The Long View
Good Frodo and Evil Gollum
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:28:00 11/22/2009
IN book two of “The Fellowship of the Ring,” Celeborn, elven co-ruler of Lothl0rien, speaks directly to the readers as much as to the Fellowship when he counsels, “Do not despise the lore that has come down from distant years; for oft it may chance that old wives keep in memory word of things that once were needful for the wise to know.”
Chances are you’ve read or watched “The Lord of the Rings,” Tolkien’s saga in three volumes of how a reluctant hero is tasked with destroying a Ring of Power as a squabbling alliance of Hobbits, humans, dwarves and elves backs him up and fights titanic battles against the evil Sauron and his gruesome dark hordes. The epic is about Good and Evil, and how individuals can be one or the other, or even both, depending on the circumstances.
Some months ago Jim Paredes quipped that Noynoy Aquino is like the reluctant Hobbit hero Frodo Baggins, and that all those flocking to his aid and assistance are like the motley cast of characters that comprised the Fellowship of the Ring.
Tolkien the narrator observes of hobbits, as much as of men, of people in books as much as of people in real life, that “There is a seed of courage hidden (often deeply, it is true) in the heart of the fattest and most timid hobbit, waiting for some final and desperate danger to make it grow.”
In Book Two, the message is amplified in an exchange between Gimli the dwarf and the elf Elrond, representatives of races that do not like each other but now allied in a common quest, yet the two still disagree on how to approach the physical and even moral perils of their quest.
“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,” the action-oriented Gimli starts off. Elrond the jaded elf replies, “Maybe, but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.” Gimli counters, “Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,” only for Elrond to pragmatically respond by saying, “Or break it.” This is the eternal conflict between purists and realists.
At a time when there’s a general desire to see righteousness reign in our politics, there is too great a danger of self-righteousness intruding its discordant voice, insisting, on one hand, on impossible standards for individuals while ignoring the need for a common cause to confront the greater danger. This is the danger of pride substituting for true conscientiousness.
Quite early on in Book One of “The Fellowship of the Ring,” in the second chapter, the reluctant Frodo and the wizard Gandalf discuss Gollum, the deranged previous holder of the Ring of Power from whom Frodo’s uncle, Bilbo, had taken the ring; throughout the saga Gollum represents the problem of Frodo the Good, requiring the at times sincere, and most other times, deceitful, assistance of the generally Evil Gollum.
From the very start, Frodo thinks it’s a bad thing to have to engage the help of bad people and tells Gandalf, “He deserves death.” Gandalf’s answer is instructive, laying down a theme that will persist to the end of the saga, as he repeatedly counsels the members of the Fellowship of the Ring against the perils of confusing the righteousness of their cause with the pride of self-righteousness.
“Deserves it! I daresay he does,” Gandalf agrees; but adds, “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many – yours not least.”
Tolkien repeatedly returns to this theme of redemption – whether partial or complete – for the bad, or the merely confused, a possibility that should temper the self-righteousness of characters themselves fully capable of departing – temporarily but at times, disastrously – from the path of righteousness. Pride, he perpetually points out, feeds the divisions self-righteousness creates and which harms Good and promotes Evil.
As the elf Haldir of Lorien, responding to the bickering and simmering tensions between allies, points out in another chapter of Book Two: “In nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him.”
Gandalf himself, in Book Three, returns to the basic lesson Haldir propounded: “We are all friends here. Or should be; for the laughter of Mordor will be our only reward, if we quarrel.” Something he returns to again, much later on in Book Five, where once again self-righteousness has provoked discord and to which his reply is, “Let us remember that a traitor may betray himself and do good that he does not intend. It can be so, sometimes.”
Hope is what enabled Good to conquer Evil – for at the heart of hope is the humility to give all a chance to help fight Evil, without sneering at motives. A humility based on belief in redemption for those who once served Evil. Frodo could not do it alone, he needed help; help came from all quarters and much of it tainted by mixed motives as shown by the thoroughly bad Gollum.
Every character wrestled with the dilemma of fighting for Good yet being confronted by Evil, internal and external. Hope subdued pride, humility fostered unity and trust in Good allowed individuals as well as kingdoms to conquer the Ultimate Evil, Sauron.
As the fair elven Galadriel had told the impatient dwarf Gimli in Book Two, “I do not foretell, for all foretelling is now vain: on the one hand lies darkness, and on the other only hope. But if hope should not fail, then I say to you, Gimli son of Gloin, that your hands shall flow with gold, and yet over you gold shall have no dominion.”
Once again benigno comes in with rather disturbing insights…then again he’s been at it for a long time already, mostly very irritating to us “proud-to-be-Pinoys” and searchers of the holy grail of Philippine politics. Here we are, after clamoring, shouting, stand offing, etc. for change, and then seeing its more of the same…
“Ramrod, no. Let’s separate Maxwell (whom I haven’t read so I can’t comment) from Machiavelli who was interested in power regardless of whether or not a prince was intrinsically good. He recognized goodness required a nod even from evil.”
– – – –
MLQ, Machiavelli – in his book – very clearly stated a preference for Good. His main point, however, was that by simply being Good, by itself, is not enough. From his observations (which happens in reality), “bad people” will always resort to dirty tricks that will often get them winning over the “good guys” who may be too idealistic or naive.
The purpose of Machiavelli’s “the Prince” as stated in many areas of the book where Machiavelli states his own preferences for “good” is to provide leaders who WANT TO DO GOOD and BE GOOD a realization that they must be realistic and aware of what keeps a leader in power, so that such “good leaders” can continue doing good. That, in fact, the intrinsically good leaders may need to resort to dirty tricks or at least be AWARE that their enemies may be wanting to resort to dirty tricks against them, so that they won’t be toppled and thus can continue doing good.
It is not true that Machiavelli was interested only in Power. He studied the dynamics of Power to present those important and essential points by referring to historical examples and it was his hope that intrinsically Good leaders thus make themselves aware of such points so as to prevent them from being toppled by nefarious power-grabbers.
Noynoy is unfortunately too feeble-minded, naive, and dependent on his parents’ fame to be a good leader. In real truth, it does not matter what good intentions Noynoy or some of his backers may have. If Noynoy acts as a wimp and can’t get anything done, it’s all for nought.
Better to have a selfish bastard whose by-products of his/her actions are beneficial to the people than to have an angelic wimp who has no actions (and therefore no benefits) or may think his/her actions are good but actually they harm everyone.
(think of the 1987 Cory Constitution: Full of Good Intentions, protectionist economics, idealistic system. In the end, we end up with a system that discourages foreign investment due to protectionist provisions, and a system that has turned out to be CHAOTIC and favors personalities over policy programs.)
In short, intentions (and whether the leader is intrinsically good) don’t mean anything: what matters is whether the actions of that leader BENEFIT the people.
What good will Noynoy’s “intrinsically good” character (in fact, that’s only the spin!) do if he can’t fix the economy, upon which everything is based? (no funding, can’t do anything!)
we all look to literature for answers and things to ponder. we also take away different feelings, your response to frodo most definitely is very different from mine when i read it.https://www.quezon.ph/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=all#comments-form
“your response to frodo most definitely is very different from mine when i read it”
——
Obviously. I think we can agree to disagree on that, that’s the beauty of literature. Nevertheless, I think drawing parallels to real life from it is often invidious. I’ve read many different interpretations of Tolkein’s world, but they all draw the common conclusion that it reflects his perceptions of society in different aspects, from different times throughout history, and from a very English point of view. That makes the opportunities to ascribe other reflections to it very limited, and easy to misapply, as I think you’ve done here. But of course we can agree to disagree on that as well.
MLQ3,
Maybe it’s time you started looking more at reality and history (from a realistic, than an idealistic perspective), rather than looking literature for answers. The problem with using literature as one’s primary source for answers is that it often provides a highly romanticized, idealized, and Author’s bias-based view of the world.
Guess what, MLQ3, the real world isn’t really about Good and Evil. It’s about the interplay of numerous different peoples’ interests and self-interests. On the micro scale, “Good” means beneficial and “Evil” means detrimental. On the macro scale, the objective “Good” is whatever it is that contributes to the Greater Interest of the Majority without harming the greater interests of the innocent minority. And on the macro scale “Evil” is that which clearly (and in the long run) negatively affects the majority, whether or not it benefits a minority.
Remember, Manolo, even if a person does something for selfish reasons and it benefits him, IF it so happens that there are by-product effects of his actions that benefit the majority, then that is Good.
Good intentions, bad intentions: TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in the grand scheme of things.
Good results: That’s the only thing that matters.
Hope you learned something new today, Manolo… 😉
the problem with this and your previous comment is you categorize one (lotr) as lit and another (the prince) not as lit; but beyond propsing machiavelli’s virtu and going down the road of fuhrerprinzip, there is still the problem of the individual ruler’s going beyond that. though i did raise the point of the ultimate goal taking into consideration individual good or bad intentions which suggests the need for compromise and pragmatism but in healthy and not all-consuming doses, it being equally unhealthy to insist on utter pragmatism but to loath compromise on the other hand confusing it with a betrayal of higher goals and values.
“If gaining power is all that really matters (as the Cojuangcos think – since even after EDSA I, they were willing to accommodate even the worst offenders of 3G politics (guns, goons and gold) into the LDP tent), then you would give equal weight to an idealist vote lost and a purchased vote won through local networks.” – The Cusp
****************************************************
Aside from taking in notorious warlords like Chavit Singson, the Josons and the Dy’s, the Cory Administration, through Peping Cojuangco, brought into the LDP tent aspiring political tough guys who had the street smarts to fight “fire with fire” and to win elections. The Ampatuans were among the street smart toughies enlisted by the Cory Administration, as per the Philippine Daily Inquirer, dated today:
“The Ampatuans and Mangudadatus have reigned in Maguindanao politics since 1986 when the revolutionary government of then President Corazon Aquino appointed officers-in-charge to local elective posts of mayors, municipal, provincial and village legislators, as well as governors and their deputies.”
Yes, this Bilbo-Gollum rigmarole is really old hat. Good vs. Evil? Nonsense! It’s all about winning. That’s why jokers like Richard Gomez are being enlisted into the LP. To be sure, everyone else is doing it. The difference is that Manolo would want to embellish politics as usual, and portray it as a battle of Good vs. Evil. 😉
you will have to look at the ultimate balance. if you enter the fray you cannot even to conceive of doing good unless you win. you do not go into battle if you intend to die, unless unless your death makes possible an even greater victory.
and again, things are a continuum. the question is were the ampatuans what they were in 1986,and also, what accounted for their spectacular increase in power since 2001.
To borrow a quip from another trilogy, only those who practice the dark side like to deal in absolutes.
I’m glad that Manolo now sounds more like someone more concerned with positive rather than normative politics. Narratives are a good way to frame a race, nothing more.
Behind the scenes real politic is what determines the real nature of the campaign. Any good one needs idealists to sell the dream and pragmatists to man the trenches.
Let’s assume every local politician is only interested in endorsing someone at the national level in order to milk him for favours post-election into office.
It would be good if the winner gains an even distribution of supporters across the country so that no one locality gains an unfair advantage in bargaining for projects. That way they cancel each other out. Taken in this light, the current bandwagon effect would result in a more equitable distribution of the “spoils”.
Reality is stranger than fiction…
A blogger asked the question :”How much does the EQ Post get paid for “attacking” Noynoy’s opponents?”
On the other hand, the OFFICIAL Noynoy Facebook site (c/o Leah Navarro) has banned the EQ Post from posting comments on its site.
Such is life…
MLQ3,
Are you afraid that others will see your views for what they are?
I see you suddenly turned on the automated Moderation here on your site. I guess that’s why your site was down. Too many dissenters, right?
Well, let me tell you: Maybe you can just decide to RE-EVALUATE your thought processes. Don’t just go with your gut or make a choice, then later on use your brains in order to defend it – it being a mistake in the first place, but you then need to defend it because you fear losing face.
SO THAT YOU DON’T LOSE FACE, why don’t you choose the argument that makes the MOST SENSE in the first place???
This is why you’re currently painted into a corner, Manolo. Sayang… You know a thing or two: you’re well-read/well-informed, but there’s something with your thought process that makes people snicker behind your back.
It’s because you choose to be an apologist for points-of-view that don’t make sense.
The Noynoy campaign is a logically-untenable stand. But you threw your support behind it, and frankly, you can’t really defend it at all. Kaya puro bola na lang. That’s a problem, Manolo.
Be what you should be, Manolo: A TRUE INTELLECTUAL.
MLQ3,
(Was your site down for a few hours? I couldn’t get this comment up as your site seemed to have suddenly disappeared until just now.)
Ok, then let’s be more clear-cut about it, then: Fiction versus NON-FICTION.
You need to stop looking at Fiction purely as a basis for how to look at the world and get yourself more into what’s really happening out there.
Do you know why the Philippines is mired in mediocrity and stasis? It’s actually because of too much of an infatuation with Good versus Evil, Manolo. More specifically, it’s too much of a fixation on Good Intentions versus Evil Intensions.
But guess what. Intentions are largely irrelevant insofar as Results are what matter. Good Intentions that result in Evil Results get ultimately trumped by Selfish Intentions that yield Good Results.
If you were to really look at things objectively, there really are no “Evil Intentions.†Each and every person does what he/she does because he/she thinks that what he/she does is Good or at least for his/her own benefit. The difference is the scope of this “Good.†A person who does something that others think is “Evil†is probably doing it because to him what he does is “Good†or to his benefit. Thus, what is “Good†– especially in terms of intentsions – is usually subjective.
If, however, Filipinos became more OBJECTIVE and thus eliminated too much of this infatuation with “Good verus Evil†in the realm of intentions, and instead focused purely on OBJECTIVE RESULTS, the vigilance of Filipinos would be more properly focused on getting positive and “Good Results†as opposed to focusing on looking at what appear to be “Good Intentions.â€
The real fact is that when Filipinos look at “Good versus Evilâ€, what they actually look at are “Altruistic versus Selfish.†However, just because an act benefits its agent (its doer) does not necessarily mean that it is Evil for others. An act that benefits its doer CAN indeed benefit him/herself (the doer) as well as the larger community.
Far too often, focusing ONLY on “Good Intentions†yields disappointment as good intentions alone do not always get the job done. And corollary to that, Manolo, Selfish Intentions do not always yield “Evil Resultsâ€, that is, results that are to the detriment of the wider community.
You might wish to look at how Communism, fueled by Altruistic Idealism and all sorts of Good Intentions fared in the grand scheme of things when it came to truly making a better society for the people living under it. For all the rhetoric of Altruism spewed by Communist cadres during its heyday, Communism has unfortunately done more harm than good. It killed more people not just through political violence, but more so through the adoption of wrong economic policies that caused mass starvation because of highly idealistic ideas on ensuring equality of the people.
But as soon as China reversed the policies of Mao and moved towards Capitalism, observe thus, how a supposedly Self-centered economic system focused on the individual accumulation of wealth has thus caused China to improve the general lives of millions of people better than misguided altruistic idealism has.
It is obvious that you have a bias against pragmatism or realism. I assure you that such a bias is not just misplaced. It is destructive and it ultimately is what causes a greater EVIL in Philippine Society.
If Filipinos can learn to be more Pragmatic and Realistic, then Filipinos would actually be more RESULTS-oriented and OBJECTIVE.
The good result of this, Manolo, would be that Filipinos would be more discerning about the abilities of people or groups to achieve results that are ultimately BENEFICIAL to the wider majority.
And if you are alright with it, allow me to give you some very constructive criticism on your latest reply to me:
“but beyond propsing machiavelli’s virtu (sic) and going down the road of fuhrerprinzip, there is still the problem of the individual ruler’s going beyond that. though i did raise the point of the ultimate goal taking into consideration individual good or bad intentions which suggests the need for compromise and pragmatism but in healthy and not all-consuming doses, it being equally unhealthy to insist on utter pragmatism but to loath compromise on the other hand confusing it with a betrayal of higher goals and values.â€
I mean no disrespect, but it seems to a huge number of people who have read your response with me that you’re actually trying to intellectualize your way out of the corner you painted yourself in. In short, nambobola ka. Really, man, it’s totally convoluted and circuitous double-speak. Get to the point, dude.
By the way, Manolo, if you are not going to use a keyboard with the ability to place a diaresis-umlaut on vowels that require it, you MUST spell “Führerprinzip†(with an umlauted u) as “Fuehrerprinzip.†A “ü†is fully interchangeable with a “ue†just as an “ö†is fully interchangeable with an “oeâ€, etc.
Now here’s where realism and pragmatism come in. If you had actually been a more staunch advocate of realism, pragmatism and the scientific way of arriving at conclusions which is:
1) suspend all conclusions based on preconceived notions, suspend premature judgment
2) analyze all relevant information
3) make appropriate conclusions only after all the appropriate analysis has been done
…then you probably would not have had to resort to pambobola and the “intellectualization†you tried to attempt.
Besides, if the majority of the people in Germany at the time were realistic and pragmatic, as opposed to being easily manipulated emotionally by Nazi rhetoric (resulting from their defeat in WWI and the crushing measures imposed on them by the Treaty of Versailles), they would not have been seduced by Hitler, and Germans would have been appropriately vigilant to guard against the Idealism (albeit morally reprehensible) of National Socialism. Had that been the case, the Nazis would have just remained a fringe group and would not have achieved the power they achieved thereby bringing Hitler to power.
In like manner, if at least the MAJORITY of Filipinos were realistic, pragmatic, scientific in arriving at their own views, and RESULTS-oriented, then Filipinos would be vigilant against empty promises that do not make sense. Filipinos would actually demand for solid plans from their leaders (especially those WANTING TO BECOME LEADERS), and make appropriate decisions. Truth be told, truly analytical people can actually tell if the plans of a leader (or a candidate) are achievable, feasible, and will bring out the beneficial RESULTS that are promised.
Sadly, Filipinos are not realistic nor are we Results-oriented as a people. There is too much of a misplaced emphasis on Idealism as well as Intentions, and in fact, Realism and Pragmatism are actually frowned upon as being too “scheming.â€
Worse, it’s a big stretch to wish for the ordinary Filipino majority to become Realistic and Pragmatic if people like you, Manuel L. Quezon III, actually disdain Realism, Pragmatism, and an orientation towards Results.
As it is, Philippine Society’s overemphasis on Idealism means a major disaster for our society as hardly anyone will really be truly vigilant about demanding for real beneficial results, and instead, everyone will just be content to ask for platitudes and motherhood statements like “Good versus Evil†and all sorts of empty rhetoric.
You can do better than than, Manolo. You’re supposed to be well-read. Now it’s time for you to use your logical faculties to arrive at more realistic conclusions rather than act as an apologist for the situation of naïveté and focus on intentions that has continued to yield mediocre results.
Your Pro-Noynoy advocacy is obviously based on Idealism and a focus on “Good Intentions.†Well, there’s nothing to show that Noynoy will achieve good results, and no one – not even you – are trying to frame it in a Results-oriented way, because you can’t! It will surely invite more critics to bore holes into Noynoy’s lack of ability in achieving results.
But again, if you – Manuel L. Quezon III – can’t see that, then even ordinary Juans, Pedros, and Marias won’t see that. And we’ll forever be prisoners to mediocrity.
Consider, Manolo, that since Philippine Society asks only for Good Intentions, then that’s ALL IT GETS: Good Intentions, “Good Rhetoricâ€, and pambobola suffice.
MLQ3,
Ok, then let’s be more clear-cut about it, then: Fiction versus NON-FICTION.
You need to stop looking at Fiction purely as a basis for how to look at the world and get yourself more into what’s really happening out there.
Do you know why the Philippines is mired in mediocrity and stasis? It’s actually because of too much of an infatuation with Good versus Evil, Manolo. More specifically, it’s too much of a fixation on Good Intentions versus Evil Intensions.
But guess what. Intentions are largely irrelevant insofar as Results are what matter. Good Intentions that result in Evil Results get ultimately trumped by Selfish Intentions that yield Good Results.
If you were to really look at things objectively, there really are no “Evil Intentions.†Each and every person does what he/she does because he/she thinks that what he/she does is Good or at least for his/her own benefit. The difference is the scope of this “Good.†A person who does something that others think is “Evil†is probably doing it because to him what he does is “Good†or to his benefit. Thus, what is “Good†– especially in terms of intentsions – is usually subjective.
If, however, Filipinos became more OBJECTIVE and thus eliminated too much of this infatuation with “Good verus Evil†in the realm of intentions, and instead focused purely on OBJECTIVE RESULTS, the vigilance of Filipinos would be more properly focused on getting positive and “Good Results†as opposed to focusing on looking at what appear to be “Good Intentions.â€
The real fact is that when Filipinos look at “Good versus Evilâ€, what they actually look at are “Altruistic versus Selfish.†However, just because an act benefits its agent (its doer) does not necessarily mean that it is Evil for others. An act that benefits its doer CAN indeed benefit him/herself (the doer) as well as the larger community.
Far too often, focusing ONLY on “Good Intentions†yields disappointment as good intentions alone do not always get the job done. And corollary to that, Manolo, Selfish Intentions do not always yield “Evil Resultsâ€, that is, results that are to the detriment of the wider community.
(continued)
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli
Take it easy on Manolo.I may not agree with what he says BUT he has been a most gracious host of this site.
I leave you with a reflection:
“I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends… that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.”Adlai Stevenson
Reality is much stranger than fiction in Pinoy Politics.
EQ
nick, dreamhost went down, and most of the blogs hosted on it. and this blog has had the spam karma plugin for quite a few years now.
as for the rest, unfortunately your views are your own, and not mine, and so i cannot be you, as you wish me to be.
MLQ3,
(Was your site down for a few hours? I couldn’t get this comment up as your site seemed to have suddenly disappeared until just now.)
Ok, then let’s be more clear-cut about it, then: Fiction versus NON-FICTION.
You need to stop looking at Fiction purely as a basis for how to look at the world and get yourself more into what’s really happening out there.
Do you know why the Philippines is mired in mediocrity and stasis? It’s actually because of too much of an infatuation with Good versus Evil, Manolo. More specifically, it’s too much of a fixation on Good Intentions versus Evil Intensions.
But guess what. Intentions are largely irrelevant insofar as Results are what matter. Good Intentions that result in Evil Results get ultimately trumped by Selfish Intentions that yield Good Results.
If you were to really look at things objectively, there really are no “Evil Intentions.†Each and every person does what he/she does because he/she thinks that what he/she does is Good or at least for his/her own benefit. The difference is the scope of this “Good.†A person who does something that others think is “Evil†is probably doing it because to him what he does is “Good†or to his benefit. Thus, what is “Good†– especially in terms of intentsions – is usually subjective.
If, however, Filipinos became more OBJECTIVE and thus eliminated too much of this infatuation with “Good verus Evil†in the realm of intentions, and instead focused purely on OBJECTIVE RESULTS, the vigilance of Filipinos would be more properly focused on getting positive and “Good Results†as opposed to focusing on looking at what appear to be “Good Intentions.â€
The real fact is that when Filipinos look at “Good versus Evilâ€, what they actually look at are “Altruistic versus Selfish.†However, just because an act benefits its agent (its doer) does not necessarily mean that it is Evil for others. An act that benefits its doer CAN indeed benefit him/herself (the doer) as well as the larger community.
Far too often, focusing ONLY on “Good Intentions†yields disappointment as good intentions alone do not always get the job done. And corollary to that, Manolo, Selfish Intentions do not always yield “Evil Resultsâ€, that is, results that are to the detriment of the wider community.
You might wish to look at how Communism, fueled by Altruistic Idealism and all sorts of Good Intentions fared in the grand scheme of things when it came to truly making a better society for the people living under it. For all the rhetoric of Altruism spewed by Communist cadres during its heyday, Communism has unfortunately done more harm than good. It killed more people not just through political violence, but more so through the adoption of wrong economic policies that caused mass starvation because of highly idealistic ideas on ensuring equality of the people.
But as soon as China reversed the policies of Mao and moved towards Capitalism, observe thus, how a supposedly Self-centered economic system focused on the individual accumulation of wealth has thus caused China to improve the general lives of millions of people better than misguided altruistic idealism has.
It is obvious that you have a bias against pragmatism or realism. I assure you that such a bias is not just misplaced. It is destructive and it ultimately is what causes a greater EVIL in Philippine Society.
If Filipinos can learn to be more Pragmatic and Realistic, then Filipinos would actually be more RESULTS-oriented and OBJECTIVE.
The good result of this, Manolo, would be that Filipinos would be more discerning about the abilities of people or groups to achieve results that are ultimately BENEFICIAL to the wider majority.
And if you are alright with it, allow me to give you some very constructive criticism on your latest reply to me:
“but beyond propsing machiavelli’s virtu (sic) and going down the road of fuhrerprinzip, there is still the problem of the individual ruler’s going beyond that. though i did raise the point of the ultimate goal taking into consideration individual good or bad intentions which suggests the need for compromise and pragmatism but in healthy and not all-consuming doses, it being equally unhealthy to insist on utter pragmatism but to loath compromise on the other hand confusing it with a betrayal of higher goals and values.â€
I mean no disrespect, but it seems to a huge number of people who have read your response with me that you’re actually trying to intellectualize your way out of the corner you painted yourself in. In short, nambobola ka. Really, man, it’s totally convoluted and circuitous double-speak. Get to the point, dude.
By the way, Manolo, if you are not going to use a keyboard with the ability to place a diaresis-umlaut on vowels that require it, you MUST spell “Führerprinzip†(with an umlauted u) as “Fuehrerprinzip.†A “ü†is fully interchangeable with a “ue†just as an “ö†is fully interchangeable with an “oeâ€, etc.
Now here’s where realism and pragmatism come in. If you had actually been a more staunch advocate of realism, pragmatism and the scientific way of arriving at conclusions which is:
1) suspend all conclusions, suspend premature judgment
2) analyze all relevant information
3) make appropriate conclusions only after all the appropriate analysis has been done
…then you probably would not have had to resort to pambobola and the “intellectualization†you tried to attempt.
Besides, if the majority of the people in Germany at the time were realistic and pragmatic, as opposed to being easily manipulated emotionally by Nazi rhetoric (resulting from their defeat in WWI and the crushing measures imposed on them by the Treaty of Versailles), they would not have been seduced by Hitler, and Germans would have been appropriately vigilant to guard against the Idealism (albeit morally reprehensible) of National Socialism. Had that been the case, the Nazis would have just remained a fringe group and would not have achieved the power they achieved thereby bringing Hitler to power.
In like manner, if at least the MAJORITY of Filipinos were realistic, pragmatic, scientific in arriving at their own views, and RESULTS-oriented, then Filipinos would be vigilant against empty promises that do not make sense. Filipinos would actually demand for solid plans from their leaders (especially those WANTING TO BECOME LEADERS), and make appropriate decisions. Truth be told, truly analytical people can actually tell if the plans of a leader (or a candidate) are achievable, feasible, and will bring out the beneficial RESULTS that are promised.
Sadly, Filipinos are not realistic nor are we Results-oriented as a people. There is too much of a misplaced emphasis on Idealism as well as Intentions, and in fact, Realism and Pragmatism are actually frowned upon as being too “scheming.â€
Worse, it’s a big stretch to wish for the ordinary Filipino majority to become Realistic and Pragmatic if people like you, Manuel L. Quezon III, actually disdain Realism, Pragmatism, and an orientation towards Results.
As it is, Philippine Society’s overemphasis on Idealism means a major disaster for our society as hardly anyone will really be truly vigilant about demanding for real beneficial results, and instead, everyone will just be content to ask for platitudes and motherhood statements like “Good versus Evil†and all sorts of empty rhetoric.
You can do better than than, Manolo. You’re supposed to be well-read. Now it’s time for you to use your logical faculties to arrive at more realistic conclusions rather than act as an apologist for the situation of naïveté and focus on intentions that has continued to yield mediocre results.
Your Pro-Noynoy advocacy is obviously based on Idealism and a focus on “Good Intentions.†Well, there’s nothing to show that Noynoy will achieve Good Results, and no one – not even you – are trying to frame it in a Results-oriented way, because you can’t! You know that if you place Noynoy’s campaign within a Results-oriented framework, it will surely invite more critics to bore holes into Noynoy’s very obvoius and glaring lack of ability in achieving results.
Noynoy is easily going to win, but he very clearly won’t deliver. You are part of the group that will be held accountable for bringing in a leader whom we all knew can’t deliver.
But again, if you – Manuel L. Quezon III – can’t see that, then even ordinary Juans, Pedros, and Marias won’t see that. And we’ll forever be prisoners to mediocrity.
Consider, Manolo, that since Philippine Society asks only for Good Intentions, then that’s ALL IT GETS: Good Intentions, “Good Rhetoricâ€, and pambobola all suffice.
But if Philippine Society asks only for GOOD RESULTS, then that will be what it WILL GET: We will achieve Good Results if majority focus on asking for good results.
Your choice, Manolo… 😉
(The one under moderation now is the correct version, the first one which came out of moderation has some duplication. It loops at some point… Just delete that one, and retain the newer one which was just recently posted – but is still under moderation)
For pity’s sake, the worst Philippine tragedy in my lifetime, worst than Garci, Ondoy, the “accidental” killing in Paranaque, etc has just happened. You’re talking about other things? People in Mindanao who believe that unarmed women and journalists are fair game for their grisly hobbies, and just as bad, the completely inappropriate slow reaction by government when they should’ve left no room for doubt that they would act. This happened in your country, to your own people. Just because they don’t read Twilight or watch Conan O’Brien, you think their lives mean less? Look at how they were killed and look at the apparent lack of boundaries in the hearts of the perpetrators. Mindanao might be in the Middle Ages but so are you for not putting this on top of your lists today, this abhorrent deed. You are like the nobility of 500 years ago who’d drink wine and eat roast pig and splendid time while the peasantry are being raped and killed by barbarians.
so you really think noynoy is frodo (metaphorically speaking)?
Nick MacYavellee thinks he knows better than Manolo. Dude, you are delusional. Hardly anybody subscribed to your pragmatist/realist ranting which is why the Philippines is in its current state. Filipinos have always decided clearly in the most realistic and practical terms for their votes. You ask Filipinos to be discerning which is opposite to being realist and practical. Discerning is for higher purpose far from the reality of an empty stomach. You screwed up Germany history by stating that Germans being impractical and unrealistic were easily seduced by Hitler. Tsk, tsk. It is completely the opposite. Germany’s economy was a total disaster following WW1 and the world demand for war reparation. Being practical and realistic, Germans embraced Nazism for Hitler’s solution to food shortage, hyperinflation and unemployment.
Before you offer a condescending advise to Manolo, you should have realized no one values your thoughts. If you cannot understand that, there is no hope that you can even discern that Manolo has professional authorship and columns while you don’t.
MLQ, “Churchill never conceded that his fight was anything but Good vs. Evil.â€
Carl, “The entire British nation had no choice but to see the Germans as Evil. Being faced with an existentialist threat to their very survival, gave Churchill and the British people no choice”.
MLQ, “Carl again, no. Because the Germans and quite a few English were prepared to spare the British and their Empire. It was Churchill who insisted it was a fight between Good and Evil…
Carl, “Churchill was among the politicians who understood British nationalism and the mentality of the British people. He knew that the British people would NEVER give in to appeasement”.
============================================================
Carl, you should read the biography of Sir Winston Churchill. It was choice that Churchill had to make. He has the choice to give the rein of the government to Lord Chamberlain whose appeasement agreement with Hitler was “CHEERED BY THE BRITISH PUBLIC when Chamberlain announced it upon his return from Munich.”
It is wrong to rewrite Churchill’s biography.
One cannot blame people from having hope. But in the case of Germany, Hitler simply took advantage of an old historical distrust of Germans versus the Jews.
The fact that Karl Marx was of a Jewish father did not help. He used the communist bogey and went after the Jews. His national polices naturally benefitted the German industrial class. The Germans got off the gold standard and stopped paying their debts. They then made plans to get back the land forcibly ceded to the French which formed part of their industrial heartland.
The German elite backed him all the way with only a handful opposing him. Hitler’s Germany was a clear case of democracy giving rise to a group that destroyed it. That is the weakness of the system that forgets about the issue of economic democracy as being the basis for social stability. Democracy allows for its own destruction.
The Philippines stands out as another example of failing democratic state. Without inclusive economic democracy you will have the failure of the democratic political process. The issues ongoing in Mindanao is the effect of keeping them poor and helpless to provide for an ATM for command votes when needed. GMA more than anything helped create those monsters down South. She has let the genie out of the battle.
Yes I agree it will take the Frodo’s of the Philippines to make things happen for the better. It is after all the nameless no bodies who work to feed, clothe and shelter us that will matter and be counted. Brazil has a steel worker union leader in the person of a Lula da Silva.
But I doubt if Noynoy is the one. We are too far backward yet.
Brian B on, “For pity’s sake, the worst Philippine tragedy in my lifetime, worst than Garci, Ondoy, the “accidental†killing in Paranaque, etc has just happened. You’re talking about other things?”
===============================================================
Manolo’s column is highly relevant to the latest Philippine tragedy. While the President Arroyo portrayed surprise, this would not have happened without the political patronage, especially the executive order by signed by Arroyo.
The rise of Ampatuan clan started when Andal Ampatuan was put into power in 2001 by Erap in his all-out war against extremist Muslims. The plan was to unseat Muslim officials who were MILF coddlers.
In 2004 presidential election, Ampatuan delivered the entire ARMM region to Gloria Arroyo and made him virtually unopposed and powerful in the region. The few teachers who disclosed that they stuffed ballots were beheaded. Ampatuan conversation with the Comelec Garcillano guaranteeing the region’s result was recorded in the infamous Garci tape.
When the MOA-AD for separate BangsaMoro failed due to TRO at the Supreme Court, the Muslim South went to war. The MOA-AD would have put enormous power on Muslim clan very close to the Palace, undoubtedly the main beneficiary would be the Ampatuan as already the ARMM governor with all the machinery in case of referendum or election.
Due to war, the President signed an executive order to arm the civilians as CVOs (in addition to CAFGU’s) and put them under the disposal of the local warlords. The IRA allotment was used to buy arms for the private armies who are trained by the military. In short, the words of Ampatuan becomes the law. The massacre of Mangudadatu women (former allies) is show of force on those who dare to cross the chief warlord. We are talking of a region where you cannot file a case without asking permission from the local official. The sons of Ampatuan are feared riding in black SUVs with fully armed convoy in the area. Their only check of power is when they go to Davao (where the nightlife is) and told by the fearless Mayor Duterte that they have to be disarmed and cannot use the sirens on their vehicle like they did in their own place.
The tragedy is just surface of the kind of perverted justice that exist in the Muslim South as coddled into power by the current President.
This is why Manolo’s column on good and evil strikes at the heart of the tragedy.
dods what just happened is our own 9-11. Tsk. If these people get away with it, it’s going to be far worse than Garci. The act itself was unimaginable, and just as unimaginable is that the greater and apparently disinterested population of the Philippines will have let it all pass by them in a few days. I’ve complained about this before, well-to-do and educated Filipinos are merely building walls around themselves. Hindi na tayo tumalino, we’re being derivative pa. I mean living in Intramuros isn’t exactly a future I want for myself and my children. Where are the so-called liberal democrats, Gusto lang ata ninyo magkulong sa mga villages nyong napaligiran ng pader.
“The tragedy is just surface of the kind of perverted justice that exist in the Muslim South as coddled into power by the current President.
This is why Manolo’s column on good and evil strikes at the heart of the tragedy.”
Not related at all.
Brian B on, “Where are the so-called liberal democrats, Gusto lang ata ninyo magkulong sa mga villages nyong napaligiran ng pader.”
The people has nothing to do with tragedy. The President has the state power. She can implement justice, only if she has the will since she is coddling Ampatuan clan, her most trusted warlord in the South.
I am talking about reaction, public outcry that could pressure government. You’re playing deaf and dumb.
And also sympathy and horror. Decent, civilized people are supposed to be horrified and are expected to be vocal of their horror. That most Filipinos are either too apathetic or too afraid to react just shows how uncivilized we all are.
Dami pang kailangan matutunan ng Pinoy (and I’m including the elte and the middle here) bago tayo maging totoong sibilisado. One of them is disgust. We simply do not understand disgust. Our feeling of disgust are simply mimicry, a pretense. To feel disgust, one must have clear boundaries, and these boundaries can both be instinctive or acquired (e.g learned). We are simply too unlearned and too pretentious (we’ve shed all worthy instincts as Filipinos) to be appropriately disgusted with anything. The feeling of disgust is also accompanied with the desire and will to set things and one’s mind in order. But what do we do as a people, we try to sleep it out.
sleep it off.
Brian B on, “I am talking about reaction, public outcry that could pressure government. You’re playing deaf and dumb.”
You have forgotten that no amount of pressure can force Arroyo except from the international community. Let alone the presidential election with no less than the US officials came to visit her. Local public outcry against Arroyo administration had always been dismissed. Excuse me, it is the President playing deaf and dumb. The Filipinos naturally just felt numb being unceremoniously ignored.
Brian B on, “dods what just happened is our own 9-11”.
Where have you been? You live too long in the west. No wonder, you are disconnected from what is happening in Muslim Mindanao. It is not that this did not happen in the past. Beheading is common headline there. Only this time, in large proportion, on women and done by the warlord who was put into power originally to counter the MILF atrocities, protected by the Palace and the military. Now, the atrocities is inflicted on previous allies who dared to challenge his power. This is far from 9-11 inflicted by the enemies of the state. This is inflicted by the state (Ampatuan being in the government) against its own people who dare to challenge his power.
Manolo, your views on Churchill are personality-oriented. I disagree with that. I believe Churchill was more in synch with the mood of the times and the people chose him to lead them during the appropriate time. Chamberlain saw the handwriting on the wall, and he chose to resign, paving the way for Churchill to take over at a crucial period in Britain’s history. Previous to that, Churchill had already been considered a cantankerous, bellicose political has-been. The long history of British pride and nationalism wouldn’t allow the nation to capitulate so easily to Germany. And it was the British people who chose the man for the times.
Fittingly, it seems that the British people saw Churchill as the appropriate leader for times of war, and not the suitable one for times of peace. Churchill was defeated in the elections of 1945, soon after the war was over.
The British Empire paid a heavy price for its intransigence. Apart from the many civilian lives lost, structures and industries destroyed, and the historical city of London reduced to ruins, a much-diminished Britain had to shed off her colonies and lower her standing in the world order, ceding the dominant role to the U.S., and, to a certain extent, the Soviet Union.
To this day, there is resentment toward France, which capitulated to the Germans, and was largely spared the brutality of Nazi bombings. To be sure, the French conducted their resistance thru De Gaulle who, ironically, was based in exile in England. France today boasts of having, arguably, the most beautiful city in the world in Paris. But the grandeur, the majesty and the history of Paris would not have been possible had the French not surrendered to the Germans. To add insult to injury, soon after World War II, De Gaulle wanted France to share the world stage as one of the leading superpowers, even attempting to elbow out Britain.
carl, we disagree on whether Churchill was in keeping with the mood of the times, or whether he helped mold his times; his stubborn warnings about hitler made him the man of the times when the nazis were revealed for what he said they were all along; but whether, after that, he was always firmly at the head of public opinion (and of party opinion), is something else entirely.
i’d recommend these very revealing books:
http://www.amazon.com/Duel-Eighty-Day-Struggle-Between-Churchill/dp/0300089163
http://www.amazon.com/Five-Days-London-May-1940/dp/0300080301
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300103021
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Burying-Caesar-Churchill-Chamberlain-Battle/dp/0753810603
i think you’ll enjoy them very much. the first three are by john lukacs, to my my mind the most engaging because eloquent yet subtle, admirer of churchill and whose approach to history i personally deeply admire; and the last is a truly fascinating study of the dynamics and rivalry between churchill and chaimberlain.
Thanks Dodong, but I think also the parallel story here is the murder of Moises Padilla in 1951.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,859540,00.html
and
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,820089,00.html
The case of the Ampatuans of Maguindanao demonstrates why national leaders can’t just take the logistics of local leaders and run. Ever since, both pre- and post-martial law leaders at the national level have been held hostage to the “bottom-up” clientelism of local elites.
At least in this arena, there is open competition among them, which means the executive can still wield some modicum of central control for as long as he/she remains legitimate and popular.
The irony of People Power is that national leaders have been even more dependent on local leaders to power in the face of counter-revolutionary and destabilising forces. Unlike Aquino though, GMA sought re-election, which made her even more susceptible to crooked officials offering a shady means of manufacturing a win. She could not turn her back on them subsequently. They gained and exercised bargaining power over her and presumably would help “elect” her successor.
Under martial law all of this ceased but was replaced by a top-down patronage system that included the president, his cronies and generals. This resulted in an even more inefficient allocation of resources.
The Erap interlude demonstrated how fragile our state was: susceptible to the same top down patronage and cronyism despite the so-called democratic checks and balances. Had Erap been a bit more proficient in shielding himself from prosecution, he might have avoided all the troubles that befell his presidency. The competence of GMA has provided a template for doing so.
This is why there has been a swing back in the public mood toward a less-competent but honest leader (in the mould of Cory) because as one academic wrote “competence can be outsourced, probity can’t”.
The big risk of course is that with a weak leader, clientelism could erode his political capital to the hilt and undermine his governance agenda.
d0d0ng,
If all Filipinos were Pragmatic/Realist, they’d be results-oriented. And if all were results-oriented, that means even our most intelligent and even our most idealistic ones would be results-oriented as well.
Thus, if everyone were pragmatic/realistic and results-oriented, the debates we would all have would be about results. The differences would then be about the short-term, mid-term, and long-term results and how to balance them out, or how to prioritize them.
And yes d0d0ng, you are right: it’s because no one follows what I say that we are in this mess. If Filipinos don’t listen to my message of pragmatism/realism and being results-oriented, what is the result? People remain enamored by intentions. People talk about Good and Evil. People focus less on results. Well, that’s why we ended up in this mess in the first place. Because since the majority does not look at results, some unscrupulous people who learn to become results-oriented take advantage of their results-orientation to become schemers with “ulterior-motives.”
But guess what… These people only emerge BECAUSE the vast majority of Filipinos are not results-oriented to begin with.
If everyone had been results-oriented, then everyone would be vigilant about unscrupulous schemers and that would put them out of business.
Manolo,
Can you tell us again why you’re a Noynoy stooge? I mean, honestly, you’re supposed to be well-informed and intelligent. I don’t really see why you’d advocate the candidacy of an unintelligent, uninformed, incompetent, uncharismatic, tongue-tied, and uninspiring man whose only redeeming quality is that he bears his father’s name!
You’re not on his payroll are you? Seeking favors and spoils when he wins, perhaps?
It really does not compute. So far, only stupid and totally clueless people go for Noynoy.
So what gives, Manolo? You’re not stupid. You’re not clueless…
Scheming perhaps? 😉
“Thanks Dodong, but I think also the parallel story here is the murder of Moises Padilla in 1951.”
Yeah and the parallel of 9-11 is the young Kennedy crashing his plane.
nick, how to respond when all your assumptions are false 🙂
read the moises padilla story first, brian, and the outrage it produced.
MLQ3,
Here are my assumptions about you:
1. You are a supporter of Noynoy. True or False?
2. You are well-informed. True or False?
3. You are intelligent. True or False?
4. You are not stupid. True or False?
5. You are not clueless. True or False?
Explain which assumptions are FALSE, Mr. Explainer. 😉
I’ve heard the story from my lolo, Manolo. Don’t need Time to tell me what happened. The Kennedy analogy is apt. You have any idea how many Americans cried when he crashed his plane? They’ve made movies about it. A popular story. The ending was also thoroughly satisfying.
Tell, do you think there’s a worthier story this week?
this is the story, and a story for a generation.
you flatter me for your purposes, but the context is the accompanying assumptions, of course.
And Manolo, killing one man is very doable. You and I can do it. Anyone can. The only difference is that the old sugar Governor has the power to do it in plain sight. He wanted to terrorize. Killing 50 people, however, women included, in cold blood. Something else. Oh, I can fathom it, whch is why I believe this is cultural watershed for us. Are we one country or just a bunch of tribes pretending to be under one flag? Was the incident relevant to the entire nation. Absolutely. But why does the entire nation act like they don’t think it is?
I agree with you this is a watershed moment, but I have a different impression, that there is nationwide outrage and horror over this.
Nick seems to be arguing that since idealists only produce good intentions then they are bad. Corollary to that, pragmatists/realists produce results and therefore are good for the country.
He seems to be hinting that good intentioned people like to intervene in political and economic markets that have unintended dire consequences and that pragmatists, in recognising this push for more limited policies that work with and leverage these markets.
The results from the latter are more stable since they are more sustainable and in line with stakeholder interests.
If my reading of this is correct, then it doesn’t necessarily contradict what Manolo is saying, since he is arguing for a tempered approach between the idealistic and pragmatist route to winning (and perhaps governing). Manolo is seeking an equilibrium, which in essence is what is called for when dealing with political and economic markets.
There are no absolutes of course: you can be pragmatic while having some noble aspirations. No one is completely bereft of good intentions, I would think.
i wonder why you think noynoy is frodo (do you?) why not any of the other candidates? nick perlas maybe? i dont get it..
Answer the questions, Manolo. Are they true or false? If some are true and some are false, which ones are true, and which ones are false? 😉
*
The Cusp,
You are right. There are many pragmatic idealists, that is, they are idealists and pragmatists at the same time. No one ever said that they have to be mutually-exclusive, and indeed, some of the most successful societies in the region were brought to their current level of success by leaders who are pragmatic idealists.
In a way, all I’m saying is that if everyone was a pragmatist, then even our idealists would be pragmatic.
When the majority are pragmatic and when our idealists are pragmatic, then the results they will seek to pursue will be ideal. Not just that, they will more likely be successful.
The Idealists we have in the Philippines, on the other hand, seem averse to realism and pragmatism and even tend to disdain anything that comes close to being realistic and pragmatic. The policies that such Idealists thus pursue often tend to be far removed from reality, and concentrate solely on up-in-the-clouds ideals. In the end, since they are unattainable and impractical, they never come to fruition. The end result: NO RESULTS.
The unfortunate truth shown by history is that between a purely idealistic Don Quixote and a purely selfish-but-pragmatic Prince, more tangible benefits have come to more people by Machiavellian Prince-like leaders then by Quixotic ones. Because in the end, selfish leaders still need to deliver something to the people they lead in order to continue in power.
Quixotic leaders with no pragmatism/realism in them tend to think naively that everyone else is intrinsically benign and altruistic like they are, and that is a wrong assumption. In the final analysis, they fail to deliver on everything, and almost always get “out-delivered” by the selfish Machiavellian Princes who – in the quest to preserve power – end up needing to produce just enough results to survive in power.
This is what the Noynoy camp is all about: Quixotic Romanticism about “Good and Evil”, but nothing tangible to offer to the people. And that’s why I need to hear from MLQ3 what exactly his stand is vis-a-vis Noynoy.
Last I heard, MLQ3 is pro-Noynoy. Now unless he has changed his stand, I’d like to hear from MLQ3 exactly what he has to say about his Noynoy advocacy.
*
Manolo, care to tell us what your stand is? 😉
The Cusp,
By the way, I wouldn’t exactly say that Idealists are “bad” per se. I would actually say that pure Idealists just happen to be more likely to be ineffectual and in the long run, produce little or no results.
If you have pure Quixotic Idealists with absolutely no hint of realism or pragmatism in them competing against each other, then you have a contest for Idealistic “good intentions.” All those “good intentions” tend to just remain words spoken or written, or if implemented, fall flat because they weren’t feasible.
But if on the other hand, you have pure pragmatists/realists with absolutely no hint of idealism in them competing against each other, you have a contest between plans and results. The contest BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION becomes one of proving why one’s plan is more feasible than the other. The pragmatist/realist, as mentioned, ultimately realizes that he/she needs to deliver on results that matter to the people (as he would recognize that he needs their support to stay in power in the first place) and as such, will tend to pursue policies that will yield results that are beneficial to the most people possible.
The best of course is for everyone in society, especially its leaders to be BOTH pragmatists/realists and idealists at the same time. But guess what, the Universe favors realists/pragmatists more because everything really is about the law of survival. We just temper that with idealism to make it less “brutal.”
you’re welcome to review this blog and my column 🙂