ShareThisThe ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. —Martin Luther King Jr
One of the subjects that are liable to get a conversation going is politics. It is also one that people, who would rather spend their time doing something else, consciously avoid because they know how these conversations can lead to nasty debates and quarrels they’d rather not be a part of.
But whether fond of politics or not, some people who are keen about certain issues will give a knee jerk response to a political stimulus if it touches a sensitive chord. Such knee jerk response is oftentimes a catty remark borne out of repressed emotion the subject has abruptly evoked. And given the sophistication of our technology today, the explosion of people’s reactions will be unimaginable.
This was exactly what happened when Bart (my husband) made a pointed reply to writer Rita Gerona Adkins’ forwarded Breaking News Alert on March 24 from The New York Times about former Vice President Dick Cheney’s surgery. The news, which reported Cheney had a heart transplant and was recovering at a Virginia hospital was very brief and provided only a link to the actual, more detailed news.
Bart’s response, “So, Ms. Rita, in today’s politics and economic crises, what’s Dick Cheney’s relevance? Do I care?”
Similarly, his curt comment drew an immediate reaction, in fact, a retort from a close friend, proudly signing his name with the label, “a FilAm Republican.” His answer, “The former Vice President, who happens to be a Republican, is in the intensive care unit at a Virginia hospital and needs our prayers and support. Let’s not be too harsh on (sic) during this Lenten Season.”
Our friend’s email ignited a barrage of impassioned discussions on political colors, even dragging NaFFAA (National Federation of Filipino American Associations) into the picture. NaFFAA Republicans quickly aligned with him not so much on his mild rebuke of Bart’s seemingly cold and heartless reaction to the news of the former Vice President’s health but on their impression that as a NaFFAA national officer, he shouldn’t show his political color.
As I quietly followed the eternal thread of emails from people of opposing political ideologies on the subject of political colors, I couldn’t help chastising my husband for what I told him was his unnecessary comment that sparked this incessant battle of wits. Though I share his sentiment about Cheney, I thought it would have been prudent and respectful in this particular case if he had just kept his feelings to himself. But I should have known better than challenge his stand and action. Despite the tons of paperwork before him, he still made time to post his simple rebuttal. So, on March 26 Bart’s email message went,
Hello All.
As far as I am concerned, I have not mentioned any political party (Democrat or Republican) in my reaction to Ms. Rita Gerona Adkin’s forwarded “news” on Cheney. My commentary is solely motivated by my heart’s desire to hallow only a person (especially men of politics) who have caused the good of the greater majority).
Rita unwittingly failed to show a hint or motivation why she was forwarding an already publicly known information about his hospitalization. Without that justification from Rita, I would think her forwarded “news” was sort of a subliminal way of “embellishing” Cheney’s “acceptability” as a political figure and as a former government official (VP).
Without being hypocritical, l believe the former Vice-president does not deserve any extra embellishment or special treatment.
But even then, I still wish him well. .
Yes, indeed, we can petition God for his improved health. But that improvement of his health or longevity thru God’s grace and mercy is not going to change my personal assessment of his performance as a government official. Likewise, that he is a Republican or Democrat is just not an issue at all.
Sincerely,
Bart Tubalinal
The tangled web of emails on FilAm partisan politics would have gone on and on if not for a few cool heads that asked for a truce. I was happy and relieved only to find myself wondering if I should give my take on the topic, knowing that not only is this such a volatile subject but that just like Bart’s remark, my article could trigger another torrent of hot debates between FilAm Democrats and FilAm Republicans (or between pro Marcos and anti Marcos). But if I have a message to convey, what does it matter if it leads to an exhausting thread of email exchanges? Indeed, sometimes, speaking up and giving voice to an unpopular opinion isn’t half as bad as we think it is. It could even be surprisingly good. As Mark Twain once put it, “Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”
Every so often, I would receive from friends or associates emails that annoy me so much. Many, if not all of them are political propagandas that are nowhere near the truth or just partial truths bent so many ways to suit the perpetrators’ motives. A few times, I had responded with a link to sites that discuss in detail why something is true or false. At other times I just tried to ignore them and delete the email without even reading them. But it gets to me sometimes, especially when I have repeatedly told them not to forward any email, article or link that is political in nature. And is it a mere coincidence that these emails are all anti Obama or pro Republican? I find it inconsiderate and disrespectful that they do that to me knowing already how I felt about those things and that I have requested to spare me this nonsense. Besides, I have never once forwarded to them any email of that nature so what gives them the right to do it to me?
While waiting for our order in one of my late night outs with friends, one of them started sharing her experience in her recent travel to the Philippines. She talked about visiting Ilocos Sur and seeing the marked difference between the South and the North. Justifiably, she was impressed with the way the Marcoses have made remarkable improvements in their province of Ilocos Sur as compared to the Singsons’ Ilocos Norte. The conversation continued on to Imelda’s projects in Leyte and her beautification projects when she was the Philippines’ First Lady. When the discussion veered to the Marcoses’ being better leaders despite stealing from the Filipinos because they had those infrastructures to show for, I couldn’t help cutting in and strongly disagreeing.
I told them, ten billion U.S. dollars of Marcos’ stolen wealth can never be justified by a few buildings and paved roads in Ilocos Sur and Leyte. We cannot exonerate a corrupt official for a few good deeds which were his duties to execute anyway.
The group quickly recognized we were treading a “treacherous path” and quietly shifted gears. Like good sports, we said goodbyes perhaps with only a vague reminder of words never to be spoken again.
If it were Bart, the discussion wouldn’t have dissipated so quickly. Ending a discourse before the question is satisfactorily answered isn’t his way of making or preserving peace. Like an accountant who’d never rest until the last penny is accounted for to balance the day’s transactions, he would rather go to the farthest end to see the issue resolved than walk away with a hundred questions like the sword of Damocles hanging over his head. In the end, I can’t help seeing his point. An unresolved issue will never completely go away. It is bound to resurface one day to wreak the same havoc it did when it first showed up.