Life isn’t simple by any means. Where you stand observing an event can color all that you see in a way that separates you from every other observer of the same incident. No two eye witnesses ever see the same thing despite our belief in an objective reality of the moment. Clearly these differences in perception can cause problems.
The actions we take in life, those choices we carry out in our living in this material world, each has a reaction. The immutable laws of physics pretty much demand this. Speaking words out loud in a one on one conversation or even setting them down without speaking on paper or a web page are actions. Every single word we communicate can have impacts and repercussions that last far beyond the moment. The ramifications of words spoken can last long after the air carrying the vibrations from larynx to the bones of the middle ear has ceased its moving.
Today these fingers with which I now type seem to have set in motion ripples that have become much bigger waves, much uglier waves at least on an interpersonal level than I ever anticipated. Consequences will follow and I will live with those consequences; there really isn’t any other choice. I am neither happy nor sad with this state of events. What I am is disquieted and disappointed that the people I spoke to didn’t understand and still don’t seem to understand their actions didn’t pass the smell test.
In so many meetings that I attend the phrase “see the big picture” is used. It is trite jargon. Usually the speakers declare the term is shorthand for progressive thinking or for having a focus on organizational good. But what does seeing the big picture really mean? Literally it means to perceive the broadest perspective of an issue or a situation.
When big picture talk is used in a meeting it is usually part of a persuasive syllogism, one asserting that taking a particular course of action is for the greatest good. Having the skill or foresight to really do big picture thinking accurately would be admirable. Goodness knows I wish at times I truly could move beyond my focus on the acute demands of right here, right now.
Too often the real meaning of “seeing the big picture” is more insidious than those four words would seem to convey. More often than not claims of seeing the big picture are merely a way of rationalizing the abuse of some class of persons for the sake of expediency. Actions that would never be taken if you were face to face with all the involved impacted parties, because these schemes don’t pass the smell test, get pushed through with the bigger picture being the banner followed. Poor choices or bad choices get adopted because a persuasive speaker claims “greater good” of “the big picture” demands it. Simply said jargon overrides reality.
You know the smell test mentioned above is really rather simple. As they taught us in legal ethics (yes it is an oxymoron) if it doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t. Versions have been codified by any number of faiths and philosophies; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Christianity laid it out in the New Testament with, “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12. Jumping back to ethics class the instructor circled around to the crux of the application of the smell test for new lawyers, “If it is not your money don’t take it.”
Charitable giving is defined as the kind and generous giving of money or other help to those in need. I spent a good time looking up the components of this phrase recently and nowhere did I find a reference that implied it was still charitable giving if you required others to give. This week I called some people out on an attempt to institute mandatory charitable giving. They backed off. However as a result I have been told pretty much point blank that I have hurt children in a material way and that I am selfish and mean-spirited person. Some of the comments hurt me quite a bit.
I am not ashamed of what I have done. In these rough economic times when our region’s unemployment rate is well into double digits and virtually everyone is facing the risk of job loss, or the loss or reduction of job benefits or of a salary reduction, acting to impose a mandatory charitable gift is indefensible. To begin with the demand for payment negates the “charitable” component. Demanding such a payment, no matter what size or how noble the purpose, was wrong.
Those making the decision should have been taking into consideration the bigger picture of the status of the economy as a whole. Clearly they should have at least thought about the timing of their claim for payment in the midst of the holiday season. Right now is a period when large demands are made on all family coffers. This decision truly needed to be based on the broadest perspective of the situation. Big picture thinking it wasn’t.
Do I have regrets in this situation, absolutely. Do I wish this could have been resolved in another manner, again the answer is absolutely. Do I think it was my actions that brought us to this place of conflict? Absolutely not.
I hope that over time the people who are calling me out right now realize that there were two equally valid viewpoints on what happened here. While helping those in need is a noble cause, you can’t do it by executive fiat. Everyone in this economy is hurting; the demands on family budgets are great. To those that came up with this strategy I say this, next time when you consider sticking your hand into someone’s pocket in a tough economic times ask yourself one question. Would I want someone to treat me this way? Next time I think your choice will be different.
