« PM Bondevik's imagined part in a secret Christian conspiracy | Main | Poisoning in Kiev and not in Ramallah »



Interesting comments on the fear to act and the consequences of failure when action is taken. I agree with your assessment that the media needs to recognize that taking risks is not risk free. However, I am not certain I agree with you on all the points you made. Specifically I am referring to the consequences of taking action as opposed to the consequences of taking no action. I believe people are more forgiving of a person that takes action and fails than they are of people that take no action and fail. In my business (Venture Capital) paralysis is an unforgivable sin. Conversely, actions that fail are more easy to forgive because at least a plan was devised and a course of action taken. You may loose your job in either case but the person who tries and fails is preferable to the person who fails due to inaction.

I am curious to understand what you mean when you say that Carter lost his reelection because he did act. Perhaps you are referring to the failed attempt to free the hostages in Iran? In any case Carter was not reelected for numerous reasons and the debacle in Iran was only one reason. The problem with Carter is that he was a man of inaction and when he did act it was in a weak manner that, in the case of Iran, was worse than his inaction. Had Carter actually gone into Iran with real force and failed to free the hostages he might have been forgiven. However he went in there with a weak force and failed and was blamed…and rightfully so. His inability to act crossed the whole political spectrum. He did nothing about the economy, he did nothing to lift America’s spirits, he did nothing to combat communism, he did nothing about inflation, he did nothing about gas prices and on and on.

Anyhow, I enjoyed the post 8)


The comments to this entry are closed.

Nordic perspectives

Web resources

General rolls