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?"
Sunday, June 22, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
