Don’t Always Follow Leaders

Dearest Rachel –

I mentioned yesterday about reading through my news feed as part of my body’s scheme to distract my mind from getting everybody up and out of the house to work on getting back into shape, particularly after a couple of days in a row in which I’d had a heavy meal at the center of the day (although I don’t think I mentioned that explicitly, I think that has been mentioned in passing over the past couple of letters). To be sure, my mind eventually won out, but only after being more than willing to let itself be inveigled into further distraction by the news of the day.

And for good reason; while the affairs of this cosmic dust speck may no longer concern you, even insofar as they might affect those of us you left behind, things keep accelerating around here overall. I recently heard some opinion writer, whose living depends on the ever-increasing proliferation of news stories, bemoaning the fact that even he couldn’t take time off from the cycle without returning to a world in further chaos. “Whatever happened to the ‘slow news day’?” he complained, and I can sympathize. Some days, you just want to take a break, but when your job is to comment upon what’s happening, and it just keeps happening, it’s got to get frustrating, and tiring.

Some of this might be due to simply being as perpetually interconnected as we are; we can get news from any corner of the globe at any time, and with nearly eight billion inhabitants, many of which are clamoring for their allotted fifteen minutes of fame (seemingly unaware of the undesirability of common variants such as ‘infamy’ and ‘idiocy,’ which tend to outnumber cases of true fame), there’s going to be something going on everywhere all the time. This situation would exist even with a much smaller population; even a billion is an unfathomably large number, a topic I’ll touch on later this week. One-tenth this number of people we currently have would still produce as many stories on a daily basis for us to never be able to keep up with, and in this day and age, we can be confronted by them all, should we wish to (and even if we don’t).

In fact, they come at us so thick and fast that we don’t have time to make heads or tails of them. At the same time, whenever a big story breaks, people come out of the woodwork like roaches on a tasty morsel left unattended, all claiming to be an expert on the subject at hand.

I bring this up to acknowledge that I’m not immune to this reaction, and at no time during the week is this brought home to me than during the days when I meet up with Lars to go walking together (although given the rain we’re expecting today, it will probably be over at the fashion outlet mall rather than the woods over east by his area. We’re swapping out an enclosed, urban wilderness for a manicured version of the real thing). He and I have somewhat mutually exclusive news feeds that we have a tendency to compare and contrast, each heavily spiced with our own opinions and perspectives as we walk along together. His is heavily Eurocentric, although he’s as contemptuous of the Brussels Brahmans as I am, albeit for a different reason – he simply disagrees with them vehemently, whereas I, as an American, consider them all but irrelevant. For once, though, I’m feeling a little self-conscious of my opinionated ways.

Not because I think they’re wrong, as such – if I did, I would change them, after all – but because I’m starting to doubt their tensile strength. It’s a little out of character for me; thanks to our walking discussions, I’ve been increasingly less reluctant to express my opinions on the follies of this global situation or the other (or, in today’s setting, my disdain for the over-the-top materialism that the mall embodies, especially at the absurd prices – even for a so-called ‘outlet’ mall – they seem to be able to command). So why would I be suddenly self-conscious about offering opinions about what’s going on at this particular point in time?

Well, you see, the more I absorb of the news, the more I realize I haven’t got the whole picture of anything that’s really going on, and more to the point, the reasons behind them. Certain scenarios are obvious examples; they don’t call it the ‘fog of war’ for no reason. But then there are things where everyone can see what has happened, but the motivation why is the sticking point. Everyone wants to blame the other side for what just happened; this guy that shot up a state representative and her husband was either a left-winger or a right-winger, depending on who you ask, and there is enough evidence to back either side up (as long as you ignore the contradictory evidence). But what if he’s just a nut, who’s been pushed into action by circumstances (or even is so nutty that he thinks he’s been pushed into it? A lot of people go through severe difficulties in life without thinking they have no other choice but to shoot some political figure)?

But no, everyone has to be out there first with their assessment of the situation, regardless of what the facts turn out to be. And I’m sure Lars will ask me about my opinion on what happened, and why this guy flipped out and did this – certainly, for a fellow to have a hit list as long as one’s arm suggest more than just suddenly ‘snapping’; there’s so premeditation involved here. But I suspect this will take some digging to get to the true motivation behind it all, and by the time everything is uncovered and sorted out – and let me remind you, I’d bet excellent money that none of the initial assessments will come close to the truth – the world will have moved on to the next dozen other crises, and the story will have been utterly forgotten, as will the truth about the guy’s motives. No corrections will be brought up, no apologies will be made; why bother? The public isn’t going to be paying attention, anyway, and it’s not like the truth serves the narrative anyone was hoping to push.

Anyway, I know you didn’t ask for this opinion of mine, honey. Certainly, not like I expect Lars to in a couple of hours. But you got it, anyway; I hope you don’t mind. It’s like one of the many conversations we used to have, back in the day, and I wish we still could; trying to hold this up on my own is both awkward and tiring.

I guess I’m trying to work through my own thoughts on the subject, and rehearse what I’m going to say to him about this. Granted, I still have to go through a healthy handful of other topics, too, but this one seems the most obviously murky, and while someone reading over your shoulder would know the specifics of this particular situation in a way you wouldn’t, I’ve written it vaguely enough that they might understand how this applies to just about everything else out there. Everybody wants to lead the charge against what’s wrong with society, as exemplified by this guy. But the fact of the matter is, those would-be leaders only think they know where they’re going with these conclusions they’ve jumped to, and by the time they get there, they might well be so far removed from the truth that any analogy they would want to draw from the case will be hopelessly shattered. Not that they’re likely to admit it, nor will their followers notice.

And while I can’t imagine being one of those thought leaders – I can’t bring myself to risk being so confidently wrong, even if I might be right – I certainly don’t think it’s a good idea to be one of those followers. Again, this isn’t something you have to worry about, in a place where the Truth reigns supreme and eternal, but it’s something I’m picking up on here, and had to share with you; whether you think I’m approaching enlightenment or not by coming to this realization, I suppose you’ll let me know when I join you (if I don’t forget between now and then). For the time being, though, keep an eye on me – especially so I don’t go back on this insight – and wish me luck; I’m going to need it.