| In Praise of Negativity |
Bob Rusbasan
September 26, 1999
"You're being negative!" "Quit being so negative!" "Why do you have to have a negative attitude about this?" "That's certainly a very negative way to look at it!"
Or, in the words of my favorite whipping boy:
No attack ever created a job or educated a child, or helped a family make ends meet. No insult ever cleaned up a toxic waste dump or helped an elderly person.
- President Bill Clinton during the October 16, 1996 Presidential debate with Bob Dole
At the risk of sounding negative, what a bunch of crap.
It continues to amaze me how brainwashed the American public is. Most people have not taken the time to develop a consistent set of beliefs and principles to guide their lives. Instead, they mindlessly repeat and believe a bunch of illogical, contradictory platitudes.
The anti-negativity mindset is perhaps the stupidest of all. For one thing, it is virtually impossible to express the sentiment without contradicting yourself. Let's look at the simplest formulation: Negativity is bad. Whoa! Hold on there! Negativity is what? How negative!
Mere semantic games? If only it were so. Unfortunately, I cannot count the number of times I have heard a valid criticism countered with a simple sentence labeling the criticism as negativity. That's it. No counter-argument, no correction of misrepresented facts, nothing. Just the statement that the criticism is "negative" and the expectation that everyone will shake their heads in disappointment and pay no more attention.
And you know what? People usually do.
Take the above Clinton quotation. It was in response to Bob Dole's complaint that Manpower Services was now the biggest employer in the country, and that people were much worse off working in temporary jobs. Now I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Dole that Manpower's success indicates that we have an ailing economy, but it is an argument that resonates with much of the public. My complaint about Clinton's answer has nothing to do with his policy and everything to do with his use of a cheap technique to avoid answering Dole.
But guess what? The line was a big hit! In fact, it was replayed over and over on all the newscasts the followed the debate. Many commentators dubbed it the line of the night.
Anyone who takes the time to think things through rather than simply believing as they are told should be quite offended. Negativity is not always bad. We have to make decisions about all kinds of things as we go through life, and that always involves balancing good and bad factors.
Say you are a young parent, deciding where to send your fifteen-year-old daughter to school. You are considering two schools and have compiled a list of positive aspects of each. The schools are running dead-even, and you can't make up your decision. Then someone informs you that one of the two schools has a big rape problem. Would you ask which one? Or would you stand firm on your principle that negativity should not be a factor in your decision?
Let's go back to Clinton's applause-line and analyze it, piece by piece.
No attack ever created a job. A few years ago, the Gateway computer company was attacked repeatedly in the press. Why? Because they had experienced unprecedented success in their mail-order computer business without appreciably increasing their customer-service staff. The result was dreadful technical support. To get any assistance you had to stay on hold for three hours or call them at 4 AM. The computer industry press began advising against buying Gateway computers until this was resolved. As a result of this attack, Gateway created more jobs in their customer-service division to handle the increased call volume. This is certainly far from an isolated example.
No attack ever educated a child. After subjecting its students to "New Math" that left them unable to do simple calculations, California educators responded to parents' attacks by redesigning their math program. Many children were educated with the traditional method that yielded much better results.
No attack ever helped a family make ends meet. Perhaps the unions that supported Clinton so enthusiastically in 1996 should have paid more attention to this one. Unions are in the business of attacking (or at least wielding the threat of such attacks) companies to increase compensation of their members. Increased compensation certainly helps families make ends meet.
No insult ever cleaned up a toxic waste dump. Yes, that's right. According to Clinton, the environmental watchdog groups that publish lists of the biggest polluters are wasting their time. I, on the other hand, have seen many companies respond to the "polluter" insult by cleaning up their act to burnish their public image.
No insult ever helped an elderly person. "Hey, Joe, I can't believe you're treating your poor old mother like that." I'm sure there is at least one case in history of somebody being insulted and thereby shamed into helping an elderly person.
Now what does any of this have to do with the desirability of temporary employment becoming more commonplace in America in 1996? Not a damn thing.
Why were the people who so loved Clinton's line even watching the debate? After all, a debate is inherently negative. The participants are trying to make themselves look good at the expense of the other person.
And what's wrong with that? The point of a presidential debate is to voters decide who is better fit to lead the nation in the next four years. If they have a good plan to improve something, they should let us know, even if it makes their opponents plan look bad in comparison. If they have legitimate concerns about their opponent's ideas, they should be free to point them out as well.
The same situation exists in everyday life. As we encounter new situations, we constantly have to evaluate them by considering various negative and positive aspects. If we limit ourselves to only listening to the positive, our lives will suffer.
Copyright © 1999 Bob Rusbasan. All rights reserved.