Earlier this evening, I was studying a book entitled "Clear and Simple as the Truth," a discussion of the elements of classical writing (as expressed in the Greek tradition, the French Revolution, and several documents from colonial America). This, quite clearly, is where my snobbery comes in-- but I digress. Within this book was an example from a writing of Thucydides, a Greek historian that recounts a war in the 5th century B.C. between Athens and Sparta.
This excerpt is a speech supposedly delivered by Pericles at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War. Upon reading it, I couldn't help but to think of the similarities between this speech and the current state of political affairs. In his speech, Pericles seeks to unite Athens by uplifting their communal values and presenting a vision of themselves as an elite class, capable of hope and of making intelligent decisions. Unfortunately, there are always a class of people who would rather 'rush blindly into the sea, swords drawn, and battle ceaselessly with the waves' than slow down and consider the rational decisions that they fear.
The speech is as follows:
"Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft. We regard wealth as something to be properly used, rather than as something to boast about. As for poverty, no one need be ashamed to admit it: the real shame is not taking practical measures to escape from it. Here each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well... We are capable at the same time of taking risks and of estimating them beforehand. Others are brave out of ignorance; and, when they stop to think, they begin to fear. But the man who can most truly be accounted brave is he who best knows the meaning of what is sweet in life and of what is terrible, and then goes out undeterred to meet what is to come."
The fear that Pericles so aptly mentions is the aspect I note most when I encounter anti-Democratic propaganda. I came across a myspace bulletin two days ago that took great pains to dissect irrelevant and insubstantial irregularities in Obama's speech in order to insinuate that he is a liar. The list, and I quote is a "list of things that Senator Obama has said that are not EXACTLY correct." It then proceeds to run through a series of inconsequential details to prove, I assume, that Obama is human after all.
What I simply do not understand is why it is easier for many people to harp after the little things that support their position rather than to acknowledge any other points of view. Is it a fear of being wrong? A fear of personal affront? A fear that, should there be a change in office, they will be held personally responsible for the last miserable eight years? If things remain as they are, does it reaffirm their belief that they were right, the democrats were wrong, and another president turning a blind eye will make Iraq, the energy crises, and global warming just disappear?
Well-- continuing darkness doesn't bring the monster out of the closet, and throwing away the bills won't get rid of the debt. Both are fearful and childish acts, and neither could possibly be helpful in the long run. The real question is whether the opposition can be induced to see through their fear to the actual issues, or if 2.5 months simply isn't enough time to draw them out from under the bed.
Obama for Athens. McCain for Sparta. How simple the decision seems when compared with what we know.
No comments:
Post a Comment