- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 2470 Hour
- Reading permission
"Coke or Pepsi? "|
This is typically what you get asked in the USA when you order a fast-food meal.
You are given a choice between two comparable items.
"McDonalds or Burger King? "
That is another choice before you decide where to go to order a meal.
The quality of both are roughly the same and it really does not make much difference to your body which of the two you choose.
Similarly you are offered more choices -"Regular or Diet?" when you decide on the drink, with some apparent difference. Scientific research however shows that if one considers the long-term effects, it might not be what you expect.
However, it is important that each choice be considered of a familiar well-known brand. It is expected each is associated with a known quality in the past, is easy to choose with a click or nod. The consumer must be made to feel comfortable choosing either one. It must not be too 'complicated' or 'difficult' to choose. Nothing too fancy. Just something we can quickly choose and get on with it.
Similarly, every four years the people are given a 'choice' "Democrat or Republican?".
In the USAnian context, on all important issues, it is very important that this level of 'choice' be available - between atleast two. That is stated very clearly and openly. However, it is also equally important, but unsaid, that there is usually the choice between exactly two at the most. That is the preferred model. Any more choices being available will apparently upset the calm and poise of the average USAnian! It will become too many, too confusing, too unsettling to the mind. This seems to have been the mindset of the average USA voter until now.
If one does not like Pepsi, one can have Coke. If one does not like Coke, go with Pepsi. You can change from one to the other and back again, back and forth, always imagining that you have made a change whenever you want. It is like tossing the hot potato between two hands, but you can never find a third place to keep it. Thinking beyond these two is considered heresy, you are told - "You have choice and you have the option to change, be satisfied!".
It messes with the minds of most to have more than exactly two to choose between apparently. Also, a familiar brand name is important for customer loyalty. Good application of human psychology.
While the people of the USA, admirably and understandably, seek the best of everything for themselves - they welcome with open arms the best minds, talent and products of the world, they perhaps miss out on the best talent for political leadership for themselves from within. That is because the 'best' in humans cannot be like a product manufactured for mass-consumption and served like burgers or soft-drinks. Like nuggets or rare diamonds, they need to be 'mined' like gold or gems. They do not occur predictably in one place, but randomly. One has to go through a lot of dross and dirt before uncovering and polishing them up to be presented.
Ultimately, it is not really the person, but ideas that people seek for change of their circumstances. Ideas do not come neatly packaged in a branded box. You cannot be offered them as a choice and served as at a fast-food restaurant. It is like one cannot expect to find a giant gold nugget and a top grade diamond while shopping at Walmart or KMart. One can find perhaps cheap, shiny trinkets there.
When the body is not feeling well, one cannot order gourmet food or something really nourishing and needed for the body at a McDonalds or Burger King.
Political institutions, like brand names, were built up on the base of people who brought forth innovative ideas or implemented those ideas for the social good.The brand image of the two majors has eroded over the years, slowly and imperceptibly, until one has reached a state as we see today.
Copyright (c) KIyer 2016
All rights reserved