“50 percent of life is attitude. The other 50 percent is…
ATTITUDE” someone once said. Attitude is not only defined exclusively in terms of one’s disposition. Disposition counts for 50% and perspective the other 50%. The perspective piece is interesting especially at this time in world, and more directly American, history. Someone once said “attitude reflects leadership”. Our two major political parties are currently displaying America’s version of democracy while they pick the leadership options from which voters will select a President in 2016.
It is with keen interest that many people view the candidates’ slings and arrows of outrageous accusations and grandiose claims. It is the righteousness that seems difficult, for many, to accept. If 100 percent of life is attitude and attitude reflects leadership then if the candidates thoughtfully considered a perspective other than their own, and acknowledged its value, perhaps voters would as well? Similarly, those already in leadership positions, like the US Congress, would then, arguably, reflect that thoughtful attitude? Candidates currently articulate positions diametrically opposed to that of many people (often the majority) with such conviction and righteousness that they seem incredulous that anyone could possibly disagree, or worse, are stupid for the disagreement. If they considered that while they represent those with a certain view, finding another viewpoint valuable and relevant, albeit different, would not make them lesser or weak. In fact, it might actually make them wiser, more thoughtful and enlightened?? Especially for those in a position of national power, where legislation affects the entire nation, could considering the value of alternative perspectives allow them to give more individuals a sense of ownership in the US democracy and thereby improve the attitude of those who participate in it?
If the voters reflect the attitude of the leaders and the leaders’ attitude considered more viewpoints would that not result in a more tolerant, thoughtful debate and greater investment in the process by more individuals? Would greater involvement from more people and thoughtful acceptance and consideration of varied viewpoints create a more vibrant and less bombastic debate? Would that not lead to a far more invested electorate and thereby create a more informed, and therefore better, democracy? If every person running for office made their focus and ultimate goal the electorate’s greater awareness, involvement and understanding of the issues would our democracy not be all the better for it? If 50% of life is attitude and the other 50 % is, well… attitude, then the answer seems to be: yes. Let us hope then that our politicians get an attitude adjustment.