In the recent economic situation, the government passed a "Rescue Bill" to bail out the mortgage industry and our general economy. I am not an economics expert or anything like that, but I know how this choice was made. The government leaders made this decision based on the lesser of two evils.
The Rescue Plan was not an ideal arrangement. It is not like we wanted to do this. But having our economy be in a complex struggle is not good, either. So the decision was between doing nothing and leaving the economy how it is in its current troubles or instituting this 700 billion dollar Rescue plan that will affect the overall budget but help out a desperate mortgage industry.
And the leadership chose the lesser of two evils: and that is why we have the Rescue Plan.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Lesser: Japanese Interment Camps
One of the biggest examples of a decision that came down to The Lesser and The Greater happened during and immediately following World War II. Japanese internment camps were a terrible time for our country. Hindsight is always 20/20, and in hindsight we can see that the Japanese internment camps of World War II were a big black eye for America. But we can see that the decision was not an easy one for the leaders of that time, and the decision was made using the strategy of The Lesser and The Greater.
Basically, the Japanese internment camps came down to a decision of the lesser of two evils: dangers of having spies or enemies in our country vs. the restriction of freedoms for true Americans. The leaders had to decide between the horribleness of mistreating our own people by imprisoning them wrongly or the horribleness of having enemies living inside of our own country and harming us from within.
The leaders chose the lesser of two evils. They wanted to protect America at all costs - even if that meant messing up by wrongly mistreating their own people. It was wrong. It was terrible. But it was the lesser of two evils.
That doesn't make it right.
It just highlights the strategy that the leaders utilized to reach that decision.
But this example is something that we can learn from. We need to analyze these situations so that we can be better prepared to lead in the future. We need to learn. We need to grow. We need to do things better. We can do things better. We will do things better.
Basically, the Japanese internment camps came down to a decision of the lesser of two evils: dangers of having spies or enemies in our country vs. the restriction of freedoms for true Americans. The leaders had to decide between the horribleness of mistreating our own people by imprisoning them wrongly or the horribleness of having enemies living inside of our own country and harming us from within.
The leaders chose the lesser of two evils. They wanted to protect America at all costs - even if that meant messing up by wrongly mistreating their own people. It was wrong. It was terrible. But it was the lesser of two evils.
That doesn't make it right.
It just highlights the strategy that the leaders utilized to reach that decision.
But this example is something that we can learn from. We need to analyze these situations so that we can be better prepared to lead in the future. We need to learn. We need to grow. We need to do things better. We can do things better. We will do things better.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
The Lesser and the Greater of Oil Drilling
The Lesser and the Greater can also reveal things that are deeper and more expansive than what is on the surface. Let's take a look at the decision to drill or not to drill for oil in ANWR, off the coasts, or in midwest and upper west.
Oil drilling is a great concept because we need oil right now. Even though it might not be the most effective or optimal way for us to fuel our energy - it is way better than having gas skyrocket to 7 or 8 dollars. We need to drill for oil right now because it is a lesser of two evils than having to pay up the yin-yang for gas.
That would be a very simple way of looking at how oil drilling is the lesser of two evils: high gas prices vs. inefficient drilling. Many individuals in government are trying to arrange for the legalization and allowing of drilling of our coasts and in Alaska right now in Congress. These leaders feel that the danger facing us through gas prices is worth the amount of risk that it would be to drill for oil.
Yet there is another option that is more encompassing than this first concept. Many people believe that we should not drill because this crisis is helping us see the need to create alternative forms of energy. It is more important for us not to drill right now because we need to focus on innovating for future success through alternative forms of energy. It is of greater priority for us to consider our long-term future for alternative energy - and drilling would not get us there.
So there can be arguments made for both sides. Now leaders have to look at these arguments and decide which is more important. They need to decide where the largest need is, and then they need to act based on the biggest need coupled with future considerations.
And we as citizens need to help them make these big decisions.
Oil drilling is a great concept because we need oil right now. Even though it might not be the most effective or optimal way for us to fuel our energy - it is way better than having gas skyrocket to 7 or 8 dollars. We need to drill for oil right now because it is a lesser of two evils than having to pay up the yin-yang for gas.
That would be a very simple way of looking at how oil drilling is the lesser of two evils: high gas prices vs. inefficient drilling. Many individuals in government are trying to arrange for the legalization and allowing of drilling of our coasts and in Alaska right now in Congress. These leaders feel that the danger facing us through gas prices is worth the amount of risk that it would be to drill for oil.
Yet there is another option that is more encompassing than this first concept. Many people believe that we should not drill because this crisis is helping us see the need to create alternative forms of energy. It is more important for us not to drill right now because we need to focus on innovating for future success through alternative forms of energy. It is of greater priority for us to consider our long-term future for alternative energy - and drilling would not get us there.
So there can be arguments made for both sides. Now leaders have to look at these arguments and decide which is more important. They need to decide where the largest need is, and then they need to act based on the biggest need coupled with future considerations.
And we as citizens need to help them make these big decisions.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Immigration: Lesser and Greater
Immigration is such a large and complex issue. It affects not only the immigrants directly involved, but it impacts every single person in the United States. The scope of immigration cannot be contained in a single article, and the solution for the immigration quandry cannot be solved with a single fell swoop, either. So let's begin the conversation to see how immigration works out with the Lesser and the Greater.
The Lesser: Some people would argue that sending all of the illegal immigrants back would be a terrible mistake. They would say that it is wrong for them to be here illegally, but it would just irrepairably injure our economy if they were deported. It is essentially the lesser of two evils if we just allow them to stay.
Also, people would debate that illegal immigrants here are a strain on the economy and government services. They would say that they use up medical services, social services, and other things that they are not paying taxes to support. Yet, again, if they were gone, that would leave a giant hole in our economy.
So it is the lesser of two evils (poor economy vs. illegal immigrant problems) for illegal immigrants to stay here in the States.
The Greater: Some people would argue that illegal immigrants are dangerous to this nation. They come in and cause trouble for which they are never fully held responsible. They are breaking the law by coming into the country, and then they make our streets and cities dangerous once they are here. They might work a little, but a lot of them simply come over here to our country and cause dangerous troubles.
Also, people would argue that having illegal immigrants in our country sets a terrible precedent to the world. Any country can see all of the people that get into our country, and they can have the confidence that they can get in, as well. It is like showing the world that we are terrible at protecting our own borders.
So it is a greater of two priorities (economy/opportunity vs. national safety) that illegal immigrants should be forced to leave the States.
This is just one example of a couple of the sides of the debate. But rest assured, when a solution is finally gathered and a plan is set into place - leaders will have chosed based on what is either the lesser of two evils or the greater of two priorities.
The Lesser: Some people would argue that sending all of the illegal immigrants back would be a terrible mistake. They would say that it is wrong for them to be here illegally, but it would just irrepairably injure our economy if they were deported. It is essentially the lesser of two evils if we just allow them to stay.
Also, people would debate that illegal immigrants here are a strain on the economy and government services. They would say that they use up medical services, social services, and other things that they are not paying taxes to support. Yet, again, if they were gone, that would leave a giant hole in our economy.
So it is the lesser of two evils (poor economy vs. illegal immigrant problems) for illegal immigrants to stay here in the States.
The Greater: Some people would argue that illegal immigrants are dangerous to this nation. They come in and cause trouble for which they are never fully held responsible. They are breaking the law by coming into the country, and then they make our streets and cities dangerous once they are here. They might work a little, but a lot of them simply come over here to our country and cause dangerous troubles.
Also, people would argue that having illegal immigrants in our country sets a terrible precedent to the world. Any country can see all of the people that get into our country, and they can have the confidence that they can get in, as well. It is like showing the world that we are terrible at protecting our own borders.
So it is a greater of two priorities (economy/opportunity vs. national safety) that illegal immigrants should be forced to leave the States.
This is just one example of a couple of the sides of the debate. But rest assured, when a solution is finally gathered and a plan is set into place - leaders will have chosed based on what is either the lesser of two evils or the greater of two priorities.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The Lesser and The Greater of the Federal Budget
One of the most prominent places for examples of The Lesser and The Greater is in the Federal Budget. The budget shows the things that our leaders believe garners special attention and priority. It portrays what things our leaders feel are more important than others, and it conveys the things that our leaders believe are the lesser and the greater.
Why does this happen in the budget? Simply because money is scarce.
Since money is scarce, there is not enough money to cover everything that everyone wants to do. There is only a limited amount of money through federal income, and our leaders priorities come through the federal budget. The federal budget provides a clear picture of the exact things that leaders consider to be important.
If there was an unlimited supply of money for the government, then the leaders could do everything that their constituents desired. But since money is scarce, leaders have to choose which things are greater than others. Whatever is represented in the federal budget - those are the things that leaders to be considered greater priorities than others.
So if you want to see what our country's leaders consider to be The Greater - check out the Federal Budget.
Why does this happen in the budget? Simply because money is scarce.
Since money is scarce, there is not enough money to cover everything that everyone wants to do. There is only a limited amount of money through federal income, and our leaders priorities come through the federal budget. The federal budget provides a clear picture of the exact things that leaders consider to be important.
If there was an unlimited supply of money for the government, then the leaders could do everything that their constituents desired. But since money is scarce, leaders have to choose which things are greater than others. Whatever is represented in the federal budget - those are the things that leaders to be considered greater priorities than others.
So if you want to see what our country's leaders consider to be The Greater - check out the Federal Budget.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Oil vs. Nature
The oil situation is obviously something that everyone knows about. There are many different issues regarding our dependence upon foreign oil, the ability to get more oil at home, and whhat to do about ensuring our energy success in the future. One of the controversial topics in this current debate is the Alaska Natural Wildlife Refuge. ANWR provides a very unique situation for politicians and has proven to be a hot topic in the political landscape right now. This is a classic example of the lesser and the greater.
Everyone in America would agree that it would be great for us to both have an independent source of oil and to preserve natural landscapes and ecologies. We would love to have the oil that is most probably in ANWR, and we would also love to keep the natural beauty of ANWR intact and unblemished. If we could do both, then everyone would be happy.
Unfortunatly it is not a perfect world, and we cannot do both. Leaders have to choose between these two things (I am not introducing the other avenues of oil independence right now for the sake of this argument). How can they make this choice?
This choice will depend on which priority is greater for them.
Both of these things are good, but it is not possible to accomplish both of them at the same time. Leaders must choose based on their greater priority and ideal. A leader who believes in the priority of energy independence will choose to drill in ANWR even in the face of the consequences. Whereas a leader who views the environment as the greater ideal will choose to save the natural beauty and ecology of ANWR.
So as we watch this political drama unfold before our eyes. we can watch and see how our country's leaders answer the question:
"What is the greater priority - energy independence or natural conservation?"
Everyone in America would agree that it would be great for us to both have an independent source of oil and to preserve natural landscapes and ecologies. We would love to have the oil that is most probably in ANWR, and we would also love to keep the natural beauty of ANWR intact and unblemished. If we could do both, then everyone would be happy.
Unfortunatly it is not a perfect world, and we cannot do both. Leaders have to choose between these two things (I am not introducing the other avenues of oil independence right now for the sake of this argument). How can they make this choice?
This choice will depend on which priority is greater for them.
Both of these things are good, but it is not possible to accomplish both of them at the same time. Leaders must choose based on their greater priority and ideal. A leader who believes in the priority of energy independence will choose to drill in ANWR even in the face of the consequences. Whereas a leader who views the environment as the greater ideal will choose to save the natural beauty and ecology of ANWR.
So as we watch this political drama unfold before our eyes. we can watch and see how our country's leaders answer the question:
"What is the greater priority - energy independence or natural conservation?"
Sunday, June 8, 2008
The Greater...
There are thousands of difficulties and hard decisions in politics, and there are a few ways that government officials and political leaders find ways to make these decisions. One of those ways is this: choosing the greater of two.
Not all difficult situations deal with problems and the choosing of the lesser of two evils. Some difficult situations actually deal with good things. Since there are limited resources available to the country, government leaders must often choose which efforts to support. Most of these efforts are good things – new elementary school buildings, higher salaries for armed services, lower taxes, better social security, etc. In a perfect world, leaders would have the ability to support every worthy ideal. But because of these limited resources, leaders have to choose which of these worthy objectives to support. How can they make these choices? They have to choose the greater of the two.
It is not an easy thing. Leaders need to have a plan of action and stick with it. They need to prioritize core principles and beliefs and then follow their goals. A good leader is one who knows that is needed for success in the future. Leaders have to be able to choose which direction is best – the greater of the two (or many more than two). In politics, leaders need to set their agenda with wise goals for the good of the country and then follow that agenda even in the face of attractive obstacles.
Leaders must make some hard decisions by discerning which is the greater of two ideals.
Not all difficult situations deal with problems and the choosing of the lesser of two evils. Some difficult situations actually deal with good things. Since there are limited resources available to the country, government leaders must often choose which efforts to support. Most of these efforts are good things – new elementary school buildings, higher salaries for armed services, lower taxes, better social security, etc. In a perfect world, leaders would have the ability to support every worthy ideal. But because of these limited resources, leaders have to choose which of these worthy objectives to support. How can they make these choices? They have to choose the greater of the two.
It is not an easy thing. Leaders need to have a plan of action and stick with it. They need to prioritize core principles and beliefs and then follow their goals. A good leader is one who knows that is needed for success in the future. Leaders have to be able to choose which direction is best – the greater of the two (or many more than two). In politics, leaders need to set their agenda with wise goals for the good of the country and then follow that agenda even in the face of attractive obstacles.
Leaders must make some hard decisions by discerning which is the greater of two ideals.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
The Lesser: Defined.
Sometimes when things are very complex – the government has only one choice.
Sometimes when there is no clear path – the government has only one choice.
Sometimes when time is short and the risk is high – the government has only one choice.
Sometimes just because of the realities of this world – the government has only one choice.
The choice between the lesser of two evils.
The United States government has had to employ this strategy many times. By no means is it a first resort or the primary objective. But it is a contingency strategy that unfortunately has to be used more than we would like. I have never worked in government or anything – I gain all of my information solely from history. And throughout American history, we have relied upon this strategy to solve many problems and diminish many difficult situations. It may not be a perfect or ideal strategy, but it is an effective strategy for the real world.
A good example of this came around the 1980s. Without going into it in too much detail at all (actually, giving you a very rough Cliff Notes version) - Russia was struggling with Afghanistan. There were violent conflicts on both sides, and America was in a political pickle. Afghanistan was not one of our allies (since they were still in a transitional state, although we did support their hopeful government). And our relationship with Russia has always been on the edge of a knife (especially at that time nearing the end of the Cold War). There were validities on each side, and we had a decision to make.
So what did we decided to do? We chose the lesser of two evils. We helped out Afghanistan. We gave them weapons and training so that they could fight off Russia. But then what happened? The new regime for the government of Afghanistan turned the country into an asylum for terrorists. Twenty years later, we are fighting in Afghanistan against some of our own weapons and our own training.
But we had a choice to make. And we made the right choice. It was the lesser of two evils. And it was the only choice we could make.
This blog is going to explore some of the current choices we are making now and some of the choices that we have to make in the future. This principle of “the lesser of two evils” will unfortunately guide many of these choices.
I hope you will join with us in the analysis and strengthening of our government choices – especially those involving the lesser of two evils.
Sometimes when there is no clear path – the government has only one choice.
Sometimes when time is short and the risk is high – the government has only one choice.
Sometimes just because of the realities of this world – the government has only one choice.
The choice between the lesser of two evils.
The United States government has had to employ this strategy many times. By no means is it a first resort or the primary objective. But it is a contingency strategy that unfortunately has to be used more than we would like. I have never worked in government or anything – I gain all of my information solely from history. And throughout American history, we have relied upon this strategy to solve many problems and diminish many difficult situations. It may not be a perfect or ideal strategy, but it is an effective strategy for the real world.
A good example of this came around the 1980s. Without going into it in too much detail at all (actually, giving you a very rough Cliff Notes version) - Russia was struggling with Afghanistan. There were violent conflicts on both sides, and America was in a political pickle. Afghanistan was not one of our allies (since they were still in a transitional state, although we did support their hopeful government). And our relationship with Russia has always been on the edge of a knife (especially at that time nearing the end of the Cold War). There were validities on each side, and we had a decision to make.
So what did we decided to do? We chose the lesser of two evils. We helped out Afghanistan. We gave them weapons and training so that they could fight off Russia. But then what happened? The new regime for the government of Afghanistan turned the country into an asylum for terrorists. Twenty years later, we are fighting in Afghanistan against some of our own weapons and our own training.
But we had a choice to make. And we made the right choice. It was the lesser of two evils. And it was the only choice we could make.
This blog is going to explore some of the current choices we are making now and some of the choices that we have to make in the future. This principle of “the lesser of two evils” will unfortunately guide many of these choices.
I hope you will join with us in the analysis and strengthening of our government choices – especially those involving the lesser of two evils.
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Lesser...
The lesser...
The lesser of two evils...
The lesser of two consequences...
The lesser.
This is one way that government makes decisions. It is one way that great men and women over the decades have chosen which path to follow and who to support. It may not be a perfect formula, but it is a formula for the real world. There is not always going to be a cut and dry situation. There is not always a clear right way and a clear wrong way. Sometimes there is simple the choice between two evils, two consequences, two problems.
And a good leader will choose the lesser.
This website is going to look at today's issues with this thought process. We are going to find the answers to America's problems based on this template. This is just the way of the world sometimes. This is what leaders have to do - to make necessary decisions, to propose the next path, to dictate the future.
The lesser of two.
The lesser of two evils...
The lesser of two consequences...
The lesser.
This is one way that government makes decisions. It is one way that great men and women over the decades have chosen which path to follow and who to support. It may not be a perfect formula, but it is a formula for the real world. There is not always going to be a cut and dry situation. There is not always a clear right way and a clear wrong way. Sometimes there is simple the choice between two evils, two consequences, two problems.
And a good leader will choose the lesser.
This website is going to look at today's issues with this thought process. We are going to find the answers to America's problems based on this template. This is just the way of the world sometimes. This is what leaders have to do - to make necessary decisions, to propose the next path, to dictate the future.
The lesser of two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
