upnorthkyosa said:
Did you join the military to "protect our freedoms", "serve our country", or "go to college"? Or any combination or other. Be honest.
And I disagree with the scale argument. Reducing the argument down to a person to person level makes no sense because in politics we deal with groups. Group interactions are different then interactions between individuals.
It's all a matter of context. I regularly participate in local and state governmental meetings and its a different story. Respecting someone's opinion despite strong idealogic difference is essential for compromise. In an informal setting or informal debate, it's okay to let your passion out and fling off a few tongue in cheek comments. Part of being a mature adult is knowing when that is appropriate.
I joined the service for about the same reasons as anyone else: Personal test, college money, paid adventure, desire to make a difference, travel... and my recruiter was a very gorgeous Polynesian/Portagese woman who had joined the service when she lost her cheerleader scholarship... I figured they all looked that good
. What I learned by joining and serving was far more important than my entry motivations. It is the path not the destination kind of thing.
My loyalty, respect for, and behavior towards the guy next to me and my superiors/subordinates, regardless of personal differences was more important than the differences when we had to come together. During meetings, training planning, operational planning, daily maintenance .... professional bearing/conduct and respect were the key to getting people to take you seriously as a leader, peer or subordinate. The 'sharp shooter's', '**** birds',... were hard to take seriously - even when they were dead on. I learned that there were times when it was acceptable to air differences, offer opinions/options/insights and there were times to shut up and dance because the powers that be had decided on what was to be done. I didn't always agree or understand completely, but I did swear an oath (remember that I am not talking blind loyalty here, lawful orders...). This doesn't mean that it was all stiff and formal. Respect, loyalty and professionalism can be delivered casually as well. Some stuff I learned the hard way, some I learned by doing the right thing... regardless I learned. This lesson translates all the way up and down the chain.
As citizens, though it is looser than military services, we all 'were the same uniform' of citizenship and I think the lessons about appropriate conduct and timing of when to talk and when to shut up and dance still apply.
The scale analogy works if you recognize that a person as a body has elements like a group becomes a single body when the members choose to be identified/associated under the same heading. Terms like the 'body of government' or 'ship of state' are analogous statements that describe a group of people as a single identity. Political cartoons constantly reduce the issues/parties into single units to illustrate points. Symbols such as Elephants and Donkeys create a single body identity of the major political parties. If scale analogies don't work, how can we talk about fight tactics as concepts that could apply to entire armies or individual fighters?
As far as contextual appropriateness, since when is decency and treating people with a little dignity ever inappropriate? Regardless of what others are saying and doing, when is it appropriate to 'stoop to their level' if someone is treating you poorly? Character/bearing calms people and creates a living disparity between what the 'other' person is doing and what they should be doing. Consider the peaceful protest of Dr. Martin Luther King, Ghandi and others who are plotted on the compass, their dignified demonstration of moral conviction with character and bearing was far more influencial than any 'enemy' level of commentary or reactive emotional state.
It comes down to the simplest lessons of pointing your finger at someone and remembering that three are pointing back at you... cliche, but still clear.
