Saturday, October 9, 2010
I am convinced that any progressive movement is met with an underlying resistance by its members. Although many people say they want change to give the illusion that they are "in touch" with vital issues, at the same time these people mouth their empty words of consent, they conspire to find fault with anyone willing to activate full intentions. This allows the semi-committed to remain in the shadows and to be free to criticize at the first sign of disruption. And, criticize they will.
Most people want to win 100% of their platforms. Any compromises and outright failures are unacceptable for the masses. Most often, their drive to win each contest outweighs their ability to analyze, comprehend, and interpret losses along the way to a final victory. Polls and commentary flood American homes with updated reports on winners, losers, and trends.
For the semi-committed, a "fault is a fault" and a "loss is a loss" and "anything short of perfection is unacceptable." They do not want to read or to study an issue or a commitment because they prefer to be shepherded toward victory. It is much easier to follow the leader as long as the leader does not lose a single fray. They blame leaders for inevitable collateral damage, and they are quick to point out any shortcomings in command. The semi-committed see this as their sacred right to permanent dissatisfaction.
Change is vogue in the world of the the semi-committed. They follow change and its prevalent trends with blind allegiance as long as it does not upset the status quo and draw personal criticism. Even in their masses, they prefer to slight the obvious fact that anything worth changing requires meeting a fierce resistance. So, when drawing intense fire from the opposition, inherent activity in a meaningful struggle, the semi-committed prefer the rear guard.
Kicking away simple obstacles may lead to easy, lopsided victories, but no major change can occur without significant casualties. The semi-committed point fingers as carnage mounts within their ranks. They gladly participate and thoroughly enjoy the romp, the rout, the trounce, and the crush; however, they shy from predicaments and quandaries, preferring the safety of non-engagement.
The semi-committed choose matters of conscience from a buffet arrangement. They freely choose whatever appeals to their appetite of the day despite the envisaged course of the meal. As long as they are allowed free range of options, the semi-committed contentedly graze the feast, nibbling and sampling the fare. But, if the choices of conscience lie before them on a catered plate, the semi-committed may have great difficulty handling the utensils and consuming the meal.
In brief, almost all people prefer the stance of partial commitment. Not only does it offer them an escape route but also it serves well their various reasons for involvement. Anyway, for most, time is such a precious commodity that full engagement is not a possibility. Only a problem that restricts freedom and endangers the good of the society in which we live requires greater attention and service. I guess that is why CNN and Fox News carefully screen content and verify competent sources, so we can feel free to bleat like the good little sheep we have become -- the semi-committed.