Thursday, January 14, 2016

 

Political Mayhem Thursday: CraigA is right about politics and compassion

My friend and mentor Craig Anderson had a great piece in the Richmond paper last Sunday about compassion and politics.  Here is part of what he had to say:

A 2014 Pew Research Center survey on the traits of good leaders indicated, in descending order, that “it is absolutely essential for a leader to be honest, intelligent and decisive — as well as organized, compassionate, innovative and ambitious.”

At face value, this is a credible list of traits.

Yet, too often it appears the presidential debates degenerate to the lowest common denominators of a male understanding of leadership — such as toughness, aggressiveness and strength — not the traits from the Pew survey. Often, the candidates, regardless of gender, try to outdo one another, much like overreaching adolescent males seeking to assert their uncertain manhood.

More so, the grandiosity, the brashness, the arrogance and the unfettered narcissism of several of the candidates have been striking. It has been said that seeking the presidency is diagnosable. After all, given the unfathomable demands of the job, what type of person would think they have what it takes to do it?

At the core of narcissism is the inability to be present to and aware of the other. The self, and service of the self, is all that matters.

Not surprisingly, the remarks of several of the candidates have appeared to be remarkably tone-deaf in regard to the concerns of the others.

Many of these remarks have pandered to and exploited fear. This fear, unfortunately, is not without precedent. Nevertheless, where is their sense of mercy for those displaced by terrorism, civil war, poverty and environmental disasters? Where is their sense of compassion?

As happens so often, New York Times columnist David Brooks swooped in later in the week and swiped Craig's theme in a wonderful piece titled The Brutalism of Ted Cruz.

What do you think? Are Anderson and Brooks right?




Comments:
Wonderful piece from Craig A. I intend to re-read it several times to soak up every single nuance and layer possible. Just awesome.

As for David Brooks--not so much. Embarrassing is more like it. I have happily defended Brooks among my conservative brethren for years. For this piece, however, I must be silent and let him stew in his own bitter bile.

I get it. David Brooks sincerely believes Ted Cruz is a very bad man, and he would very much like to be able to articulate his distaste for Cruz in a coherent and compelling 600-word indictment. Unfortunately, this piece misses by a mile and actually lowers the bar for honest discourse rather than redeems it.

Shame. Shame. Shame.

 
I think we have a disagreement in this country about the value of compassion. Caring, sympathising and emphathising are universally accepted by today's liberals and today's conservatives. What action is needed, if any, once a need is acknowledged is where there is disagreement. Michigan conservatives rely on encouraging the subject of their empathy to self heal and self fund. It is thought to be in their best interest. Our assistance will only make them weaker. We will soon be as good a state to live in as Mississippi.

Conservative politicians shift resposibility to take the actions that are compassionate to others. They can't allow the taking from one group to give to a second group. They pass that job on to someone else. They call it states rights or a local problem or family deterioration or trickle down and certainly no new taxes. I think this is what both David Brooks and Craig Anderson are telling us.
To some compassion is a dirty word.

 
The one passage in Craig Anderson’s piece that kept playing over and over:
“One of my favorite contemporary theologians, if you will, is Bruce Springsteen. A few years ago, he reflected in a VH1 Storytellers TV concert about his song “Jesus Was An Only Son,” saying: “Whatever divinity we can lay claim to is hidden in the core of our humanity. ... When we let our compassion go, we let go of what little claim we have to the divine.”
In other words, it is through our compassion for the other that we reflect and give agency to — in all our imperfection — the divine. By extension, when we lose our compassion, we lose our connection to the other and to the divine.” Somehow I feel there is no need to comment.
John…how true your commentary! and yes, to some compassion is a dirty word or as our illustrious GOP frontrunner would spout… compassion is for losers!
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

#