The Politics of Protection
Shortly before Karl Wallenda, of the famous Flying Wallendas high-wire act, plunged to his death in 1978, he made what proved an apocryphal comment. He said that throughout his career he had always focused on doing the next great performance but that, lately, he had found himself thinking increasingly about not falling. The Flying Wallendas worked without a safety net.
Much of our discourse as a nation these days seems to be the language of not falling, in a dangerous world without a safety net. But Karl Wallenda may have something to teach us. Like him, we may find that trying to prevent disaster may serve us less well than trying to imagine success.
Since 9/11, our public conversation has centered on how to stop another terrorist attack. For years, our policy debates have centered on how to prevent depletion of the social security trust fund, how to stem the damage from global warming, how to arrest moral decline, and how to ensure we don’t run out of fossil fuels. Our language has been the rhetoric of fighting disease, fighting crime, fighting terrorists, fighting inflation, fighting illegal immigration, and fighting drugs.
We are engaged in the politics of protection. We have focused on not losing what we have. But our standard of living, our vibrant democracy, our culturally diverse and creative society in the performing, mechanical, social and healing arts, and our advances in spreading democracy in other parts of the world are the products of a politics of hope. They are the result of Karl Wallenda looking out across the thin wire connecting him to the future not looking down into the chasm that separates him from it.
It is not a question of whether we need to fight terrorists. Nor is it a question of whether we need social insurance to guard against the ravages of disease, old age, or natural disasters. It is a question of balance. What ultimately drives our imaginations and our collective endeavors must be a belief in success as much as a concern for failure. We must guide ourselves by looking toward the horizon as well as in the rear view mirror.
We have spent over $500 billion fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our defense and homeland security budget is another $500 billion for the 2007 fiscal year alone. By contrast, the State Department will spend only $34 billion in 2007 for all of its staff and foreign assistance programs. Just $1.2 billion of this will be devoted to food aid.
A politics of hope may seem fuzzy, perhaps because we lack positive pictures of the future. What would a healthy country look like? A clean environment with flourishing biodiversity? An America that is dependent only on its own energy resources? What would a world look like in which every child is vaccinated and educated? Our leaders promise to cushion the blows but lack an engaging story of a future where they are largely absent. Said another way, consider where we would be if Martin Luther King, Jr. had focused on the nightmare instead of on the dream.
Perhaps we need a blue ribbon Study Group on Building a Health Care Delivery System in Africa along with a Study Group on Iraq. Perhaps we need a “Marshall Plan” for the Middle East along with a National Defense Strategy. Perhaps we need a Presidential Address on an America in harmony with nature and preserving its biodiversity. Perhaps we need an Inter-American Conference on Building Jobs in Central America as an alternative to building a wall to stop immigration. Perhaps we need an International Conference on Religious Respect and Toleration.
On Christmas Eve, there was a story on NBC news about a Palestinian father’s disappointment that he could not buy toys to put under the family’s tree because he had not been paid in ten months. Why were there no photos of American ships carrying toys to the Middle East?
The plea for a more hopeful picture of the future should not be dismissed as an exercise in Pollyannaish sentimentalism. There is considerable psychological and organizational research on the power of the positive in driving human affairs and achievements. There is also considerable experience in American affairs at home and abroad. Thomas Jefferson knew the power of the politics of hope when he said that he always approached the future “with hope in the bow leaving fear astern.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew this when he said “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Karl Wallenda knew it at the height of his success, when his mind’s eye saw him walkin
Much of our discourse as a nation these days seems to be the language of not falling, in a dangerous world without a safety net. But Karl Wallenda may have something to teach us. Like him, we may find that trying to prevent disaster may serve us less well than trying to imagine success.
Since 9/11, our public conversation has centered on how to stop another terrorist attack. For years, our policy debates have centered on how to prevent depletion of the social security trust fund, how to stem the damage from global warming, how to arrest moral decline, and how to ensure we don’t run out of fossil fuels. Our language has been the rhetoric of fighting disease, fighting crime, fighting terrorists, fighting inflation, fighting illegal immigration, and fighting drugs.
We are engaged in the politics of protection. We have focused on not losing what we have. But our standard of living, our vibrant democracy, our culturally diverse and creative society in the performing, mechanical, social and healing arts, and our advances in spreading democracy in other parts of the world are the products of a politics of hope. They are the result of Karl Wallenda looking out across the thin wire connecting him to the future not looking down into the chasm that separates him from it.
It is not a question of whether we need to fight terrorists. Nor is it a question of whether we need social insurance to guard against the ravages of disease, old age, or natural disasters. It is a question of balance. What ultimately drives our imaginations and our collective endeavors must be a belief in success as much as a concern for failure. We must guide ourselves by looking toward the horizon as well as in the rear view mirror.
We have spent over $500 billion fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our defense and homeland security budget is another $500 billion for the 2007 fiscal year alone. By contrast, the State Department will spend only $34 billion in 2007 for all of its staff and foreign assistance programs. Just $1.2 billion of this will be devoted to food aid.
A politics of hope may seem fuzzy, perhaps because we lack positive pictures of the future. What would a healthy country look like? A clean environment with flourishing biodiversity? An America that is dependent only on its own energy resources? What would a world look like in which every child is vaccinated and educated? Our leaders promise to cushion the blows but lack an engaging story of a future where they are largely absent. Said another way, consider where we would be if Martin Luther King, Jr. had focused on the nightmare instead of on the dream.
Perhaps we need a blue ribbon Study Group on Building a Health Care Delivery System in Africa along with a Study Group on Iraq. Perhaps we need a “Marshall Plan” for the Middle East along with a National Defense Strategy. Perhaps we need a Presidential Address on an America in harmony with nature and preserving its biodiversity. Perhaps we need an Inter-American Conference on Building Jobs in Central America as an alternative to building a wall to stop immigration. Perhaps we need an International Conference on Religious Respect and Toleration.
On Christmas Eve, there was a story on NBC news about a Palestinian father’s disappointment that he could not buy toys to put under the family’s tree because he had not been paid in ten months. Why were there no photos of American ships carrying toys to the Middle East?
The plea for a more hopeful picture of the future should not be dismissed as an exercise in Pollyannaish sentimentalism. There is considerable psychological and organizational research on the power of the positive in driving human affairs and achievements. There is also considerable experience in American affairs at home and abroad. Thomas Jefferson knew the power of the politics of hope when he said that he always approached the future “with hope in the bow leaving fear astern.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew this when he said “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Karl Wallenda knew it at the height of his success, when his mind’s eye saw him walkin
posted by Responsible Leader @ 6:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home