Our culture puts a premium on individuality. Other cultures have more of an emphasis on the group or society as a whole. Here in the US, we're all about how we each are unique and have the right, if not the responsibility to exercise that uniqueness in all that we do. While this is an admirable concept, sometimes I think it's taken a bit too far. We hear of young adults entering the workforce who have been ceaselessly showered with praise for their uniqueness to the point that they can't imagine that an employer might expect them to do something unpleasant or worse, something that is not "interesting.”
Generally, these pampered individuals find their way to independence after a few jobs and bosses help them to learn that work is, well, work, and not entertainment. If they have any innate intelligence, they do find their way, leaving their baffled parents in their wake, wondering, often while still doing the kids' laundry, why everyone is treating their little Muffin so rudely.
These naive folks are just an indicator of a problem and not it's entirety. I don't want to see American culture abandon it's emphasis on individuality. It certainly makes life more interesting. But a little correction on the extreme end of things might be in order.
Our last presidential election featured liberal, as in frequent, use of the word, maverick. Maverick is defined in one dictionary as "one who resists adherence to a group; someone who exhibits great independence in thought and action.” This style of political identity has gained in popularity since then. We've reached the point where it's politically risky to belong to just about any group lest it be used to point out that you are not a maverick. This seems to put members of the major political parties in an awkward position. How can you be a maverick if you follow party lines? But, if you don't follow party lines, you won't be a member of the party for long. It's a puzzle. Actually, it reminds me of junior high kids, all rebelling, struggling to be unique individuals, in exactly the same way as their peers. Really, how unique can they be when 90% of them look and dress exactly alike? How can everyone be a maverick or an outsider? Who's left to be part of the group?
I notice that the 2010 iteration of the "maverick” is what I call the "aginner”. That would refer to candidates who are against not only the other candidates, but the entirety of the group they are running to become a part of. Frankly, they seem to be against everything, just for the sake of being against everything. How does that work? If they are successful and do gain a seat on the board they are running for, they face a group of people who they've completely insulted as inept, if not negligent. How can there possibly be any constructive dialogue after that kind of entry? If we've learned anything, for government to run, we need constructive dialogue from everyone.
The general mood of the electorate these days is angry. Angry at the recession, angry at business, angry at the government, angry at the world. So, maybe this angry tone to campaigns is appealing to the angry voting block. I just wonder what kind of representation we'll end up with if voters pick a candidate based upon how angry they are. Angry people do not make good representatives on any board. Principled is good, rational is good, free-thinking is good, consistent is good, intelligent is good. Anger, while providing some excellent sound bites, is not .
I realize that we want and need a variety of opinions involved in our governing boards, and there are plenty of reasons to be unhappy with how government is operated, but you have to be able to have productive dialogue with your fellow board members or you will not be a productive member of that board. Being against everything, may brand you a "maverick”, but it's not good for the smooth running of the board, nor for the people who put you in office.
Here's hoping that voters aren't seeing red when they vote in next week's election.
Missy Layfield Editor