Given the complexity of the world we live in, it is important to have a kind of World View to help guide our actions and decisions. This is particularly important if you are a public figure, because what you do and say can have an impact on so many people.
In the last couple of weeks I read two articles involving public figures that offer very different lessons for the world we live in, one representing a view that we should embrace, the second a view that we should all aim to distance ourselves from.
The June 2 issue of The Economist has an excellent article – “What I Have Learned” by Tony Blair – a reflection on his ten years as British Prime Minister. A central theme in the article is Mr. Blair's strong belief that we all have a clear self-interest in what happens all over the world, given that "interdependence [is] the defining characteristic of the modern world."
We don't know how history will judge him, but regardless of how you feel about Tony Blair and his government, his reflections deserve our attention. I was particularly impressed by the section titled “We must stand up for our values,” in which Mr. Blair offers us a very eloquent, compelling world view.
"We will not succeed simply by military or security means," he says. "It is a political challenge. Terrorism recruits adherents on the basis of an appeal to human emotion. It can be countered only by a better, more profound, well-articulated counter-appeal. But this won't happen unless we stand up for our own values, are proud of them and advocate them with conviction." He later adds, "We should attack the ideology of the extremists with confidence: their reactionary view of the state; their refusal to let people prosper in peace; their utterly regressive views on women.”
"But, and it is a mighty but, such an approach only counts if it is applied vigorously and in a manner that is even-handed. Here is where I have always felt that the normal politics of left and right are a hindrance. The trouble is that the right is correct on the need to stand firm militarily and in support of freedom; and the left is correct on the need for justice. The assault on the ideas behind terrorism won't work unless it is seen to be motivated and stirred by a commitment to justice." It is these words, and the humanistic world view embodied in them, that I found so moving in this article.
But as we know, very different world views are expressed by others, as I was reminded in a May 30 New York Times story by David Leonhardt. In his story, Leonhardt commented on an interview with Lou Dobbs - anchor and managing editor of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight - that was shown on May 6 on CBS' 60 Minutes.
The 60 Minutes correspondent, Lesley Stahl, brought up some statistics about leprosy that Lou Dobbs had reported in one of his programs a couple of years earlier. “The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of many Americans," he had said, and then proceeded to discuss how the number of cases of leprosy had shot up to 7,000 over the previous three years, far more than in the past.
Stahl said that in researching the story, 60 Minutes had found no evidence for these claims. "We checked that and found a report issued by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), saying 7,000 is the number of leprosy cases over the last 30 years, not the past three, and nobody knows how many of those cases involve illegal immigrants."
In his article, Leonhardt confirmed Lesley Stahls's numbers by checking official leprosy statistics in the HHS web site and talking to experts in the field. "So Mr. Dobbs was flat-out wrong," he added, "And when I spoke to him yesterday, he admitted as much, sort of."
David Leonhardt then offers his explanation for Lou Dobbs' behavior. "Mr. Dobbs argues that the middle class has many enemies: corporate lobbyists, greedy executives, wimpy journalists, corrupt politicians. But none play a bigger role than illegal immigrants. As he sees it, they are stealing our jobs, depressing our wages and even endangering our lives." He further writes, "Mr. Dobbs is fond of darkly hinting that this country is under attack . . . He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans."
Two different articles, two very different world views. In the interconnected, unpredictable world we live in, nothing may be more important than to have a really clear understanding of the tough situations we face around the world, and the values we should bring to help us deal with them. As Tony Blair so well put it, "We are faced with a challenge derived from a world view. We need our own world view, no less comprehensive but based on the decent values we believe in."
Eloquently said.
When Blair says "we" I assume, perhaps hope, he is all-inclusive. That we is more than the leadership of organizations, but includes the common man as well.
The concern I have is that the view of the common man is often and unreasonably shaped by the pundits. Why? Well, I hypothesize that it's because developing a world view of one's own is hard work.
In our world of always on, always connected, SMS, and sound bites, time has become a precious commodity. We seem to spend, or want to spend, less and less time at paying attention, listening, hearing, understanding, practicing tolerance, accepting and, ultimately, working in a more positive way for the common good.
These are, in my view, the actions necessary to develop a meaningful world view.
All of us, I believe, need to accept the responsibility of mentoring those who are following behind us on the need for and consequences of developing a world view. This is the special responsibility of parents and teachers.
Posted by: James Drogan | June 17, 2007 at 07:12 AM
Tony Blair and David Cameron (leader of the UK's Loyal Opposition) are like Republicans and Democrats, or Microsoft and IBM.
Only one of each pair can be in power at a time.
Neither can buy out the other; the pair cannot join forces, or collude. They have to circle warily, represent their constituents, seek advantage where they can.
OS/2 has fallen to Linux (and POSIX standards). Microsoft Windows is hanging in there, just about.
Lotus SmartSuite has fallen to OpenOffice.org (and ISO26300). Microsoft Office is hanging in there, just about.
Lotus Notes is growing like Topsy and bringing in billions of dollars per year.
Same with sales of supercomputer chips for XBoxes. Cheap software, in the 21st century, is things like Age-of-Empires. Commercial home entertainment. Not really IBM's speciality, but Microsoft Ensemble Studios can do OK at it.
It might be a time for a shift in the balance of power, quite soon.
We can always hope !
Posted by: Chris Ward | June 20, 2007 at 06:02 PM
Irving,
Interesting. Three points came to mind.
(1) Blair has always looked for what he used to call the "third way" - between left and right. That kind of synthesis, it seems to me, is how he built his "world view", and it is probably not a bad way to do so. Remember he was excoriated for a while for abandoning the left in order to make his party electable. But he has always struck a chord as a "decent" man - whatever that may mean.
(2) Developing a world view - I wonder if that is something we actively do, or something we unconsciously do, or (sometimes) something other people do to us. Perhaps any or all of these, depending on who you are.
(3) It bothers me enormously that today we have huge amounts of information, all too easily available, the veracity and accuracy of which is moot. So, for example, a Lou Dobbs can present his spurious leprosy argument and it becomes part of the news "canon": unless and until you read the refutation, which may or may not be easy. When it was hard to publish and access - monks illuminating manuscripts, Caxton, etc - perhaps information had a better chance of reflecting reality. Does technology hold a promise of addressing this issue of what Stephen Colbert calls "truthiness"?
Posted by: Mark Cleverley | June 22, 2007 at 08:37 AM