Decade of the Con

In this column, Frank Rich gets the last decade exactly right. 2000-2009 was the decade of the "Con."

Consider the disasters wrought by our credulity. Rich lays them out for us to behold. I have already confessed that I am among those taken in by Obama's con - not his timidity, as Frank describes it, but his rank dishonesty and/or political cowardice in refusing to do what he promised.

My wife and I watched "Invictus" yesterday afternoon. At one point in the movie, Nelson Mandela, who has become the president of South Africa after a 30 year imprisonment for his opposition to apartheid, opposes his political party's plan to rename the national rugby team and replace its traditional Green and Gold colors - a name and emblem revered by by white Afrikaners, but despised by the black majority as symbols of their former oppressors. Knowing that this would confirm the worst fears of White Afrikaners, Mandela risks his political standing to challenge his supporters to rise above their legitimate grievances and hatred and be better than than they are expected to be - and he succeeds. But the most moving part of the scene is when he is travelling to meet with his supporters and his aid is urging him to not to intervene and risk losing their support. Mandela responds with "the moment I am not willing to risk losing their support is the moment that I am unfit to lead." Enough said.

By the way, all of the disasters of 2000-2009 will pale in comparison to the disaster we'll visit on our children if we do nothing about global warming. Consider this scenario.

At any rate, I know that emotion is far more powerful than reason. But the only way humanity is going to survive is if it develops a passion for the truth, the capacity for critical analysis, and a clear headed appreciation of the inexhaustible willingness of people - even our erstwhile allies - to deceive us for personal gain.

Over 100 years ago, William Kingdom Clifford penned this short article - "The Ethics of Belief." His conclusion is overstated and surely wrong. But his basic point - that each and every one of us has a moral obligation to exercise our faculty of belief responsibly - and the arguments he he invokes in support of that conviction - are our only hope of survival.

Joe H.