On Being Cranky With No “Real” Solutions

(This is a reply to some questions raised in the comments section of my post yesterday)

While discussing things, especially politics, I am used to getting called a cynic, pessimist, too negative, unhappy, and so on. As I said yesterday, my politics might be best classified as cranky.

That being the case, I often get tired of answering the question:”What solutions do you have?” These shrewd interrogators usually go on to say something like: “Its just too easy to just sit there, complain, and point out shortcomings. What can you offer by way of a positive alternative?”
As soon as I respond with nothing or too little (which is usually the case), I am caught in their trap. My reply stinks of futility and failure, and above all, unproductive and toxic crankiness. I am exposed for the crank that I am.

I wonder about this. I mean, if definitive solutions are the golden standard, then, it seems like the bar for insight is set pretty high. After all, solution worshiping often backfires—like when you’re wrong. The most odd thing, to me at least, is how unnatural this kind of reasoning is.

For example, being a person with no knowledge or skill for fixing cars, am I not allowed to notice that there are copious amounts of smoke billowing from the front-end of my car and that it is making loud popping noises? Am I wrong to boldly assert that there is a serious problem here?

Or, if the car just won’t start for any reason at all, then, despite my lack of car erudition, am I not entitled to accuse my car of not working?

This kind of reasoning is about as effective as telling a sick person to stop complaining unless they have some kind of solution. What if they have an incurable disease? Should cancer researcher stop telling us how terrible cancer is in all its graphic detail until they find a cure?

And, furthermore, there are definite ideas in any good critique. A good critique is very specific about its discontent. If I say, “I hate Mexico!”, that is one thing; but to argue “I hate Mexico because of the following reasons substantiated in the following ways.”, is another thing entirely. We can find real ideas and suggestions within any worthwhile critique.

But, even without big ideas, there is value in being told that something is broken when it is truly broken, or even when it only might be. I would like to be told that my tire is flat if I don’t realize it. I would never say, “Don’t tell me that unless you have some real solutions!” Even if they, like me, know nothing about cars, there is still a great deal of real value in having been told that my tire is dysfunctional.

Nowhere else, that I can think of, do we require definite solutions so dogmatically other than when the critique we face is not to our liking. Then, all of a sudden, we become quite selective about a critique without an alternative solution. That functions to, hopefully, make us feel like we don’t need to take the criticism too seriously and go on with our lives.

So, I would argue that we need not dismiss someone for being a critic without a solution, and instead might engage and listen to what they have to say and have the courage to see if it is true, or offer some dispute if the critique seems unfounded.

Even if it bothers us and we can’t fix it right away, we might find ourselves living in something closer to reality and agonistic (not antagonistic) charity.