Frank R. Stockton’s 19th-century short story, *The Lady or The Tiger,” in effect, portrays the hazard implicit in the exercise of “Freedom of Choice,” viz., the individual’s autonomous choice to select from (at least two) available options and its unpredictable, fortuitous or tragic, consequences. The tale’s protagonist is obliged to arbitrarily choose one of two identically solid doors, one is to his beloved damsel, and the other a hungry, vicious tiger.
Life seems to manifest the prophetic enigma that the less consequential the choice, the more predictable the result. The risk of materially adverse consequences in casual choices such as selection from a restaurant menu, the arbitrary choice of a necktie or decorative pin, and choosing a televised movie or a day’s outfit has minimal and predictable sequelae. On the contrary, the exercise of more consequential choices, such as the selection of a spouse, venturing into a new business enterprise, or embarking on a chosen career, sadly, lacks the assurance of success or the predictability of failure. As we see it, the highly acclaimed philosophical right to “freedom of choice,” the prudential attempt to minimize the possibility of an adverse outcome by rationalizing perceived possibilities, at times may prove to be an imperfect predicate to any venturesome choice.
In patent factual distinction to the narrative dilemma presented in Frank Stockton’s short story, is the soon-to-be presented significant choice of the re-election of President Joseph Biden or the errant past President, Donald Trump. Such choices unquestionably involve impactful results, however, unlike the fictional unseen and arbitrary choice of lady or tiger, the designated choices are fully disclosed and, have been experientially evaluated.
An interesting feature of our thematic (Presidential) choice resides in the fact that the decision in question confronts the large, interactive population of American voters, the latter, evincing nuanced perceptions and divergent expectations. It may be useful to discuss a representative sample of some known and articulated perceptions and consequential choices relative to the two identified and fully disclosed candidates. It is an unusual guideline that each has previously revealed to the deciding public, his characteristic persona, and capability in the relevant role.
It is tautologically understood that the free exercise of personal “choice” is based on (accurate or imagined) criteria, founded in personally held principles, or, is the result of transmitted and accepted convincing views of persuasive others. In the singular presented instance, featuring disclosed choices, the personalities can be rationally evaluated by their revealed persona and actions. This feature affords experiential criteria enabling an empirically rational decision (in sharp contrast to the hazardous, lady-tiger dilemma of impulsive choice.) In the most useful of circumstances, however, the determinative criteria need to be rational and supportively factual.
The record of the bizarre and shameful performance of Donald Trump, signified by ignorance, immorality, egocentric neurosis, and a plethora of criminal indictments, is well known; as is his treasonous behavior and intention to be a “Dictator.” During his singular, twice-impeached term as President, little, if any, National benefit, is discernable. On the contrary, his incapability and ignorant egocentricity manifestly injured the Nation’s standing and its people (ex., COVID-19 gross malpractice, treasonous relations with America’s autocratic enemies). These objective flaws were demonstrably adverse to the Nation, as is his internationally demonstrated lack of moral compass, inappropriate greed, and most worrisome, his stated intention for monarchial rule.
The extant criticism of Joseph Biden by Trump supporters seems to center on their argument that he is “too old” to govern (Trump is only three years younger). As negatively demonstrated by the shamefully incompetent and disreputable term of Donald J. Trump, it is age-nuanced capability and effectiveness that accurately constitute the rational and pragmatic criterion. Unlike Trump’s scandal-ridden, do-nothing term of office, Joseph Biden in three years has demonstrated a high degree of capability and has rendered great benefit to the Nation, including, merely as a partial illustration, proper management of the pandemic, overseeing a greatly needed, National infrastructure bill, decreasing inflation, lowering student tuition debt, greatly increasing jobs, while significantly reducing unemployment
It would appear that despite the identifiable personae, and awareness of the notable contrast between the two candidates’ previous performances, the Nation, nevertheless finds itself in an existential (“Lady or Tiger”) hazard, existentially dependent upon the discreetly proper choice of the analogical “Lady” (Joseph Biden) as opposed to the vicious and malevolent “Tiger” (Donald J. Trump). There exist opaque and threatening indications of substantial populist and irrational support for the fictional Tiger (the latter miscreant, like its feline alter ego, warningly identifiable by the (hazmat) color, orange). Such unknown and unpredictable factors are dynamically symbolic of the opaque doors obscuring the outcome.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 