Although I try to keep politics in my other blog, Rainy Day Things, once in awhile, something intended for there has other implications and ends up here. So if you simply cannot stand to hear anything remotely political, warning for what lies ahead.
Because sometimes it's fun and because I enjoy the use of folksy metaphors in my own writing, I was inspired to write about fence sitting here after reading a blog where the writer used the term with great disdain as he said Obama is a fence sitter.
Oh my, that is the worst of the worse.
Then the writer added Obama is nothing like Lincoln who called himself a rail splitter. I will not get into how country folk might regard rail splitters in terms of metaphors but fence sitters attracted me for how it works on the farm, in politics as well as personal relationships.
I wasn't going to get into the debate at the person's blog because it was really that writer's right to dislike Obama and find fault with him in whatever way chosen. But I'm a farm girl, born, bred and still living on one. Being a fence sitter is bad?
There were a few occasions when I was a little girl and making a run for a fence as a way to avoid being butted by a wether (neutered male sheep) who in this case had been bottle fed which meant not afraid of people not to mention feisty-- as in he was running straight for me. In that case the fence was a rock wall and I was quite happy to sit on it until the wether lost interest.
Perhaps that writer didn't quite understand the purpose of fences or why a person might sit on one. Possibly they heard or read about it elsewhere and thought what a great insult. So I thought I'd write a blog for anybody who also isn't farm oriented and might not know.
Where it comes to agriculture, fences divide pastures and land that one person owns from another. They serve valuable purposes in grass management as well as keeping stock where the rancher wants them to stay. The land on either side of the fence is not meant for the same purposes or there'd not be a fence. Fences have to be strong or around cattle they are not there long. I suppose most people do know that much.
Why would one sit on a fence? Well there are multiple reasons on a farm but the most likely is when you started into something, or were forced into it and you aren't quite ready to go ahead because something isn't right there. You sit there awhile as you consider where to go next which means you might go back from where you came as well as forward. There are consequences to each action, you know them, and take them into account because some condition has changed and you have the time to think about it-- in short it's not an emergency.
To not be a fence sitter means you'd jump off anyway, regardless of which side or where you'd land, because to wait for the right time, or to consider the options for any length of time is the mistake. Maybe you simply don't like to think and would rather be doing anything other than that.
You cannot be a fence sitter if you aren't in the field. It's easy to kibbutz back in a house about what it means to be a fence sitter, but the person on the fence is in the game. They have already made some decisions to get to that place and set themselves up there for a period of time as they consider what comes next.
Fence sitters at a rodeo are there to be of assistance when something goes wrong out on the arena. They sit, seeming to be doing nothing. At that time, it's not their business to be doing something; but they are watching. If a cowboy is thrown, about to be attacked by a bull, spectators will see them off that fence in a flash to do what they can to get the downed man to safety or if he got hung up in the rigging, to help him as only they can. They are there because they can work fast from that spot.
Now if one sat on a fence too long, that isn't necessarily comfortable-- depending, of course, on the width of the fence. Comfortable or not, a fence sitter will eventually go back or forward. But on the farm, they can stay long enough to be sure the mean bull isn't in that pasture, or that they aren't going to scare off an animal they want to catch.
There are other ways to get into pastures, like gates. A fence sitting happens because the person isn't close to a gate. Maybe they started to do something but then another issue arose. They are taking a moment to consider because a quick decision isn't needed-- no coyote chewing on a sheep requiring immediate action. They might be surveying the situation but want to be ready to act swiftly when the time is right.
Oh definitely Bush was no fence sitter. He'd do anything to avoid thinking through a decision. He'd jump, yelling 'bring it on,' and then later worry (maybe) about where he'd landed. For someone who admires that kind of action, I guess a fence sitter is an insult. It's not to me.
Fence sitting applies to a lot more than political choices. It can be about relationships. There's the person sitting on the fence unable to decide between being with someone or going on alone. Fence sitting for a bit gives them time to consider where that will all lead.
The non-fence sitter jumps in and worries about it later. Or they sit at home and kibbutz over what someone else should do when they are not in the pasture or on any fence themselves. It might look easier to not be on the fence but it often means you aren't part of the solution either.
It might be obvious to anyone who reads this blog that I am a bit of a fence sitter, but I who can get over one as fast as possible when I know it's the right thing. I like though to evaluate situations, look at the whole picture, do a little nuanced thinking about where things are going-- when it's not an emergency.
Being a moderate politically, who won't defend one side of an issue where I think it has to be a mix of solutions, someone might try to insult me by calling me a fence sitter; but of course, I'd not take it as an insult.
Fences do force choices and action because you can't really stay on one forever. For me though a president as a fence sitter for awhile is just fine.
It's not like Obama has sat on any fence forever. If he had, the Republicans wouldn't be so angry at the health care plan, the stimulus, the financial regulations, tax cuts. You'd not hear he won't listen to them and acts like a dictator. When he moves off that fence, like he did in December, he moves fast but after he's taken some time to think it all through. Which does not mean he cannot still be wrong. Thinking through things doesn't guarantee you won't make mistakes-- just less of them.
And for anyone who thinks fence sitting is a bad idea, I might suggest trying it some time. I even have a bull who likes to protect his cows and calves from strangers, who might help them see the value of giving it a second thought before jumping into his pasture.
Farm Boss added: There are situations that need watching just like a "baby sitter" does with older kids. You don't clean up the mess ..you watch and guard. 'Fence sitting' is a responsible activity.
14 comments:
Oh this is a wonderful post, thank you Rain! Superb defense of fence-sitting, you put the whole thing into perfect perspective. Thank you! I love all the examples of real-life fence-sitting and why they are honourable useful things to do. It's a dismissive cliche that rolls of the tongue way too easily.
I grew up in the country and fences are well known to me - both wood and barbed wire. They have a definite purpose on farms and in fields and pastures. In politics, well not so much. The current President probably would not react too well to being called a fence sitter. Personally I kind of like the rail splitter. It denotes action whereas fence sitter denotes inaction. I do recall that a famous poet said "Good fences make good neighbors" or words to that effect so, to reiterate, fences do have a purpose although not so much in politics.
It would be easy to ridicule rail splitters also but the issue here is whether sometimes it is good to be close to a situation but not jump. Those who supported GW like action at any cost. They can even then complain about it later.
I won't get into Obama here. I have a place for that when I want to defend my opinion political. I think it's fine to dislike him but most just don't like what he does rather than thinking he's ineffective. Limbaugh started out the he's ineffective as a way to be nasty and it caught on with the right as much of what Limbaugh says does.
Obama has carried on too many of Bush's policies to satisfy the left and not enough of them to satisfy the right. I used to always say when both of my kids were upset that I had favored the other one, that meant I had it about right.
As a leftist socialist I can only think of barbed-wire fences that imprison in the human sense. But, it is quite true one can quietly observe from within a gulag as well as from outside....just ask the survivors if Manzenar or Gitomo. There can be NO fence sitting in matters of human justice. otherwise, one is complicit and when good people remain silent evil ascends.
I think it's all in the semantics. If the person who accused Obama of being a fence sitter meant that he tried to have it both ways, there is some justification for that, but if he meant that Obama was indecisive I find that to be a specious argument. Obama is thoughtful and not rash and that's what we want in a leader.
There can be no fence sitting when a coyote is attacking the sheep either. But this is not about whether action must always be taken, it's more about whether rash action is beneficial where you jump without taking a moment to consider.
On the human rights, since our country used Mubarak to torture suspects when we didn't want to do it and who knows how many other ways, since we have propped up despots time after time when they were 'our' despot, we will have a hard time justifying our actions and they weren't as a result of fence sitting.
In the current situation with Egypt, there is not going to be a hero here and the people may end up with a government worse than they had. When we jump into that can of worms with no idea where it will end, we may be complicit in worse to come. Certainly the Shah of Iran was not good in how he treated his people, much hated, but when Khomeni took over, it didn't improve their lives and made it much worse for some of them.
On the rail splitting, I want to add that it was a campaign slogan to get Lincoln elected. Yes, he had done it when he had to do it but he didn't particularly like it being what he was praised for given he had accomplished so much intellectually to take him beyond that. It should be called log splitting technically but that didn't sound as good-- and we all know what sounds good is all people care about when they vote.
When Mubarak goes, it will be interesting to see if it really can lead to a democracy for the Egyptian people. That has yet to be determined. It is possible since many of them have educations and it doesn't appear they want an Islamic theocracy at this point. Their problem will be finding jobs either way as educations without jobs aren't that helpful to paying the bills.
I bet he's got quite the book he could write with the things he did for various foreign governments. Given the way a lot of that works, he might not survive to write it...
I might add in the case of Egypt and what Obama should be doing-- or not; it's tricky. We do not have the resources to have another war on our hands, certainly not with Egypt. We have many other 'dictators' who we have been able to work with and might find it disconcerting to find our support was all self-interest. Some of this Egypt has to work out. We could threaten to stop our foreign aid of $3 billion a year and that is a carrot that might work but from what I am reading, the people there are angry at the US already for the pressure we have brought to bear in the past, what we have asked them to do. I don't think this is that simple and for those of us who live where it's safe and such violence isn't a risk right now, we need to be careful what we demand. It could be here.
I am going to write more about an aspect of this but it's going to take some putting it together. My thoughts, such as they have been, are in Rainy Day Things. Like so many of us, I am just reading and trying to absorb.
I think Obama has sat on the fence on many issues to try and have it both ways.
But in the case of Egypt, he has actually been given credit by Republican and Democrat foreign policy experts for sitting on the fence at this point. There is not a good side to be on publicly at the moment. We want to retain stability in the region, but we want the people to be heard. So there really is no other choice than to try to be fairly neutral and work the back channels for an outcome that we favor.
I don't actually think he tries to have it both ways. I think he's always been more moderate than extreme leftie and the middle is where he thinks the best answers lie. Now he might be wrong, of course.
In the case of health care, it sounds like if the Supreme Court weighs in once again to tell us what to do based on their power to override the other two 'equal' branches, they may say it's not okay to mandate buying insurance.
Easy solution to that-- medicare for all. They have let the government tax and not stopped services it offers. That cuts out the insurance companies which is fine with me but won't be popular with Blue Cross..
The stupid people in Congress wrote a 2000 page bill, but in their haste to pass it and then see what is in it, they forgot to put in the clause that most bills have that say if one part is thrown out by the courts the rest are still in effect.
Maybe if they would have gone back from the Senate to the House like they are supposed to do somebody would have caught that or maybe if it would have been posted online before the vote like they promised somebody would have caught it.
I think it is kind of funny they think they are so smart shoving it through so fast, but it bit them on the ass this time. So now we have to kill the health care law to see what is in it.
Our Congress, the guys we pay, they can't bother reading 2000 pages. What do we pay them for again? The gist of it is online-- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html Admittedly I wanted medicare for all but this was a compromise. That is not fence sitting. That is recognizing that we can't always get all of what we want-- which happens in relationships also. I don't think Obama is a fence sitter in terms of trying to have it all. I think he just doesn't have the right or left wing dogma as his guiding star. He is trying to work things through in a way that doesn't hurt others and that's why the health care bill didn't sink insurance industry as many of us would have liked. It means he is nuanced. Both the right and the left like extremes, I guess. Me, being in the middle, I more prefer that things not be all of one or the other.
One thing for those to consider who don't like health care insurance (and it's not a done deal that it's finished just yet), supposing your child or grandchild was diagnosed with epilepsy. Do you like the idea that you could never again purchase health insurance for them? Pre-existing conditions could mean that. A lot in the health care bill many folks didn't bother to read. That should NOT have been our Congresspeople!
One other point on the health insurance. They really had to have the mandate or the rest didn't work. So if it is all thrown out, a lot of Americans might wonder what they voted for last election; but that's the breaks of the game. I don't see how part of it could have worked as how would it have been paid for?
Does the Federal government have the power and the authority to make John Q. Citizen purchase health insurance? The Supreme Court will decide .
The whole program should fold if they do not, as without that, the insurance companies cannot offer what this program would which means it should collapse.
The real issue here is does an appointed for life body (the Supreme Court) actually have the right to override the elected officials in the supposedly two equal branches of government? I heard an interesting discussion on that saying nowhere does the Constitution give to the Supremes what they have taken many times. That wasn't their original purpose but early on and later with Civil Rights and abortion, they took it. They took it again when they said a corporation has all the rights of a citizen. That was way out there for a Justice to vote for who, when he was being interviewed for the job, said he believed in a modest approach to what the Supreme Court does. Obviously sometimes lying is okay.
If the government does not have the right to say they must buy insurance, it does have the right to tax them to pay for a government run health care (we have it now with Medicare and even more so the VA), and that could be done if we didn't have Republicans in power. The reason it wasn't Medicare for all was because of trying to cooperate. So much for that.
Post a Comment