Now my fellows as I have said sometimes fighting for our cause means letting our opponent defeat themselves. This is a counter intuitive maneuver, one is always afraid that it will not succeed as one has little control and one assumes that our opponent is not going to realize that they are pursuing self defeating causes and take the appropriate corrective action. Also at some level our imaginations fancy that if we actively participate in the defeat of our enemy that that would somehow speed up the process of their natural demise. And yet often enough nothing could be further from the truth.
Allow me to explain, if your are in a physically competitive sport, where societies generally train themselves for the challenges of the business and political worlds, it is logical that one has to be an active participant in the actions that will lead to victory. A boxer has to attack his opponent, and wrestler must also make the moves that will lead to an opponents downfall, certainly in golf a very methodical discipline against the competitor leads to victory, in the game of football it is a highly concentrated degree of offensive strategy entwined with an overactive defensive that wins the game. But while games teach us team effort and how to compete in the business or political arena they are not real world enough to comprise complex human dynamics.
In the real world the game is not played by a highly defined set of rules that are always the same, nor is the game played on the same type of environment over and over again, nor do the fans follow one around; and there aren’t any referees to constantly monitor for a semblance of fair play. Precisely the opposite occurs, the real world environment as determined by the consumer, the fan, the voter is ever changing in unforeseen fashion. There are some referees, justice, regulatory agencies and watchdogs attempt to create a level playing field, but these are reactive forces, they are not proactive nor preventive, which makes them inadequate at all times. When corrective action is applied by the reactive forces of regulation and justice the business or political game plans are operating on a different set of real time principles and thus cancel out most positive effects that may be had by the application of regulation based on past experience.
It is often very difficult to stand on the sidelines when one has deep beliefs that are being trounced upon by the apparent opposition; hence the reason why it is so counter intuitive to comprehend that one’s enemy might be his own worst enemy, and yet more often than not, such is the case. Consider the downfall of the Soviet Union or the ongoing economic changes that are taking place in China. China is changing not because it was forced to change by external forces but rather because it had to change or it would have collapsed, as indeed happened to the Soviet Union. Now the Soviet Union, contrary to popular belief, did not collapse because the republicans went on a weapons spending binge, but rather it collapsed because of is continued pursuance of self defeating policies without significant external feedback or interference.
The lesson has to be clear, any nation or economic system that isolates itself from world dynamics is likely to collapse from lack of external input, isolation implodes, witness the case of India which for decades pursued counter productive isolationist and reactionary politics and economics only to find itself in such critical condition that it had to renounce it all, so as to benefit from the economics of exporting talent and importing jobs and industry; all based on open market economics and an acceptance of international standards and education.
Close systems collapse, systems that are open will thrive though not necessarily without suffering the tremors and quakes that are endemic to intricately intertwined systems. Exposure to world dynamics is painful but it does have the benefit that it forces gradual change closer to real time rather than the negligent change forced upon closed systems due to their artificially controlled dynamics.
It is then in our interest to some times understand that allowing our enemy to become everything that they are may be the equivalent of feeding them a fatally poisonous poison. Neither the left nor the right of the political spectrum is 100% correct with their ideas, either system if allowed to concentrate based on its value system would undoubtedly collapsed, the centrist policies of recent administrations and political prodigies have resulted from a healthy recognition that extremes and absolutes will invariably fail.
The reason why the average person is so dominant is indeed due to a subconscious realization by the majorities that the norm gets its way.
Today we are finding a highly politicized climate, where the left and the right are taking their absolutist positions, these shall offer all of those involved in the fanaticism of the times a positive route to destruction. The anomaly of such extreme positions is usually an entitlement of righteousness, when neither political party is willing to doubt their policies they set themselves on a path where they have to win by destroying their enemy. Unfortunately for the dogmatics absolutes are never successfully embodied by societies nor by governments and nations.
When one observes extremes in action one is wise to let them proceed. Disraeli the very successful British prime minister, became a prime minister when he stopped trying, and beat the opposition to a pulp by letting them carry out their policies. It was after that that he cleaned up the mess they made, much to his merit and beautification.
We should be so wise today. To antagonize an enemy is often to help them take corrective action, in great part the Soviet Union collapsed because there was really so little input from the rest of the world. It is no accident that no one in the Western world predicted the collapse, nor is it surprising that Western intelligence services had wholly inaccurate economic statistics on the cruel reality of the USSR. It was the absence of Western influence that destroyed Soviet extremism; just like a very conservative Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, found his own way out of politics, just when he thought himself most successful.
Philosophers have long told us to learn from our enemies because they, unlike our friends, are most likely to point out our weaknesses. It is then perhaps wisest to allow an enemy to accomplish their objective without our interfering. We shall be fans of flaming actions.
RC
No comments:
Post a Comment