Vain Jangling
The buck stops with me.

This statement always sounds good. Someone standing up, in humble admittance, declaring, “I take full responsibility.” In contrast to one easily playing the blame game, allowing the criticism and consequences to shift to another, or, most often, to roll down rank to those most often in the trenches, usually just following the lead, direction, and commands of those appointed over them.

However, too often, such sentiment is filled with mere vain jangling. Meaning, it is words which lack substance. At least, any personal, genuine substance. This is evident when one comes across as defensive, evasive, wants to quickly move past the issue, finds ways to shift some (if not most) of the blame elsewhere (away from themselves), or even seems to hint at reasons as to why they were (at least in part) actually justified in their decisions (even if it did not go as planned).

Choices have consequences. But no one usually gets to decide the consequences. They come about both directly and indirectly to our actions or inactions, along with numerous variables one cannot possibly account for. Therefore, “The buck stops with me,” means little to those who are forced to live through (or die because of) someone else’s choices.

What are the consequences for the one who supposedly takes the blame, takes one for the team, takes the fall, for a poor choice? What are the consequences for those who know better, but refuse to stand up and let their voices be heard for the sake of right, moral, alternative, better judgement? Some do experience consequences by the loss of job or responsibilities, prison time, or worse. However, many remain right where they are, ready to move on to the next thing, in reality, having merely said, “Oops, my bad.”

“The buck stops with me,” is mere vain jangling if you’re bankrupt.

Vain Jangling
We need accountability for every war crime committed.

It is a truth, we do need accountability. Accountability means we are accountable to someone, to something. Being accountable to ourselves (an internal set of high, moral standards) is good, but we can easily deceive ourselves and sear our conscience to allow us more liberty than we might give to others. Having someone else who can hold us accountable to good, fair, clear—godly, moral—instruction and standards is even better. Things we may can easily dismiss in ourselves are harder to ignore when face-to-face with those given the permission or authority to hold us accountable. Especially if/when we are in clear violation of the known, understood, agreed upon principles or actions.

However, when it comes to the political arena, to hold someone accountable usually means to hold one’s opponent or an opposing view accountable to a set of rules, laws, etc. that they have no intent on administering equally or consistently to themselves or those of whom they are friends, colleagues, or agree. This is when the rhetoric becomes merely vain jangling. Especially when the hypocrisy is open to everyone to see, but the media or bedfellows refuse to acknowledge, discuss, or hold each other to the same degree of accountability.

To speak of accountability, one must first acknowledge and submit to being accountable themselves.