One of the several important reasons for seeking advanced education is to learn and practice systems for finding truth – and, when appropriate, to transfer that truth into conduct. Some processes are better than others and some sources are superior to others. There is a period in a child’s life when if an idea appears in print it is automatic that it must be true. It becomes a major concern in education to clear the level plain toward truth, and to keep that plain true. Persons bent on gaining their own objectives, whether by truth or fiction, are always at work. Tools for learning can be made bludgeons to truth, when activated by hypocritical minds and persons harboring distorted objectives. This doesn’t mean they are very bad people. They are doing what they feel works in life (like torturing suspects to gain confessions), and gets them what they feel they ought to have. Matters become even more difficult when those with distorted principles truly believe that their principles are legitimate. In some instances they know that they will be faced with distortions, but must do something. Not to do so is taken as stupidity. They fight fire with fire.
On a TV business channel a respected CEO of a major company, having responsibility for a monumental error of judgment, was called to testify before a congressional committee. The commentators were exchanging ideas on how a person can be effective with Congress. The response from an analyst was that there were several rules that were commonly practiced by presenters: 1) be humble (no one wants to know how great you are); 2) be deferential (the judges want to know how great or vital you think they are); and 3) be vague (….don’t present anything they can’t hang their hats on….). One is tempted to cynicism before hearing anything more, and there was more. The common response to the question: What is a lawmaker supposed to have as his first goal in the business of his office? The answer almost always is: To function in whatever way is necessary to be elected again to office. When one reads the shenanigans of much related to electioneering, skepticism rises. One must gain stern self-control not to sacrifice idealism from the tsunami of disappointment. At this writing, there are numerous issues pressing the American government. We are told by the analysts that nothing will be done about the major matters until after the elections. Nearly half way through the year, 2012, we have been marking time, and told that we will continue to do so until next January, 2013. We shall see. (During the months between the above writing and this editing nothing much was done. After 2014 elections the resisters simply became the other party. We fumble along.)
In my view, studies of the decades suggest the following: 1)- the electorate has not shown that it has sufficient useful information to make the best decisions, and does not go beyond private interests sufficiently well to do what an informed electorate ought to do; 2)- the avenues of information are not well used to inform the electorate about what needs to be done; 3)- the objectives of the electorate ought to be based in values, not in party loyalties that depend on the strategies of electioneering to create a competition between candidates, a bit hazy, or at odds, about constitutional responsibilities and limitations; 4)- that there ought to be a meaningful prep school for all candidates to inform them about the problems of administration of public institutions; 5)- that there be a workable system to serve mankind wherever possible for the health, welfare, and pursuit of happiness for all; and, 6) – that the spirit of cooperation be substituted for the spirit of competition. That this menu is difficult is not to be denied, but thankful and educated electorates/officers can do it. It is a part of thinkliving. There are numerous sub-themes to all this. Although the pattern does not require faith in God to achieve, it might be what God would advise if his perceptions were invoked. In common grace, God helps even wholly secular mankind in the quest for peace and prosperity.
In a general sense we have failed in social education, an education that includes instruction to electorates and to candidates presented to the public. When parents and public education fail in instruction about duty, the benefits of even a paternal government or institution will fade. Until the electorate is better informed, and motivated to act upon the principles of values related to the benefit of society, we will be limited in the practical vision for government and the performance of officials. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020