Courage of Conviction

I’m one of those 90% who don’t care about the Oscars.  In fact, I couldn’t really tell you the difference between an Oscar, a Grammy, a People’s Choice Award, or any of the other awards that are given out.  I can tell you that the American Country Music Awards are for country music, but only because they made it easy for people like me who don’t pay attention to any of the awards.  

I appreciate Michael Medved’s piece on the fragmentation of our culture, but I somewhat disagree.  The segmentation of our society isn’t a result of the proliferation of media - media works on market forces (the profit motive works in Hollywood too), it doesn’t drive market forces.  People want, and have wanted a segmentation of media, just like all other products.  It’s the same way our political campaigns work - we look for “niche” voters and speak to their needs and wants.  Media does the same thing - provide products for niche audiences.  It’s next to impossible to have mass appeal, which is why we don’t have many blockbuster movies that have mass appeal.  From a strictly economic standpoint, you get a better return on investment by niching than you do in trying to have a broad appeal.  In a niche you recognize that a higher percentage of people will buy your niched product, and hence give you a better return, than if you try to appeal to the mass audience. 

This has been going on for a long time.  One could argue that with the advent of our society segmenting ourselves by our backgrounds, where we are as a society, our politics, our media, etc. makes perfect sense.  In other words, when we started to refer to ourselves as something-Americans, we were already on the way to segmentation of our society.  So do I think this hyphanated-American society is the cause of this - no, merely a symptom. 

Years ago, a book was written, that has been out of circulation for many decades now called Civilization.  I don’t recall the author’s name, it was something like Fitzpatrick or something of that nature.  The author wrote about the cycles of civilizations - their rise and fall.  He wrote that from his study of civilizations throughout time, they all experienced the same cycle.  At the beginning of a civilization the most important unit is the extended family unit, tribe, etc.  They provide all the needs of everyone in that community - defense, food, labor, love, etc.  As civilizations advance they become more individualized, losing attachments to other people.  The role of government increases as a civilization becomes more individualized.  It has to start providing the things that an earlier civilization no longer has the ability to provide.  When we individualize, we of course niche.  When a civilization is at the individualized point, it falls apart because there is no commonality, no common purpose and no reason to stay together, no personal care for others.  All that matters is the individual’s needs and wants. 

One could argue we are moving in that direction - is it bad?  Can it be stopped?  Should it be stopped?  It is what it is.  It is the cycle that every civilization goes through and has gone through throughout history.  It is the same cycle that every future civilization will go through as well. 

I would make this argument, we are no longer in a melting pot.  How can we be in a melting pot - our whole society serves the need of individuals.  Our media, our politics, our food, our jobs, our retirements, our every moment is specialized, personalized, and niched.  We are at the height of individual freedom, and yet it is that same yearning for individual freedom which will most likely bring the ultimate end of our civilization, just as every other great civilation has experienced.  It is our cycle and our human need to express individual freedom. 

I know, I know, it’s an odd title.  I’m referring to all the high drama that goes on every day within the inner circle of politics.  Just go to any major news site - grassrootspa.com is one of my favorites - you’ll see “important” people grandstanding on (insert your favorite policy issue here).  Interested in guns or gun control, just watch self-important legislators walk off the floor of the state house.  Does it really accomplish anything beyond generating some PR?  not really.  Or take a look at some ridiculous “zero tolerance” policy.  Who cares what we are not tolerating anymore - does it really solve a problem - more than likely no - it deals with some effect.  All this does is create more problems, which of course we’ll need government to come in and solve.  But gee, it makes some great PR doesn’t it?

No, on this day, I’m grateful that I have been on an information diet.  What does that mean?  It means I haven’t been paying attention to all the “news” that is going on.  Think about the overwhelming amount of information we are all innundated with each day.  Taking some time off from the madness is refreshing and can be a bit addictive.  It also is productive.  I’m more focused than I have been in along time.  I’m focused on my goals and accomplishing my goals.  Plus, how much of the news is positive anyway - not much.  So really, you aren’t missing much.  Besides, it’s like this - if “important” people walk off the floor of the House and no one cares…

I’m also grateful to be in the private sector.  It is in the private sector that great things happen - fortunes made, people actually assisted and helped, courage tested, risk, etc.  Here people don’t just do things for PR, there is a deeper reason for doing anything.  Each person’s reason may be differently, but PR is nice, but not the goal.  In the private sector results are important - why?  Simply this, without results, no one gets paid. 

Today my wife and I attended the funeral of Scott R. Ball.  Scott was a Pennsylvania State Trooper and Master Seargent with the National Guard.  He was killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan on Aug. 27th.  It was a moving funeral - more moving than I thought it would be.  I’m not going take this opportunity to talk about the funeral - you can get the coverage from the news.  What I want to take a few minutes to do is write a few words about Scott.  I had the privledge of meeting Scott a few times over the last few years.  His wife has worked for several years for my father-in-law at this flower shop. 

My impression of Scott can be summed up in a short phrase - gentle humility.  Here was a guy who was a state trooper and national guardsman and yet he made everyone around him feel comfortable.  Here was a guy who died in the line of duty attempting to save the lives of fellow soldiers.  I didn’t know Scott very well since I had only met him a handful of times, but even in those few times, I could tell how devoted he was to his family and his wife. 

Another way to sum up who Scott was would be in the phrase “quiet courage.”  People are passing away each day on this earth, but this is the first person I’ve taken time to write about on this blog.  Scott exemplifies what courage is all about.  Courage to face danger head on, courage to risk your life for your fellow man, courage to be comfortable in your own skin and be comfortable with who you are and make others around you feel comfortable.  I could tell that Scott was all these things just from the few opportunities I had encounters with him.  Here truly was a hero. 

I’ve been hearing about the stories surrounding Sen. Craig over these last few days, as I’m sure everyone else has.  I’ve even read a bunch of stories from today’s Washington Post.  There is one story on what the typical signals are for men looking for sex with other men.  Who knew there were all these complex codes and signals?  

On a side note, all I can think about with all this talk about public restrooms is Dane Cook’s skit on public restrooms.  So funny, and oh so true. 

At any rate, the main reason I am writing about this is to highlight the reactions to Sen. Craig.  I’m not really looking to make a point here either - whether Sen. Craig is a bad person or not is not the topic of this posting - it’s more to write about what’s going on in my mind right now.  Look, I don’t know if Sen. Craig did or didn’t do what he was arrested for.  He plead guilty to a lesser charge - maybe to get rid of the story, or maybe for some other reason - who knows.  Either way, he’s done a poor job of message and media management, but that’s for another posting. 

The reaction to Sen. Craig’s press conference has fascinated me.  Lots of people are writing about the GOP’s willingness, in fact eagerness, to throw him under the bus and force him out of office.  The reaction from people in Idaho has been pretty decisive as well - the consensus I’ve read can be summarized as this - the people of Idaho have been lied to and embarrassed. 

People are making judgments based on what they know, or what they think they know, or most likely, what they want to believe.  Judgement will happen - it’s part of our nature.  It’s pretty much impossible to not judge for the simple fact that any adult has had numerous experiences in their life that make up what they believe and value.  We go through life judging new experiences through the lense of how we judged past experiences.  It’s how we know not to run out in traffic when a car is coming.  You don’t have to think about not running out in traffic, you just know it’s not the right thing to do. 

The same thing is happening here in this instance as it does with every other moment of our life.  What would be interesting to me would be to hear someone who is supportive of Sen. Craig.  How did they come to that conclusion?  What experiences in their past led them to judge the current situation in such a way that offering support to Sen. Craig appears to be the right thing to do.  The process of how we come to a conclusion is interesting.  What’s more interesting is that once a person makes a conclusion, they associate that conclusion with their identity.  What do I mean?  Ever try to tell someone they were wrong?  What kind of reaction did you get - a defensive one right?  Why?  Because people equate beliefs with identity.  That’s why it is so difficult to have a true discussion about religion or politics.  People emotionalize these subjects so much that to question a policy or belief is interpreted as a criticism of the person holding the belief.  But are the beliefs really who that person is?  What happens when you lay your beliefs aside - who are you really?  All interesting points to ponder.  Your thoughts are welcome.

One week ago I posed a question that picqued my interest - What is a mandate?  It was inspired by Publius, a regular reader of this blog.  There weren’t many responses to this, to be perfectly honest, but I think that is because it’s a difficult question.  Here’s the responses I did recieve:

Alex Charyna of PA Water Cooler wrote:

I think the definition of mandate only extends to the executive branch. It doesn’t make sense in terms of legislature, only because a 90-10 win is as strong as a 50.1 to 49.9 win.

Did Bush have a mandate in 2004? I think so… he had more voters than anyone in American history. Does he still have a mandate? Definately not.

Above Average Jane took a stab at the question also:

A flippant answer would be a mandate is when everyone in my house agrees on what we should have for dinner. A more political explanation is probably what Matt had in mind.

The Webster’s dictionary we have at home lists a number of definitions for mandate. The most applicable one is “an authorization to act given to a representative.” We tend to think of it as something indicated by a lopsided electoral vote. There is no understanding on what that percentage is. Pres. Bush claimed he had a mandate with a bare majority (if that). I would tend to think you would have to have somewhere close to 70% to say you have a mandate. You could probably get a 70% agreement on the need for immigration reform, health care reform, and the need to end the war in Iraq. Where things get sticky is now the what but the HOW. How should we change health care? How should be get out of Iraq? How should we change our immigration laws? The devil is in the details.

I appreciate the responses, but as you can see, it’s a difficult question to answer. 

I promised I would take a stab at it as well - so here goes.  I could answer that a mandate is an overwhelming majority that agrees with a candidate about a policy issue, as measured through the vote totals.  What does overwhelming majority mean - great question.  I could say when a candidate fares better than he/she was projected to do by 5%.  Of course, 5% is a number I pulled out of thin out, why not make it 4% or 10%?  Herein lies the problem - there is no standard for what a mandate it. 

Which leads us to what I feel is a better answer to the question of what is a mandate?  A mandate is difficult to define, but there are certain characteristics that all candidates who have mandates have - they won elections, sometimes by what many consider landslide proportions, sometimes because they did better than they were supposed to.  Mandates typically apply to candidates with a specific message - maybe its on one policy that was the highlight of the campaign, or maybe the broader theme of the campaign.  Mandates have requirements from what I can tell - action to carry out the mandate is expected in a reasonable quick timeframe.  Once the window of opportunity closes, the voters feel betrayed.  How long is that window of opportunity, another great question with a answer for every person out there.

The real answer to the question of what is a mandate is this - just like Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said in a 1964 ruling on pornography: “I know it when I see it.”  I think that’s the best answer to the question.  In fact, I’d go one step further - What’s a manadate?  I know it when a bunch of other people see it with me.  Mandates are just one of those things that aren’t measurable, but more of a gut feeling.  

In a recent comment section on my blog, Publius commented on my post about the GOP Sandbox - in particular the whole idea of what a mandate means.  Here’s what Publius wrote:

The only caveat that seems appropriate here is how much of a margin exemplifies a “mandate”? Did Arlen Specter have a mandate when he beat Pat Toomey 51-49? How about Will Gabig when he beat Frank Rankin 55-45? Or George Bush, when he won by the largest number of votes ever in history, only to sink to a 35 percent approval rating?

Mandates are only as good as the fallout and while everyone is excited about the possibility of a new face for the county committee, progress needs to be made. No one is thrilled about making hasty decisions, but the longer things go, the less interest people have.

Publius brings up a some great questions - what is a mandate, how do you know when you have a mandate, and is a mandate only as good as the results you make of that mandate.  I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter.  Please share here, or e-mail me - mattbest@pa.net.  I’ll post your thoughts on the matter and then add my own.  I’ll give you all one week to leave comments.  Thanks.