Tainted

As part of my job with Pesticide Action Network, I have been periodically responsible for composing Iowa-based social media posts.  One of my goals during my first year on the job was to exhort my fellow Iowans to vote in the primary elections.  Please note that I was not telling anyone how they should vote - just that we wanted people to participate.

I do, however, think it went without saying that I was representing PAN and was hoping to reach people who want to change things with respect to corporate agriculture and the overuse of pesticides.

A clear statement that is hard to argue against

In my last post encouraging voting, I included an abbreviated version of this quote:

"...if we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn’t between protest and politics. We have to do both. We have to mobilize to raise awareness, and we have to organize and cast our ballots to make sure that we elect candidates who will act on reform. " *

Read it carefully - then tell me if it applies and if it rings true.  I'll wait here.

What do you think now?  As a representative for PAN in Iowa, I was hopeful I could motivate people to make some changes.  I do, in fact, protest the status quo when it comes to our current agriculture and food systems and the policies our government employs.  I am trying to raise awareness, educate and promote organization for change.  And I do believe part of the process is participating in the election process.  How about you?  Even if you think you're "not political,"  you'll probably agree that this is a logical and straightforward statement that can be widely applied.  We've got to say what we want, work to get others to hear it and perhaps agree on action and then we all have to vote to put people in place to make these things happen.

Guess what?  This statement is ALSO LIKELY true if you do not agree with the things I am promoting.

I was dutiful and put the attribution for the quote in the post.  And, soon after posting, it received some negative feedback that had nothing to do with the content of the quote.  It also had some positive feedback that also had little to do with the content of the post.  The response was driven largely by personal feelings regarding the author.  Or, perhaps it was 'bot response' that was triggered by the individual's name who supplied the quote.  I'll never know which it was for certain - but I do know it was intended to rile people up on the name and not the content of the quote.

How often do we close our eyes and stop our ears because of the source? 

*Who wrote/said this?  Barack Obama

This is NOT Barack Obama.  But, he was said to be truthful. And he had his detractors.

Who said these?
I went and selected some quotes from some recent former Presidents of the United States that I felt were pretty good messages when you look at them without attribution.  Even if you THINK you know who said each of these, I want you to read them and consider the message and what comes to mind for you as you read them.  I realize we are missing the larger context of the surrounding words.  But, we are a culture that seems to like to take short quotes and ascribe them great importance - so let's play along, shall we?

a) “There could be no definition of a successful life that does not include service to others."

b) "People are more impressed by the power of our example rather than the example of our power...” 

c) “Power can be very addictive. And it can be corrosive. And it’s important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power.”

d) "Our future cannot depend on the government alone. The ultimate solutions lie in the attitudes and the actions of the American people."

e) “Change will not come if we wait for some other person, some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

A call to service to others.  A call to set a good example.  A call to stand up to power when it is in the wrong.  And two calls for people to take personal action to make things better.

I selected these, in part, because they are all fairly consistent with other words spoken by each of these presidents.  They certainly do not summarize all of what they stood for or said - to expect that would be ridiculous.  I am also certain we can find plenty of specific examples of each presidency that is not consistent with what was said here.  All I am saying is that I believe each of these are a valid recognition of what these people were about or what they wanted to be - despite all of the inconsistencies each person exhibits. 

So - who said these?
a) George H.W. Bush
b) Bill Clinton
c) George W Bush
d) Joe Biden
e) Barack Obama

And now, I have tainted each of these quotes because I have associated them with a person for whom each of you likely have a strong opinion.  Did (or do you) "hate" Bill? George W? Joe?  Were you a loyal fan of George H.W. or Barack? Are you tempted to howl that the quote I selected is an aberration or that it doesn't mean what I think it means (ah.. Princess Bride, the quotes I can use from that movie!).  If you did, I just made my point.  You discarded a piece of potential wisdom you could have collected and made personal to your betterment so you could be upset.  Well done.

Now stop it.

Sometimes we need to hear things we don't want to hear.

When the source taints the message

First, let me point out that I have my own opinions about each of these people.  But, when push comes to shove, I firmly believe that each of them wanted the best for this nation.  Each of them applied themselves and their staff in an effort to do what they felt was right for the people.  We can disagree with how they went about prioritizing and executing that duty.  We can focus on their blind spots and shortcomings.  Each of them had faults and made mistakes (and as a president, there are rarely small mistakes).  And, each of them accepted that there would be (and should be) criticism.  Why?  Because, if there is no dissent, then we aren't thinking hard enough to find the best solution and we are clearly leaving someone out who needs to be heard.

Two points to make

The whole purpose of this blog post is to (hopefully) make two points.

1.  When we look at an idea, proposal or a statement, we should ponder its merits and what it means for us.  Then, we should consider the source.  Once you consider the source, you get more context as to what the purpose of the words might have been.  After all, with a little bit of editing, Attila the Hun could sound a bit like Ghandi.  Ok... maybe that's an exaggeration.  But, the context of the representative can make it clear as to the purpose of the statement.

The point is still this: dismissing something off-hand because of the source is a good way to miss something important or useful and a certain way to fail to see common ground we might have with those we often disagree with.

2.  When we consider who will represent the things we desire, we need to remember that most people are NOT going to exercise the first point.  Instead, they are going to filter the message based on their feelings for the representative.  Much of the time, I would agree that it would be better to educate people to spend more time trying to understand the points people we disagree with are trying to make - just so we can find that common ground - or so we can find an even better idea.

How I selected quotes

Let me give you full disclosure on what I did here.  I hunted for quotes from some of our most recent presidents by doing a Google search using their name and the word "quotes."  

To make the point, I did a search for James Garfield - just a randomly selected President of the United States and here is quote number 2 on the list I found.

“There are men and women who make the world better just by being the kind of people they are. They have the gift of kindness or courage or loyalty or integrity. It really matters very little whether they are behind the wheel of a truck or running a business or bringing up a family. They teach the truth by living it.”

Labeling myself

At this point I am going to give you full disclosure.  My own political falling (or failing if you see it that way) would be labeled as left of center because I tend to believe a key component of governance is to protect and serve the people - in particular those who have the least power and need it most - by providing services, support and proper regulation of the things we use in common.  This means that those who need protection and service the least are those who will find themselves providing a greater proportion of resources to help those who need it.  At present, this places me firmly on the "liberal" side of the ball - while recognizing that there is much to be said about other points of view.  And, I hope you will give me benefit of the doubt that I try to consider each issue without first consulting the "manual for whatever ideological label that seems to fit me."

I believe that most people want to see themselves as helpers and as a positive part of the country.  This is why I prefer to hear multiple points of view and ideas.  We all have value and we need to start acting as if others also have value.  This is why it is important to me that we have people of integrity representing our 'big ideas.'  In this way, we can actually work on the merits of what we propose - and find a better solution because of it (are you seeing a theme here?).

The big finish

So, here is what I took away from some of the quotes I selected:

I hope we can all live successful lives that include service to others. (G.H.W. Bush)
I pray that we learn to understand the power of setting an example (Clinton) and that it motives us to teach the truth by living it. (Garfield)
I want us to call to account those who wield power incorrectly and address inequality and failed justice for those whose circumstances of birth place them in positions where they are abused and oppressed. (G.H.Bush)
And...
Let us be the change that we seek. (Obama)

And let us seek change that comes from the better part of all of us - and do it together.   (Rob Faux)