Constructing/Sustaining a Soft-Heart View of the World: How is it Really Done?

I always comment on something I think is lamentable about the human experience. We ignore the individual when we are trying to solve big problems. In fact, we are educated to think of complex and complicated realities when we think of war and peace, economic crisis, famine, devastation by natural calamities, racism, hate crimes etc. We don't think small. Yeah! Many of us go along with the slogan "Big problems require big solutions." I am as guilty of this as the next person. Especially when dealing with race issues, we look to the great civl rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King jr. for guidance. But in general, America looks to other originators of big ideas like Abraham Lincoln, JFK, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and others; on an international scale, the nations look to the U.N., that great assembly of nations, of humankind.

This intellectual, social, and historical orientation to solve problems and tackle complexities by looking to the collective or leaders of the collective is indeed a cultivated tendency to respond to a grand impulse. But what is often missed is that solutions to problems (great or small) are not always found in the quarters, contrivances, intiatives, and prevarications of the great gatherings of humanity. Who bothers to look small, search at the mircro-level? Who bothers to look to the individual, my needle person in a haystack? We are obsessed with John Donne's great statement: "No man is an island, entire of itself every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main..." This is true! Its entrenchment in our consciousness is a protective armor against deadly creeps of isolationism, withdrawal, and senseless individualism.

But sensible individualism/ individual action is a critical ingredient in the mixture of survival. Instrospection, self-reflection, quiet self-examination are indispensable. While banal, the urge is irrisistible to recall Socratic wisdom in the idea that "The unexamined life is not worth living." At this point, let me point out that Botswana has strict two term limits on how long a person can be president.

Upon the enactment of the two term limit, was there opposition? What do you think? Don't say, "Yes, because African politics is like that, and leaves too much to be desired." Would you say, "Yes, because Lord Acton said, wisely, 'Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.'" Constructing and sustaining a soft-heart view is as much an individual, and perhaps even more, an invidual project than a collective one. Soft-hearts can feed society moral meat; they can make society better. But they have to know that their project is both conscious and subconscious. It is an error to try to render it completely through the conscious mind. One of my concerns would be the emergence of hypocrisy should such a hallowed project be rendered completely through a conscious mind. What would your concern be?

I am sure there was some opposition in Botswana, but the river of tradition and time are waters even the opposition has to deal with. It is entirely possible that inviduals who were ones opposed to short term limits on the presidency in Botswana have become use to it. Perhaps, now it has merged with the individual conscience. Is it not in this context, now, that we can expect the soft-heart view of former presidents of that country to come out and praise a two term limit in a Botswana that is proud of its stabilty?

I am not sure what would happen if you unplugged the consciousness of opposition (political or otherwise) from the ear of conscience? If you know what would happen, leave me a comment about it below.

My deepest thanks for stopping by...Always remember, change begins with you!