Interpersonal conflicts occur frequently between people. They may have different motivation and reasons but the manifestation of interpersonal conflicts can be particularly dangerous because, as a rule, conflicts lead to the outburst of aggression and tension between people. In this respect, it is possible to refer to the case of Pfc. Abdo, who was planning to murder his fellow soldiers, as one of the most ultimately aggressive manifestations of interpersonal conflict. In such a context, the conflict between Sen. McCain and leaders of the Tea Party is a relatively moderate but still heat debate between politicians. Nevertheless, whatever outcomes of the interpersonal conflict are, they are still dangerous because parties involved in the conflict may go out of control.
On analyzing the conflict involving Pfc. Abdo, it should be said that the conflict involved Pfc. Abdo and his fellow soldiers. In fact, Pfc. Abdo was planning to bomb fellow soldiers near the military post, where an Army psychiatrist was charged two years earlier in the slayings of 13 people (Johnson, 2011). Obviously, his plans were a sort of revenge or manifestation of his protest against slaying innocent people.
The conflict could be prevented, if Abdo received the psychological help and his fellow soldiers helped him to cope with his problems. The conflict could be prevented through the interference of professional psychologists, who could provide Abdo with professional psychological help. In fact, the interference of the third part would be essential because fellow soldiers failed to understand Abdo, whereas Abdo viewed his fellow soldiers as opponents in the conflict. Therefore, they could not come to agreement without the assistance from the part of a professional psychologist.
As for the conflict between Sen. McCain and leaders of the Tea Party, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the conflict emerged on the ground of the dispute between the parties on the fiscal policies conducted by the government. Sen. McCain opposed to Obama’s fiscal policies, whereas leaders of the Tea Part has proved to be supportive to some fiscal policies conducted by the President.
In response to such actions from the part of the leaders of Tea Party, McCain took to the Senate floor Wednesday to rail about conservatives in the Tea Party movement who have “bizarro” plans (Camia, 2011). Moreover, he accused Angle and Christine O’Donnell, the Delaware Senate nominee backed by the Tea Party, for “crack political thinking” (Camia, 2011). In such a way, he revealed clearly his attitude to the position of leaders of the Tea Party, which he defined as treacherous.
However, the conflict between McCain and leaders of the Tea Part could be prevented and avoided. In fact, the parties should negotiation the debatable issue, namely fiscal policies. They should elaborate the common program on the ground of which they would either support or oppose to fiscal policies conducted by the President. In such a situation, the interference of the third party was unnecessary because it was the matter of diplomacy and negotiations but not the matter of the involvement of the third party.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that the two interpersonal conflicts described above reveal the full extent to which they may be dangerous. On the other hand conflicts could be prevented.
Johnson, K. (2011). “AWOL Soldier Admits to Planning Attacks on Texas Post.” USA Today. Retrieved on July 29, 2011 from http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2011-07-28-awol-soldier-targets-fort-hood_n.htm
Camia, C. (2011). “Tea Part Favorite Blasts McCain for ‘Hobbit’ Rebuke.” USA Today. Retrieved on July 29, 2011 from http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/john-mccain-tea-party-hobbits-sharron-angle-/1