point? I expect professionals to argue from supportable premises and to make supportable inferences and draw valid conclusions, not over-reach or engage in word trickery or subterfuge.
I was excited for Rachel Maddow to get a show, she was an excellent and insightful guest analyst. I stopped watching her when she became an apologist for everything on the left; I assume getting a show done every day was just too much work to keep up the high quality she had as guest. I am on the same side as Dr. Maddow philosophically, but she began engaging in blind partisanship instead of analysis, and that made it pointless (for me) to watch.