Content provided in partnership with
You have the power to stop the pandering
Lutheran, The, Feb 2004 by Simon, Paul
Start by listening for the truth instead of the popular
Checking into a motel or hotel, frequently you find a small sign inside your room that can be placed outside the door: Do Not Disturb. That sign hangs invisibly, but not unnoticed, on too many churches.
It's part of what I call "our culture of pandering." There is a cancer of pandering in politics, in the media, in education and in religious practices (Our Culture of Pandering, Paul Simon; Southern Illinois University Press, 2003).
Many of you reading this will agree and say to yourselves: "They should stop pandering." True. But there is another truth: We all should create an atmosphere in which such behavior isn't rewarded.
- Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »
Let me visit with you briefly about pandering in politics and in religion. Far too many in both political parties tell us over and over what we want to hear, what the latest polls suggest is popular. That's particularly obvious in this presidential election year. Jesus' words are worth reflecting upon: "Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets" (Luke 6:26). Candidates and officeholders who tell you only what is popular, only what you want to hear, are indeed false prophets.
This tendency to pander has always existed, but polling has made it into a science. We now know with great accuracy what the public thinks, and all of us-politicians and non-politicians-prefer plaudits to criticisms, victory to defeat.
The preface to my book says: "We have spawned 'leadership' that does not lead, that panders to our whims rather than telling us the truth, that follows the crowd rather than challenging us, that weakens us rather than strengthening us. It is easy to go downhill, and we are now following that easy path. Pandering is not illegal, but it is immoral. It is doing the convenient when the right course demands inconvenience and courage."
Far too many in both political parties tell us that we can drift into becoming a better nation and creating a better world. Few suggest that real sacrifice is necessary-unless we serve in the Armed Forces. So for the first time in the nation's history, we invade another nation, creating a conflict-and at the same time vote ourselves a tax cut. That is one example. Unfortunately there are many more.
The reality is that if I want to improve my house, I have to be willing to make a small sacrifice. And if we want to improve our nation and world, it will require making small sacrifices. If we are unwilling to make these sacrifices now, eventually we will be forced into making large and bloody sacrifices.
In an address at Southern Illinois University's Carbondale campus, former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney said: "We are a generation raised on the bizarre proposition that leadership should be equated with popularity. ... Presidents and prime ministers are not chosen to seek popularity. They are chosen to provide leadership. There are times when voters must be told not what they want to hear but what they have to know. ... Time is the ally of leaders who place the defense of principle ahead of the pursuit of popularity."
People who willingly did the unpopular gave us the Marshall Plan and the GI Bill-both now viewed as "motherhood and apple pie." But not when they passed. The first poll taken after Harry Truman and George Marshall called for this big aid program showed only 14 percent of the public supported it. They were asking us to assist Germany, which had just killed many of our sons and brothers and fathers.
And Truman had to deal with a Republican Congress. But the Republican leader on foreign policy, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, said that while the president's proposal was unpopular, the Marshall Plan would serve the long-range best interest of the nation and he would support it. We would not have had this crucial program that saved Western Europe from communism and from hunger without courageous leadership from key people in both political parties, people who were willing to risk their popularity.
The education plan, which became known as the GI Bill, faced the alternative of a large cash bonus, which public opinion and several veterans' organizations favored. To their credit, American Legion leaders fought hard for the education program, and it emerged from the key House-Senate conference committee by one vote.
The GIB ill turned out to be the most important economic thrust forward for our nation in the last century-and important in the lives of many of you who read these words today because your parents or grandparents benefited from a college education, which many could not have afforded.
Using religion for political ends
Prevalent as pandering is in politics, it can be even more destructive when political leaders add religion to the mix.
The cause of much of the conflict in the world today has its roots in religion. Faith can be a powerful force for healing or for harm. Political leaders in many nations (including ours) far too often use religion for political purposes, rather than quietly practicing their faith.
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: News
Most Popular Articles in Reference
- The importance of understanding organizational culture
- Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
- What factors attract foreign direct investment?
- Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...
- How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques
- More »