Let me start off by saying that Max Fleming (who’s
posted a few things on my timeline) is a very nice guy...and a true believer in
Conservatism.
As I’ve often made very clear, Max and I differ on a
number of issues and more importantly on the best strategy in advancing those
views we each may support.
I find such things embarrassing to conservatism.
Apparently, Max does not.
Here’s the thing, WHAT, exactly constitutes “advancing
one’s views?”
Is it “stoking up the base,” or “preaching to the
choir,” OR is it trying to make the best case for your ideas to those who may
be predisposed to opposing your ideas?
I believe it is the latter, while Max apparently
thinks the former is the way to go.
When I see things like that, I’m reminded of the
gleeful taunts of “McChimp” that many extreme G W Bush opponents were fond of throwing
around.
My response to BOTH is, “HOW, exactly, does that
advance your ideas?”
The short answer is they DON’T.
So WHY do it, then?
Quite simply, because it’s so damned much FUN!
It’s fun to mock, insult and slime those you
disagree with. Who cares, if it only further alienates the opposition and gives
those on the fence, he may have been leaning your way, pause? The choir LOVES
it! AND you're a “hero” for “having the guts” to “take on the enemy,” even if
the “enemy” is really just your neighbor down the street. I know, you never
much liked him anyway.
There’s really no competition between such clowning
and real communication. It’s like the competition between broccoli and
chocolate....Chocolate, like FUN, wins every time! SAME thing here, real
communication is HARD, it takes work, while sliming and insulting those you
disagree with is easy...and FUN, to boot.
So what? What’s the problem with that? Fun is good,
right?
FUN really IS good. I mean it’s FUN, after all! BUT
when “fun” comes at someone else’s expense, or worse yet, at the expense of the
truth...then that kind of fun isn’t very harmless.
Most people, contrary to popular belief are NOT
dogmatic “liberals” or “conservatives.” Their views tend to be an amalgamation
of the things that make sense to them at the time, based on the prevailing information
they have on hand. Our beliefs tend to be much more fluid and malleable than
most of us would like to think.
A well-reasoned argument may NOT immediately
convince or “convert,” BUT it may well help someone think a little differently
about an issue...and THAT should be our goal.
Sure, it’s not nearly as much fun as getting a bunch
of Yuks from the choir of true believers, but it’s far more useful, not to mention far more
effective.
I’ll give a personal example. I was an original
member of Merit Matters, a group
dedicated to high standards for the Fire Service (specifically the FDNY) within
the Civil Service Merit System.
That issue, as you can well imagine, can often be a
contentious one. There is a tendency on BOTH sides to see the other as
motivated by malice and bad intentions.
I see the issue clearly as a health and safety
issue, both for the FDNY and the public at large.
My wife was born into grinding poverty in Kingston,
Jamaica. Fortunately for her, she’s smart...very smart. She skipped two grades
in Grammar school and went on to get a Chartered Accountancy (in the English
system), then came to the U.S. and went back to Baruch College, got an
accounting degree and passed the grueling 4-part CPA exam, an exam that has the
SAME “disparate impact” (vastly differing passing rates for Asians, blacks,
Hispanics, whites, etc.) that other such standardized written exams have.
It is my belief that preferences only serve to erode
the competitive abilities of the recipients AND they foster the toxic view that
“the recipients are unable to compete, especially against whites and Asians without
such a crutch.” THAT indeed is the view promulgated when proponents of such
preferences argue things like, “Written exams are discriminatory against
black candidates.”
What I did was to look at the demographics of New
York City’s Municipal workforce (http://citylimits.org/multimedia/257/new-york-city-s-agencies-by-race-ethnic-breakdown#.UVH-UheG2z4)
and found that NONE of New York City’s agencies look anything like New York
City and that the ONLY group over-represented by MORE than 10%in New York City’s
Municipal workforce is non-Hispanic blacks (a federal designation) with that
group representing 23% of the city’s population and 36% of the Municipal
workforce ( a 58% over-representation). Whites are about 8.8% over-represented,
representing appx. 35% of the city’s population and 38% of its workforce. SEE: http://citylimits.org/2010/05/27/the-whitest-city-agencies/#.UVH9tReG2z4
BOTH Asians and Hispanics are
under-represented in New York City’s Municipal agencies.
That helps put the issue into a clearer perspective.
I also went over the demographics of the surrounding Volunteer Fire Departments
and found that even in predominantly African-American areas, like Hempstead and
Wyandanch, Long Island, the Volunteer Fire Departments in those areas tend to
be over 90%, often over 95% white. That would seem to go to the level of
interest in that profession in the respective communities.
It IS true that New York’s municipal agencies
SHOULD “look like New York City” WITHOUT sacrificing necessary standards. An
extremely disproportionate workforce can make applicants from other groups feel
unwelcome. That’s something that must be taken into account and with at least 7
other NYC agencies MORE ethnically imbalanced than the FDNY, it’s an issue
across the board in NYC’s municipal hiring.
The goal of using such FACTS is to (1) avoid any
vitriol or ad hominin attacks on others and (2) to help others look at that
issue in a different light.
As a result, Merit
Matters NEVER resorted to insults or personal attacks in ANY of our
writings and offered an open and respectful platform to those opposed to our
views.
That DOES NOT mean you can guarantee a cordial, even
civil response, but the ONLY thing that any of us control is ourselves...our
own communication style.
My point is that while responding with anger,
vitriol, insults and mocking may feel good, it does nothing to advance your
cause, or to sway those yet undecided on the issue, which is generally a fairly
sizable group.
That’s where Max and I apparently part company. I
DON’T much like insults and mocking in lieu of facts, while Max seems to see “playing
up to those who already agree” as the best tact to take.
Hey! Real communication is HARD. I’m very well aware of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment