Vision Without Action
May 7, 2010
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
Being reported @ Politico, there’s once again some new polling data out that is both semi-understandable and interminably frustrating (here):
…The Quinnipiac polls, conducted in three states across the past month, all find likely voters to have complex and contradictory views on these repeal lawsuits as well as health care reform itself.
By a slight majority, likely voters tend to oppose the health care reform law. But they also tend to oppose the repeal lawsuits as a “bad idea” that would, for a sizeable portion of voters, make them “less likely” to support a given candidate….
Which seems roughly equivalent to wanting to win the football game, but not really wanting to deal with scoring points…. or as Politico reports:
…In short, voters simultaneously don’t want to [sic] health care reform but don’t want to challenge it either…
There is a scientific explanation for this called cognitive dissonance (DA posts here). There’s also some logical evidence that helps explain why we as humans seek to reduce anything seen as contentious by the rest of society.
It’s frustrating because time and time again it seems the majority does understand that government is not some Utopian solution. For instance, they seem to understand that the current tax code is 60K pages of government sponsored corruption where the normal citizen or even the IRS agent has little idea exactly what all 60K pages means together, but special interests, nonprofits, businesses, and others all work to make the code a little better for themselves. (Freedomworks – Top Ten Reasons to Scrape the Code here).
Yet polls showing voter disgust, such as the dismally low congressional approval ratings, only show feelings. The reality is even with rates of congressional approval as low as 16%, the rate for the election of incumbents is well over 90%.
There’s a Japanese Proverb that begins with “Vision without action is daydream.” Well, here we are, proving, that some truths are universal. Proving that believing in something strongly or knowing something real well is meaningless if never acted upon.
Use a simple analogy to prove this true – what good is the best doctor in the world without patients or students? What good would have come out of Newton’s genius, or Salk’s genius, if their abilities were followed up by only inaction?
The only good thing that can really be said about genius without action, is that it doesn’t directly harm anyone. You can make a moral argument that Salk had some level of obligation to help since he could, but inactive genius shouldn’t be the main concern as the real problems will come from people acting without understanding.
& there’s where the second 1/2 of the proverb comes “Action without vision is nightmare. ”
Too bad we’re seemingly in a society today where both are true depending only upon the group in question.
Categories: Critical Thinking, Elections, Legislation, Political Philosophy, Politics, Quotations
| 
Tags: Cognitive Dissonance, FreedomWorks, Health Care Reform, IRS, Morals, Politico, Polling, Quinnipiac, Taxes
|
Leave a reply
“The question is which emotion they feel stronger about, whether they oppose health care more or oppose the lawsuits more.” I don’t think the perceived conflict between thought and action, is based on emotion, nor inaction. Michael, I am certain the public wanted health care reform but likely not what we are about to receive, and certainly not at the predicted costs. I think the disconnect between the opposition and disfavor of legal entanglements, is based on not wanting to start over. Rather like picking a paint color, and deciding halfway though your 4000 square foot house, that you don’t even like the color. Sometimes, you have to live with decisions. Tyler Cowen’s lecture was fascinating. Who would think to tie disorders into the topic of economics? I was at an Eagle Scout Court of Honor this weekend and heard your Edmund Burke quote. It is considered a “probable misattribution” but a common idea: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke (3rd paragraph from the bottom of the page). BTW, I am having fun reading your blog and many others. Just lately, I am starting to receive comments from blogs I have visited or their visitors. The good news is my blog is horrible and I am confident your excellent blog will get traffic, once the ball gets rolling!
First & foremost – thank you for your support. I appreciate it deeply and hope this little thing does grow. Feel free to tell your friends
To your points though – I agree with you that momentum & inertia can explain many individual and inconsistent thoughts on health care. But it seems to me, that both of these “reasons” are based upon faulty logic, fear mainly.
As a thought experiment, let’s think of a person who believes these are relevant reasons and try to see their end argument. It seems believing this would put someone in a position of arguing that due to fear of not doing enough, combined with a fear of going too far away from what is comfortable, I’m willing to settle for what I know is an absurd attempt at reform that is more likely to make things worse.
For me, fear simply shouldn’t be a reason for action or inaction.
To your analogy – I do like the painting deal. There are lots of thoughts about saturation for instance – IE when the market (say 70% of users) has used items with standard X, standard X becomes the national standard by default even if standard Y was just slower to market, but much better. QWERTY & DVORCK (SP?) keyboards are an example.
I will have to respectfully say though I disagree that it’s really analogous. Worse case scenario in bad paint, is spending more money than you wished, or dealing with paint you’re not completely thrilled about. & this only affects the owners or potential future buyers of the house. IE – it only affects people who knowingly accept it.
I think the consequences of acting or not acting in this case, not only has or will have a much greater impact on your personal life, but also can negatively/positively affect others.
On Cowen – I like his writing and thoughts a great deal. I still think he has some basic beliefs about people that is fundamentally incorrect. I’ve seen him post a number of amateur type psychology & usually I don’t agree with what he links to in the least. Not that every single post he points too necessarily means he agrees with it, but I read as consistently as I write so I don’t have enough data to make any conclusion directly. I will say even on his talk about Autistics and economics (posted here), I didn’t agree with where it seemed he was going.
On Eagle Scout deal – I assume congrats are in order for someone – it’s a very worth goal and something to be proud of. I too am an Eagle Scout.
On Burke – I did actually know that – as you get into this writing and starting reading more and more from others as both good & bad examples, you’ll notice that most things, let’s call them truths, are repeated over and over again throughout history by different writers, different cultures, at different times. In some cases you may have several players making the same philosophical points at the same time, leading to this kind of conflict.
If it weren’t for my need to attribute as correctly as possible, I’d rather just let the words stand on their own. Meaning that I’d never take credit for saying it, but I’ve contemplated leaving out the various names from quotes I use and instead say something, “As the saying goes, ‘The only thing necessary…’” This is more out of laziness though – I readily remember quotes all the time – the authors…. not so much
& either way – ethically if you said something in a very cool way prior to me and I want to use it – I think I owe you the attribution.
Thanks as always!
Interessant. Kommt hier noch ein weiterer Beitrag? Würde sehr gern einiges mehr darüber erfahren. Kannst du mir per E-Mail weiterhelfen?