Syria, Immigration Reform and Movies about and for Women

.
The following are links two three articles about the title issues: Americans opposing Syrian involvement, a Republican Congressman from Texas fears the Latino vote and how Hollywood's disinterest in women could waste a generation of outrageously talented actresses.

Aside from the interesting nature of each of these there is something about how people, perhaps particularly people with some power, think and how that may make sense but still seems out of synch with the larger public. Why is this?

In my posts about "how we think" I should perhaps have emphasized INTUITION as it's always there, always pushing us toward "its" conclusion, "its" next step. When I was young I knew about intuition and considered it as a foundation for chess play, but realized quickly my intuition for chess was absolutely terrible. Does power over events lead us to trust our intuition more than we should? I'm not so sure it does, but that being able to actually shape events may simply be a reinforcing feed-back. It might make someone so confident they rely less on science (calculating variations in chess) or on the opinions of others. This has been known to be a problem for corporate CEOs as well as the President (who is said sometimes to "live in a bubble"). Considering the availability of information and the numbers of consultants and pollsters it doesn't seem possible the bubble could exist, but it does. I think each and every one of us lives within the bubble which is the sum total of our experiences and knowledge. How can you ever 'think outside of the box'? Learn, experience, think!

At least today we can't say people don't know. There are far too many ways to get information of many kinds. For example, ignorance of climate change isn't really possible, but it can be ignored while the public isn't very well informed. On the other hand, for Republicans the immigration issue can't be ignored. Sen. Lindsay Graham said Sunday that the party was in a 'death spiral' because they're trying to ignore the issue. Can the Republican Party continue if they don't begin to include more African-Americans, Oriental-Americans, Latino-Americans and single women? Can you be a party of only wealthy, well-educated White men of Caucasian ethnicity and gain a ruling majority? That's what makes the immigration reform going on now in Congress so interesting. Their intuition is saying, "stay the course" and their pollsters are telling them they can't do that if they want to be in the majority.

The case of involvement in the Syrian conflict is different for the President. He isn't up for re-election! But, of course, beyond his personal world there is his sense of what's good for America. That's why, so far, the question has been "what is in our national interest?" Sen. McCain and some others have called for involvement from the start, but haven't provided compelling reasons. Now the president says the use of dangerous gas to kill people is crossing the "red line". Trying to get the Russians to accept that Syria's president Assad must leave hasn't been easy. The Russians have had a long-term relationship with Syria and they need the business and naval port. Somehow the loss of human lives hasn't yet bothered Russia's president Putin sufficiently to end his objection to American involvement. I hope Pres. Obama can either convince him otherwise or provide some kind of incentives to make this easier for Putin to accept. It would also benefit our relations with Russia if we weren't always at loggerheads. I fear Putin is too hard-headed, like George W. Bush was. Maybe the G8 meeting, going on now in Ireland, will result in some progress.

But, back to how we think...

Why is it the public opposes Syrian involvement? Their "mental box" says we've been at war a long time and we need to back off, take a break and let other people solve their own problems. It isn't always easy for the public to see the long-term advantages to any kind of foreign involvements. What do Americans gain from the recent changes in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen? Do the Americans even realize the significance of the recent democratic elections in Pakistan which have become possible because of American involvement? It's not an easy task for a president to convince people of the Righteousness or efficacy of our foreign policy. We've been trying to help more people to be free and prosperous when it's also to America's benefit. We've been trying to reduce the nuclear threat in Libya, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and everywhere. Can the public see that in the news reports? It's no wonder they aren't comfortable with another step when they haven't really been told the previous steps produced benefits to them. It's even harder when there is disinformation coming from the political opposition. Instead, they hear about scandals with the IRS, spying on news agencies and now the 'whistleblower' revealing what the NSA has been doing. They're not hearing about things government does which work out well. Naturally, the public opinion polls show Congress is held in very low esteem.

Moving to corporate America...

Why do movie-makers ignore women? Is it just easier to get women to go to a man's movie than to get men to a chick flick? Do men spend that much more money on movies, so focusing on bringing in their dollars is all-important? Are these movie studios/production-companies/makers just focusing on the 'science' of what makes more money? I suspect they can safely ignore women since there isn't any focused single 'enemy' women can attack. What would move these movie makers to change their way? If they're just looking at revenues it's hard to imagine anything will change them, so women must make more movies to change things.

If you can't inform someone or some group to shape their next step, then you simply need to change the person in charge to get a different next step. For example, if Republicans don't pass immigration reform then the next election or three could change them for someone else. If the president isn't at least partially successful, then Democrats could suffer in the next elections. In his case the fate of many other politicians is involved. If a movie-maker makes tons of money it isn't likely a few blog posts will change their minds about what kind of movies to make. Maybe more story writers interested in a broader range of ideas could make a difference. We elect a different politician to get different policies, so changing the writers should be effective too.

If you want change, you must get out there and do it. In Ireland Pres. Obama told everyone the politicians tend to follow the public's attitudes and that it is therefore in THEIR hands what kind of policies and future they will have. The politicians will simply codify it and enforce it after the public has already decided. That's true here when the shape of the electorate changes they will enforce their will on the political class.

Now, if we could just change some of the ideas on Wall St. and in the corporate boardroom about what the workers deserve to be paid when their productivity goes up.