Emotionalism versus rationality

There is a rash of emotional statements being made and reported these days. They seem to focus on President Bush, his government and Party, the conflict in Iraq (the vote was not a traditional declaration of war), and the world’s woes in general.

The rash of statements vary all over the place. Leading are those of politicians, many from the woodwork of the recent past. Others from are media types in who they report about and how they report, seemingly without challenge to the statement makers. The more embarrassing words of statement makers are just not even mentioned. Throw in John Q. Citizen attempting to spit on a military fellow, the usual left-over anti-Vietnam types having one more party, and a few unsoiled academics in lofty ivory towers, and we are getting close to the explosion of the statements. Oh, don’t leave out the conspiracy types.

Even the nature of many emotional statements is astounding in the often certainty of the opinion espoused to the bad manners of the many statement makers; and the poor discretion of many of these statement makers. The bitterness and get even instincts of many old time politicians all comes through loud and clear, too. So do most of their regional insults.

The intent of these statements seems to be more emotional outbursts than well thought out differences of opinion. And the sense of group think of all joining in some crescendo of indignation and frustration comes through loud and clear. After all, there is safety in numbers. There are not very many opinions intended to change how the other ½ of the voting public thinks, and we very seldom hear alternative courses of action. It is as though the rash of emotional statements is to make many people feel good, and set up a wave of intimidation that will influence the policies of our nation. If it is the latter, these statement makers have wasted their time, even if they do feel better. What people say in emotional statements, and what they can do, are often two different things.

In the politician’s cases, those that complain without offering alternatives appear to have agendas beyond that of our nation’s interests first. Apparently they, their advisors, and their pollsters have taken a different opinion from the 2006 elections than many of us “others”. The razor thin numbers in both Houses, filibusters, and Presidential veto should be a hint to a more rational person. The Constitution and the rule of law is a limit to some, thank goodness. The elections of 2008 will be limits to others.

People can be led away from any idea or organization, or they can be forced away. Said another way, sometimes the idea or organization leaves the voter, and not the other way around. The usual catalyst is some rational thought or process. Seldom is it some emotional statement. Emotional statements are a crummy way to try run a government. Rational educated thought always predominates because there are many cooler heads who also vote.