The Man in the Arena (Part Three)

(This is the third and final segment in this series.  The previous segments (Part One and Part Two) documented the advantages of flying under the radar. But sometimes, flying under the radar just doesn't fly.  More is necessary.  A different approach may be required.)

Are there advantages to being in the arena, as opposed to flying under the radar?  How effectively can light be projected from under a bush?

Despite the apparent advantages of flying under the radar, it is not without valid criticism, mainly highlighted by the old adage that “talk is cheap.”  Anyone can talk, but doing is the hard part.  In truth, there is something most favorable to infer from the image of the gladiator in the ring, as opposed to the spectator on the sidelines.  As Theodore Roosevelt reminds us:

It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.  The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

T.R.’s famous Man in the Arena quote was meant as an attack on skeptics “of lettered leisure” who, cloistered together in academia, “sneered” at anyone who tried to make the real world better.

And then there is the following quote from Christ, which appears in the Holy Gospel of Matthew:

Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works … 

It’s both easy and convenient to sit back and criticize, rather than take action.  This is because human nature is such that ordinary people are naturally averse to change.  Change involves the unknown, which generates the fear response in human nature.  It follows logically, then, that the unknown is feared.  It also follows that certain individuals have figured out that ordinary citizens can be controlled en masse simply through use of scare tactics.

This phenomenon helps to explain, in part, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous quote, during the very depths of the Great Depression of the early 1930s:

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

F.D.R. was speaking of the Great Depression, and its effect on the morale of ordinary Americans.  He was saying, essentially, that if the mass of ordinary citizens could not shake out of their pessimistic economic outlook, then it would be difficult, if not impossible, to turn things around.  In the election that brought F.D.R. to the presidency, his adversary had campaigned on a platform which called for no change from the status quo.  This despite economic conditions that had brought record and, in fact, staggering national unemployment numbers, hunger and bread lines.

More recently, former President George W. Bush/“43” seemed to deftly transform the tragic events of September 11, 2001 (“9/11”) into a successful politics of fear campaign.  Many have said that his successful exploitation of this particular vice of human nature assured his re-election to a second term.  National security was said to be at risk.  Whether it was or was not involves another discussion.

But, consequently, many of the personal freedoms to which ordinary citizens had become accustomed, including the right to free speech, were curtailed, under the provisions of the Patriot Act.  While there is ample legal precedent for this in US History, President Bush reduced that precedent to an art form, deploying the familiar “Listen to me, or we’re all doomed” politics of fear rhetoric.

Here is seemingly yet another useful lesson in the science of human nature.  Staying the course, and avoiding change, even at seemingly exorbitant cost, is the easier and preferred method.  Human beings are imitative creatures of habit, by nature, comfortable with the routine they know.  Life outside the box (of accepted knowledge or practice), so to speak, is unsettling, even troubling.  Content with the world they know, most ordinary citizens rarely challenge themselves even with minimal risk, perceived to be inordinate and thus unacceptable.

We've all heard the familiar expression that “the devil is in the details.”  Implementing change involves many details that involve experiment and thus can be worked out neither in advance nor easily.  Absent some precedent that provides a known comfort level that ordinary citizens can latch on to, the devil we know typically is preferable to the devil we don’t.  This helps to explain why many ordinary citizens will decline the prospect of a new job.  Even though the potential reward may be greater, the details are unclear, and the risk of the unknown is consequently too great and therefore unacceptable.

Put another way, if you want something you’ve never had before, you have to do something you’ve never done before.  But which is the better approach: flying under the radar or being the man in the arena?  The debate remains an interesting one on the path to human progress.

-Michael D'Angelo