Many are still yelling about choice and competition. These are two things that are often incompatible. First off, to have a competition one has to be clear about the fact that a game is being played. In a game someone makes the rules, someone designs the field or court or rink, someone creates the game piece or pieces and someone decides how the game is won or lost. This is where the confusion begins in the U.S. as some have a very primitive, often overly emotional, perspectives about the game being played, while others seem to be open to playing whatever game works.
Let's say, for example, that a fair sample of American citizens are placed on a basketball court, handed a round, orange ball and told that whoever wins the game will receive one million dollars. Knowing only this information, what will follow will likely be complicated, frustrating, time-consuming and unfair. In the beginning there will be a segment of people who will immediately grab the ball and start informing others about how the game of basketball is played and what needs to happen in order for the game to get underway. These people will back their rules with statements like, "This is just commonsense," "Don't over-complicate it," "It will just be easier if you let those of us who know what is going on lead," etc. Others who could care less about the sport of basketball and who are too young, too old, too fragile, not athletic, not tall, potentially injured, disabled, mentally ill, or have creative, critical brains will say, "We weren't told to play a game of basketball, we were put here with this ball and told that whoever wins gets a million dollars. Now let's slow down and work this through."
In reality, the latter argument is obviously correct. Any number of things can be done on a basketball court, with a round, orange ball. However, it is likely that those who are capable of competing in a game of basketball will ignore what they see as whining, complaining, and "crazy" ideas from those who are not able or have no desire to compete at traditional basketball. They will say,"Look, this is a basketball, this is a basketball court, traditionally when someone gives you this ball and places you on this type of court they mean for you to play this particular game." Is it simpler? Yes. Is there choice or freedom involved in telling someone arbitrary rules to an arbitrary game and expecting them to accept this game and these rules as being somehow inherently true? No. Will this deter the basketball players from playing whatever they want and ignoring the voices of the group? No.
This is America today. There are many in our country hell bent on playing the game of basketball. They were taught the rules of basketball growing up, they've practiced at it, they've gotten good at it, and they're already in the process of teaching their kids to play basketball. They base success and failure on the game they were taught to play, and they demonize everyone not focused on playing at this game or having discussions of a different game. Meanwhile, another large section of the population either has come to the conclusion that they are not great at basketball, or find the sport boring, or find the game unfair, or simply want to be recognized for their abilities that have nothing to do with the sport at all. They want to put together committees and start a discussion about a better game to play; a more fair, more engaging, and fulfilling game that includes everyone. Many agree and the discussion begins, but meanwhile, those who have hijacked the court, and stolen the ball are busy running up and down dunking and scoring and congratulating themselves on how successful they are at something they deem worthy of their time. They're ignoring the conversation and have been for a very long time. It is not until a majority of people walk out onto the court and stop the game momentarily and engage these mindless superathletes that some progress toward something more fair occurs. Even then, the change is small, and it is ultimately based on keeping the game of basketball in tact so as to not offend the angry, presumptuous athletes or start a war over differing ideas.
There is nothing inherently necessary or right or successful about playing the game that is being played. Nor, is there any inherent reward in playing an arbitrary game so intensely that one becomes angry and hostile with those choosing not to participate. We are simply playing to be playing. It is easier than thinking and more fun than showing empathy. Perhaps the game that was intended was for everyone to come up with something to do with this ball and those baskets and this court that is all-inclusive, fair, and fulfilling for everyone involved. If this is true, the game being played is a huge waste of energy and ultimately a huge distraction from making progress toward success. This is the state of our nation. A large pissed off cross-section not wanting to stop playing a game that only a few really care about and verbally/ physically intimidating those with other ideas about what kind of game would get us closer to success. Every so often someone who is the star of the game steps up and says, "Hey, maybe we need to take a break and figure out how to include these other people." This is Obama. He is getting harassed for talking to other successful, capable, competent people like himself about their lack of concern for the other half of the country that not only don't care, but aren't able to play in this game. He's saying, "Let's change the rules, let's change the court, let's change the game so everyone can play." Those who are already good at the game being played are so angry that they may have to play something different that they are behaving like little children. Grant it, if someone were asking them to play an equally unfair game that they don't happen to be good at, the frustration would simply change hands from those playing to those previously on the sidelines. However, this is not the case. All anyone is asking is that those who are likely going to win no matter what kind of game we create allow the game to be fair enough that those who aren't likely to excel can still live reasonably enjoyable existences. It's just a game: an arbitrary, boring, and somewhat stupid game that allows some people to buy more stuff than some other people. Is it really worth the starving and dying and torture and abuse and suffering that takes place to maintain the rules to a completely made up game?
Monday, October 05, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)