Part three of a series: Where is Walter Cronkite when we
need him?
It is exceedingly difficult to identify a group of
individuals, large or small, with the credibility and public support essential
to putting an end to the plethora of behavioral trends at the national level
threatening the stability of this nation…calling them out and then making them
unacceptable in America. My first choice for the job passed away long ago but
might have been able to succeed in such an endeavor: Walter Cronkite. Where is he when we need him? If not Walter Cronkite, my second suggestion
is a committee composed of all living former Presidents of the United State and
the opponents each of them faced in the presidential election. If these
individuals ever pulled together and spoke with one voice they could prove to
be strong enough to exercise tough love and if necessary lead an intervention
to correct problem behavior.
My confidence in the ability of other groups to stop this
dangerous behavior is not high. But the
behaviors need to be stopped. Hence, my next suggestion would be to identify a
critical mass of religious leaders in America with the gravitas to create major
changes in America’s direction. Alternately, what about Chief Executive
Officers of the ten largest or most highly respected firms in the S&P
500? Or members of the U.S. Congress,
the only sheriff in town?
My guess would be the Congress of the United States needs to
put its own house in order and quit adding fuel to the fire before trying to
bring a halt to these dangerous national trends. Perhaps a small subset of the
entire Congress could take on a leadership role, but it would have to consist
of House and Senate leaders committed not to bipartisanship but to
non-partisanship. Members of this subset
would have to be high profile leaders with unimpeachable reputations for
integrity. They will have to be
demanding of change and willing to use every resource at their disposal. They have to be willing to act in the best
interests of all Americans even at the risk of alienating constituents and
losing their next election.
Also, consider just some of the many complications that
would inhibit anyone taking on the challenges I’ve outlined: when the mortgage collapse occurred there
were rules and regulations in existence that could have been enforced, though
they weren’t. Shame on the regulators.
Today, unfortunately, rules to prevent rudeness, incivility and political
polarization do not exist at any level of society.
Disrespect for authority, truth, and the rule of law is
pervasive yet enforcement of the rules and regulations in these areas would be
time-consuming and difficult at best (which is not an excuse for failing to
try, but rather an admission that progress would be unacceptably slow).
Anti-bullying policies exist in elementary schools across the nation because
such behavior is intolerable. Why don’t
the same parents (and other citizens/voters) who demand anti-bullying policies
in their children’s schools also rise up in anger at the absence of similar
policies at the national level, where the policies would apply to the so-called
leaders of the American political system? Most likely, as I discussed in Part
One of this series, because the politicians in Washington behaving badly are
too far removed from the daily lives of ordinary citizens. Lastly, as much as I
believe it is threatening to truth and justice, the media’s love affair with
“unnamed sources” under the umbrella of freedom of the press in America
probably would stymie any serious efforts to end this practice.
The problems I’ve highlighted pose great threats to society
at large. They are pervasive and almost
impossible to outlaw through the enactment of legislation. Rather, their
resolution requires a bully pulpit and moral leadership. The term of art here is “moral suasion.” The
costs to society of failing to curb increasingly bad behavior at the national
level are unacceptably high. But time is running out.
Comments
Post a Comment