The End of the Stone Age

Much has been written and spoken about the recent WikiLeaks release of “sensitive” diplomatic material. I have no interest in covering ground that has already been plowed so will offer thoughts that, so far as I know, have gone unexplored.

It seems that the bulk of this latest “leak” consists of personal opinions held by U.S. diplomats regarding other diplomats from other countries around the world. I am shocked that others are shocked. Most of us hold two opinions of folks: the public, politically correct one, and the personal, more earthy one. We generally rely on the latter only when employing the spoken word to avoid the embarrassment of having a written opinion come back to bite us in the butt.

Why would we think that the diplomatic corps and others within the halls of political power would be any different? In fact, I can see why this group would be more prone to dual opinions due to the nature of those they are forced to deal with while wearing a smile. I am mystified, though, as to why supposedly well-educated officials chose to include their real feelings in electronic communiques. The only explanation lies in the hubris that most, if not all, high ranking politicos possess. I’d say that Richard Nixon started the ball rolling by recording the nefarious deeds that occurred during his White House tenure. From tape recorders to open microphones to “off-camera” remarks with the cameras rolling: the examples are abundant. 

We are now hearing from administration officials that these leaked papers have seriously damaged any and all diplomatic efforts. Is there any doubt that foreign officials hold similar dual opinions as ours apparently do? The only difference is the recent exposure of our innermost feelings and you can bet that maximum hay will be made by those across the table in future talks. Other than that, though, little has changed.

Throughout all political and corporate dealings similar opinions run under the surface of more civil discussions. No one should be surprised at this. To document these opinions, though, is simply setting the stage for the future requirement of damage control.  WikiLeaks promises more information from the corporate boardrooms that conduct and condone skullduggery with even more harmful effects. And who will be surprised at these discoveries?

Rather than focus on the shortsightedness of those putting their personal opinions down on paper, we are asked to look at Army Private Bradley Manning and the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for crossing the line and behaving in an irresponsible manner. Don’t buy into this. Their actions, I believe, center around feelings of the world spinning out of control under a heavy influence of double talk and obfuscation of reality. I believe their acts represent an attempt to change the course of our foreign relations because more normal avenues have resulted in little or no alterations.

Can we ever hope to eliminate opinions of the heart? No. Can we hope to align them with our public perception of those with whom we are forced to negotiate? Probably not. I would have hoped, though, that our officials would have simply shrugged as if to say, “Yeah, so we think those guys are idiots. They think we’re idiots, too.”  Either way, we must come to terms with the fact that we all live in a glass house these days and the time for casting stones has passed. At least to the extent of resisting the urge to document our darker sides on the electronic version of a bathroom wall.