Like three hundred million other Americans, I was moved by the untimely and senseless death of Christina-Taylor Green, the nine-year-old victim of the Arizona shooter.  Perhaps the syrupy media attention and Mr. Obama’s moving words, which dominated his eulogy of the victims and praise for the heroes, is just what we need to pull this nation back together.  However, the rational part of me, not the emotional, tells me that this is an impossible task unless we come to some consensus based on cold logic and unemotional compromise.

As authors, we often play on these dichotomies in our readers.  A detective story will tradeoff the adrenalin rush of the chase with the rational discovery of clues.  A romance novel will mix characters’ emotions in battles, duels, and love scenes with the logical planning of those battles, duels, and even love scenes, as the hero or villain plots to seduce the female protagonist.  A war story in a submarine may dwell on the business of running the complex vessel as well as the sailors’ worries and fears during a battle.

Real life also mixes the emotional and the rational.  As an ex-scientist, I put emphasis on the rational.  However, I realize that even scientists move beyond the rational to the emotional, especially when the data is not conclusive and/or there are political agendas that confuse the issues.  However, our leaders should de-emphasize emotion and emphasize rational discussion as much as possible when making decisions about the paths the nation should take.  Even if the electorate goes off on an emotional tangent, leaders have the moral responsibility not to play on these emotions, in order to make wise decisions not based on irrational pressures from the electorate or the media.

During our short history as a nation, we have been blessed with leaders who, if not consistently, have stepped into an emotional snake’s nest and led us to wise and healing solutions.  Some, like Lyndon Johnson, were very inconsistent.  His leadership in civil rights is indisputable, while his leadership in Viet Nam was marred by his inability to get beyond the faulty advice of his military leaders and hawkish subordinates.  Congresses and congress members also have mixed track records.  Almost invariably, when emotions cloud the issues, it’s a coin toss whether we follow the correct path.

Unfortunately, the world is becoming a very complex and dangerous place.  We can ill afford to make wrong choices.  The old metaphor of the time-traveler stepping on a butterfly in the past and changing the future is nowadays multiplied millions of times by choices where the wrong decision might have a terrible consequence for the future of our nation.  Our leaders must become rational scientists, experts in the science of politics and diplomacy, schooled in fiscal and urban planning, and knowledgeable in defense, education, and health.  Very few of our leaders meet all these requirements.  Some don’t meet any.

In fact, getting elected to office in the U.S. depends more and more on finances and an ability to manipulate the emotions of the electorate.  The finger in the air to test the fickle winds of public opinion is a metaphor that is too common among our leaders.  A true leader makes his choices by listening to his logical advisers, gathering sound information, and listing his opitions, before making a rational choice among those options, something which Dubya did not do with respect to invading Iraq and something which Obama hasn’t done with respect to Afghanistan (in both cases, these men did not even consider all the options).  Note that I said “rational choice.”  A true leader rises above the irrational and the emotional.

Congress, with its many members, allows many more chances for us to screw-up as consensus has to build across disparate opinions.  Many times, it seems that Congress is the Tower of Babel—its members seem to speak different languages.  Strong, emotional opinions abound—rational, unemotional decisions are scarce.  While not physically coming to blows on the debating floor, our Senators and Representatives do verbal battle with words that are emotion-laden.  The floor often seems to be a fifth-grade schoolyard, complete with bullying, macho posturing, sexism, and biting sarcasm.  To be a member of the club, the requirement is to check your logic at the door along with your hat and coat.

I am at a loss in suggesting steps to improve the situation.  If you ask an individual on the street, the person is likely to say that he or she just wants rational debate and an end to the bickering.  However, come election time, we seem to digress into mob mentalities and angrily look for someone to hang, if not physically, at least in words.  Our leaders just reflect this irrationality and these wild emotions.  The national debate has been reduced to insubstantial and emotional quips of 140 characters or less.  There is no chance for logic and fair play to get a toe in the doorway.

And so it goes….

This entry was posted on Friday, January 14th, 2011 at 5:53 am and is filed under Fundamentalism, Science, Writing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.