The Waiting Game
Several years ago, I was fortunate to go through some training at work that provided a solid process for dealing with people. It was a weekly class that gave out homework and you were expected to practice each step to reinforce and strengthen the skill set being taught. One of the major tenants of the program was to always address the problem, not the person. If you tell someone that the behavior they are exhibiting is causing a problem, it is easier to keep their attention. If you tell someone to quit messing up, it is a personal affront and you have lost your audience. The course stressed that issues should be addressed immediately as they occur and not as a footnote the next week. Always praise in public and council in private. I firmly believe that this is a sound and Christian way to deal with people. That statement assumes that the people you are dealing with are rational and not megalomaniacs (both of these seem to be requirements to run a country). Unfortunately, some of our elected officials are more concerned about the ceremony of the event, than dealing with the issue.
I am unclear what Democrats think the act of diplomacy/discussion/negotiation accomplishes. I have heard that almost anything can be negotiated if both sides have an interest in the process. It is important to note that both sides have to come to the table with clear objectives, have a desire to work out a compromise and are willing to give up some ground to attain the outcome they seek. It seems that the liberals think that any major world issue, if negotiated “long enough” can be fixed. What they fail to see is that they may come to the table willing to give it their best, while the other party uses the talks as a stalling tactic. They want to see how far they can push before they call off the talks. If you look at the Middle East, the Palestinians have been doing it for years, Iran is in the middle of that process and North Korea has been practicing it since Bush 1. And yet, the Democrat party still believes that we can talk our way through this. If only one side is willing to negotiate, it is not a negotiation.
America took action in Iraq. We had a dictator that had been pulling our chain for years and had followed through on his threats despite all the diplomacy we could muster. When it really mattered, American’s have stepped up and taken action, unfortunately it mostly occurred too late. It took an attack on America to get us into WW II. We tried negotiating with Hitler until the very end. Of course the French, British and Russians all did the same thing and see where that got them. Hitler did not come to talk. His objective was to stall. He stalled so well, it almost tipped the world into a Nazi paradise. On the flip side, when we negotiated nuclear disarmament with the Soviet Union, both sides came prepared to make concessions. Both sides allowed verification. It was a small step but significant to the world in that the superpowers were smart enough to back away from total nuclear destruction.
Diplomacy will work but only if both sides come to the table prepared to make concessions. If only one side is prepared to negotiate, listen for the rattle and be prepared to move quickly to avoid the venomous fangs. American’s should relish in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” I love a good leader.
Icool
Cobb
I am unclear what Democrats think the act of diplomacy/discussion/negotiation accomplishes. I have heard that almost anything can be negotiated if both sides have an interest in the process. It is important to note that both sides have to come to the table with clear objectives, have a desire to work out a compromise and are willing to give up some ground to attain the outcome they seek. It seems that the liberals think that any major world issue, if negotiated “long enough” can be fixed. What they fail to see is that they may come to the table willing to give it their best, while the other party uses the talks as a stalling tactic. They want to see how far they can push before they call off the talks. If you look at the Middle East, the Palestinians have been doing it for years, Iran is in the middle of that process and North Korea has been practicing it since Bush 1. And yet, the Democrat party still believes that we can talk our way through this. If only one side is willing to negotiate, it is not a negotiation.
America took action in Iraq. We had a dictator that had been pulling our chain for years and had followed through on his threats despite all the diplomacy we could muster. When it really mattered, American’s have stepped up and taken action, unfortunately it mostly occurred too late. It took an attack on America to get us into WW II. We tried negotiating with Hitler until the very end. Of course the French, British and Russians all did the same thing and see where that got them. Hitler did not come to talk. His objective was to stall. He stalled so well, it almost tipped the world into a Nazi paradise. On the flip side, when we negotiated nuclear disarmament with the Soviet Union, both sides came prepared to make concessions. Both sides allowed verification. It was a small step but significant to the world in that the superpowers were smart enough to back away from total nuclear destruction.
Diplomacy will work but only if both sides come to the table prepared to make concessions. If only one side is prepared to negotiate, listen for the rattle and be prepared to move quickly to avoid the venomous fangs. American’s should relish in the words of Teddy Roosevelt, “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” I love a good leader.
Icool
Cobb
posted by Cobb at
6:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home