. . . or in doubt,
run in circles,
scream and shout.
Attributions? There are various:
- a sort-of similar exhortation in a US Infantry Journal from 1929
- an “ancient” naval adage quoted in (or made up for?) The Caine Mutiny in 1951
- a Robert Heinlein novel (different novels cited, so maybe 1973 or 1980 or another year altogether)
- a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon (1985 – 1995)
The latter is, I think, where I picked it up, but Heinlein is always a possibility.
Versions? Just these that I saw:
When in danger/trouble
when/or in doubt
etc.
Is it good advice? Not really, but then it’s not really advice, is it? It’s a comment on what happens, not on what should happen.
The last few weeks have reminded me of this pithy summation of the human tendency to flap: a lovely, informal usage evoking a lot of arm-&-hand waving to no effect, no corresponding lift off the ground. It’s only in (most) birds that flapping leads to flight.
Anyway, as our politicians flapped about the possibility of 25% tariffs on Canadian exports to the USA, I came across this relatively unflapped commentary. The basic argument?
In his writings, management theorist Peter Drucker argues that in every organization, senior people know exactly what needs to be done in order to vastly improve performance. It’s just too painful and difficult to do it. Usually, only in times of crisis are these painful measures introduced.
There are signs that Canada is in that position today. Canada is a ramshackle country built on compromises and deals to try to keep everyone happy. We never succeed. But every now and then, a hitherto satisfactory deal becomes unsustainable and must be abandoned or renegotiated.
But what first caught my attention was the summary shown in the email:
With a leadership vacuum and rising tensions with its largest neighbor, the country must confront tough choices—revisiting sacred policies like supply management, immigration, and trade barriers. Despite challenges, this crisis presents an opportunity for political unity and reforms. Leaders must prioritize national betterment to secure Canada’s future. (emphasis added)
Who is this summarizer? And why don’t they know that sacred means holy? It’s an odd word to apply to a government policy, no?
Oh. Merriam-Webster corrects me again: sacred means a bunch of things.
1a: dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity
1b: devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose)
2a: worthy of religious veneration : holy
2b: entitled to reverence and respect
3: of or relating to religion : not secular or profane
4: archaic : accursed
5a: unassailable, inviolable
5b: highly valued and important
I’ve never heard sacred used as accursed (#4) even though I am surely old enough to know archaic uses. I’ve never heard accursed used at all, although several curse (cursive?) words are fairly familiar. More to the point, current usage clearly allows sacred to mean unassailable, inviolable . . . or even just highly valued and important.
I’d be in trouble, screaming and shouting for sure, if I were tasked with writing a dictionary or maybe even just one lonely definition. To me there is a world of difference between inviolable and highly valued. Canadians might be about to find out which of our current practices is which.
The editor in me wants access to that summary. I want to change “sacred policies” to something that better describes them. Existing policies? Once-upon-a-time politically expedient policies? Inertial policies?
Any of these would remove the implication that the specific way we do things today to pursue a policy objective that some of us agree on is #5a sacred (unassailable, inviolable) or, even, #2b sacred (entitled to reverence and respect) and that it therefore must not be questioned. Changed. Improved. Dumped altogether.
I surely hope that Peter Drucker’s observation about organizations applies to our various governments: that our senior people know exactly what needs to be done. I can’t say I’ve seen much sign of it yet. And when, in the coming days, they put their hands over their hearts–literally or figuratively–as part of selling their proposals, I’m going to remember hard that there is very little in governance or in politics that is entitled to veneration and almost nothing that is unassailable. Most of it is a set of ramshackle compromises, some or many of which might have just become unsustainable.
While I’m feeling so reasonable about what others do and about what we do collectively, maybe I can catch myself if/when I find my hand creeping up to cover my own heart. Whatever I’m tempted to defend, it ain’t likely sacred, under any definition.
