I'm really not sure why some of us are more prone than others to jump on the "bandwagon" as my Grams used to call it. Maybe that's because I've always "marched to the beat of my own drum" as she would say. It's pretty difficult to get me on board with what you want if there's not logical course to come to that conclusion. A lot of things in our every day lives are based solely on opinions, and I think for some people the lines begin to blur between opinion and fact. Let's take President Obama for example. There is by facts very little that he has actually been "successful" with, although prior to his first election he was extremely effective in presenting himself and in the second election he was clearly successful in sabotaging his opponent. It was, for an election--regardless of your personal opinion of sabotage, seemingly effortless for him to orchestrate the British press against Romney. The comments Romney was purported to have said in fact not even slightly resembling what Romney actually said, yet the British press was all over Romney due to a couple of snippets of what he said presented together with the middle cut out sounded heinous. When the middle of the interview was added however, voila. A totally different version of events. In spite of multiple failures at home, the same thing. Dedicated people that refuse to jump off his bandwagon because he's...well, no one can really ever tell you a tangible fact about him to back up their opinion. He went to Harvard. Yep, lots of Presidents did--that in itself is not a tangible fact making him presidential material. He's the first black President--yes, but Kennedy was the first Catholic President and now some of his legacy is under question. The facts released at the 50 year point due to national security (ok, not commenting since I have no facts to back up this information could have been released sooner) don't support that Kennedy was a great President--in fact, they really don't even support he was a mediocre President. I'm just not sure about how people get on these bandwagons myself. I've caught the facts and the opinions of both of these Presidents. They have a lot in common and the opinions seem so much better than the facts would lead us to believe. We, in we I mean people in general, seem overly eager to jump on the bandwagon, the popular course of action at that moment--or should I say the action that we perceive as the popular course of action at that moment, set ourselves down on the bandwagon, and in spite of sour notes over and over, refuse to admit that the band sucks.
I eluded to the problem with President Kennedy. He was most beloved by his family, to be sure, but with the death of the last major patriarch of the Kennedy family, the "Camelot" bandwagon is falling apart. The truth be told for all of President Kennedy's great ideas what he near brought to fruition was World War 3 and the end of the world as we know it. The Bay of Pigs and other mistakes during his short Presidency downplayed over the last 5 decades, not just because of the patriarch Senator, but also because much of the documentation and tapes that were released at the 50 years point, as is with anything classified as national security, were not available for public consumption. We now know the whole of President Kennedy's story and he was probably not right for the job at the time. He was immature and impetuous. His affairs were numerous and very indiscreet for a man at the time, and particularly for a man of such immense power. The Marilyn Monroe affair being a prime example and that has always been out there in the open because her star status made it impossible to keep under covers, excuse the pun. President Kennedy was untested, unproven, youthful, the youngest President in history at the time and by quite a large measure compared to his predecessors. The USSR definitely took advantage of his inexperience. In spite of all that, the image that was created by the Kennedy money and a strong advertising program was of "Camelot"--a pre-packaged beautiful young couple with young children, the epitome of hope and a fresh start. The packaging was ludicrous compared to the facts. Even in that day and age, women were usually pretty irate about a man cheating on his wife in such a public fashion, particularly if she had young children. Men might have thought the opposite, but at the same time a larger percentage of men had served in the military and the Bay of Pigs would have normally set them in an outrage. The image was of a dedicated, intelligent, thoughtful family man. The truth was he was a haphazard, intelligent, callous, philandering man. The funny thing isn't that this picture is the one that more and more facts support. The funny thing is the sheer dedication of following. Many people are shocked now to learn the details, assuming they were even alive back then, of the Bay of Pigs. What idiot would do that one man said when he was posed a scenario without who. The "idiot" was Kennedy. Yet, this same man upon finding out it was Kennedy scoffed and hem hawed (as Grams would say) that couldn't be right. He was shown some of the Kennedy Oval Office Tapes and documents that were tangible proof. "No, no, that can't be right," he iterated. Seriously. The man had been in an outrage when it was some random idiot that had been elected President in some future possible scenario, but when faced with the facts that it was one of his beloved Presidents, well, that just couldn't be right. No way could someone he had jumped on the bandwagon for so many years ago be the person that he thought would be an idiot.
Frankly, I'm not really surprised by it. Think about Global Warming for a minute. How's that playing outside your window right now? Over 10 years ago, the scientific community had become a 50-50 split on whether global warming was a hoax or not. The originating scientist had conducted his studies on his own, which honestly is unusual. In addition only a couple years later when asked for his data used for other scientists to independently verify his conclusions (another words see if they came up with the same results or whether he had made an error in his calculations), he had lost his data. No disc backup, no mainframe backup, he couldn't even say where he had pulled the data from. That's right. He could not even tell the other scientists what window of time he had used for his calculations and where he had pulled the temperature data from. Even if he didn't have the actual data, he wanted everyone to believe that he didn't remember whether it was 1800 to 1980 or whether he had gotten the information from newspaper archives, the Farmer's Almanac or where. Really. Within 5 years, other respected scientists had run various statistically sound data analyses and had come up with different results. The results were published by many of them. The planet appeared to be in a cycle and the warming we were observing was in a cycle around 80 years give or take. Had a "greenhouse effect" been present? The results by credible scientists were inconclusive. There was not enough data one way or the other to support the hypothesis. Yet, Al Gore and especially the media, jumped on that bandwagon so fast it would make your head spin. In fact, many people it did spin them, right on to the bandwagon. The media for the first time this year has stopped saying that this cold weather we've had for the last decade is "greenhouse effect" because they finally, finally, finally are starting to see that bandwagon wasn't a band. It was a one man "band" playing a guitar with one string. In fact, those other studies, suggest we are basically on target for the 80 year cycle. The last time this happened--extreme hot summers, drought, followed by extreme cold winters and high precipitation (snow, sleet and rain)--the 1930s, the Dust Bowl era. Right on target with the real scientific data, not the one that some guy made up and couldn't even remember what data he pulled from where or for when. How many of your friends are still on the "global warming" kick? They've heard these arguments. Why are they still on that bandwagon when it's clear that band couldn't carry a tune if you gave them a drawing of Bugs Bunny?
Likewise, people often misjudge other people and the bandwagon runs rampant. The "facts" presented are always opinions in the case of two individuals. The "facts" are as the person presenting them either views them through their eyes--which can sometimes be more like kaleidoscopes--may not even truly be facts. I've always been loath to judge a book by its cover. So many people are just so much more. How to decide what is fact versus fiction? What facts are skewed by the view of the individual and which facts are the truth? Recently I've been bombarded by people's views of each other and I think it is fortunate for the majority I am pretty fact oriented. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, is entitled to their opinion, yet so many people are frustrated to no end if you don't share their opinion--doing whatever they deem necessary to sway your opinion to theirs. Yet, they don't seem to respect that we as human beings are entitled to our own opinions. I'm always cautious of people that seem overly insistent that I share their opinion of someone else. I've said it before--I can make up my own mind and I don't mind if my friends and I don't share the same opinion of another acquaintance or friend. For example, my sister does not care for one of my friends. She thinks this particular friend is a judgmental, obnoxious b*tch, not exactly my sister's words but I don't want to waste a paragraph. Well, yes, she is judgmental and a lot of the time, and I do mean a lot of the time, when she's drinking alcohol she becomes obnoxious and difficult to be around. It's why a couple of us that are her friends avoid pretty much all situations with her where alcohol might be involved. Okay, and yes, she's a total man hater. On the other hand, she's charming without alcohol. Her "judgments" in many situations are helpful particularly in finance and real estate; she's extremely astute. And in her defense, she was raised a man hater (unfair to her or any child), and of the men that have come and gone in her life, some have deserved that ire. Not all, but enough to reinforce that incorrect upbringing. My sister isn't going to go shopping with her or go have lunch with all of us. In fact, the only time she would ever interact with this friend of mine would be if alcohol were likely to be involved because the only social setting would be at a party or other social gathering. Yea, my sister's opinion is going to hold firm and I'm not going to "try" to change her opinion, because from my sister's point of view, my friend is simply a pain in the perverbial *ss. However, I'm going to have lunch with her and our other friends and go shopping or to a movie with her. She's bright, sweet and fun to be around in those social settings, and we've been friends for years. She's one of my friends that kept in contact with me over the years since I left--not out of some necessity, but because she's genuinely a caring person. She's also been through a lot over the years and hasn't always been dealt a fair hand. Would I have become who she is if I were dealt the same hand? I'm not sure. My personality is quite different, so it's probably not likely. Are there certain settings that I avoid with her? Actually yes, but the facts are that there are certain settings where it's just better to avoid the situation to prevent any strain on the friendship. I'm not inviting her to be around my sister if I can avoid it. I'm making sure that in those instances our mutual friends and I have an exit strategy to minimize any issues. Yes, it's a lot of work. If I met her today, I'd probably not go through all that work, but like I said, we've been friends for years and I know her heart in spite of what she's been through. If I hopped on the bandwagon of people against her, even years ago, what kind of person would I be?
Of course, like I eluded above, if I were to meet that same friend now, not have the years of friendship, would we be friends? Probably not. I just don't have the energy or patience for all that drama anymore. I'm willing to deal with hers because I know all about it--every last bit of it over the years. I know about the abusive ex, the health problems, the upbringing, all of it. It's a big pill to swallow for someone who hasn't been there over the years. She's never gotten counseling for it, and of her friends, we have simply given up trying to get her to go. Again that upbringing rearing its ugly head. So, I've digested that pill bit by bit over the years as she has accumulated it. Likewise, say what you will about me, she will always have my back because I have always been there for her in a time of need and she is a dedicated friend. Friends like that are priceless, proven over years through thick and thin. She won't be jumping on any bandwagon to lynch me, nor will she turn on me and lead the lynching. Have people attempted to get some of us on the bandwagon to dislike her? Yes, I've had plenty of people, even my sister, tell me I don't need all that drama. No, I don't. So, I meter out the time with her and pick and choose when I spend time with her carefully, but I love her just the same. I've heard a woman I recently met described as some would describe my friend. I have observed that she is bit more extreme than my friend, as alcohol does not need to be added to the mix for this particular lady. Would I be friends with her? No. Definitively no. Am I judging her and jumping on the bandwagon? No. I feel for her and her circumstances and suspect that whatever life has dealt her it's been very difficult for her. Would it be difficult for someone else? Well, likewise to my friend that my sister abhors, no two people are alike and we can never be sure how we would handle someone else's circumstances. I'd like to tell the lady she should get counseling, but there are two problems with that. One, I don't know her well enough and two, therefore it's none of my business. I suspect even if I did know her well enough to make it my business she would simply ignore the advice like my friend has ignored our suggestions over the years for her to go to counseling. We can lead a horse to water, but it's not going to drink until it's thirsty. Some people are either stronger or more stubborn, perhaps both, and refuse to drink. There's a point where we choose to not have someone in our lives for whatever reasons, but it should never be from others' opinions but from the facts that we can discern from those opinions and our own unskewed observations. I'm not sure that most people know the difference.
The worst part about the bandwagon mentality isn't that it's always wrong. It's that by "jumping on a bandwagon" we unwittingly give up our freedom to form our own opinion. We differ to someone else's opinion without taking the time to form our own. Some might say it's out of laziness, but I tend to believe from observation over the years, that it is mostly out of fear. We may fear retaliation from the people that are pushing their opinions. We may in some cases be afraid that we are not "smart enough" to ascertain the facts for ourselves so we defer to the first person that we or someone else acknowledges as an "expert". Even when that "expert" is proven to have been mistaken, we are slow, sometimes very slow, to admit that we followed along in mistake, not because we are truly obstinate, but it would require us to not only to admit to our mistake in following but perhaps the mistake of not doing our own research--like being sucker punched twice for the same error. How do we rectify this "bandwagon" mentality? I don't know. I suspect that over time people either make their own opinions or they don't. It's such a weird part of human nature--taking someone else's opinion for your own. Why do you think you put up signs in your yard for the politician that you've decided to vote for? Because studies have shown that a lot of people vote what they think other people are voting. That's not a real reason to vote for anyone, but when trace-ability studies have been conducted, we know that people will restate another person's opinion as their own with "facts" that they have not verified and that they have no basis for other than what they heard. Very scary when you consider the power that this gives the media. They tell us something, we accept it as "fact" and we then myna bird it to others like it is our own "facts" and our own opinions. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make everyone start to realize that they can and should form their own opinions. That they are more than capable of looking at facts and other people's version of facts and discerning which are which and then forming their own opinions. My one friend doubts this. We'll never know for sure. The facts are that most people don't and no matter what no one can unwittingly conduct a random study and establish that all people are actually capable in spite of them not taking the time out to do it. It's just a debatable issue that's interesting over a drink or two that simply has no definitive proof one way or the other. Are some people just going to be "sheeple" no matter what you do or do they choose the bandwagon because of fear or confidence in themselves? Yep, we'll talk over a bourbon and coke later and we'll never come to a true conclusion.
END NOTE: For those of you that really don't know where the term "bandwagon" came from: Bandwagons were literally that at one time. Bands would ride around in their wagons from town to town. As they would ride into town, they would pull the tarps off of the wagons and start playing in order to encourage people to come out to dance and listen to them. People that liked the music and more often than not even people that didn't like the music would jump on the bandwagon as it rode through the towns. Yes, those people who didn't even like the music they were playing were jumping on the bandwagon for no real tangible reason or for reasons completely unrelated to the band or music. Voila, the phrase " jumping on the bandwagon" with the negative connotation that we apply to it was born.
