ar∙bi∙ter noun
1. A person selected to judge a dispute; umpire; 2. a person fully
authorized or qualified to judge or decide
There are two sides to every disagreement. Not necessarily
equivalent sides. Sometimes one side is in the right and the other is in the
wrong.
If we are in the position of being the arbiter, we do harm
if we dismiss the differences. All of us at some point are the arbiter—the authority
needed to make a just ruling among disputing parties. So today’s post is about
learning to be a good one.
Example 1: You are the parent of two children who are
quarreling—at least at the point you arrive on the scene. Both kids are giving
you their side.
found here |
Sister: “He took my cookie.”
Brother: “No, I didn’t.”
Sister: “He did. Look. He’s still
eating it.”
Brother: “It was my cookie, not hers.”
Sister: “He took his already. I was
going to eat it right after I finished my lunch.”
Brother: “It was just sitting there;
everyone was done. One cookie left—I took it.”
Sister: “He knew it was mine.”
At some point you get tired of
hearing the complaints. You stop listening to the details, and just want it to
stop.
Parent: “No more cookies for either
of you the rest of the day. You don’t deserve any if you’re going to fight over
them.”
Parent sees the argument has been
silenced and breathes a sigh of relief. Brother smirks at sister; he’s
finishing his second cookie, and she gets none. Sister gets no cookie, because
hers was stolen. And she has learned that she cannot trust the arbiter to deal
with the injustice to make things right for her.
Example 2: Big guy walks down the school hallway, bumps into
little guy, knocks him aside, gives a little extra nudge and causes him to drop
his books. This is the third time in a week this exact thing has happened.
Little guy: “Hey! Cut it out, you jerk!
Big guy (stops): “You talking to me.”
Little guy (stands up after picking up
mess—says nothing, just glares).
Big guy: “You need help with those things?” (knocks books
again, blocks a punch from Little guy, then tries to punch him.)
Fight ensues. Other students surround them in a growing
circle. A teacher steps out of a classroom. Tries to step between them to break
up the fight.
Teacher: “Hey. Stop! No fighting
allowed.”
Big guy: “He started it.”
Little guy: “He started it. He knocked
my books to the floor—twice.”
Big guy: “He punched me.”
Little guy: “After he’s been shoving me
around.”
Teacher: “I don’t want to hear it. No fighting allowed at
school. Both of you—straight to the principal’s office.” (Walks them there.)
The teacher stopped the fight; he’s satisfied. Big guy and
Little guy will both get reprimanded equally by the principal, because of the
“no fighting” rule. So the Big guy has done additional damage to Little Guy
without much effort or risk. The Little guy gets punished because he stood up
to a bully after being victimized several times.
What would a just arbiter do in these circumstances?
·
Pay attention.
·
Hear both sides.
·
Weigh the evidence.
·
Make a wise judgment.
·
Base consequences on what actually happened.
That may be more challenging than it looks, since judging
whether a person is lying is a somewhat rare skill. But these are kids. You
ought to be able to ascertain some truth, if you’re attentive and caring.
Some years ago I read about a family (too long ago for me to
know how to cite the story) that held court. If a contention came up during the
day, Mom could ask if this was something they wanted to take before the court
of Dad. When Dad got home on these days—maybe after dinner—he would hold court
around his desk. Each child in turn would present his side, including evidence,
and possibly testimony from witnesses. Sometimes the true wrongdoer just gave
up. But just about without fail, the Dad court could tell, after hearing both
sides and paying attention to the evidence presented, what really happened. And
then he could mete out consequences.
He did those five steps. And the result was that whoever was
in the wrong (like the cookie stealer) would be held accountable. The one who
got her cookie stolen would feel vindicated and supported. Right and wrong are
put safely in their places. Both kids are better off for it.
At school it’s a little more challenging—yet another reason
to homeschool. Still, a lot depends on what the teacher does, and follow that
with what the principal does. If the principal assumes both are equally guilty,
because of the no fighting rule, then she has been unfair to the victim of the
bully, and she hasn’t done anything to reform the bully.
Wouldn’t it be better if the principal heard both
sides—possibly separately—and heard from witnesses when possible? Maybe look at
the record (chances are a bully, in a school with a just arbiter, would have a
record). Then the bully might even learn what kind of behavior is unacceptable
among civilized people—which ought to be an important part of education.
So, what about bigger, grown-up challenges?
Example 3: Israel exists in a country about the size of New
Jersey, surrounded by enemies, subject to frequent, continual attacks. The
“Palestinians” have been refugees since 1948, when they joined with the enemies
of Israel to annihilate Israel—but they lost. They think they should be let
back in to the country they tried to do away with. Generations pass with them
failing to assimilate anywhere and continuing to blame Israel.
So you have one side that attacks innocent civilians, then
sets up circumstances to make it nearly impossible to fight back without harming
innocents, by using schools and hospitals and population centers as their
military attack points. And the other side is totally defensive, and goes
beyond what anyone should expect to avoid harming civilians.
Anyone who says the two sides are equivalent and ought to
just learn to get along hasn’t taken the steps to be a just arbiter.
Who is the arbiter? In this case, it is individuals, like
us, as well as the nation we belong to. The current leader of our country is
not a just arbiter. That does damage to the small country in the Middle East
that has heretofore been our ally. Without paying attention, hearing both
sides, and weighing the evidence, there’s not much chance of making a wise
judgment, let alone leading to a just consequence.
Example 4: A political candidate (Trump) makes personal, untrue
attacks on all of his opponents in turn, as each one seems to become a threat.
Another candidate (Cruz) consistently stays on the message of issues, comparing
plans, persuading based on law and principle. Trump sees the comparison, using
his own words along with video of himself saying things, as an attack. And he
attacks back—without truth, without shame, without limits (admittedly, so far
no murder that we’re aware of).
This past week there was an exchange that included the
candidates’ wives. Trump’s current wife worked as a model. Back before they
were married she did a nude photo shoot for GQ
Magazine—the essential bikini parts are covered, but it’s obvious she’s
unclothed, and it’s meant to be provocative. She made a living that way back
then. It’s available out there on the internet, but I’m not linking to it. (I
heard that the shoot took place on Trump’s jet, with his approval. Don’t know
how to verify that.)
If it’s in print, it still exists. That’s what published means. Besides back issues
available online, libraries out there keep back issues of practically
everything. So it’s not surprising that the photo surfaced. It was used in an
anti-Trump ad—a single-frame internet picture with words over it, saying
something like, “Is this who you want as First Lady?” If Trump is so proud of
his sexual exploits, and his wife’s body, then he should be expected to just
say, “Yeah,” and shrug his shoulders. But he didn’t. He used it as a political media
opportunity.
He accused Ted Cruz of running the ad. He didn’t—it was an
anti-Trump PAC (political action committee). Then Trump said they did it
because Cruz told them to. Cruz couldn’t—besides it not being a Cruz committee,
law prevents any interaction between a candidate and a PAC.
Before blaming Cruz, Trump immediately retaliated with a
threat of bad news he was ready to spill about Heidi Cruz. Shortly after that
turned out to be a photo of Heidi, taken mid-sentence and mid-blink,
side-by-side with a professional head shot of Melania. Trump not only implied
that Heidi was ugly by comparison, he stated it bluntly.
And then, a day or two later, suddenly there are accusations
that Ted Cruz has had, count ‘em, five affairs with women. In my opinion, the
accusation is laughably false. No woman will verify. The story comes through
the National Enquirer, purveyor of
lies for profit, which happens to be owned by a Trump friend.
Cruz's response to the attack; it looked at the time Trump was involved, which may prove true. But little has been said by Cruz about it since. Found here. |
Trump immediately says it wasn’t him, but that “Lyin’ Ted
Cruz” will have to deal with it himself. Stories are starting to build the case
against Trump on this, but it may be that someone who supports him or simply
hates Cruz put out the accusation without Trump’s direct involvement—in which
case Trump would see himself as innocent, even though he insists Cruz was
responsible for the actions of an unrelated Super Pac. Hmmm.
And on radio Monday in Wisconsin, Trump reiterated his reason for the
escalation of personal attacks to include family: “He started it.”
So it has been frustrating to hear multiple media sources,
typically supposed conservatives, complain about all the bickering—and that it’s
both sides’ fault. They should just get together and get along.
That, to me, sounds like an unjust arbiter. They have not
paid attention. They have not noticed the overwhelming evidence that one side
is a lying, manipulative narcissist whose campaign is based on, “Vote for me; I’ll
make America great again, but don’t ask for details, just believe me that I
will do it,” while belittling women, talk show hosts, all of his opponents, and
anyone who disagrees with him. And the other is an expert on the issues related
to our constitutionally protected freedoms and how returning to the Constitution
will bring us a return to the freedom and prosperity we expect in America—a promise
given while being scrupulously against personal attacks on his opponents—up until
the attack on his wife.
If you’re a Republican voter, you’re an arbiter in this
case. You need to pay attention, hear both sides, weigh the evidence, and make
a wise judgment. If you do that, you will definitely know better than to send a
crude, vulgar, self-obsessed bully to the White House. You might instead
consider sending a very smart, very accomplished and principled man there.
If you’re in a position to judge—and you are, in many
circumstances in your life—then be a just arbiter.
No comments:
Post a Comment