Today I heard this:
“So when X does something wrong it is okay, but when Y does the same, it is not, eh?!”
Of course you don’t need me to tell you that X and Y here represent leaders of two factions. This obviously is an outburst from a Y-follower.
To me something seemed terribly wrong about the above statement. Do you see it too?
Strangely enough it does not seem to matter to the Y-follower that Y has committed some grave crimes. The fact that X has done the same (or will do so in the future) is proffered as justification for Y’s wrongdoings by this follower.
My question is simple: Is this how you choose to follow a leader: by excusing wrongdoings because the opposite number is doing (or will do) the same?
I’d expect a true follower to say, “I don’t care what X has done (other than the fact that X should be brought to book for crimes). But as a leader I look up to, Y should remain impeccable and not fall to lower standards. If that happens I expect Y to correct self. Or else I ask Y to step down in favor of someone with more integrity and if that fails too, I cease following Y altogether.”
But how can I ask the unreasonable to see reason?
As I started reading your story, I first thought that you were talking about two siblings.
Judy
LikeLike
Yes, it is exactly the way you’d expect a couple of warring (and young) siblings to talk, isn’t it? 🙂
LikeLike
This is a very common but unfortunate part of political (or any) discourse in our society, The emphasis is on discrediting each other rather than trying to find a solution to the problem at hand.
The X and Y made the post very algebraic 😛
LikeLike
Your last sentence – “But how can I ask the unreasonable to see reason?, sums up everything
LikeLike
At first, X and Y axis came to mind
Then ‘leaders’ sneaked up from behind
Political factions are beyond ethics
To stay in power they’ll try all tricks
To them, ‘reason’ (and conscience) is a big bind!
LikeLike