There is so much pettiness in this world

by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.
    
As I looked at the political picture in the U.S. today, I thought of a quotation by Margaret J. Wheatley that so accurately captured the situation: “In our daily life,” she wrote, “we encounter people who are angry, deceitful, intent only on satisfying their own needs. There is so much anger, distrust, greed, and pettiness that we are losing our capacity to work well together.”  It's embarrassing to admit that we harbor pettiness in our lives, but the fact is that most of us do.
    
Throughout my college-teaching career, I tried to combat pettiness.  For example, it is common knowledge (and frequently illustrated) that we tell books by their covers.  And, too, we often judge a speaker more by his or her delivery than by the substance of the speech.  As much as I would list and thoroughly discuss each of the essential elements — outside of the area of delivery — and emphasize the importance of making decisions of worth based on content, one could never dismiss (and should not!) the role that delivery plays in a speech performance.  But when one weighs one against the other (content versus delivery), the problem is simply that delivery often weighs in at 90-100% of the judgment.
    
I guess it can’t be helped.  Our whole society seems consumed by pettiness.  When celebrity glamor rules the media and people spend their time watching reality shows and the silly antics of people testing their “skills” for a camera, it appears inevitable that pettiness would dominate.  Look at the preoccupations of many of the youth today.  Spending time playing games or texting others reveals a great deal of pettiness and demonstrates how it dominates our lives.  And this youthful model is what sets the stage for a lifetime of pettiness.
    
Pettiness occurs at all levels of our society.  Look at this quotation from the Chronicle of Higher Education , (August 26, 2009) from an article, “On Hiring: Searching for Pettiness,” by Gene C. Fant Jr.: “Obviously, there are professional parameters for business communications, especially in searches, but my point is really that there is a certain level of pettiness that can creep into the selection process, especially when applicants are very numerous. At previous institutions and in my professional network, I’ve heard no’s generated by paper-weight choices (‘lightweight paper makes for lightweight applicants’), by conference-presentation titles (“if it has a colon in it, it must be full of feces”), and even by names (‘I couldn’t work with someone with a name that close to a person from my past whom I hate’).”
    
I ask you now, aren’t these the most petty reasons for rejecting a candidate?
    
When I listen to my 98-year-old father-in-law and hear some of the reasons why he holds a grudge against a popular television newsreader, doesn’t like a particular politician, or fails to appreciate an actor or actress because of a “fatal [petty] flaw.”  I realize how pettiness can reside in people forever.  The French writer Andre Maurois said, “Often we allow ourselves to be upset by small things we should despise and forget. We lose many irreplaceable hours brooding over grievances that, in a year's time, will be forgotten by us and by everybody. No, let us devote our life to worthwhile actions and feelings, to great thoughts, real affections and enduring undertakings.”
    
You might think this essay on pettiness would offer readers ways to overcome it, suggestions for dealing with it, or steps to take to reduce it.  No, I don’t think it can be helped.  We are a petty society led by petty politicians, petty news media, and an entire entertainment industry that caters to, dotes on, and proclaims pettiness through its reports, programs, and productions.  How in the world could all of that be reduced or made manageable?
    
I think the most important consideration of all is simply to understand it.  Whether we like it or not, other people will be petty.  So often, understanding it helps put it into perspective: “Oh, that’s Edgar being petty again.”  You hear it; you understand it; you accept it; and you dismiss it.
    
Nobody wants to be petty, but everyone is.
    
There are, it’s true, several ways each of us has to try to control (rein in!) our own pettiness.  For example, I thought this quotation from the website, inspiration-for-singles.com is especially poignant and carries a great deal of wisdom: “When small-mindedness creeps into our lives, it's usually a gradual process. Overcoming it is a gradual process, too. I've found that building and maintaining my self-esteem is a lifelong job. When I battle pettiness in myself, I try to remember the Golden Rule: I don't like it when people are nasty to me, so I shouldn't be nasty to others.
    
“It's a challenge to be pleasant and cheerful when you don't feel well or when you've just suffered some tragedy or defeat in your life. But it's always wise to think very carefully before you lash out.”
    
I have discovered an amazing elixir — a potion intended to cure one's pettiness — and that is work.  That is, I have found that when I pour myself into my work with focus, deep penetration, and perseverance, I do not have the time, interest, or need to be petty.  And, although this is certainly not universally true, pettiness is for lightweights — the unintellectual, undemanding, insubstantial, shallow people.  You see, I use such an internal pronouncement — knowing that it is not universally true! — to convince myself I do not qualify to be among those who want to be petty.  It helps keep me above the fray, and when I dip down, as a bird diving to retrieve an insect, I remind myself of this pronouncement, and it helps me regain altitude.
    
Along with this pronouncement, I have discovered, too, compassion.  Petty people are unlikely to change — ever!  And although it is tough at times, I have the need to summon the courage to respond to pettiness and petty people with its antidote — compassion.  I try to find ways to wish them good will, or, as is more often the case, to avoid them altogether.
    
“Those who occupy their minds with small matters,” said Francois de La Rochefoucauld, “generally become incapable of greatness.”  Although I am not seeking greatness, nor will I ever, such a quote offers some sanity in this world of pettiness.  I don’t get involved with it, I don’t try to change others, and I don’t lower myself to their level.  If you see pettiness of any kind, do as I do, smile, understand it, appreciate it for the pettiness that it is, and go on with your life.  It was Winston Churchill who said, “Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense”
- - - - - - -
At the website, EzineArticles.com, the essay by Michael Arthur Moore, “Mean Spirited and Petty People - How to Deal With Them Effectively,” at least five specific suggestions.  This essay is definitely worth reading.  His final paragraph reads: “Happiness is up to each and every one of us. We control our surroundings for the most part. Taking personal responsibility for your actions is the road to happiness.”

The essay, “How to deal with difficult people,” at SelfGrowth.com offers seven terrific suggestions.  After making her suggestions, Brenda concludes her essay saying: “Without a doubt, there will be difficult people who appear upon your path. It is your choice how you wish to deal with them. Hopefully, I have provided a guide to help you make choices that work for you.”
- - - - - - - - -
Copyright October, 2012, by And Then Some Publishing L.L.C.

The messages people don't want to hear

by Richard L. Weaver II, Ph.D.    

What prompted me to make a return visit to my seven “Messages” essays is the current state of politics in America.  This is not designed as a political essay, and I am trying not to take sides; however, the political climate, best symbolized in the expression, “the party of ‘no,’” brought my “Messages” essays to mind.  I haven’t written an essay entitled, “Messages Politicians Need to Hear,” but the political climate certainly encourages me to make the effort.  It would easily fall into line with six of the other seven “Messages” essays, the essential message of which is: “take responsibility for yourself and your behavior.”
    
Forget about potential political ramifications; forget about the rejectionist strategy they're following (oppose Democratics at every turn, regardless of policy difference) as a political tool; and forget prognosticators who predict outcomes of such behavior (benefits or mistakes?), because what it all boils down to—no matter which side you’re on—a complete abdication of responsibility.  It’s obstructionist politics and political score settling at its worst, and it is our country and its citizens who suffer the most.  

It doesn’t matter what the issue is, whether it is spending, taxes, unemployment benefits, jobs, the environment, support for small businesses, energy, intervention in the economy, etc., one side is opposed to change of any kind if it is supported by the administration.  That doesn’t reveal politicians representing their citizens and the country.  (Of course, some would claim that’s exactly what it is.)  What does it reveal?  Selfishness, self-interest, self-serving, self-indulgent, and self-importance.  
    
When it all comes down to the two positions: 1) Democrats are helped if any bill passes, and, 2) Republicans make gains if any bill the administration supports fails, then our country and its citizens are left bereft of any concern by those chosen to represent them.  Our country and its citizens are, as a result, not part of the equation and play no role in what takes place in congress..  
    
It is too bad that integrity, common sense, and responsibility are not characteristics one would assign to most of our congressmen.  It’s too bad that more of them cannot feel liberated from an urgent need to satisfy their interpretation of the feelings and needs of their constituents as well as their donors and interest groups.   It’s too bad more of them cannot become freed from the shackles of party loyalty and be spared attack by the opposition so they can vote intelligently, vote their conscience, and vote in favor of positive, productive change for the good.  It is only upon the announcement of retirement when this can or does this take place—if at all.
    
Here is what Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, served for 34 years in Congress representing Indiana's Ninth District, currently serving on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council, and director of the Woodrow Wilson Center on Congress at Indiana University, writes about the job of a congressman, “Politicians keep the country going by accommodating different points of view and developing consensus. It really does take a lot of skills to be an effective congressman, but the skill of bringing people together, finding agreed-upon solutions to our nation's problems, is perhaps the greatest skill of all. Without that skill the country would come apart at the seams.”  That would be my expectation as well.  Does that sound like it represents politicians who have been labeled by some, “the party of ‘no’”?
    
I have always believed that my representatives—whether senators or members of the House---operate with the “consent of the governed.”  Their job is to strive to make sure that their constituents' voices are heard and their interests are fairly considered within the federal system.
    
As I was looking for information for this essay, I came across the following ezine@rticle, “A Job Description for Congress,” by S. Vance: 

          “Wanted. Genial, ethical, trustworthy, highly intelligent, photogenic worker who plays well     with others. Must be willing to fight tooth and nail for the interests of his or her region while also maintaining a national perspective [italics mine]. Will be responsible for approximately 750,000 to several million customers, depending on the region. Must be able to work independently, but not TOO independently.”
    
What I found interesting is that my seven essays on “Messages,” reflect many of the same problems even though they focus on other groups.  For example, “The Message Citizens Don’t Want to Hear,” discusses the responsibility that citizens have to vote: “The problem is that democracies require more than just an occasional vote from its citizens to remain healthy. It may well be that the lack of steady attention, time, and commitment from many people has resulted in where we are today and what we have. I’m not saying that it did, but I would contend that with greater information, more informed (and perhaps better) choices would and could be made.”  
    
In “The Message Men Don’t Want to Hear,” I claim, “If we are to have a generation of civil, slender, readers, with manners, then it is mandatory that parents take charge. Children and teenagers will be as responsible as their parents were in raising them. Sure, it’s a message parents don’t want to hear, but it is a message of parental responsibility that is important to society as well as the next generation.”  In “The Message Relationship Partners Don’t Want to Hear,” the problem is commitment: “One area of relationships those who are just starting out either don’t realize, don’t understand, or simply don’t know is what a “commitment” to a relationship means.”  Do our congressmen know what a commitment to represent our country and its citizens mean?
    
In the essay, “The Message Students Don’t Want to Hear,” I end the essay saying: “Drop the excuses, change your attitude, and recognize that it’s all up to you!”  In, “The Message Women Don’t Want to Hear,” my final line in the essay reads, “Just remember that, in the end, the burden for the strength and endurance of your relationship falls squarely on your shoulders.”
    
Here’s my point.  People must take responsibility for their lives, true, but they must be responsible, too, to the job at hand—whether it is citizens, relationship partners, men, women, or politicians.  They must take responsibility for those who voted them into office.  Voted them into office!
-----
Although the web site is biased, but Timothy Delasandro writes an interesting essay, “What We Want in Our Next Congressman."   His prerequisites: 1. We want a Congressman that will actually vote our values.  2.We want a Congressman that is available to us.  3. We want a Congressman that isn’t a professional politician.

At the Examiner web site, Dave Benjamin writes an essay entitled, “Congressman discusses responsibilities of office ‘It’s not easy,’  Holt says during visit to classes at Marlboro High School.”  Benjamin talks about Rep. Rush Holt and quotes him as saying: "It’s part of my job to give voice to what’s on your mind and to represent you in that way." But how long does this intention last when money, lobbyists, and special interests raise their ugly head.
-----
Copyright January, 2011, by And Then Some Publishing, LLC.