For the most part I love meeting new prospective friends. New friends represent new possibilities. They offer new ideas and conversation, and a fresh audience to laugh at my stale jokes. At the same time, new faces make me horribly self aware of my own flaws. The flaw I fret over most is my apparent antagonism.
My goal isn’t to cause strife, so what is the source of this impression I leave with people? When I think about things, I understand them by debating with myself. The topics change but the internal dialog never stops. It’s how I process all information, from a Sunday sermon to weekend plans. The debate even extends to topics I already firmly and passionately support. Although I crave black and white explanations, I often wonder if I hold such a confident stance because I lack understanding. A small measure of uncertainty and shades of gray comfort me. Ironic, I know.
I feel compelled to extend my internal dialog to others. It often manifests by playing devil’s advocate to different degrees. Resisting the urge to share is as difficult as ignoring an itch. I am compelled because deep down I have difficulty accepting people are not like me. They may not process information as I do. They may not care as I do. My joy and anxiety are amplified when I am asked to discuss and explore a topic with shy people. It’s like taking a recovering alcoholic to a wine tasting. It taunts me with the promise of what I love most, but then requires I exercise painful restraint.
I could not tell you how prominent the problem is anymore than my daughter could tell you how prominent her frizzy hair is. We both lack perspective because we are too close to the problem. I can tell you that I dislike people that resemble the “antagonistic” side of me. I liken this part of me to Socrates, who was a total douchebag. Yet despite how I resent this part of me, I can’t change. It isn’t something I do. It is who I am.
My ego is being healed by the new direction I’ve found for my social flaw. My inspiration comes from another historical figure, Mr. John Adams. Mental_Floss encouraged me to give the new HBO series a try. Slowly I’m starting to connect the historical facts that frame the person.
As I recount what I know, I won’t bother to separate historical fact from HBO’s embellishment. Hell, you may find I’ve read a bit into what I watched, possibly inflating Mr. Adam’s accomplishments and character. Those details matter little when looking for inspiration. In the words of Jebediah Springfield, “A noble spirit embiggins the smallest man.”
That said, consider the first episode. In it, John agreed to represent the British soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, despite how it would damage his reputation. Justice was more important than politics and his family’s well being. He defended them to the best of his ability, and 6 were found innocent. John defended the crown right to levy taxes, pointing out the reason they were levied and reminding people most were repealed. His low key but clear voice of reason doesn’t deter the cruel mob demonstrations that sought independence. Few things are scarier than resisting a mob. Few feats show greater commitment to an ideal. By the end of the episode King George had repealed many of the colonists basic rights. John was humble enough to recognize that this (and not petty taxes) was an issue weighty enough to defy the crown. He was pragmatic enough to support a group he did not perfectly agree with, all the while attempting to assert his righteous influence among them. Although he sounds decisive, the show focuses on the internal conflict and doubt. Does his commitment to justice supersede his commitment to his family? What use is it to support a hopeless rightous cause? How does he support the colonists without supporting their despicable actions?
I want to be John Adams.