Suck It Up

Are you tough enough? Have you been asked recently to suck it up?  Is America full of wimps who just don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with reality?  Have I asked enough questions to begin with the actual analysis?  There are clearly times when we as people would probably benefit from thickening our skins, but there are also times when being asked to toughen up is really code for something else: accepting less than what we want.

Imagine you had ordered a steak at the restaurant, and it was overcooked.  If you bring this to the attention of your waiter and they respond, "Deal" I think we can all agree that you would rightfully be pissed off.  If you pick up your car from the mechanic and instead of fixing the AC, it's blowing hot air, and the mechanic says, "Toughen up," you would probably go ballistic.  Why would we blow a gasket?  Because in both instances what the purveyors of service are really telling us is: take less.

Now as much I strenuously try to avoid commercials, I see enough to know that maxims like, "You deserve less" and "Lower your expectations" will never be catch-phrases in the world of advertising.  Nobody will ever buy what a company that says something like that is selling.  That's because in order for any transaction to be successful, both parties should leave satisfied.  A little bit of deception might be involved.  Maybe that new phone isn't really all that awesome, but businesses have to deliver at least partially on their promise in order to succeed.

Of course, these transactions assume that both parties are on more or less equal footing.  Growing up, you probably were told at various times to accept less, because your expectations really were unrealistic.  No, you can't have a pony for your birthday.  No, you can't go to Disney World for every vacation.  As you got older, you probably heard this refrain more and more from your teachers.  No, your lame excuse does not excuse you from not turning in your paper.  You get a zero, now deal. And then you might hear that same argument from your boss.  This all makes sense.  Your parents, your teachers and your bosses might not have always been right, but they were in the position of power, and therefore you had to either accept their verdict or go through the effort of rebelling.

But what about when politicians act like American voters need to toughen up?  Is that kind of the same thing?  I happen to think it isn't.  See, in a Democracy, their job is contingent on our vote.  It's a transaction, and both sides need to walk away from the transaction with a feeling of satisfaction in order for the relationship to continue.  So, why are Republicans talking down to the American people?  Why is it okay to tell people to expect less from their government?

This might make sense in an aristocracy.  Aristocratic government is not designed to meet the needs of all its inhabitants.  Sure, you don't want the peasants revolting, so you might make the kingdom more livable, but you can never let the peasants think that they have power.  You need to be the boss, the parent who has every right to tell the people who depend on you that they should only expect to get the scraps that you give them.

Aristocracies don't need unions interfering with their iron-fisted rule.  They don't have time to listen to your jibber-jabber about how you require medical attention, and how you should be able to support yourself on a living wage.  They are too busy planning their next war.

Of course, even in a democracy you need people to tell you when you are being unrealistic.  So I've developed this handy-dandy method to determine if a politician asking you to tighten your belt has a legitimate argument: check and see what his plans are for the people in his income bracket.  If his plan is to lower their taxes significantly, then they are not serious about balancing the books.  If they can't "toughen up" themselves and do without their valet, their chauffeur and their Summer homes, then they are not being honest with you.  They are in effect asking you to do the heavy lifting, while their constituents (many in the same class) get to count the money.

Here's the thing: you're already taking less, while they take more.  Check out this handy dandy graphic:

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/01/22/377470959/how-much-more-or-less-would-you-make-if-we-rolled-back-inequality

In it, you can see how much money you would be making if we had the same level of inequality as they did in 1979.  At first glance, you might notice that you would only be making a couple of thousand dollars more.  That's not so bad, right?  But then multiply that by every year that you have been working.  That's between $60,000 and $300,000 if you (like me) are in your early 40s.  Imagine you had that money, instead of having it funneled into the back accounts of the already wealthy.  You probably wouldn't have the debt that you have.  You would probably not be stressing out over medical bills, and whether college is a viable option for your children.

That's money that wealthy people acquired by shifting the tax burden from them to you.  That's money they made by taking all the profits from innovations regardless of whether they were responsible for them. 99.9% of the companies are not responsible for the increased worker-productivity created by the personal computing and the Internet.  FedEx had nothing to do with it.  Coke had nothing to do with it.  Did they pass their ability to accrue higher profits on their workers?  No.  Straight to their shareholders and increased CEO pay.

When there is a group of people responsible for robbing the American people blind, their only way to prevent their inevitable day of reckoning is to take the authoritarian high road.  We are the masters and you must toughen up and take the scraps we give you.  Just remember: This country is still a democracy in name, if not in fact.  Use what voting power you have to make things right.

Your Parenting is Not the Problem

Being a parent is never apparent. This morning I found myself unable to determine whether to drop my car off at the shop and walk the dog with the kids home, or to wait until my wife got home.  Each option required that I think several moves in advance, like a chess-player, because of the parent-ripple effect that I am consumed by on a daily basis. At one point, I found myself moving to put the stroller in the car, and then stopping myself and getting the stroller out opting instead to walk the dog and wait for my wife.  Then I found myself frozen for several long seconds on my lawn.  Paralyzed. The ultimate decision I made is relevant.  It was the wrong one, but I realized the other option would have been wrong too.

Every time you make a decision you must go through a logical step-by-step process wherein you way the pros and cons.  We have limited energy, and that includes mental energy.  When I read a friend who has shared a long-read about how I'm parenting wrong (again), I can't help but assume that my friends posting these clearly can afford domestic help, because by the time I've gotten through the first paragraph I find that there's another fire to put out.  I have a 16 month old son, who is utterly disinterested in toys, and absolutely interested in anything that breaks, or that has the power to make an adult drop everything they are doing and devote all their attention to him. I have a six year old daughter who loves her screen time, and I am fighting a constant battle trying to keep her occupied without having her watching the iPad, television or computer.  Oh, and there's the dog who successfully manages to escape the yard on the daily basis.  When I have all three, someone inevitably gets the shaft- I mean, in addition to me.

I wish I could view my efforts as heroically going where no person has gone before, but most of my friends could paint a similar picture.  Which is why I find the plethora of parenting how-to's so grating. My first complaint is that a lot of these reflect the parenting style of the person sharing it.  If you are already utilizing attachment-parenting, then you are likely to share an article on the subject talking about how great it is, but if you aren't chances are you will never read this article.  If you are the type of person who is afraid to leave their child unattended for one minute, you are not going to read the article on free-range parenting.  In my estimation, the biggest problem with this approach to sharing "nuggets of wisdom" is that what you are really doing is affirming yourself as a parent, and while I can relate to that, I've also come to the conclusion that there is not a single one-size fits all mode of parenting.  Parenting is entirely subjective.  We do our best parenting, not when we are adhering to some external formula, but when we are being our truest selves. Unless, of course, you are the type of person who excels when adhering to an external formula (you know who you are).

Of course, the subjectivity doesn't end there.  Every kid is different.  When I hear about studies that say, "kids need," or "kids must have" I cringe.  Really?  All kids?  I'm a teacher, and as such I understand all too well, that what works for one kid doesn't always work for another.  True, you do have to teach to the class, but you can't always teach to the class.

One of the more frustrating aspects of all this focus on parenting techniques is that there are a lot of backseat parents out there.  I try not to pass judgement on how my friends (or strangers) parent, but I am well aware that I'm in the minority in that regard.  To some extent, this is completely understandable.  When you work really hard at something, you need to feel that your efforts are warranted- i.e., you're doing it right. Anytime, I get to the point where I have successfully navigated several hours with my children without a meltdown or any serious accidents, I find myself patting myself on the back.  I rock.  That usually lasts about a half an hour. The calm in the storm simply allows me to reflect on my parenting, which makes me realize that I could be doing a better job.

Why is parenting so hard?  To some extent, it's simply because it's always been hard.  But I think there's more to it now.  My parents didn't sweat the small stuff so much, because the stakes didn't seem quite as high.  The world has become hyper-competitive, and as a result, many parents worry that if their kid doesn't get a head-start in life, their child is going to be left behind.  Your kid ate the one cookie instead of waiting 15 minutes for the two cookies, and now your child is going to turn into a drug addict working retail (and yes, that's actually from a study that I refuse to cite for you).

My friends and I are having a hard time attaining the standard of living my parents enjoyed, and this is leading some of us to recoil in fear as what the future holds for our children.  How is this even possible?  If you watched an episode of Mad Men, then you probably have marveled at how little that generation got done in the course of a day.  Today, we can write and read more correspondence more quickly than ever before.  We can deal with all sorts of work-related surprises even before we've set foot in the office.  Despite being more productive than any previous generation, many of us find ourselves falling farther behind.  We are getting paid less for doing the same job better.  The problems we face as parents are not the problem, but they symptoms of a systemic social failure, and many of us are too busy trying to provide for our children and taking care of them to notice this systemic failure.

Ultimately, when we think of parenting as an effort to give our children every possible advantage, we're essentially saying that we're okay with a system in which that's required.  You're child should not require an Ivy League education in order to enjoy a happy and productive life.  You're child should not be top of the class just to enjoy what this world has to offer.  You're child should not need to go to the Olympics in order to be considered an accomplished athlete.  You're child should not need to make a million dollars before they're thirty.  I'm not arguing that children should not aim for the stars, but I do think that they are more likely to succeed if failure isn't a life sentence.  I'll leave it at that for now.  Not because I don't have more to say, but because I have other things I have to do right now.

It isn't Radical if a majority of people agree

I'm going to quote heavily from the following article:

http://www.salon.com/2015/07/11/america_is_ready_for_socialism_massive_majorities_back_bernie_sanders_on_the_issues_and_disdain_donald_trump/

I decided against simply reposting because, there's a word in there that really scares people: socialism.  Frankly, I hate labels and regardless of whether you are a conservative, liberal, communitarian or libertarian, chances are you don't fit neatly into a category.  Instead, what I'd like to highlight are the various issues that a majority of people in this country actually want that Bernie Sanders supports.  These numbers are taken from the "Big Ideas" poll commissioned by the Progressive Change Institute.


Allow Government to Negotiate Drug Prices (79%)
Give Students the Same Low Interest Rates as Big Banks (78%)
Universal Pre-Kindergarten (77%)
Fair Trade that Protect Workers, the Environment, and Jobs (75%)
End Tax Loopholes for Corporations that Ship Jobs Overseas (74%)
End Gerrymandering (73%)
Let Homeowners Pay Down Mortgage With 401k (72%)
Debt-Free College at All Public Universities (Message A) (71%)
Infrastructure Jobs Program — $400 Billion / Year (71%)
Require NSA to Get Warrants (71%)
Disclose Corporate Spending on Politics/Lobbying (71%)
Medicare Buy-In for All (71%)
Close Offshore Corporate Tax Loopholes (70%)
Green New Deal — Millions Of Clean-Energy Jobs (70%)
Full Employment Act (70%)
Expand Social Security Benefits (70%)

Obviously, you don't need to agree with each of these, but if you take a moment to go over this list, chances are you agree with most of these ideas.  For proposals like this, Bernie Sanders is being labeled as "extreme"?  How is it extreme to advocate for issues that most Americans want?  When did it become radical to reflect ideas that your democracy embraces?

Now, you may ask, "How is this possible"? Well, we know how.  First, a lot of people who share the above values don't vote.  Part of the reason is that there is no candidate who actually represents what they want, and when they have voted for a candidate that they believed held the same values that they held, they later felt burned because that candidate didn't seem to reflect what they wanted at all.  To those voters I say: Bernie Sanders does reflect what you value and voters in Vermont haven't felt burned by him. 

Next, a lot of people are simply fooled by Republican talking points.  Frankly, I don't have a problem with people who genuinely don't want the government to negotiate drug prices, or universal pre-K, this is a free country and people are allowed to hold whatever beliefs they want.  But if you allow a Republican candidate to sway you with talk of values, be they of the family or small town variety, I think you are basically getting swindled.  Let's take the attention off specifics to sell people on vague notions that most of us do agree on.  For example, I agree that lazy people should get off their asses, but I also know that lazy people in general have a very small impact on the world, because, well, they're lazy.  

Finally, there are a lot of people who agree with Bernie Sanders' platform, but they will vote for a "safer" candidate, because the knowledgeable experts have warned them that Sanders is "extreme" and "radical."  And so we have come full circle.  If you know what you want, don't be afraid to vote for it.  That is how you change America.

Electability Part 2

It's not easy being a Bernie Sanders supporter.  All the time I hear people say, "I agree with what he says, but..."  They tend to ignore the fact that Bernie Sanders is drawing bigger crowds than any candidate in either party.  The main reason is that most people agree with what he's saying.  When I go line by line and issue by issue in Sanders' platform I get total agreement not only from my liberal friends, but a lot of centrist friends as well.  His ideas are not all that radical, and most people agree with them.  So what's the knock?  He can't win.

It's hard to predict the future, but this attitude seems like an attempt to do so.  My first response is to say that, I disagree.  I think he can win.  He has consistently closed the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton.  He continues to draw bigger crowds than any candidate and he's raising money from more people. Not more money, mind you, but from more people.  Given that you already agree with his platform, why not take a positive view?

Now, let's assume that his likelihood of winning is slim, then I would make a different argument.  The issue ceases to be about "can vs. can't" and becomes about "must."  To illustrate the distinction, I want you to consider the life of the abolitionist, Frederick Douglas.  I'm sure that he concluded many times that any given moment a particular effort might fail, but at no point did he give up the fight?  Why?  Because it was never about whether the eradication of slavery could happen, and it was always about that it must happen.

When we turn the issue from can/can't to must, it changes the stakes considerably.  If you had asked me ten years ago whether marriage equality could happen, I would have probably said that I had no idea.  But I knew for certain that it must happen, and I'm sure that millions of others felt the same way, because that is how change is made. It doesn't come about because people get lucky and things go their way.  It comes about because people make it their mission to make it happen.

At what point in our democracy did it become okay to malign candidates for espousing views that we ourselves hold?  What is so wrong with the concept of truly representative democracy?  There is a large group of people who seem to think that we need candidates who treat us like children, who use coded language that only people in the know can crack, and who always seem to have a "superior" approach to what we, the people, want.  "Trust us," the candidates tell us, "We know best. There's a good reason you're not going to get what you want."  They're right. There is a good reason.  We've put our trust in candidates who do not reflect our convictions and our values, but instead have opted for candidates who simply wear the blue uniform.  Anything in blue is better than anything in red, right?

Here's the thing: there is a majority of people in this country who want what you want, and there are candidates who reflect those values to their very core, and they are not interested in placating powerful interests, because they genuinely believe that a politician's job is to safeguard our democracy against powerful private interests-  candidates like Bernie Sanders.  America used to be more liberal, so of course, it's possible.  But even if the possibility seems unlikely, it's not about can or can't it's about must.  We must elect a president who reflects we, the people.

The Anti-Democratic notion of Electability

            Democracy is a very simple concept.  Voters get together and they vote for the outcome that they most want.  You don’t need a degree in political science to understand that concept.  Unfortunately, there is a concept that has invaded our democracy in my lifetime, and over the years it has developed a strangle-hold on the very simple ideal of democracy, and that is: electability.  At first glance, the term seems self-evident.  Electability is a collection of traits that a candidate has that makes it possible for him or her to win an election.  That seems simple enough, right?  The longer I’ve peered at this idea of electability, the more I have come to the conclusion, that it is a pernicious means of thwarting the democratic process.

            In the 2004 election democrats who liked Howard Dean best were shepherded towards John Kerry because of his electability.  He lost.  More recently, most Republicans were resigned to having Mitt Romney as their candidate because of his electability.  He lost.  If a person were asked to define “electability” based on the outcome of elections, it seems that the term is most often applied to candidates who don’t win.  I never heard George W. Bush or Barack Obama described as electable.  They simply got elected.

            So, how is this a case of “thwarting the democratic process,” as I mentioned earlier?  Well, who determines electability?  I honestly have no means of doing so myself.  I can only pick the candidate who speaks to my principles the most.  In order to determine electability, you would need some insight into the collective thinking of the electorate.  I would argue that most people do not possess this insight, and therefore making “electability” an issue for a given candidate is essentially an effort to rob the people of their preference and put it in the hand of so-called experts who know best. 

            For a long time, party bosses nominated their candidates behind closed doors, and the people were simply expected to support them.  I’d like to think that we’ve moved on from those days, but I often feel as though the party bosses (who should be retired by now) are unhappy with the general public making decisions that they used to make.  Enter electability.  Electability is how pundits allow their “know-how” to influence elections. 

            I’ve picked a candidate this election: Bernie Sanders.  I’m told that he lacks “electability.”  I’m taking that as a promising sign.