The word "ambition" means "an eager or strong desire to achieve something, such as fame or power." It has, in general, a neutral connotation, but that is strongly contextual. A college student talking about her ambitions in life is seen as goal-directed, but a corporate executive or politician can be seen as putting personal desires ahead of mission.
The origin of "ambition" is thought to come from the practice of Roman politicians walking around to get support or votes, as "ambi-" can mean "around." But "ambi-" can also mean "both."
And this meaning, "both," I think reflects our contradictory feelings about the word. (Yes, there's a danger of folk etymology here, and I'm not seriously proposing that "ambition"'s origin is related to this theory.) In a sense, we recognize that ambition can be outer-directed, a desire to accomplish something great, or inner-directed, a desire to aggrandize oneself. With politicians in particular, we feel this contrast most keenly.
Very few of us believe that any politician runs for office simply from a desire to help others. There has to be some ego entering into the decision to go through all a modern campaign entails. The question is, what is the relative percentage? Even Mother Teresa, who had a burning ambition to help people, admitted that part of that came from a need to find her faith. So what was she, 99/1 or 98/2?
On the other hand, I once knew a fellow who was the most self-directed person I've ever met. He was a consultant, and positively reveled in the opportunity to advise a client that layoffs were good things. For him, it was all about personal ambition (and he was let go when he took credit for the work of others). 1/99?
I think part of the reluctance, even among Democrats, to embrace Hillary Clinton comes from the confusion over her ambition ratio. She says she gets up in the morning thinking what she can do to help people; on the other hand, there are reports that she's been thinking about the presidency since she was young. I can't decide which is true, but I am pretty cynical about people who insist that they "just want to help."
So I tend to peg Hillary at about 20/80, while other people of my acquaintance put her closer to 5/95. Either way, the perception is that she's not what the country needs right now, that the U.S. needs to elect someone whose ego is as small as it can be. These days, we'd probably take 40/60.
The origin of "ambition" is thought to come from the practice of Roman politicians walking around to get support or votes, as "ambi-" can mean "around." But "ambi-" can also mean "both."
And this meaning, "both," I think reflects our contradictory feelings about the word. (Yes, there's a danger of folk etymology here, and I'm not seriously proposing that "ambition"'s origin is related to this theory.) In a sense, we recognize that ambition can be outer-directed, a desire to accomplish something great, or inner-directed, a desire to aggrandize oneself. With politicians in particular, we feel this contrast most keenly.
Very few of us believe that any politician runs for office simply from a desire to help others. There has to be some ego entering into the decision to go through all a modern campaign entails. The question is, what is the relative percentage? Even Mother Teresa, who had a burning ambition to help people, admitted that part of that came from a need to find her faith. So what was she, 99/1 or 98/2?
On the other hand, I once knew a fellow who was the most self-directed person I've ever met. He was a consultant, and positively reveled in the opportunity to advise a client that layoffs were good things. For him, it was all about personal ambition (and he was let go when he took credit for the work of others). 1/99?
I think part of the reluctance, even among Democrats, to embrace Hillary Clinton comes from the confusion over her ambition ratio. She says she gets up in the morning thinking what she can do to help people; on the other hand, there are reports that she's been thinking about the presidency since she was young. I can't decide which is true, but I am pretty cynical about people who insist that they "just want to help."
So I tend to peg Hillary at about 20/80, while other people of my acquaintance put her closer to 5/95. Either way, the perception is that she's not what the country needs right now, that the U.S. needs to elect someone whose ego is as small as it can be. These days, we'd probably take 40/60.
1 comment:
Teresa's own words on poverty proved that "her intention was not to help people." Teresa's words at a 1981 press conference in which she was asked: "Do you teach the poor to endure their lot?" She replied: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
In addition, many of Teresa's donors were evidently under the impression that their money was being used to build hospitals. In 1991, Dr. Robin Fox, then editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta (now Kolkata) and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard". He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment.
Mother Theresa, Creflo Dollar, or physic John Edwards for that matter, are grifters - separating suckers (born every minute) from their money.
- scott
Post a Comment