Bully Pulpit: A sequel to “The Democracy Attitude” blog.
A reader of my earlier blog on “The Democracy Attitude,” took exception to something I wrote. I decided merely logging in a “comment” at the foot of that blog would be too terse to handle my added thoughts. So here is a sequel.
To introduce this addendum, I reiterate my thesis: Participatory government--government by the people--makes accessible a deep reservoir of wisdom and resources. As colonialists, we found that rule by a distant Parliament in which we had no voice, and a king insensitive to our interests did not suit us. Our “democratic attitude” inspired our Rebellion and set the foundation stone of our new government. The energy and vitality that this concept induces, explains our rise to prosperity and international influence. I then took this thesis and related it to the current terrorist crisis we are now facing. My conclusion was that we are selling our strengths short by succumbing to fear and desperate military action as our means of response to the terrorist bullies.
At this point, my interested reader reacted forcefully by labeling my point about how to handle “bullies” as idealistic. If we don’t rise to the fight, he said, we will take a pounding before help arrives. Any efforts to talk the bully out of slugging us won’t work, so we have only the choice of cowardly running away, or fighting. Fighting is the “better” solution, because running is a failure of courage.
The problem with this answer is that it assumes the test of “better” is “courage.” I say courage is for the action phase, after what is “better“ has been decided. Planning and making choices is not courage‘s thing. Courage cannot guarantee to make things “work” or turn out well. So depending upon courage to make up for bad decisions is irresponsible leadership, to say it politely. But we can argue courage in another blog. My point was that a “democracy attitude” is more powerful than a “meet me in the alley” attitude--and ultimately more realistic. I am not idealistic at all. Here is why.
The commenter referenced the survival-on-the-playground experience to which we all can relate. My playground experience taught me the importance of keeping an eye on the troublemaker so as not to be blindsided. But I also learned that alertness combined with agility can easily make the muscle-bound hulk irrelevant. Sidestepping is always an available, even honorable, strategy at the moment of challenge. In fact, a slippery, evasive runner on the football field, or the basketball player who is good in traffic, is admired for this superior physical skill.
Then, too, I have also observed that the bully is normally surrounded by the weak, the blind, and assorted sycophants. The more fight-prone the bully is, the fewer quality friends he has. He is always on a bankrupt course, because he inevitably isolates himself from the playground population by his abrasive personality and careening techniques. He will have his moments of sway, but only to the extent that the rest of us, the majority, are caught off-guard or live in a stupor. There is no greater failure a tormentor can endure than the failure to scare up anyone who will fight him. He creates a scene because it gives him apparent standing when otherwise he is irrelevant. Bullies need to be contained because they are ticking explosive devices, but a little cleverness, off-stage, is startlingly successful against them. The best way to hamstring a bully is to fight him in ways he knows nothing about.
Allow me to diverge with personal testimony about how I have applied my playground diploma on different terrain. I have had three experiences on the highway with road-rage over fender-bender incidents. In one I was physically handled; in another my antagonist pounded my car because I wouldn’t roll down my window; in the third the other guy invited me to step behind his truck to settle the argument decisively. I defused each incident without as much as raising my hand, yet without backing off. I simply used a weapon my opponents were not counting on and knew nothing about. I rendered them helpless before me. I ignored them. Their fuse fizzled out for lack of oxygen. This real account displays only one method, but it highlights the basic poverty of the standard bully’s repertoire.
Bullies depend on their personal power of intimidation. Intimidation is an attitude. Each of us has the power, from birth, to choose our attitudes. Because of unfortunate parentage, dysfunctional upbringing, physical or mental handicaps, or wrenching bad luck, millions of us know little else than powerlessness and chronic defeat. We need the help of those who have attained position and wisdom. Our bullies need to be handled for us. But that is what leaders are for. If we have not learned yet how to direct the energy of our attitudes, we can always gravitate intentionally toward (and vote for) those who understand this advanced power. Attitude costs nothing; it is free. It only needs to be adopted (or befriended). We choose it, and it goes to work. Once we commit ourselves to an attitude, it operates automatically and effortlessly. You just tune it in and it melts the opposition, for good or bad. (I‘m not talking here about name-it-and-claim-it materialism.)
Here is how it works. Because a good attitude is sunny and open, it recognizes synchronicities that bad attitudes miss. A good attitude “lets the game come to it.” This confidence frees it to be counter intuitive when this is useful--an approach Muhammad Ali used to good effect with his rope-a-dope tactic--yielding to a disadvantage while waiting for opportunity to show itself. Democracy and “good attitude” are natural confederates. Both are high-minded, relaxed yet energized, interactive, and confident (of assets and potentialities).
A bad attitude can be very intimidating, but only where there is no challenge from competing (stronger) attitudes. With a bad attitude, one can easily create destruction and damage. But a good attitude has greater attractive power and ultimately greater resources. We all know this; we just forget it at the moment of an emotional hit.
One historical example will nail the point--an example of poignant victimization. In his autobiography Frederick Douglass, an enslaved African American in our pre-Civil War South, tells of his experience of loss of identity and brutal treatment at the hands of a cruel master. After one particularly severe beating, he had an epiphany, a moment of clarity. He saw he had a choice of acquiescence or rebellion. He knew he could not win by physical confrontation. But he could choose the “attitude” of rebellion and edge his way toward other methods, methods supported by crowds of people (once educated to the idea). As a run-away, he attached himself to like-minded rebels, the anti-slavery group, and became a sensational, national speaker. Eventually his legal freedom was bought for him by friends, and he was looked to for singular attitude leadership.
John Brown, a white rebel against slavery with an “attitude” problem, solicited Douglass’ assistance in a planned armed uprising. Douglass recognized the folly of this approach and refused to give aid in this way. (Brown had courage; Douglass had wisdom.)
The fight against slavery, though, escalated into civil war, as other immature national leaders allowed us to slip into armed combat. Abraham Lincoln found himself President with a nation torn apart, his hands tied by the responsibilities of his job as commander-in-chief. But he clearly was a leader with an “attitude” closer to that of the real victim--Frederick Douglass--than the bully John Brown. Yes, Brown was a classic bully (check on his Kansas murders), even though he claimed a good cause. He ended where all bullies end, in ignominy. Lincoln, on the other hand, was elevated to international admiration by his “attitude” of malice toward none.
Meanwhile, the Union government ended legal slavery after conquest in battle, but it did not defeat it. The real issue, discrimination and victimization, still is alive and stirring. The “democracy attitude” has means for dealing with this problem, just as it has means for dealing with today’s international “terrorist” problem. It remains to be seen whether America has gained enough maturity to recognize the power of civic saintliness in contrast to the bankruptcy of belligerence, and whether today we know a Lincoln (who hated war and knew how to publicly model commiseration) when we see one.
At least the grantors of the Nobel Peace Prize knew the difference between a Martin Luther King, Jr., and a John Brown, and the contrast between an Al Gore and a George W. Bush.
Al Gore would be well advised not to run for President again; he could end up as agonized over the constraints of his job definition as Lincoln did. He clearly has the “democracy attitude,” as is evident in his recent book, The Assault On Reason.
Victory over bullies calls for visionaries, not heroes. Our leaders are chosen by election, so our future depends on enlightened, savvy, mature citizens whose “attitudes” are bedded in democracy, not in a culture of cowboy gun-slinging. Bullies only have “power” by our permission. When bullies threaten, even the President cannot save us by a fighting attitude. As a people, we may prevail by applying “attitude” resources that are not wired to threats. But we must first be virtuous and able to recognize the power of our virtue when the President and an uncommitted Congress fail us. An early step would be to vote for a “democracy attitude” President, one who does not make decisions in his drawing room, but turns to the people where the strength of our system lies. Lincoln provided the template. He was not merely a war President, nor a mere idealist. He did not just save us from slaveholding bullies. He consciously embroidered his crisis leadership, start to finish, with an “attitude” that struck a resounding blow against pessimism, cynicism, and moral anemia. He knew these were more serious threats to democracy than slaveholding bullies. He was not overcome by the desperations of the moment. Were he alive today, I believe he would have the same opinion about our terrorist bullies.
Knowledgeable Christians might remember that fight-happy Peter was not in charge of the trump card at the Garden of Gethsemane attitude-moment. To draw a parallel, the Bush Administration Iraq policy, rather than being a reflection of crucifixion Christianity, might be accurately tagged as “Petrianity at work.” It seems to be working as well as Peter’s playground strategy. Christ exercised no bully pulpit attitude. Which approach do you think was realistic, and more effective?
(P.S. Please note that in none of the above am I arguing for inaction; I stand for aggressive, but responsible, mature, hence practical, action.)
Doug Good
To introduce this addendum, I reiterate my thesis: Participatory government--government by the people--makes accessible a deep reservoir of wisdom and resources. As colonialists, we found that rule by a distant Parliament in which we had no voice, and a king insensitive to our interests did not suit us. Our “democratic attitude” inspired our Rebellion and set the foundation stone of our new government. The energy and vitality that this concept induces, explains our rise to prosperity and international influence. I then took this thesis and related it to the current terrorist crisis we are now facing. My conclusion was that we are selling our strengths short by succumbing to fear and desperate military action as our means of response to the terrorist bullies.
At this point, my interested reader reacted forcefully by labeling my point about how to handle “bullies” as idealistic. If we don’t rise to the fight, he said, we will take a pounding before help arrives. Any efforts to talk the bully out of slugging us won’t work, so we have only the choice of cowardly running away, or fighting. Fighting is the “better” solution, because running is a failure of courage.
The problem with this answer is that it assumes the test of “better” is “courage.” I say courage is for the action phase, after what is “better“ has been decided. Planning and making choices is not courage‘s thing. Courage cannot guarantee to make things “work” or turn out well. So depending upon courage to make up for bad decisions is irresponsible leadership, to say it politely. But we can argue courage in another blog. My point was that a “democracy attitude” is more powerful than a “meet me in the alley” attitude--and ultimately more realistic. I am not idealistic at all. Here is why.
The commenter referenced the survival-on-the-playground experience to which we all can relate. My playground experience taught me the importance of keeping an eye on the troublemaker so as not to be blindsided. But I also learned that alertness combined with agility can easily make the muscle-bound hulk irrelevant. Sidestepping is always an available, even honorable, strategy at the moment of challenge. In fact, a slippery, evasive runner on the football field, or the basketball player who is good in traffic, is admired for this superior physical skill.
Then, too, I have also observed that the bully is normally surrounded by the weak, the blind, and assorted sycophants. The more fight-prone the bully is, the fewer quality friends he has. He is always on a bankrupt course, because he inevitably isolates himself from the playground population by his abrasive personality and careening techniques. He will have his moments of sway, but only to the extent that the rest of us, the majority, are caught off-guard or live in a stupor. There is no greater failure a tormentor can endure than the failure to scare up anyone who will fight him. He creates a scene because it gives him apparent standing when otherwise he is irrelevant. Bullies need to be contained because they are ticking explosive devices, but a little cleverness, off-stage, is startlingly successful against them. The best way to hamstring a bully is to fight him in ways he knows nothing about.
Allow me to diverge with personal testimony about how I have applied my playground diploma on different terrain. I have had three experiences on the highway with road-rage over fender-bender incidents. In one I was physically handled; in another my antagonist pounded my car because I wouldn’t roll down my window; in the third the other guy invited me to step behind his truck to settle the argument decisively. I defused each incident without as much as raising my hand, yet without backing off. I simply used a weapon my opponents were not counting on and knew nothing about. I rendered them helpless before me. I ignored them. Their fuse fizzled out for lack of oxygen. This real account displays only one method, but it highlights the basic poverty of the standard bully’s repertoire.
Bullies depend on their personal power of intimidation. Intimidation is an attitude. Each of us has the power, from birth, to choose our attitudes. Because of unfortunate parentage, dysfunctional upbringing, physical or mental handicaps, or wrenching bad luck, millions of us know little else than powerlessness and chronic defeat. We need the help of those who have attained position and wisdom. Our bullies need to be handled for us. But that is what leaders are for. If we have not learned yet how to direct the energy of our attitudes, we can always gravitate intentionally toward (and vote for) those who understand this advanced power. Attitude costs nothing; it is free. It only needs to be adopted (or befriended). We choose it, and it goes to work. Once we commit ourselves to an attitude, it operates automatically and effortlessly. You just tune it in and it melts the opposition, for good or bad. (I‘m not talking here about name-it-and-claim-it materialism.)
Here is how it works. Because a good attitude is sunny and open, it recognizes synchronicities that bad attitudes miss. A good attitude “lets the game come to it.” This confidence frees it to be counter intuitive when this is useful--an approach Muhammad Ali used to good effect with his rope-a-dope tactic--yielding to a disadvantage while waiting for opportunity to show itself. Democracy and “good attitude” are natural confederates. Both are high-minded, relaxed yet energized, interactive, and confident (of assets and potentialities).
A bad attitude can be very intimidating, but only where there is no challenge from competing (stronger) attitudes. With a bad attitude, one can easily create destruction and damage. But a good attitude has greater attractive power and ultimately greater resources. We all know this; we just forget it at the moment of an emotional hit.
One historical example will nail the point--an example of poignant victimization. In his autobiography Frederick Douglass, an enslaved African American in our pre-Civil War South, tells of his experience of loss of identity and brutal treatment at the hands of a cruel master. After one particularly severe beating, he had an epiphany, a moment of clarity. He saw he had a choice of acquiescence or rebellion. He knew he could not win by physical confrontation. But he could choose the “attitude” of rebellion and edge his way toward other methods, methods supported by crowds of people (once educated to the idea). As a run-away, he attached himself to like-minded rebels, the anti-slavery group, and became a sensational, national speaker. Eventually his legal freedom was bought for him by friends, and he was looked to for singular attitude leadership.
John Brown, a white rebel against slavery with an “attitude” problem, solicited Douglass’ assistance in a planned armed uprising. Douglass recognized the folly of this approach and refused to give aid in this way. (Brown had courage; Douglass had wisdom.)
The fight against slavery, though, escalated into civil war, as other immature national leaders allowed us to slip into armed combat. Abraham Lincoln found himself President with a nation torn apart, his hands tied by the responsibilities of his job as commander-in-chief. But he clearly was a leader with an “attitude” closer to that of the real victim--Frederick Douglass--than the bully John Brown. Yes, Brown was a classic bully (check on his Kansas murders), even though he claimed a good cause. He ended where all bullies end, in ignominy. Lincoln, on the other hand, was elevated to international admiration by his “attitude” of malice toward none.
Meanwhile, the Union government ended legal slavery after conquest in battle, but it did not defeat it. The real issue, discrimination and victimization, still is alive and stirring. The “democracy attitude” has means for dealing with this problem, just as it has means for dealing with today’s international “terrorist” problem. It remains to be seen whether America has gained enough maturity to recognize the power of civic saintliness in contrast to the bankruptcy of belligerence, and whether today we know a Lincoln (who hated war and knew how to publicly model commiseration) when we see one.
At least the grantors of the Nobel Peace Prize knew the difference between a Martin Luther King, Jr., and a John Brown, and the contrast between an Al Gore and a George W. Bush.
Al Gore would be well advised not to run for President again; he could end up as agonized over the constraints of his job definition as Lincoln did. He clearly has the “democracy attitude,” as is evident in his recent book, The Assault On Reason.
Victory over bullies calls for visionaries, not heroes. Our leaders are chosen by election, so our future depends on enlightened, savvy, mature citizens whose “attitudes” are bedded in democracy, not in a culture of cowboy gun-slinging. Bullies only have “power” by our permission. When bullies threaten, even the President cannot save us by a fighting attitude. As a people, we may prevail by applying “attitude” resources that are not wired to threats. But we must first be virtuous and able to recognize the power of our virtue when the President and an uncommitted Congress fail us. An early step would be to vote for a “democracy attitude” President, one who does not make decisions in his drawing room, but turns to the people where the strength of our system lies. Lincoln provided the template. He was not merely a war President, nor a mere idealist. He did not just save us from slaveholding bullies. He consciously embroidered his crisis leadership, start to finish, with an “attitude” that struck a resounding blow against pessimism, cynicism, and moral anemia. He knew these were more serious threats to democracy than slaveholding bullies. He was not overcome by the desperations of the moment. Were he alive today, I believe he would have the same opinion about our terrorist bullies.
Knowledgeable Christians might remember that fight-happy Peter was not in charge of the trump card at the Garden of Gethsemane attitude-moment. To draw a parallel, the Bush Administration Iraq policy, rather than being a reflection of crucifixion Christianity, might be accurately tagged as “Petrianity at work.” It seems to be working as well as Peter’s playground strategy. Christ exercised no bully pulpit attitude. Which approach do you think was realistic, and more effective?
(P.S. Please note that in none of the above am I arguing for inaction; I stand for aggressive, but responsible, mature, hence practical, action.)
Doug Good
Labels: Al Gore, Apostle Peter, Bullies, Democracy, Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglas, George W. Bush, Iraq war, Jesus Christ, John Brown, Muhammad Ali, Terrorism
posted by Doug at
10:42 PM
3 Comments:
With all due respect, your interpretation of Douglass and Brown is historically flawed. You certainly do not know Brown, but you opine on the basis of the conventional "historical" record, which is partially hearsay more than fact.
John Brown was not a bully. He was by nature an advocate for the underdog. What happened in Kansas was pro-slavery terrorism unchecked. Brown went there to protect his family. The killings that he and others committed are famously misrepresented. They were not random attacks on pro-slavery neighbors. They were specifically aligned to remove the collaborators of pro-slavery terrorists (euphemistically known as "border ruffians") who were intent on "removing" the Browns. Brown did his homework--he always did his homework, and he knew specifically which men were working to undermine his family. Keep in mind, too, that there was a pro-slavery government in Washington D.C., Kansas was a territory overrun by pro-slavery thugs and terrorists, and there was no local constabulary or law enforcement that would provide them with immediate protection against terrorist assault; Lawrence had just been assaulted and Brown had done surveillance on the "ruffian" camp, having learned that his family were marked for attack. He made a hard choice, and he knew it was problematic; but he chose to strike first and save his sons. Note too that none of the men who were involved with him were forced; they assented and agreed, including one of the sword-wielding neighbors. This incident has been famously misrepresented, largely because of ignorance and prejudice, which seems to be the blight on Brown's legacy. As a biographer of the man, I and a few others doing primary research are constantly up against the deep-seated prejudice and misinformation about Brown that saturates the thinking of people in this country--yes, mostly white males (and I say that as one myself).
Your comments on Lincoln likewise suggest you do not know the man. You speak of Douglass, but you should take the time to read what Douglass said about Lincoln and Brown, respectively, in his third and final autobiography. He says of Lincoln that he was primarily a white man's president, and that his choices and judgments as president were for whites, not blacks' advancement. In Douglass's thinking, no "white" man was closer to the cause of black people than John Brown. This was also the judgment of Harriet Tubman and the rest of Douglass's contemporaries. The "Lincoln the Great Emancipator" hype that we've all been fed is a post-1865 propaganda and it is an attempt to make the provervial half-full glass seem full to the brim. But Lincoln was a politicians, not a liberator, and if he did liberate people, he did so when it was politically expedient, or (if Lerone Bennett is correct) even unavoidable.
Lastly, as to Harper's Ferry, the conventional understanding of the raid is wrong, and that error has likewise informed historians and school book authors, where most of us have gotten our basic predisposition and understanding.
You say Brown had courage but Douglass had wisdom. That's only half true. Douglass repeatedly acknowledged afterward that he lacked courage to die for his people, but he never accused Brown of lacking wisdom. Douglass himself did not know what Brown knew about HF. If you examine Brown's strategy, you'll find it was not unreasonable at all. HF had no military guard and it was close to the mountains. Historians like myself and others have likewise found evidence that many enslaved people indeed turned out to support him, so the essence of Brown's plan was feasible at least. Douglass never objected to Brown's basic plan; what he objected to was seizing the armory. Brown failed not because his plan was foolish, but because he lingered too long "parleying" and sympathizing with his whimpering hostages--most of them slave masters. Some bully! His own man, Osborne Anderson wrote this in his memoir of the raid.
Brown was no bully. By nature he was a very compassionate man who always fought for the downcast. As a school boy he was known to always take up for the weak guy when he was being bullied. We have that from local history. As a businessman he aligned his interests with white farmers being victimized by industrialists. Of course he was always trying to assist black people, the perennial victims of Jeffersonian democracy. You have incorrectly characterized him, but it's not your fault. It's the fault of biased historians and journalists. Brown is the most skewed and violated historical figure in U.S. history, and a lot of it has to do with race and politics in the post-civil war era leading into the civil rights era. You don't get Brown, but you think you do, and that's been the problem of the majority of bloggers, journalists, and even U.S. historians--the vast majority of them being white males who never do more than a basic reading of a few interpretations. I'm a two-time biographer of the man John Brown, and as I said, you don't get him at all, and because of that your bully notion falls flat.
By
Louis A. DeCaro, Jr. . ., At
November 27, 2007 at 6:41 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Doug, At
November 28, 2007 at 9:35 PM
Mr. Decaro
You are an articulate and well-studied advocate for a revisioning of John Brown’s reputation. I certainly must now read your book. That should make me more sympathetic.
However, I expect vigorous discussion would still ensue between us. Your deeper investigation into Brown’s life does not chink my thesis; it only tags my choice of him for an example as debatable. You and I are arguing our points at different levels. Apparently I have a broader philosophical/moral definition of “bully” than do you. My point does not stand or fall with John Brown.
Your insightful interpretation of Brown’s abilities and mission may exonerate him from distorted judgments of his integrity, but you seem to accept his skills, tools and methods, indeed his vigilantism, as commendable and justified. You are arguing, it seems to me, at the tactical level. I approach the matter at a strategic level, and I define “bully” as a type, not as a character flaw. I believe you threw a well- hewn rock at my barge. But if I had inserted a different example in Brown’s slot, perhaps a pre-conversion Malcolm X, my boat would still float. I would be very interested in your comments on my blog, “The Democratic Attitude.” You might still disagree with my thesis, but John Brown would not need to come up in the conversation.
You say that, considering my inadequate picture of Brown, the “bully notion falls flat.” Let me clarify my “notion.” Perhaps the word “bully” carries too much emotional baggage to serve in a more philosophical/moral dialogue. I want to lift the discussion out of the din of battle onto the conference table where strategy, not tactics, is decided.
I consider all forms of violence to be bullying. At all moments of “forced” decision making, moments that demand some physical propulsion, maybe violence is all that is left immediately available. But that is sad, and, in hindsight, usually unnecessary. I consider any warrior to be a bully, including conscripted soldiers--among whose ranks we often find patriotic-minded teenagers and righteous-posing apostles. Bullying is always a profoundly unfortunate, indeed least practical, strategy for securing lasting success. Call the aggression “just war,” “crisis enforcement,” “self defense,” “reciprocal action,”--to the recipients of violence, debating synonyms is an exercise in cynicism. In the “integralist” view of civilization’s evolution (reference Ken Wilber, Steve McIntosh), the warrior mentality is pre-modern, just above “tribal” awareness. John Brown, and Donald Rumsfeld, et.al., along with multitudes of their contemporaries, were/are stuck at a relatively primitive stage of understanding.
John Brown’s life reflected the failure of his society, at a higher level, to find another solution to the slavery crime. It is noteworthy that each of the northern state governments banned slavery without taking up arms, as did other nations.
Now Abraham Lincoln is another story. He came to national leadership at the end of a run of bad decisions by others. I hesitated to use him as a sample by contrast, because he led us in war. But he showed how to keep tactics subordinate to strategy. He never “surrendered” to the Radicals, and expressed profoundly un-bullying attitudes on how to culminate the national crisis. He knew that God’s judgment likely was against both sides in the conflict.
You feel that I did not “get it” with either Brown or Lincoln. I have no quarrel with your depiction of Brown as a dedicated and compassionate man. But by my definition of a “bully,” he still qualifies, because of his choice of violence as the way to implement his vision.. As for Lincoln, I can agree with all you said, because your insightful comments about him do not touch my thesis anyway. I realize that Lincoln could, by my terms, be called a warrior-chieftain and the bigger bully. But then I would use your argument that he was really a very compassionate, caring man. Maybe there were two sides to each of these men. Whether or not I “get it” with these individuals, really doesn’t change my philosophical/moral argument. Examples are like statistics, they can be traded around, they can be multi-faceted. I want to keep my eye on the high ground.
For fun, let me toss another sample into the ring. During our Revolution, George Washington did his share of bullying. But he redeemed himself by shunning the cloak of a king, as Lincoln checkmated the Radicals, and as Malcolm X reversed course after his pilgrimage to Mecca. (For proof that Washington understood “a better way” than force, examine how he handled the Conway Cabal--a key moment in American history.)
Individual character is difficult to judge; all of us are complicated, fragile, pressured individuals. Bullies don’t handle pressure well. But they get lucky sometimes when the opposition drops to their tactical level. (Brown wasn’t lucky.)
Using Harper’s Ferry as backdrop, you take exception to my claim that Brown lacked “wisdom.” I accept your good knowledge about the “feasibleness” of Brown’s plan, but feasible and wise are not the same thing. Wisdom operates at the level of strategy; it elevates practicality to the intangible level of skill; ill luck and circumstances do not overwhelm its vision. It was Lincoln’s pragmatic “skill” coupled with the wisdom of his vision that sets him in contrast to Brown. When a person with drive and focus moves into action, skill and wisdom are needed to prevent the vision from turning sour. If there are alternatives to violence, armed action defaults to bullying, no matter how “officially acceptable” it is.
There is a better way. We don’t need to pile-on victims just because we can’t think of how to implement a more felicitous result. Rejection of bullying is not an indication of idealism; it is hands-down more practical in the big picture. It is just hard to find courageous, skillful practitioners. I would say Martin Luther King, Jr. was more effective than the young Malcolm X, Jesus more practical than Peter, and, yes, Douglass more no-nonsense than Brown.
By
Doug, At
November 28, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home