This summer has not been a simulation. It has not been a workshop. It has not been a practicum. It has been a real life, everyday immersion into THE political center of the world; a Political Science majors’ dream. It is not necessarily big events that have made me more aware of my political understanding, but rather a culmination of my day to day activities. However, this week many of my observations we’re put into words. This week’s speakers provided me with precious nuggets of wisdom that gave me a lot to reflect upon and often reflected what I witness and think about on a day-to-day basis. Between insights from our speakers and my personal experience in D.C., I can identify two general themes that I have become more aware of as a D.C. resident: there are no obvious “good” and “bad” guys in politics, and when it comes down to it, we’re all just humans.
I have always prided myself on trying not to think of the world in black and white, as good and bad. In my naiveté, I thought I was much more open-minded. However after coming to D.C., I realized that behind the Pine Curtain I have always unconsciously thought of the political world as a divide between good guys and bad guys. Naively, I thought there were two groups of representatives, lobbyists, and policymakers: those that promoted my interests and those that obstructed my interests from becoming action. This is not always the case. And in many situations, there are many shades of grey. Dr. Shane Smith exemplified this in an anecdote that really stuck with me; Shane provided examples of the divide between rhetoric and action. To set the scene, Shane was discussing nuclear disarmament and the role our last two President’s played in reducing our stockpile of nuclear weapons. As a promoter of nuclear disarmament, in my “good” guys and “bad” guys scenario, I had President Bush pegged as the “bad” guy and President Obama as the “good” guy. However, in terms of action against nuclear disarmament, this was not the case. Shane informed us from his expert perspective, President Bush did more to reduce the nuclear stockpile than any other President, but he communicated his action very poorly with the public. On the other hand, President Obama has done little to reduce the United States nuclear stockpile but based on his speech in Prague and overall communication skills, has led the public to believe he is far more engaged than he actually is through his powerful rhetoric. This opened my eyes to see - for about the millionth time this summer - that politics is far more complicated than simply “good” and “bad.”
In a culmination of moments in my political understanding, I acknowledged big business can have non-profit goals and passion. I was invited to attend the launch of the Global Food Security Index at the National Press Club. The Index was created by the Economist Intelligence Unit, a branch of the publication The Economist, and funded by DuPont. Especially in the agriculture world, there is a definite divide between the perceived motives of big business and the best interests of small-scale farmers. However, at the conference, I acknowledged the genuine passion of DuPont to create a tool to better understand the root cause of food insecurity and develop a means by which small-scale farmers and big-business entrepreneurs can communicate about solutions to end hunger. There was a question from an audience member that addressed whether the motives of DuPont were for philanthropy or profit. This question got me thinking: Does it really matter? Shouldn’t the end product be what is evaluated? It is a question I am still pondering, but once again I was enlightened - “bad” profit-seekers can have “good” guy motives.
Nate Freier provided me with the most insightful, “ah-ha” advice this week. Nate told us: When it comes down to it, we’re all just human. Wow. This one really hit me. Previously, I had put all policymakers, representatives, bureaucrats, judges - and in the context of Nate’s comment - military advisors, on a pedestal: more intelligent, more worldly, better decision makers, etc. This is true, or hopefully is true, in most cases. However, at the root, we all still make mistakes. We all still have no idea what we’re doing in certain situations. We’re all intimidated by the complexity of the political sphere. We’re all unaware of our paths. We’re all just humans.
The human aspect of unpredictability was further exemplified by Ashley and Tajel’s realization that there is no one “path” to follow. I, like Ashley and Tajel, am a planner and this was terrifying to hear, especially from two very intelligent and successful women. I want a path. I want a path that directs me to take this step and then this step and then this step and then achieve happiness and success. I have to come to terms with the fact that if I intend on having a career in D.C., this is not and will not be the case. In conclusion, my experience beyond the Pine Curtain has revealed that things are not as by-the-book as academia presents. In the real world of politics, happenstance always accompanies hard work and there are no good guys and bad guys, there are only humans.
No comments:
Post a Comment