There is the expression about the pessimists saying that the
glass is half empty whereas the optimists say it is half full. The fact is that
the two propositions are not mutually exclusive because the glass can be
simultaneously half empty and half full. In fact, it is more than the glass
“can be;” it is a mathematical certainty that if the glass is half full, it
must also be half empty.
The same goes with everything else in life in the sense that
nothing is perfect and nothing is totally bleak. But we must also understand
that it is almost never the case that we face an exact half and half mix
between perfection and bleakness. In fact, as life moves on, the mix constantly
shifts in favor of one side or the other.
And this is why we measure the success or failure of
something, not in absolute terms but by comparison with other similar
circumstances. Doing it this way gives us the chance to determine if there has
been a change in a situation, be that in the positive sense or the negative
one. And this is why it is better for an observer not to refer to the glass
being half full or half empty, but refer to a life situation having improved or
worsened.
An interesting example that can be used to illustrate these
points came under the title: “The problem with processed peace” and the
subtitle: “Negotiations alone turn terrorists and tyrants into partners and
allies.” It was written by Clifford D. May and published on October 11, 2016 in
The Washington Times.
The premise of his discussion is based on the pessimistic
notion that human beings are inherently evil, which is why – according to him –
those who have adopted the liberal democratic ideology must arm themselves and
be ready to defend what’s theirs from the bad guys who will try to destroy them
when they can. And so, Clifford May reviews a handful of current situations to
show why it was a mistake to negotiate a peace deal in Columbia
and a nuclear deal with North Korea ;
why it was bad to reset relations with Russia ,
normalize relations with Cuba ,
and negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran .
He explains all that in absolute terms, which means he does
not relate any of it to past experiences, or provide a context that might
determine if the proverbial glass is half full or half empty or of whatever mix.
He did, however, mention a most interesting example that came in another
publication. Here is what he said in that regard: “The Wall Street Journal's
Mary Anastasia O'Grady calculated, 83 percent of the Colombian electorate
either abstained (by not voting) or voted 'no'”.
O'Grady based her calculation on the outcome of the
plebiscite which was 50.2 % in favor of the “no” side, and 49.8 % in favor of
the “yes” side. Now, to say that when the 50.2 % who voted no, are added to
those who abstained from voting came to 83 % of the electorate, means that
those who abstained amounted to:
83 - 50.2 = 32.8 % of the electorate.
It also means that the sum of those who abstained and those
who voted yes, came to:
49.8 + 32.8 = 82.6 % of the electorate.
This gave the pessimists – Anastasia O'Grady included – the
right to say that 83 is larger than 82.6, therefore they won; end of
discussion. But do the optimists have a valid counterargument? Yes they have.
It is this: It makes more sense to add those who abstained from voting to the
optimist column rather than the pessimist.
They can explain why this is so by pointing to the fact that
Clifford May revealed that prior to the plebiscite, “polls predicted Colombians
would ratify it by an overwhelming margin.” This being the case, it is logical
to assume that the majority of those who abstained from voting did so because
they believed their side will win thus stayed home. Had they known what was
going to happen, they would have gone to vote, thus changed the outcome.
None of that can be proved or disproved, of course. But what
we can do is recall the historical events that marked the previous century, and
compare them to our time. By this date, the previous century had a Sykes-Picot agreement
that set the stage for the current events in the Levant .
It had the Bolshevik Revolution that set the stage for the Cold War. And it had
World War One in which poison gas and trench warfare ushered levels of
unimaginable horror.
After that came World War Two which caused the death of some
60 million people. The century also had the Korea
and Vietnam
wars. It had the Soviet-Afghanistan war. It had the Iraq-Iran war. And it had
the Holocaust as well as the genocides of Cambodia ,
Rwanda and Yugoslavia .