Less Machiavelli . . .

and more Lao-Tzu. I was going to title this post "Everybody Hates Somebody Sometime" but that seemed like such a negative note for my return. I didn't mean to stay away for nine days, and each of those days I wanted to write. Somehow, though, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. I didn't have anything nice to say, so I decided to say nothing at all.

Tuesday was the last meeting of my summer class, and I gave students two options for their final essay, both responding to the writings of Machiavelli and Lao-Tzu. If you aren't familiar with these two writers, I'll give you the short version. Their views on government express two extreme ends of the spectrum, with Machiavelli being the cynic (or, some would say, realist) and Lao-Tzu being the idealist who believes that people will do the right thing and if all is left alone, the world will return to balance. Sure, it might tilt one way and sometimes the other, but it will come back to center. I realize our government (and most Western governments) are much more Machiavellian than Lao-Tzuian (I don't think that's really a word), but the Tao is an interesting philosophy on which to base leadership.

I don't want to talk about demonstrations or statues or terrorism, foreign and domestic, or any of the other important topics that have been occupying my headspace -- at least not right now. They make me too sad and frustrated to get into.

My volunteer group met yesterday, and I couldn't go because I'd been scheduled last-minute for online scoring. I posted on the site, in the event page, that I wouldn't be there but onsite staff would explain everything to volunteers. In a comment on the page, I saw that one of the members had said she didn't know she was in charge, and she followed her comment with an eye-rolling emoji. This pissed me off. She wasn't in charge, and until someone puts the amount of time, effort, and money into this group that I do, no one else will be. The eye-rolling in particular was obnoxious. My inclination was to lash out. After all, how convenient it would be to direct all the anger and frustration about other events at this woman! I didn't, and I wonder if I should be a bit more Machiavellian in my leadership of the group. He (Machiavelli) suggest that in such situations, one must do something to keep others from rising up. In his example, rumors persist about a town that is going to attempt to overthrow the prince. He says the prince must go to the town and slaughter everyone; whether the rumor is true isn't of consequence. The appearance that the prince would allow even the mention of his  . . . what's the word I'm looking for? Subversion? Not exactly, but close. Anyway, you get the idea.

Ultimately I decided to leave it alone. I don't want to chase away my volunteers by being petty -- even if this certain volunteer makes the choice to be petty. It's kind of sad, I suppose, that she feels the need to be seen as so important. For the moment, I'll just be chillin' Lao-Tzu-style.