Valkyrie, Socrates, and You, Part II
Date: January 8th, 2009
Category: Ideology of Freedom
On a personal level — i.e., government and politics aside — the Valkyrie story is yet another reminder that it’s much more important to be loyal to your principles than to be popular. Truth and popularity, in fact, are all too often at odds with one another.
In comparing his own life to that of Socrates, in his book The Consolations of Philosophy, Alain de Botton writes:
In conversations, my priority was to be liked, rather than to speak the truth. A desire to please led me to laugh at modest jokes like a parent on the opening night of a school play. With strangers, I adopted the servile manner of a concierge greeting wealthy clients in a hotel — salival enthusiasm born of a morbid, indiscriminate desire for affection. I did not publicly doubt ideas to which the majority was committed. I sought the approval of figures of authority and after encounters with them, worried at length whether they had thought me acceptable. When passing through customs or driving alongside police cars, I harboured a confused wish for the uniformed officials to think well of me.
Sound familiar? It should, because, to some extent, every one of us is guilty of not having the courage to reveal our true thoughts. In fact, none of us will ever totally rid ourselves of the sometimes overpowering need to be accepted. It is a psychic disability that is part of being human.
This is so even though we know, in our heart of hearts, that some of the biggest fools on the planet are popular. If we need reinforcement on this point, we need only turn on our television sets and listen to the babble of the many high-profile fools who grace our screens.
But what about compromise? Doesn’t a civilized society require compromise? I like the way former House Majority Leader Dick Armey answers that question: “You can compromise on details, you can compromise on strategies, but you must never compromise on principles.”
For the most part, compromising on “details and strategy” can be beneficial if it helps equals to get past trivial issues. But when it comes to principles, Ayn Rand had it right: How do you compromise between good and evil? Between moral and immoral? Between freedom and slavery?
Also, remember another important lesson from the Valkyrie episode: Circumstances change. And when circumstances change, perceptions can change. If you don’t believe it, just think about the way the public perception of Cassius Clay changed when he changed his name to Muhammad Ali. Then, worse, when he refused to be inducted into the U.S. Army on the grounds that he was a conscientious objector.
Ali may not have been well versed on Socrates, but he certainly spoke with clarity when he said, in 1966, “I ain’t got no quarrel with them Viet Cong.” Whether you loved him or hated him for it, you have to admire the fact that he didn’t back down when Uncle Sam threatened him with five years in prison — at the height of his career!
What I still find amazing is that boxing commissions throughout the country suspended his licenses to fight and he was stripped of his heavyweight title. He was convicted after the jury deliberated for only twenty-one minutes, but he appealed that decision, and his case eventually made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The clock ticked away for four years before the Supreme Court overturned his conviction. And guess what happened during that time? Circumstances changed! As with the Iraq War, the majority of Americans came to oppose the Vietnam War with a passion. And a side effect to that was that Ali became wildly popular.
Ali’s Valkyrie-like stance didn’t cost him his life, but it did cost him the best earning years of his career. In the meantime, however, he became an American icon of inner strength. Without question, had he not stuck to his convictions, he would not be the popular, courageous figure he is today.
Which brings me back, once again, to the Valkyrie story. It reminded me just how important it is not to compromise one’s principles. Like everyone, I’ve had my share of people getting mad at me for something I’ve said (You should read some of my subscriber e-mails!), something I’ve done, or for refusing to do something they wanted me to do.
If this, too, sounds familiar, I’d like to pass along some advice from one of the wisest men I’ve ever known. About a year before he passed away, “The Red Barron” told me that when people become angry with you for your words or actions, and you know that you’ve done nothing wrong, the solution is to look in the mirror and say to yourself:
“If my hands are clean and my cause is just and my demands are reasonable, I have nothing to worry about.” Then simply go about your business.
Finally, I would remind you to keep things in perspective: Unless it involves the government, sticking to your principles with Socratic stubbornness is unlikely to result in your execution. Of course, in certain instances, it could cost you financially. But, even then, the trade-off is that your self-respect and self-esteem will skyrocket.
And those are things you can’t put a price tag on.
Previous – Valkyrie, Socrates, and You, Part I
January 8th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Very well said Mr Ringer. Very well said! Now…if we could only do it!
January 8th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
RR-
I just wanted to say “Thanks”… I really do enjoy reading your newsletter as well as your books!!!
Your first book was very helpful when I started in the world of business… as a matter of fact, I’m typing w/ the nubs I have left!!!!
With the utmost respect,
-L
January 8th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I was about seven when Muhammed Ali came back. I didn’t know anything about him except that none of my conservative family, friends or neighbors liked him. My older brother’s best friend was black, though, so at least I wasn’t getting any kind of racist indoctrination and I never heard any attacks on that score. I was raised thinking that ethnicity in general was just something to joke about. It took a couple ugly post-college incidents to teach me that that crap mattered to some people.
But I never saw Ali act in any way that wasn’t admirable. He only told the truth, even when it sounded like bragging. So I didn’t get the criticisms I heard, and I didn’t hear any racist ones. Therefore, as I’ve grown older my admiration for him has only grown. I especially like the way you’ve portrayed his higher level of heroism.
Now there’s something to emulate.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
“Then, worse, when he refused to be inducted into the U.S. Army on the grounds that he was a conscientious objector.”
Perhaps someone should have reminded Ali that a conscientious objector won the Medal of Honor in WWII as a medic. It is possible to object to killing and still serve.
And while I have my own reservations about the Vietnam War (I’m convinced Johnson started it solely for political benefits), unlike many, I find it hard to slap the war protesters on the back for what many describe as their willingness to stand up to imperialism. One cannot have much respect for people who cheered for the other side and made it clear they had no concern for the soldiers actually fighting over there (remember Jane Fonda?).
How can one respect a person for standing on his principles when standing on those principles endangers someone else who hasn’t even done anything to him/her?
January 9th, 2009 at 12:08 am
While it is true that one should never *compromise* one’s principles, it is equally true that one must be open to *modifying* one’s principles.
Many people (if indeed not most or all people) have flaws in their own principles, and those flaws will never be corrected if each individual is unwilling to dispassionately evaluate his or her principles on a regular and ongoing basis, and when flaws are discovered, correct them. Bad principles can in fact be worse than no principles at all.
This may, at times, *appear* to be compromise. One tool for evaluating one’s principles is to compare them to those of others, and changes one may make (which will often be to adopt some or all of that other’s principles) looks suspiciously like compromise. One should never allow such appearances — or one’s ego when contemplating such a change — to avoid the change.
Rigorous honesty with one’s self is necessary in such (as well as numerous other) changes, and the ability to honestly justify the changes are vital.
After all, Hitler stuck to *his* principles, and look at the results.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Hi Robert,
This is my first time ever commenting. Never had anything worthwhile to add to the conversation… till now.
I love your articles and your thoughts. We are on the same wavelength on so many things.
Anyway, in this article, you mentioned “Truth and popularity, in fact, are all too often at odds with one another.”
I think there should be a caveat there. It should be General Popularity. Yes, a person who sticks to his principled guns will, more often than not, not be popular with the general public. But that’s the thing, the keyword here is “general”… the masses.
Such a person will, however, always be popular with the members of the population who appreciate and can see the truth (always the minority).
Former Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, comes to mind when I think about this.
Although, you did show later in the article (with the Muhammad Ali example) that Truth and Popularity can become bedfellows when perceptions change, it is still General Popularity. At the time of his “conscientious objection”, there were enlightened ones who supported and identified with his action.
But hey… all of us play sheep at some point or other in our lives.
Thanks for being the voice of our conscience Robert.
May Peace Be Upon You And Yours…
Andy Iskandar
January 9th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Robert, your words remind me of some other very sage words from the band the Eagles:
“Every form of refuge has its price.”
-PR
January 9th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Robert,
The question most people are afraid to ask themselves. Do I possess impeccable integrity or not?
Because of your intransigence in defending liberty and freedom, I’m sure many closed-minded individuals have penetrated your hide with darts and arrows. Heck, people have actually called me names and said I was full of the well-known bull for defending individual rights and the social system that best protects and enhances these rights, Laissez faire capitalism. I’m sure many of your readers have suffered the same fate.
How many well-intentioned individuals give up the fight, keep their mouths shut and join the crowd of non-thinkers because the crowd or those closest to them put up the shield of rejection? They sadly realize the pain of rejection is too difficult to bear. I wonder what becomes of their integrity and self-esteem. Do their minds finally atrophy into the dullness of everyday illusion?
Of course, America is spiraling down into the abyss of socialism and the accompanying despair and hopelessness that socialism must cause—because most people have banished from their minds the integrity of independent thought. A person without integrity is a person without convictions—a person controlled by the floating abstractions of non-reality.
Robert A. Meyer
Robert A. Meyer
January 15th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Hi Robert,
I have read many of your works and they have always inspired me to change in some way.
I have a comment to make about Ali. For many years I though what a great man he is and an inspiration to generations of people. He was no doubt a brilliant boxer and orator, however in a recnt documentary shown here in the UK, he was also shown to be a racist. He called Joe Frazier some terrible things before the Thrilla in Manilla, as well as behave despicably towards his wife, parading his girlfriend in front of the worlds media leaving his wife back in the US.
This led to ponder on one your other topics, Karma. I wonder if the current health issues he is suffering are a direct result of the bad stuff he said and the behaviour towards hi wife. Ali was rewarded immediately for the good stuff. He always claimed to wise, but a wise man knows when he is beat and Ali kept on fighting beyond the doctors and his agents advice.
Just some thoughs.
Paul