I read an article on MSNBC.com today about the back-and-forth between President Bush and Senator Obama over a remark the President made comparing attempted negotiation with hostile states like Iran and North Korea to Nazi appeasement. Obama, who has advocated the type of direct communication, interpreted this remark as a personal attack. While I might be able to write an interesting article about this feud, I’d rather address a topic I think is much more important: why do we frequently bring up Hilter and the Nazis as we grapple with the difficult international conflicts of the 21st century? I believe the answer to this question has a lot to do with our modern foreign policy outlook, as well as our national self-image.
Of all the wars fought by the United States in the 20th century, World War II is the war most frequently referenced – and, if I dare use the term, fondly remembered. Hollywood has produced a slew of movies glorifying the heroic efforts of the United States and its allies in defeating the Axis powers. This heroism has compelled some – such as news anchor Tom Brokaw – to describe the War World II generation as the “greatest generation” in this country’s history. Yet, why do we glorify the efforts of the generation which fought this particular war above those who’ve fought wars before and after?
Think about some of the other wars fought by the U.S. in the 20th century: World War I and the Korean War are generally overlooked, Vietnam is roundly criticized – even the first conflict in Iraq barely shows up as a blip on history’s radar. What makes World War II so special? I believe that the distinguishing characteristic that sets World War II apart from every other major conflict we’ve fought is the clearly defined struggle between good and evil.
Hitler is unanimously regarded as one of the most wicked men to ever live. The atrocities committed during the Holocaust continue to shock the conscience even today. Far more than Hitler’s efforts to conquer Europe, it is his attempt at genocide which still defines the struggle between the Axis and the Allies as a battle between good and evil itself.
It’s interesting to compare World War II to other major conflicts where this good v. evil dichotomy is not so readily apparent. It is hard to clearly define who the “good guys” and “bad guys” were during World War I; we sometimes view the attempt of one country to grab territory from a neighbor as “evil”, but historically speaking this label is arbitrarily assigned by the winners to the losers of a given conflict. While time generally diminishes the potency of such labels, the moral judgments of World War II have remained steadfast to the present.
The impact of World War II on democracy’s self-image is hard to overstate. By making himself a perfect icon of malevolence, Hitler allowed the allied powers to clearly define themselves as the good guys. The U.S. and its allies didn’t merely prevail against a conquering dictator – rather, the forces of good triumphed over the forces of evil. This triumph linked democracy, and the United States specifically, with a perception of righteousness. This perception has had a reciprocal affect on all the conflicts leading up to World War II, and all of those since – in every instance, we define ourselves as the champions of justice. The status of the United States as leader of the free world in the latter half of the 20th century wasn’t just a product of its economic and military might; it stemmed from the moral authority it acquired by defeating the Nazis.
World War II is easy to define as a conflict of absolutes. Despite being a rare exception, our culture seems to promote the idea that these conflicts are the norm. Think about the Star Wars movies – it’s hard to ignore the obvious comparisons between the evil Galactic Empire and the Nazi Regime. Darth Vadar and the Emperor readily acknowledge their own wickedness and even relish it; however, in the real world this is rarely how things work. Most wars stem from the inability of two sides to reconcile their legitimate grievances with one another diplomatically. Both believe they are right, or “good” and that the other is wrong, or “evil”.
It’s fascinating that anytime we seek to legitimize our involvement in a particular military conflict, or define a particular group as evil, we immediately begin referencing World War II and the Nazis. While this reference is certainly potent, I believe that it overused and generally misapplied. Certainly our world continues to provide us with clear examples of malevolence, but we should be able to define these forces on their own merits – not those of a regime which existed more than half a century ago. Exercising restraint in the use of this powerful emotional symbol will allow our nation to analyze its decisions more objectively. We must recognize that World War II does not give us an eternal label of validation and righteousness, or we risk becoming the very things that we despise.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
I don’t hate Hillary Clinton – I really don’t. Nor am I a raving Obama fan; I just have to call it I like I see it. Several of my recent posts have dealt with apparent reality that Barack Obama is the clear winner of the Democratic primary. After Clinton’s disappointing showing in North Carolina and Indiana (she won the latter, but by a far smaller margin than expected), the New York senator was hoping to again revitalize her campaign with a big win in West Virginia. Nevertheless, while she did win West Virginia by a landslide yesterday, any momentum she hoped to gain has just been squashed; John Edwards has finally decided to endorse a candidate, and he’s throwing his support behind Obama.
I’ve got to hand it to Edwards – his timing is pretty impeccable. If he wanted to hold out as long as possible, yet give his endorsement while it was still relevant this is probably the perfect moment. Despite the fact that many political pundits were already calling the race for Barack, Hillary’s lead in West Virginia and Kentucky still left room for a tiny bit of doubt. Edward’s endorsement is sure to be seen as a watershed moment, and will be endowed with a large share of the credit for Obama’s eventual primary victory.
Now I realize that Edward’s supporters aren’t all going to line up behind Obama just because of this endorsement; however, it will serve as a powerful symbol to the remaining uncommitted superdelegates who wanted to play it safe and withhold their votes until the winner was plainly obvious. As the party’s powers come to the unanimous decision that Barack is the inevitable nominee, they will bring tremendous pressure to bear on Senator Clinton to bow out of the race. Bill and Hillary Clinton have both been called many things – but “stupid” isn’t one of them; if they want to avoid being labeled as pariahs they’ll step aside and work to unify the party for a victory in November.
It is because of this that I hereby declare my official “Senator Clinton Campaign Deathwatch!” At the risk of sticking myself out there for future scorn, I think it’s safe to say that we’re seeing the final weeks, if not days of the Hillary’s run president.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
I read an interesting article about Senator Obama’s reaction to yesterday’s primary in West Virginia where Hillary Clinton won by a large margin. According to the article, Obama spent very little time in that state, or attempted to undo Clinton’s anticipated victory – instead, it appears that he is turning his attention to states that are important to the general election. I think this is a wise approach for him to take – simply put, it’s time for Obama to assume the sale.
I give this opinion, not as a committed Obama supporter, but simply as someone who appreciates good strategy. Every major news publication I read has declared that the Democratic primary is essentially over (often they include an asterisk and a footnote stating, “This time we really mean it!”). Now that Obama has added a lead in superdelegates to his existing lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, his best strategy is to stop campaigning for his party and begin his general election campaign.
What does this mean for Obama? First, it means he should stop running advertisements for the primaries and only run advertisements targeted at the general election. Let Hillary run as many attack ads against Obama as she wants (or can afford), the Obama camp should remain silent. No rebuttals, no more debates, no more mention of Senator Clinton’s name. Barack needs to treat Hillary as if she were a non-factor. Such a display of confidence would make Clinton’s continued efforts appear pathetic and futile – like someone attempting to spit into the wind.
In business there comes a point where a good salesperson will stop trying to persuade the customer – instead he/she will simply pull out an order form and show the customer where to sign. I believe the Democratic primary has finally reached this moment, and it’s time for Senator Obama to make such an assumptive close. Such a demonstration will not only secure his victory in primaries, but serve as an important sign that he has the mettle for the general election.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
Value Statements: Myth or Magic?
In today’s business world, value statements are the rage. Walk into shops, restaurants or other businesses, and you’ll often see a value statement hanging on the wall. These statements will describe the primacy of principles like customer service, honest business practices, or a clean environment. As business leaders meet with their employees, these statements will often be repeated as a sort of “pledge of allegiance.” Nevertheless, many organizations fail to measure up to the ideals they purport. Let’s talk about how your company can avoid some of the common mistakes others make in using value statements, and how you can use such a document to successfully promote your business.
It’s important to recognize what value statements are, and what they’re not. To begin, effective value statements are not a simple collection of noble-sounding ideals. I can crowd a statement with glorious principles such as honesty, integrity, hard work, etc.; however, such documents generally amount to nothing more than superficial fluff. When creating a value statement it is important to focus on the specific principles that have proven experientially vital to the success of your organization. If a focus on precision and quality are essential to your company’s brand image, then these are the values which should be featured on a statement. Recognize that not including other values, such as honesty and hard work, doesn’t mean that they can’t have a place in your company; rather, it means that you are channeling the bulk of your energy into the virtues that matter most to your success.
Another vital truth is that value statements do not affect behavior; systems affect behavior. Let’s suppose that I’m running a sales operation and I post a value statement that emphasizes honest sales practices; nevertheless, enforcement of this policy is lax and those who achieve success through dishonest behavior are rewarded with large commission checks. Moreover, I pressure honest sales agents who are handicapped by their ethics to reach performance levels comparable to those of dishonest agents. Does my value statement mean anything in this situation? Eventually, my honest sales agents will begin engaging in dishonest behavior – or quit and find a job with a more reputable company – because that is what the system encourages them to do.
This brings us to true purpose of a value statement; ultimately, it serves as a guide for the decisions of a company’s executive leadership. As leaders consider a particular policy or direction they should evaluate that policy under the lens of the values to which they subscribe. As leaders make decisions and build systems consistent with a given set of principles, those principles will filter their way through the organization. Systems which emphasize honesty, teamwork, and customer service will be far more successful in promoting these ideals than a document hanging on the wall.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
Reading the news today it looks like Senator Obama has finally overtaken Senator Clinton in committed superdelegates. While his lead is only marginal, it eliminates one of the few arguments Clinton had for remaining in race. By establishing a lead in pledged delegates, superdelegates and the popular vote, Barack has poked too many holes in the S.S. Hilllary Clinton for that ship to stay afloat.
The Democratic electorate still remains sharply divided between Barack and Hillary; however, while Clinton is poised to do very well in West Virginia and Kentucky, the true condition of her campaign can be measured in dollars-and-cents. The purest demonstration of a campaign’s health and vitality is the willingness of its supporters to open their wallets. Hillary’s inability to keep pace with Obama’s fundraising is a dubious omen for the former frontrunner’s odds. While many still play lip-service to Senator Clinton’s campaign, few are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Many will counter that Senator Clinton’s recent rhetoric suggests she’ll plow full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, all the way through June and beyond. Nevertheless, my experience has been that important leaders will talk some pretty big talk to keep their supporters mobilized – right up until the moment they finally decide to quit (e.g. Mitt Romney). The fact that Clinton has pledged to keep going does not mean she will keep that pledge; ultimately, financial and political pressures will cause her to bow out much sooner than most people expect.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
Another week is drawing to a close. There’s been some interesting activity on the blog this week, including a complete redesign of the site template. Next week I’m going to teach myself a little bit more about podcasts and will probably start posting some of those on the site. Be sure to check out the links below to any of the articles you may have missed this week:
Experience: The Binding Essence of Life
Understanding Strength v. Weakness
Integrity of Political Opinion
I also posted an interesting thought which can be found through the link below:
I hope you’ve had a great week, and that you’ll be back to visit many more times in the coming week.
Einstein’s Shortfall
Here’s an interesting follow up to an article I recently posted on the nature of the human intelligence.
This article has been by far the most popular of those I have written up to this point. The central premise of this article was simple: the most intelligent minds are those which are willing to let go of assumptions. Or, put more simply, a flexible mind is more capable of absorbing new ideas and information than one which is absolutely rigid in its beliefs.
Of course, the paradox of all this is that even the most intelligent minds must make assumptions of one sort or another. Often those we consider to be most brilliant are still guilty of stubbornly clinging to false ideas. This is readily apparent as we consider one of the greatest geniuses of the last century – Albert Einstein.
Einstein demonstrated his vast intelligence in many ways, not the least of which was his ability to challenge basic assumptions about the nature of space and time. His theories of relativity, which demonstrated that space is curved and that time passes at different rates depending on the speed at which a person/object is moving, defied many logical assumptions about the nature of reality itself. Nevertheless, Einstein’s capacity to pursue new frontiers in science and physics was handicapped. Two assumptions that Einstein stubbornly clung to, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, were the notion that that universe was eternal and the belief that it was also deterministic.
The first of these assumptions is one of the most interesting contradictions of Einstein’s career. Einstein hated the notion of the “Big Bang”, preferring instead to believe that our universe had always existed. Ironically, it was Albert’s own work in explaining the workings of gravity which laid the foundation for the Big Bang model. As his theories helped us understand how gravity worked, it became evident that if the universe had always existed it would have pulled itself together and collapsed in on itself a long time ago. To avoid this obvious flaw in an eternal universe, Einstein cooked up the theory of the “cosmological constant” – a mysterious force which counterbalanced the force of gravity and held the universe in a constant, eternal state. Einstein had no actual scientific basis for proposing this constant – it was simply wishful thinking.
The second assumption Einstein refused to abandon was his belief in an orderly, deterministic universe. Einstein sought to build upon the ideas and theories of Sir Isaac Newton. Newton’s laws of motion had proven incredibly resilient and effective in explaining the motion of objects in the classical, observable universe. Using Newton’s principles, one could predict the motion of large objects (such as planets) for centuries to come. Everything seemed to be governed by constant, predictable laws. Nevertheless, as science took a closer look at the subatomic world it became obvious that tiny things do not behave the same way. Quantum physics suggested that there was an inherent level of randomness to the universe – that one can only predict what something will probably do, but not what it will certainly do. Despite his own contributions to this emerging field of science, Einstein again refused to accept the obvious conclusions of quantum theory. At one point he went so far as to exclaim, “God does not play dice!” Nevertheless, the principles of this theory have been proven to a high degree, and are the basis for much of our modern technology.
I have often speculated that challenging one’s own assumptions requires tremendous courage. It’s fascinating that Einstein had the courage to challenge many of the prevailing scientific assumptions of his time, and yet this courage failed him as he was brought to confront the obvious repercussions of his very own theories and ideas. Though Einstein has found some vindication for his “cosmological constant” as science attempts to grapple with the mystery of dark energy, it seems that even his mental capacity had its limits. It is humbling to think about the limitations of such a great mind; ultimately, all of us must grapple with these same weaknesses as we pursue knowledge and personal fulfillment.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!