‘How could I have been so stupid?’

“President John F. Kennedy asked that after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He called it a ‘colossal mistake.’ It left him feeling depressed, guilty, bitter, and in tears. One historian later called the Bay of Pigs, ‘one of those rare events in history — a perfect failure.’” [https://probe.org/jfk-and-groupthink-lessons-in-decision-making/]

It takes courage to ask oneself, ‘How could I have been so stupid?’

Consider: “John F. Kennedy had long been interested in the topic of political courage, beginning with his senior thesis at Harvard. [Kennedy’s] election to the House in 1946 and the Senate in 1952 gave him personal experience in dealing with the conflicting pressures that legislators face. 

“When Kennedy took a leave of absence from the Senate in 1954 to recover from back surgery, it gave him the opportunity to study the topic of political courage. The project resulted in the publication of Profiles in Courage, which focuses on the careers of eight Senators whom Kennedy felt had shown great courage under enormous pressure from their parties and their constituents. 

“Profiles in Courage, which Kennedy dedicated to his wife Jacqueline Kennedy, received the Pulitzer Prize for biography in 1957. 

“Defining Political Courage. In the preface to Profiles in Courage, Senator Kennedy discusses the ‘problems of political courage in the face of constituent pressures, and the light shed on those problems by the lives of past statesmen.’ He describes the three types of pressure faced by senators as pressure to be liked, pressure to be re-elected, and pressure of the constituency and interest groups.

“John F. Kennedy explains that the book is about his admiration of the courage shown by elected leaders in the face of adverse factions like their electorates, popular opinion and political action committees that pull these elected men in different directions. He writes: ‘This is a book about that most admirable of human virtues – courage. ‘Grace under pressure,’ Ernest Hemingway defined it.” [https://www.jfklibrary.org/events-and-awards/profile-in-courage-award/about-the-book]

Kennedy is sorely missed today given the present occupant of the White House. “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”

A pillar of the conservative movement, George Will, doesn’t mince words in assessing Trump: “I believe that what this president has done to our culture, to our civic discourse ... you cannot unring these bells and you cannot unsay what he has said, and you cannot change that he has now in a very short time made it seem normal for schoolboy taunts and obvious lies to be spun out in a constant stream. I think this will do more lasting damage than Richard Nixon’s surreptitious burglaries did.” [George Will's startling assessment of Donald Trump, Chris Cillizza, THE POINT, CNN, 15th Jul 2019]

Can Trump demonstrate political courage in the face of constituent pressures? Alternatively, can he speak to the rest of the world? “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

“Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.”

Here’s another conservative on Trump: “Don't get me wrong. Even though hate speech – speech that expresses hatred for people, as opposed to hatred for ideas – stings and hurts, it is constitutionally protected. The remedy for hate speech is not to silence the hater but to shame him. And the most effective way to do that is with more speech.

“But when the hate speech comes from a shameless president, we have a problem.

“The problem is that presidential hatred produces division among people and destroys peaceful dialogue. When thousands of people at a Trump rally in North Carolina recently chanted, ‘Send her back’ referring to a congresswoman born in Somalia – and Trump tweeted that the four congresswomen (including three born in the U.S.)  should ‘Go back’ to where they came from – the inescapable image was of a president trying to divide rather than unite.” [Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump has unleashed a torrent of hatred, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Fox News, 21st Jul 2019]

Will Trump ever ask, ‘How could I have been so stupid?’ 

Let’s bring it closer to home, will Juan de la Cruz ever ask, ‘How could I have been so stupid?’

Can we say, “the glass is half-empty?” Optimism and euphemism aren’t the same. The latter is evasiveness.

Can Juan de la Cruz say, how could I have been so stupid, that I applauded the killing of people in the name of the war on drugs yet clueless if this is the answer to the ills of the nation? [See above re freedom of man.]

That I wrote the Constitution not to attract FDI? Consider: We claim we are today open to the idea, but how come we can’t seem to move forward?

Can Juan de la Cruz say, how could I have been so stupid, that I did not beg for Western money and technology like our neighbors? That I embraced the OFW phenomenon and not pursue industrialization? That I am decades behind in infrastructure development?

Here’s a quote from a recent posting: “The American Psychological Association confirms that recent research suggests that Westerners and East Asians see the world differently.

“The researchers have found increasing evidence that East Asians, whose more collectivist culture promotes group harmony and contextual understanding of situations, think more holistically. They pay attention to all the elements of a scene, to context and the relationships between items. Western culture, in contrast, emphasizes personal autonomy and formal logic, and so Westerners are more analytic and pay attention to (particular) objects and categories.

“What’s the bottom line? Our neighbors awed the rest of the world and earned the recognition as Asian Tigers, because of the economic miracles they demonstrated.

“In the meantime, they left us in the dust as the regional laggard because our instincts spell conformity. ‘Pinoy kasi’ is to conform.”

In other words, we’re East Asians, and claim that we are more holistic than Westerners, how come we can’t be like our neighbors? For example, how come we don’t demonstrate the contextual understanding of an ecosystem, or how to traverse the journey from poverty to prosperity?

An ecosystem is about connecting the dots (although it is also how Steve Jobs defined creativity.) That is why the blog doesn’t tire of pointing out our instincts because what we created is an ecosystem in reverse, aka a perfect storm: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism, rely on political patronage and oligarchy, that at the end of the day, ours is a culture of impunity. They rob us of dynamism and foresight.

What to do? Recall the blog introduced the concept of “perceptive judgment.” It is a function of experience, where the lack of it explains one’s inability to navigate across the continuum of the two extremes of dualism and relativism.

For example, a person stuck in dualism or ideology can’t demonstrate dynamism when he has only hatred for the contrary view.

On the other hand, given their way of life, those that live out tolerance and diversity, as in pluralism (“E Pluribus Unum,” the de facto motto of the United States and appears on its Great Seal, until Congress passed H.J. Resolution 396, adopting “In God We Trust” as the official motto), are more predisposed to recognize their limitations. “How could I have been so stupid?”

There is a spiritual and a secular dimension to the dilemma: (a) the Ignatian principle of indifference and (b) lateral and creative thinking. For the latter, Edward de Bono’s 6 Thinking Hats come to mind, their (a) impact on what Economics calls “opportunity cost,” that there is no free lunch and (b) how to leverage big data and analytics. 

The Ignatian principle of indifference is training us to think with wisdom [insight, perception, or astuteness] and fortitude [grit, determination, or courage]. 

Wisdom and fortitude distinguish analytics from big data. Alternatively, beyond the trivial many is the vital few, as in Pareto. How do we sift through big data if we’re stuck in ideology? How can we embrace the challenge of innovation and global competitiveness if we’re bogged down by dualism?

For instance, why did we celebrate the OFW phenomenon instead of borrowing from Economics and pursuing the “opportunity cost” of industrialization? See below re national prosperity and the competitive advantage of nations.

The blog welcomed the election of P’Noy because Arangkada was fresh off the oven and in time to present to the new administration. Sadly, we don’t talk much about industrialization and Arangkada. 

It also is tremendously disheartening that we want to address poverty but don’t exploit the “opportunity cost” of development. Is that reflective of shortsightedness?

We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. All we need is to borrow from the playbook of our neighbors. On the other hand, the more industrialization gets farther from our grasp, the more entrenched and fortified we make oligarchy. 

It’s the tyranny by the few, with a little help from us in the elite class, and why we’re “the most unequal” nation in the region. Who is the bigger economy, India, or China? Both have roughly the same population size, but one has the caste system. So, what else is new? In our case, we’ve long paid lip service to Rizal!

Why can’t we see beyond the here and now? We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism, rely on political patronage and oligarchy, that at the end of the day, ours is a culture of impunity. They rob us of dynamism and foresight.

Gising bayan!

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“Now I know why Paul dared to speak of ‘the curse of the law’ (Galatians 3:13). Law reigns and discernment is unnecessary, which means there is little growth or change in such people. When you do not grow, you remain an infant.” [Faith and Science, Open to Change, Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation, 23rd Oct 2017]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“National prosperity is created, not inherited. It does not grow out of a country’s natural endowments, its labor pool, its interest rates, or its currency’s value, as classical economics insists . . . A nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade.” [The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990]

“You have to have a dream, whether big or small. Then plan, focus, work hard and be very determined to achieve your goals.” [Henry Sy Sr., Chairman Emeritus and Founder, SM Group (1924 - 2019)]

“Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow.” [William Pollard, 1911-1989, physicist-priest, Manhattan Project]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]