The analogy of the glass being half full or half empty, can refer to a situation in real life that is simple and superficial, or a situation that is complex and profound—or something that’s between those two extremes.
If you say you won a prize in a lottery, but it was not
the big prize, what will happen is that depending on their disposition, some
people will consider the glass to be half full whereas other people will
consider it to be half empty. But if you get specific and say that the big
prize was worth a million dollars, whereas the one you won was a consolation
prize worth half a million dollars, more people will move to the side that considers
the glass half full. That’s because to most people, half a million dollars is
still considered a substantial sum.
What all of this points to, is that when it comes to
assessing the value of a statement such as a glass being full or empty, the
disposition of the listeners plays a role in determining what value is assigned
to the words. And that’s not even the end of the story because on top of that,
there is the matter of what the glass contains. Is it honey or is it venom or is
it something between those two extremes?
How does this shuffling of the cards help us better
understand a real-life situation that may be so abstract, we risk missing its
salient points? Well, the best way to answer this question is to look into a
recent development that offers itself to being analyzed via the sinews of the
analogy.
Account of that development came in the form of a news
item that was published under the headline: “Biden calls out India and China
for abstaining from UN resolution blasting Russia,” written by Haisten Willis,
and published on March 2, 2022 in The Washington Examiner. The following is a
condensed version of what the event is all about:
“President Biden called out India and China over their
abstentions from a UN resolution against Russia. The resolution
condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine passed overwhelmingly, but
Russia and four others, dissented, while 35 nations, including
China and India, abstained. ‘141 countries voted to [condemn] in the UN
General Assembly,’ Biden said, ‘China and India abstained. … They’re alone.’”
The jubilation you detect in President Biden’s rhetoric,
indicates that he sees the glass as being half full. After all, how often do
you see this many members of the UN General Assembly agree on something,
especially when that something comes down to condemning one of the nuclear
superpowers?
This said, however, was the President of the United Sates
justified in holding on to that point of view? Not so, says Ted Galen Carpenter
who wrote an opinion piece to explain his own dissenting point of view. The
piece came under the title: “UN Vote Signals Trouble for Washington’s Global
Coalition Against Russia,” and a subtitle that reads as follows: “The Biden administration boasts about the exceptional unity of the
international community in opposing Moscow’s Ukraine adventure. However,
the UN vote is another indication on a growing list suggesting that claims of
such unity are overblown.” The piece was published on March 3, 2022 in The
National Interest.
It is obvious that Ted Carpenter sees the glass as being
half empty, and he explains why. The following is a condensed version of his
explanation:
“An examination beneath the surface of the vote
reveals some interesting and troubling results for Washington’s goal of forging
an impregnable global coalition. One factor that stands out immediately is the
large number of abstentions. Because of the high priority that Washington has
given to creating an overwhelming coalition, it takes courage for other
governments to refuse to go along especially since the nonbinding resolution
did not require any action on the part of UN members. Yet 35 countries refused
to placate the United States, choosing instead to abstain”.
We realize we have here two different perceptions of one
and the same phenomenon. One perception is that of the American President; the
other is that of the pundit Ted Carpenter. What separates the two?
Context is what separates the two. In fact, to President
Joe Biden, the absolute numbers speak for themselves. He has 141 votes backing
him, and only 35 that remain indifferent to his point of view. That’s 80
percent success, considered a landslide by any measure. Yes, says Ted
Carpenter, but this is not a case where the “one man one vote” principle counts.
Rather, it is a case of which countries stands with you, and which are uneasy
about your manner of thinking. It is a case of what’s in the glass—honey or poison
or something else?
When you are America and you lose the confidence of
countries that used to admire you, such as South Africa, India, China, Pakistan,
Vietnam and others, you have plenty to worry about because their forsaking you
at this time, indicates that you have changed so much lately, they see your
current performance as seriously flawed. How is that?
We find clues that may answer that question in the
passage that reads as follows: “There are ample signs that Washington’s clumsy,
antagonistic policies have driven Russia and China into a close strategic
partnership bordering on an outright alliance”.
What this means in simple English and honest language is
that Washington is now incapable of extricating itself from the influence of
such hypocritical foundations as the Hudson Institute, the Heritage Foundation
and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies that pretend to be American but constantly
advise the elites of Washington to promote Israel even when such can only be
achieved at the cost of ruining America’s credibility and reputation as the
self-respecting and independent-thinking member of the international community.