One good thing about this recession: it’s pulled back the curtain to reveal that we Americans for years have accepted an economy that’s fundamentally insecure, unsustainable and skewed to the wealthy. About the only redeeming feature of our runaway capitalism is the way it creates excitement in the form of new things to buy and consume, like iPhones, Twitter and Snuggies—those goofy, cozy blankets with sleeves.
But overall, we’ve been living for the last decade with a debilitating economy. Call it Weakenomics—it’s led to financially fragile families and firms, a fraying social fabric, and a dangerously damaged environment.
We can do much better. We can forge an economy that strengthens us yet stays full of surprises. Call it We-can-omics.
This name takes its cue from Barack Obama’s “Yes we can” slogan. And We-can-omics looks a lot like what Obama has proposed and done so far in office—but goes further and has some twists.
We-can-omics means:
* A stronger, springier safety net for those falling off the tightrope that American jobs have become. Improvements to the safety net would go beyond those included in the recent stimulus bill to provide for more generous, longer-lasting unemployment benefits.
* Universal health care.
* A major tax shift that eliminates payroll taxes—thereby promoting the creation of jobs—in favor of taxes on things we want to avoid, such as foreign oil, pollution and heavy use of natural resources.
* “Green economy” investments and policies, ranging from spending on lower-tech building weatherization to promoting what New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman dubs “E.T.”—energy technology.
* Steps to improve innovation, ranging from a national system of entrepreneurial grants to greater investment in basic scientific research and a push to make teaching careers more attractive through higher salaries and merit pay.
The place that comes closest to putting We-can-omics into practice is Denmark. The Nordic country’s “flexicurity” system give businesses flexibility to fire workers, in contrast to the job protections found elsewhere in Europe. But Danish workers get security in the form of generous unemployment benefits –averaging about 70 percent of their previous wages in 2006—for several years if need be. And to prevent people from wallowing on the dole, Denmark provides substantial aid in landing new jobs and has strict rules to make sure the unemployed are available for new work.
In recent years, Denmark’s “flexicurity” system helped fuel strong growth even as it underpinned an egalitarian society. The Danish economy grew faster than the economies of both the United States and Europe as a whole during the three-year period 2005 to 2007. Denmark’s system also has the backing of a major industry association, the Confederation of Danish Industry, and its unemployment rate in February was 4.8 percent compared to 8.1 percent in United States, 7.4 percent in Germany and 8.6 percent in France.
The rub in Denmark is higher taxes, especially on high earners. But as Denmark shows, it’s quite possible for a healthy economy to combine market forces, relatively high taxes and a substantial social safety net. In fact, Denmark suggests those things go best together.
So does my own story. I am partly the product of capitalists. My great-great-great grandfather, also named Edward Frauenheim, founded Iron City Brewing Company in Pittsburgh. Later, my grandfather and great-uncle owned a malting company in Buffalo, and my father has started up businesses in fields ranging from video security to financial services to clothing design software. At the same time, my great-grandmother and great aunt were staunch New Dealers, and most of my mother’s family has been in “helping” fields such as psychology and education.
As a journalist, I’ve documented the way low-wage Americans put up with considerable hardships, exposed the myth of a level playing field for “little guy” start-ups in Silicon Valley, and called attention to holes in the U.S. safety net. And I personally experienced the way America leaves something to be desired when it comes to promoting entrepreneurship. Several years ago, I decided against devoting myself to a freelance writing business because the apparent dangers –like losing health insurance for my pregnant wife—were too high.
That choice came after losing a magazine job in the dot-com bust. My brush with unemployment fits into a broader pattern of what author Jacob Hacker calls “The Great Risk Shift” from businesses and government to individual families over a generation. And now it is apparent that America’s economy isn’t just rife with insecurity for average families, but overly unstable for companies whose revenues are cratering in the recession.
We need to move away from our legacy of market-worshipping Weakenomics. But to do so, we must strike a better balance on three fundamental issues:
* The individual vs. the collective. The Horatio Alger sensibility that that individual can pull himself up by his bootstraps runs deep in the American psyche. We all think we can get rich on our own. But we’re largely deluded. Sociological research shows America to be less than stellar when it comes to upward mobility, while the psychological evidence indicates people are much more social creatures than we care to admit. The Ayn Rand-ers are right that we all die alone. But we live together. And unless your idea of earning a living is complete self sufficiency on a farm, modern economic existence fundamentally involves other people.
* Competition vs. cooperation. America has been competitive to a fault. Despite--or perhaps because of--our largely Christian culture, we are fanatics about beating others. There’s a place for competition in bringing out something of the best in us, in creating moments of intensity and childlike euphoria. But we take things to an extreme, leading to childish petulance in our athletics, cheating in our schools and sub-optimal performance on the job. We are missing opportunities to be better sports and more creative collaborators.
* Consumption vs. conservation. The United States and most of the world’s nations have acted as if a rising standard of living—measured by consumption of stuff and services—trumps the environmental impact of our economy. Just as Americans have lived beyond their means financially in recent years, so too has our society overdrawn our ecological resources to the point of potential climate catastrophe. We need to reexamine our notions of progress to account for both the way conventional economic growth imperils the planet and the way human happiness ought to be measured by more than money alone.
These are not new questions. And for decades people have sought a middle ground between the stultifying central planning of socialism, the excesses of capitalism and the limits of strict conservationism. But there’s a now-ness about the principles of We-can-onomics.
They correspond with a shift in attitude that has accompanied the economic crisis. What might be called a “Three Musketeers moment” is at hand—a sense of all-for-one and one-for-all. Signs of it include both Obama’s election in November and a December survey of employees by consulting firm Towers Perrin that found 76 percent of workers were personally motivated to help their company succeed, up from 69 percent four months earlier.
Then there’s the populist outrage at obscene bonuses going to the same bankers who helped land us in this mess. People are demanding a sense of decency.
This spirit isn’t entirely a short-term response to the housing market implosion and broader economic collapse. A change toward more collective thinking has been under way in America for some time. A 2007 study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found signs of growing public concern about income inequality and a pattern of rising support since the mid-1990s for government action to help disadvantaged Americans.
Even culturally, trends suggest a pendulum swing to a more communal mentality. Popular TV programming isn’t just about celebrities but the reality of troubled parents and people struggling to lose weight. Social networking technologies like Facebook and Twitter highlight the importance of connections and communication. Many of the professional sports teams that have succeeded in recent years emphasize teamwork over the contributions of a star or two.
The reining National Basketball Association champion Boston Celtics embraced an African philosophy along these lines last year. Their motto, “Ubuntu,” translates roughly to: “I am because we are.”
Mounting evidence of a looming environmental disaster—seen in scientific reports and images of stranded polar bears—adds to the realization that our economic system has been out-of-whack and threatens our future.
But a newfound focus on solidarity and sustainability in the economic arena does not preclude surprises. In fact, we need them. Constant economic tumult results in a spirit-sapping anxiety, but too much stability leaves us restless.
This is old wisdom understood by parents. Ongoing chaos is not good for kids, nor is unbroken routine. You blend the two to delight and develop children.
Think of We-can-omics as the Snuggie of economic systems. The fleece blankets with built in sleeves—which have hit a cultural nerve and inspired scores of Facebook pages--keep people comfortable while allowing them to cut heating costs and do things like read more easily while covered up. We-can-omics also is about sustainable, sometimes-fascinating progress while people enjoy a measure of security.
Peace of mind and a piece of the market.
Too much of the free market has left us frail as a society and planet. But it’s not too late to shape up. To shape our economy in a way that strengthens us all. We-can-omics is that way.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Reparenting the bullied trombonist
I scared myself tonight with a flash of rage I felt toward my not-quite-six-year-old son. I gritted my teeth, gripped his arms and lifted him away from me.
"You just made me so mad," I hissed.
What had Julius done to trigger such a reaction? Not much, really.
It was bed time, and his mother and I were trying to wrangle Julius and his three-year-old sister Skyla into pajamas after a bath. Julius wanted to play chase with Skyla. Not Ok, I said. And I moved to corral him, even though Rowena and I had agreed she'd be in charge of Julius while I'd focus on Skyla. As Rowena called for me to stick to our plan, Julius put his face close to mine, waggled it back and forth and told me in a sing-song voice, "that's what you're supposed to do. That's what you're supposed to do."
I don't know if there was any malice in this bit of teasing from Julius. He was hoping, I'm sure, for me to stop trying to prevent him from playing. But he may have been coming at me with silliness more than any mean-spiritedness.
Somehow, though, that little five-year-old head bobbing touched off an explosion of anger.
I stopped seeing him, and saw instead a kind of abstract pure mockery.
And it hurt. So I lashed out, albeit in that controlled way. I didn't hurt Julius as I moved him away from me. But my lower jaw jutted out and I bared my teeth in a sort of primal expression of fury.
Rowena told me to leave the room, and I agreed I needed to cool off.
I left the kids' bedroom, walked down the hallway and took a seat on our piano bench. Within a few moments, it dawned on me that I'd done some classic projecting onto Julius. That his probably playful teasing had become a kind of pint-size bullying. That somehow he'd scraped a sore spot in my psyche.
At 41, I've gained enough wisdom to know I should go to those painful places rather than avoid the emotion. So I tried to see what was there. And all of a sudden I was back with Jimmy Stevens, on my worst walk home from school.
It was probably the most shameful moment of my childhood. For on this walk home, I let Jimmy walk all over me.
It's a winter day in the Buffalo suburb of Amherst. I am a fourth or fifth or sixth grader walking home in the late afternoon from Harlem Road Elementary School with my black trombone case. Did I have a lesson that afternoon?
For some reason, Jimmy (whose name I've changed here) also is leaving school at that late hour. Had he been in detention?
Because Jimmy was a troublemaker. He'd recently transfered to our school--I think because of academic or discipline problems or both in his last one. Jimmy wasn't big. He was probably shorter than me. But he could be a bully.
On this day, he started pelting me with snowballs.
"Quit it," I might have said, but not with any real authority.
Jimmy kept up the snowball attacks along Bernhardt Drive and its modest houses and snow-blanketed lawns. At one point, I think, he shoved snow right in my face.
I never fought back. Why not? Partly, I think, because by age 10 I'd become today's equivalent of an "emo" male.
I was a sports kid--playing hockey, football, basketball and baseball right along with the jocks--but a sensitive one. And my sense of personal power came from excelling in school, not from being tough on the schoolyard. I probably hadn't been in a fight since I was 4 or 5.
I have since stood up for myself when confronted with would-be-bullies. I've done it on a basketball court. I've done it as a journalist. I even took an Aikido class a few years ago to bolster my confidence around self-defense. But somehow that awful late afternoon in the 1970s planted a serious seed of doubt in me. Branded me as a wimp. Despite my intellectual commitment to non-violence as an adult, the possibility that I am fundamentally a fraidy cat has plagued me. Has made me, I think, hyper-sensitive to teasing.
But I don't want that plague or that hyper-sensitivity to harm Julius. I don't want to let those things limit my ability to be a good father.
It struck me tonight that parenting means having to "reparent" yourself. That I, at least, need to look back on shameful incidents and teach myself, correct myself. I should have told Jimmy to cut it out in a strong voice, in a dignified way. Or better yet, I should have thrown snowballs back at him. Been playful with him. Because I suspect he was probably looking for someone to pay attention to him more than anything else. Jimmy didn't shine in school, and he came from a big family.
Years later in high school, he and I became pretty good pals. He remained a prankster. But I came to see he had a good heart.
Just as I can look back on Jimmy now with empathy, compassion and forgiveness also are part of reparenting myself. Just as I hold my kids when they feel slighted or wounded, I am trying to comfort that young me who was paralyzed with fear years ago. What a crappy thing to have happened! Don't beat yourself up!
Proper self-help can help more than one self. If I do this feeling, figuring out and forgiving, my kids are going to benefit. And if I don't, my parenting--and my kids--will suffer. The bullying I bury will burst out in fits like it did tonight.
Thankfully, the night did not end on a frightening note. My anger faded away as I sat on that piano bench. Julius came into the room, and something like the opposite of that earlier encounter ensued. With my face soft, I gathered my son into my arms and pulled him to me.
"I'm sorry I lost my temper," I said.
I also I told him I loved him. He let himself melt into the hug.
Yes, I've got work to do as a parent. But I know I've got it in me to get better. Call it another flash--one more about light than heat. The rage was scary, but this insight--this faith, really--is reassuring.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Bedtime with Skyla
My daughter Skyla can be a little devil when it comes to going to sleep. While brother Julius tends to nod off quickly in his bed just above her, Skyla, who's almost 4, typically takes longer to lull into dreamland. She calls for her "night-night drink." Becomes alert and chatty. Demands songs.
Not long ago, though, all my irritation slipped away. At least for one "bedtime." If parenting is a marathon, as my friend Holly recently suggested, then I experienced to the equivalent of "the Runner's high." A moment of fatherly euphoria that I hope to hold onto.
It began with me in our "front room"--that is, the room that doubles in our one-bedroom apartment as the grown-ups' bedroom and the living room. Recently, I heard the theory that small homes breed intimacy among family members. And the events of this particular evening suggest there's something to that idea. I was in the midst of writing an email to friends praising Leonard Cohen's song "If It Be Your Will" when I heard Skyla singing from down the hallway--something I probably wouldn't have noticed if we lived in a 3,500-square foot home.
Perhaps I was inspired by Cohen's lyrics: "If it be your will/That a voice be true/From this broken hill/I will sing to you." In any event, Skyla's singing struck me not as annoying like--I'm embarrassed to admit--it often does at bedtime. It struck me as interesting.
***
I walked into her room and was surprised to find that she was singing to herself. I continued through the kids' room into the kitchen and saw Rowena washing dishes. Rowena said Skyla didn't seem to need her, and that was certainly true. I decided on the spot to record her, and went in search of my digital recorder. I found it, but it was full and I spent several minutes trying to figure out if I should download some audio files from work, or if I should erase one of them, or if I should abandon the recording project altogether.
During this futzing, Skyla shifted out of self-sufficiency and into song-request mode. Rowena agreed to comply. Skyla then said something about how losing her "snuggy" turtle "would make me sooo sad,"--her voice an adorable combination of melodrama and innocence. I decided to erase a non-critical audio file and get recording.
After a bit of singing from Rowena, I agreed to take over the lullabying. But in keeping with the user-generated-content era into which she was born, Skyla had a highly participatory vision.
Me: "Papa sing you some songs?"
Skyla: "Um-hmm. But I'll think about some songs, and you do them, Ok?"
I said I would try. Now, I'd assumed Skyla meant she would name some familiar tunes and I'd proceed to perform them. But this underestimated her. By "think about songs," she meant create new ones.
Her first request: "Wide and Deep and Wide and Deep. Keep doing like that."
Skyla loves a church song titled "Deep and Wide." So I started singing: "Deep and Wide, Deep and Wide, there's a fountain--"
Her: "No, Wide--Wide and Deep."
Me: "It's a new one?"
Her: "Yeah. Wide and Deep."
So I start singing "Wide and Deep...," but Skyla soon provided a new direction.
Her: "No, Deep and White."
Me: "Deep and Wide?"
Her: "No, Deep and White."
That elicited from me a spontaneous song that, while clumsy in its cadence, had --I think-- the spark of an intriguing notion: that life is a journey from a brightly lit outer fold of God's robe through the darker valley of that fold and back to the other bright side.
Me: "Deep and white, deep and white, my lord wears robes that are deep and white.
Deep and white, my lord's robes are full of endless light.
His robes are deep as you move through them
all your life as you try to go
from the light back to the light
after you pass through some darkness of the fold
and sometimes seeing light
Deep and white, deep and white..."
Skyla didn't applaud the song, but neither did she boo. She moved on to some variations. There was a call for a "Feet and Deep and Wide." I did my best to make up such a song.
Then she riffed about the artistic process.
Her: "I'm thinking of a song."
Me: "What is your song?"
Her: "I don't know yet. I'm thinking of it. It takes a long time."
After a few moments, she burst out with "Deep and Wide and Head"!
And here she added a bodily dimension to the song-creation.
"Here is deep," she said, pointing to her belly. "Here is wide," she said, pointing to her chest. "Here is...," and she trailed off, but I think she realized her head was signaled by the fact she was talking with it.
The official lyrics of "Deep and Wide" are "Deep and Wide, Deep and Wide, there's a fountain flowing deep and wide." Skyla decided to map more of the song to her body. "Here is the fountain," she said, pointing to her throat.
I thought that was brilliant, and told her so. And to my delight she took the physical-musical connection one step further. She made another "Deep and Wide" request, but I couldn't make out what the added term was. "Car?" I asked. No, that wasn't it.
She began punching her finger through the air, saying "This one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one."
Her: "Dad, what do you tink that shape is?"
Me: "What's that shape that you made with your finger?"
Her: "Yeah."
Me: "Was it a fountain?"
Her: "Nooo."
Me: "Was it a car?"
Her: "No."
Me: "What was it?
Her: "Guess--because I can't really say it very well."
Me: "A star?"
Her: "Yes."
So the song was "Deep and Wide and Star." And I took a shot at a song about stardust and stars twinkling and the universe's bigness.
***
That pretty much sapped the rest of my song-writing energies. I figured we were ready for some preexisting songs. So I launched into an old bedtime standard for me: Neil Young's "Four Strong Winds."
But before I could get to much singing, Skyla reminded me that her brother had lost a tooth. This was the big news of the day in our household: Julius, almost 6, had lost his first tooth. And with the tiny incisor under his pillow, the tooth fairly would be visiting this very evening.
Skyla did some extrapolating about her brother's tooth loss. And in doing so, she led us into a conversation by turns sweet, existential, poetic and Tarantino-esque.
Her: "Dadda, one day I'm going to lost all my tooth-es."
Me: "Yeah, you are, Sky."
Her: "This one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one."
Me: "Yep."
Her: "I'm going to lost that many tooths. And I'll grow bigger tooth-es."
Me: "You will grow bigger tooths...tooth-es."
Her: "But if I don't have any tooth-es, I can't eat anyting."
Me: "That's a problem, yeah. You know, when you're old, you also lose teeth, Sky. You get two sets of teeth, and when you get real old they start falling out, usually. And some older people put in, like, fake teeth, so they can eat things. You still would be able to eat things like smoothies and orange juice, which is good."
Her: "Without teeth?"
Me: "Without teeth, when you get really old. Grandma Richie had fake teeth. Grandma Richie lost her teeth. Great-grandma Richie."
Her: "And she got fake teeth."
Me: "Um-hmm. That's what she used before she died to eat."
Her: "And does she still have them?"
Me: "You know, she's not really...not really, no. Because her spirit has left her body and the world, I think."
Her: "And did she die?"
Me: "When she died. Yeah."
Her: "I know people die and they aren't at home anymore."
Me: "They're not in their home anymore?"
Her: "Yeah. And she's not in her home any....She died where the people die. So when people die, they're in the hiding place."
Me: "They are kind of in a hiding place from us, because we can't see them. But I think they're sort of --"
Her: "-- Maybe they're upstairs."
Me: "-- in a special world."
Her: "Maybe they're in a special room that we are next to. Or...or on the moon."
Me: "Maybe they are on the moon. Maybe they are in that special room you're talking about."
Her: "Or in a special elevator that takes...that takes people that died."
Me: "Um hmm. I think they get to go be with God and the Goddess. And with other spirits. Other people that lived before."
Her: "Or maybe they are going to be living in the special elevator."
Me: "Maybe. No one knows for sure what happens. That's one of the, kind of--that's a mystery of life."
Her: "Yeah, if someone goes in somewhere, they will kill you."
I burst out laughing here. Despite the horrific vision, something about the abrupt turn in the conversation and the way Skyla said "Keeel" cracked me up. Eventually, I managed to respond.
Me: "I don't want to go there, then."
Her: "Me either."
Me: "I don't think there's an elevator like that, though."
***
At this point, I figured it was about time for Skyla to go to sleep. But she protested. So I sang some more of our standards, starting with John Lennon's "Beautiful Boy"--which becomes "Beautiful Boy and Girl" in our family. Then Sinead O'Connor's "In this Heart."
I've long loved this tune for its gorgeous harmonies and bittersweet lyrics. But this evening, the words spoke directly to my relationship with Skyla.
"This is my grief for you. For only the loss of you, the hurting of you," I sang. It was about the pain of losing every stage of Skyla as she grows up.
"There are rays on the weather. Soon, these tears will have cried. All loneliness have died." I saw us reconnecting time and time again.
"I will have you with me. In my arms only. For you are only my love, my love, my love." I've quarreled with this last section. Doesn't saying you are "only my love" reduce the other person? But tonight, these lyrics sort of worked. I saw Skyla always being with me, always having a place in my heart. Perhaps there is a piece of her that belongs to no one but me. And the "only my love" phrase got at the way she is this pure expression of love to me.
***
As I finished singing "In This Heart," I moved onto humming. But I quickly decided I should sing another song with lyrics before Skyla complained about the lack of words--as she has in the past. So somehow I hit upon the middle of "Close to You." The Carpenters' classic is a fitting song for her, and was a fitting song for the evening. Fitting for Skyla partly because when she was in the womb, I would sing it to her. We had been concerned that Skyla was in a breech position, and we therefore would not be able to have the home birth we were planning. Singing from the end of the birth canal was supposed to encourage a breeched fetus to flip around.
But besides that history, "Close to You" fits Skyla because the lyrics capture her physicality and her spirit: "On the day that you were born, the angels got together, and decided to create a dream come true. So they sprinkled moondust in your hair, and golden starlight in your eyes of blue." Skyla's eyes are green-brown, but they sparkle. And her hair can have a silvery glint as she sprints down the block.
"Close to You" belonged this evening because it is about gratitude, about praise. And beginning with the way I heard Skyla singing from the other room, the night was about appreciating my little lady. On this night, I felt moondust and starlight were real in her. I recognized her miraculousness, her cosmic power and presence. Her divinity. I was awed to be Close to Her.
So much so that I came in late on my favorite section: the "Waahs" as in "Waaah, ah-ah-ah-ahhhhh, Close to You." What should have been a "Waahh" turned into an "Aaaah."
I finished the song. And what do you know? My little angel was asleep.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Yes we can create tidings of comfort and joy...version 1.1
This is an updated version that better characterizes my relationship with my first wife Kay. She felt I portrayed us as more serious than we were—and she had a point.
--Ed
There’s a lot of losing going on this holiday season. Loss of wealth. Loss of jobs. Loss of life. I have little stories that go with those big ones. My retirement savings has cratered with everyone else’s. One of my best friends lost his job and I’m worried about losing mine as a business journalist. My grandmother-in-law died just before Thanksgiving, a relatively peaceful death but still a painful one.
Amid these losses, though, I’m finding myself gaining. Or perhaps better said, regaining. In recent weeks, hope and idealism that had quietly ebbed in me over the years washed back. I am feeling once again a fundamental faith that we can and must comfort each other. And an essay I read about the importance of teasing jolted me back to the deliciousness of romantic ribbing and led to a wiser take on playfulness.
These positive personal tales also fit into some bigger, public ones. For many of us, it seems, tis’ the season to be both melancholy and jolly.
***
My gift of newfound optimism has to do with the big O. The big win of the big O, really. Because if Barack Obama had lost Nov. 4, I would probably be feeling pessimistic big-time right about now.
Like some other liberals, in the days before the election, I was paranoid Obama’s lead in the polls would somehow disappear and our team would fail. This fear of faltering in the fourth quarter, in the clutch, runs deep in me. Not only have I failed to decisively win any organized sports championships in my life, but I hail from Buffalo. The city where the Buffalo Bills hold the dubious honor of being the only professional football team to make it to the Super Bowl championship four straight years only to lose each time.
I tried to compensate during this year’s election with effort. I made more than 500 phone calls from my home for Obama. I spent a Saturday with my friend Monique in Nevada, amid llama farms and lots of angry dogs, asking voters in the swing state to back Barack. The last days before Nov. 4, I campaigned for Obama at his downtown San Francisco headquarters. Many of my 11th-hour calls were to voters in Florida. The state I’d spent hours calling for the doomed Kerry campaign. Where the Dems came up short in 2000.
I secretly worried I was cursing Obama’s chances even as I dialed for voters.
But he won. And that win suddenly made concepts like hope and community and sacrifice real again, grippable—like the way Oprah Winfrey apparently just grabbed and held onto a stranger at the victory celebration in Chicago’s Grant Park. Obama really won. By a lot. Americans not only were willing to put a legacy of racism aside, but cast their lot for the man and the party saying “yes we can.”
A night or two after the election, I suddenly made the connection that Obama’s mantra is the same as the morning chant at my son’s elementary school. Grattan Principal Jean Robertson starts each day by assembling all the students on the playground, sharing announcements and then asking the kids, “What’d you come to school for today?” Students, teachers and parents answer, “To Learn.” And Jean shouts back, “Can you do it?” And about 350 voices belt out: “Yes we can!”
In the weeks since school began for my kindergartener, I’d appreciated the morning call and response as a nice, motivating ritual. But now I saw the richness of this every-day articulation of hope and determination, its elevation of a collective, ambitious philosophy. It dawned on me that the kids could have said “Yes I can.” The Grattan go-get-‘em pep talk was not just sweet but bordering on sacred.
Of course, Grattan isn’t perfect. My wife and I have already butted up against bureaucracy and questioned some of the school decisions. But something democratic and deeply hopeful is alive at this little school, which has attracted growing numbers of families in recent years. Grattan prides itself in part on the Grattan Way, a four-part code of respectfulness, responsibility, safety and kindness.
I now find myself having more faith in the good stuff going on at Grattan, and wanting to get more involved in it. The Grattan Way, after all, is my way too—ideals I’ve held since childhood and eventually shaped a political philosophy around.
***
That philosophy—pretty much a traditional liberalism—has taken a beating over the years. Like other liberals, I was stunned that the country could reelect George W. in 2004, even though he’d misled us into the Iraq war and botched that mission terribly.
Not only did I worry that Rove’s “permanent Republican majority” was a real possibility, but my own professional choices over the past two decades have distanced me from my college-era activist bent. Yes, I taught public high school in New York City for four years and interned at both The Nation and The Village Voice. But for the last 13 years I’ve been a journalist writing for the mainstream media or the business press.
That can be a noble pursuit, and I’m proud of a number of investigative articles that I’ve written—stories that may have reached a wider audience than if they’d appeared in a lefty publication.
Still, there’s been a cost to where I’ve hung my byline. It has to do with the “objectivity” demanded by the mainstream media. Despite writing probably upwards of 2,000 articles over the years, I can feel that my voice and--my passions--have been silenced some.
The sense of having been gradually quieted politically and professionally is partly why Obama’s win was such a satisfying present, such a poignant payoff. I kept crying in the wake of the victory. Tuesday night, I pumped my first and hissed out from clenched teeth “We fucking won Florida!”—but did it with my voice breaking. I teared up during the acceptance speech. I wept in the following days at stories of Obama breaking barriers. I choked up as I thought about my mother voting for Obama despite her pro-life position.
There was some serious grief being released here. A store of sadness I was barely conscious of, that I believe came from hope dying to some degree over the years.
The same surprisingly intense crying overtook me when I began dating my wife, and I recognized that I’d settled for a less-than-full level of happiness in my first marriage.
You see this overwhelm turn athletes to mush when they reach the top after a long journey. Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics was a seven foot-tall baby after winning the National Basketball Championship earlier this year, rocking and crying and shouting, “anything’s possible!”
Maybe it takes tears to clean off dusty but dearly help dreams—whether they be of a basketball title or a big love or a better world.
Because apart from making weepy, Obama’s win has awakened my political passions. I feel inspired to take on projects like creating a more just economy, tackling the violence and poverty of my own neighborhood, and staving off climate disaster.
I don’t think I’m alone. I’m sure most McCain voters aren’t nearly as pumped up as I am, but I suspect many agreed with McCain himself who said in his concession speech that Obama’s election says something great about America. And many McCain-Palin people may have been stirred when Obama called on all of us to get ready to pitch in during his acceptance speech.
In fact, even though Obama got less than 55 percent of the popular vote, a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll indicates that 79 percent of the public thinks he will do a good job as president.
Those who voted for Obama, meanwhile, feel shaken, not stirred, and in the best way possible. Election night, throngs of people in multiple American cities including San Francisco erupted in spontaneous street parties. My wife and I celebrated with champagne, leaning out our window to join in the cries of “woo hoo”, “yeah!” and a more primal “HAHHHH!”
Those yells weren’t just about relief, joy and silliness. On some level we were restating a serious resolve. We were shouting “Yes We Can.”
***
It’s tempting to call that phrase an empty slogan. A recent profile of leftist author Naomi Klein in the New Yorker quotes Klein along these lines, as she points to more conservative Obama stances on issues including war in Afghanistan.
But to minimize the motto ignores how powerful it is to highlight the social over the individual for a change. Talk about the change we need--virtually all the ills wrought by the Bush Administration stem from prizing the individual at the expense of the group. The cowboy foreign policy in Iraq. The you’re-on-your-own economic policies that widened the wealth gap and ignored the perils of unfettered markets. The disregard for future generations or the global community when it comes to the environment.
In fact, reconnecting with the basic idea of collective action is the only way we will get out of the economic crisis upon us. Consumers and businesses are reining in spending and retrenching in ways that may make sense for them individually, but are sending us as a whole into a self-perpetuating spiral of reduced demand and layoffs. It’s the recipe for another Depression.
Thankfully, though, we went through one of those already. And Americans appear to be remembering that people can solve problems together. A study published last year by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found “increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies.”
In other words, there seems to be a yes-we-can spirit in the air.
That spirit was reinforced for me recently in the realm of religion. I have been attending Old First Presbyterian Church in San Francisco for the past few months, and a sermon two Sundays ago by pastor Maggi Henderson reminded me of the spiritual, moral component of community. Henderson spoke about the prophet Isaiah’s words, “’Comfort, O comfort My people,’ says your God.” We often think of comfort as a lack of pain, as in comfortable shoes, Henderson said. But, she said, there’s a more active, communal meaning: the idea that collectively we fortify each other.
Henderson’s sermon was another gift of the season. Her call for a kind of solidarity to transcend tough times gave me a greater appreciation of the well-worn holiday phrase: tidings of comfort and joy. The good news is that we’re stronger together.
***
But there’s more to the comfort-and-joy story. Part of what makes us happy is a little discomfort. I was reminded of this wisdom by a Dec. 7 New York Times essay by psychologist Dacher Keltner titled, “In Defense of Teasing.” It highlighted the way teasing—as opposed to bullying or humiliating—is a key component of pleasure and even human connection.
“Teasing is the stage for the drama of flirtation, where suitors provoke in order to look for the sure signs of enduring commitment.,’ Keltner wrote. “…Studies find that married couples with a rich vocabulary of teasing nicknames and formulaic insults are happier and more satisfied.”
The essay struck me partly because it reminded me of some delightful give-and-take from an old romance. My old girlfriend Marlene once called me “scrawny”, and I think I responded by calling her “skinny” and a chase ensued. The jabs had points—I am a slender dude and she had rail-thin legs. But given the affectionate way we spoke those words, the put-downs acted as cupid arrows. The thrill of that exchange is partly why I still get nostalgic about her.
My first wife Kay called me “scrappy” based on the way I played basketball. It was an affirming description, but it symbolized the way our relationship could err on the side of seriousness. Kay has a clever, dry sense of humor. And we did poke fun of each other a fair amount. But there was a way in which we pulled our playful punches. Our preoccupation with taking care of each other limited the teasing, and that helped crimp the joy I felt with her.
I recaptured a sense of delight with my wife Rowena. When I met her nearly nine years ago, she struck me as a perfect balance of Marlene’s extreme romanticism and Kay’s anti-romantic realism. We also share a playfulness around movement, a hungry curiosity about the world and a sense of wonder about our two kids.
But we haven’t found a groove when it comes to romantic teasing. Often we feel sensitive to each other’s digs. Or maybe we haven’t found a way to deliver them in the right way. Rowena’s got a sarcastic, sometimes raunchy sense of humor. She shared this style with her first husband, though the common ground didn’t ultimately keep them close.
Rowena thinks our senses of humor may never click exactly. She may be right, but I’m not willing to give up yet. I at least can thicken my skin and lighten up more. I’ve long had a “safety first” mantra which can drive my kids batty during rough-housing and get in my own way of having fun. My buddy Joel once called me his “earnest” friend. I cringe a little at the description, which was spot on. Too much safety and seriousness veers into the dull and somber.
***
So I’m grateful to Keltner for refreshing my memory that relationships can be deepened by both heartfelt hugs and light-hearted zingers. But his words offer a still larger contribution. As a society, we should be concerned about going too far when it comes to comforting our brothers and sisters. By seeking a pain-free society, we may create a sterile one.
Economically speaking, I think you can see risk-taking as roughly analogous to a kind of societal teasing. A new business venture amounts to a challenge to established firms. During the past decade, such economic “teasing” was taken to the level of “tricks”. Unscrupulous lenders pushed mortgages on consumers with payments destined to mushroom to unaffordable levels. Largely unregulated financial services firms peddled new, little understood investment products that depended on a housing market bubble.
All the dubious activity enriched a few, but led to an unstable financial system that has required billions in public bail outs and helped send the economy into a deepening recession.
To go to far in the other direction though—to banish risk altogether—would result in an economic system that’s likely to be not only less prosperous but even dull. Through entrepreneurial or investment risk, an individual sticks his neck out from the group, in a sense mocking the more powerful or status quo as inadequate. My friend Art recently observed that the U.S. is the most fascinating country to watch with its booms and busts—we should retain something of that dynamic story.
Preserving a degree of public playfulness is about more than just the economy. There’s been concern that jokes cannot be told about Obama, who can come across as a serious dude. Even amid our crises, we ought not to take ourselves too seriously. It may be more important than ever to be able to laugh. In the hard road ahead, laughter will be a rare luxury.
***
It’s fitting that the economic crisis is coming to a head of sorts in winter. The season of darkness, when we lose light, lose the life of plants, lose the comfort of warmer weather. The holiday rituals are an elaborate effort—not always successful—to pick up our spirits with lights and social gatherings. The best of the holiday music nods to the downerness of the days. “A Charlie Brown Christmas” by the Vince Guaraldi Trio is a case in point, with the bittersweet “Christmas Time is Here” offsetting more upbeat songs like “Hark, the Herald Angles Sing” and the classic piano rave-up “Linus and Lucy.”
Maybe the truism is right—we need some bad times to bring out our best. We have to face loss to experience the gifts of brotherhood and communal cheer.
In “Christmas Time is Here,” the kids on the recording sing: “Oh that we could always see such spirit through the year.”
That oft-repeated sentiment has a larger significance amid today’s recession. We can’t afford to lose the holiday spirit this year. We need collective hope and compassion and playfulness.
Can we do it, as Jean Robertson might ask? Can we create tidings of comfort and joy out of the current gloom? Even a Grattan kindergartener knows the answer: Yes we can.
--Ed
There’s a lot of losing going on this holiday season. Loss of wealth. Loss of jobs. Loss of life. I have little stories that go with those big ones. My retirement savings has cratered with everyone else’s. One of my best friends lost his job and I’m worried about losing mine as a business journalist. My grandmother-in-law died just before Thanksgiving, a relatively peaceful death but still a painful one.
Amid these losses, though, I’m finding myself gaining. Or perhaps better said, regaining. In recent weeks, hope and idealism that had quietly ebbed in me over the years washed back. I am feeling once again a fundamental faith that we can and must comfort each other. And an essay I read about the importance of teasing jolted me back to the deliciousness of romantic ribbing and led to a wiser take on playfulness.
These positive personal tales also fit into some bigger, public ones. For many of us, it seems, tis’ the season to be both melancholy and jolly.
***
My gift of newfound optimism has to do with the big O. The big win of the big O, really. Because if Barack Obama had lost Nov. 4, I would probably be feeling pessimistic big-time right about now.
Like some other liberals, in the days before the election, I was paranoid Obama’s lead in the polls would somehow disappear and our team would fail. This fear of faltering in the fourth quarter, in the clutch, runs deep in me. Not only have I failed to decisively win any organized sports championships in my life, but I hail from Buffalo. The city where the Buffalo Bills hold the dubious honor of being the only professional football team to make it to the Super Bowl championship four straight years only to lose each time.
I tried to compensate during this year’s election with effort. I made more than 500 phone calls from my home for Obama. I spent a Saturday with my friend Monique in Nevada, amid llama farms and lots of angry dogs, asking voters in the swing state to back Barack. The last days before Nov. 4, I campaigned for Obama at his downtown San Francisco headquarters. Many of my 11th-hour calls were to voters in Florida. The state I’d spent hours calling for the doomed Kerry campaign. Where the Dems came up short in 2000.
I secretly worried I was cursing Obama’s chances even as I dialed for voters.
But he won. And that win suddenly made concepts like hope and community and sacrifice real again, grippable—like the way Oprah Winfrey apparently just grabbed and held onto a stranger at the victory celebration in Chicago’s Grant Park. Obama really won. By a lot. Americans not only were willing to put a legacy of racism aside, but cast their lot for the man and the party saying “yes we can.”
A night or two after the election, I suddenly made the connection that Obama’s mantra is the same as the morning chant at my son’s elementary school. Grattan Principal Jean Robertson starts each day by assembling all the students on the playground, sharing announcements and then asking the kids, “What’d you come to school for today?” Students, teachers and parents answer, “To Learn.” And Jean shouts back, “Can you do it?” And about 350 voices belt out: “Yes we can!”
In the weeks since school began for my kindergartener, I’d appreciated the morning call and response as a nice, motivating ritual. But now I saw the richness of this every-day articulation of hope and determination, its elevation of a collective, ambitious philosophy. It dawned on me that the kids could have said “Yes I can.” The Grattan go-get-‘em pep talk was not just sweet but bordering on sacred.
Of course, Grattan isn’t perfect. My wife and I have already butted up against bureaucracy and questioned some of the school decisions. But something democratic and deeply hopeful is alive at this little school, which has attracted growing numbers of families in recent years. Grattan prides itself in part on the Grattan Way, a four-part code of respectfulness, responsibility, safety and kindness.
I now find myself having more faith in the good stuff going on at Grattan, and wanting to get more involved in it. The Grattan Way, after all, is my way too—ideals I’ve held since childhood and eventually shaped a political philosophy around.
***
That philosophy—pretty much a traditional liberalism—has taken a beating over the years. Like other liberals, I was stunned that the country could reelect George W. in 2004, even though he’d misled us into the Iraq war and botched that mission terribly.
Not only did I worry that Rove’s “permanent Republican majority” was a real possibility, but my own professional choices over the past two decades have distanced me from my college-era activist bent. Yes, I taught public high school in New York City for four years and interned at both The Nation and The Village Voice. But for the last 13 years I’ve been a journalist writing for the mainstream media or the business press.
That can be a noble pursuit, and I’m proud of a number of investigative articles that I’ve written—stories that may have reached a wider audience than if they’d appeared in a lefty publication.
Still, there’s been a cost to where I’ve hung my byline. It has to do with the “objectivity” demanded by the mainstream media. Despite writing probably upwards of 2,000 articles over the years, I can feel that my voice and--my passions--have been silenced some.
The sense of having been gradually quieted politically and professionally is partly why Obama’s win was such a satisfying present, such a poignant payoff. I kept crying in the wake of the victory. Tuesday night, I pumped my first and hissed out from clenched teeth “We fucking won Florida!”—but did it with my voice breaking. I teared up during the acceptance speech. I wept in the following days at stories of Obama breaking barriers. I choked up as I thought about my mother voting for Obama despite her pro-life position.
There was some serious grief being released here. A store of sadness I was barely conscious of, that I believe came from hope dying to some degree over the years.
The same surprisingly intense crying overtook me when I began dating my wife, and I recognized that I’d settled for a less-than-full level of happiness in my first marriage.
You see this overwhelm turn athletes to mush when they reach the top after a long journey. Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics was a seven foot-tall baby after winning the National Basketball Championship earlier this year, rocking and crying and shouting, “anything’s possible!”
Maybe it takes tears to clean off dusty but dearly help dreams—whether they be of a basketball title or a big love or a better world.
Because apart from making weepy, Obama’s win has awakened my political passions. I feel inspired to take on projects like creating a more just economy, tackling the violence and poverty of my own neighborhood, and staving off climate disaster.
I don’t think I’m alone. I’m sure most McCain voters aren’t nearly as pumped up as I am, but I suspect many agreed with McCain himself who said in his concession speech that Obama’s election says something great about America. And many McCain-Palin people may have been stirred when Obama called on all of us to get ready to pitch in during his acceptance speech.
In fact, even though Obama got less than 55 percent of the popular vote, a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll indicates that 79 percent of the public thinks he will do a good job as president.
Those who voted for Obama, meanwhile, feel shaken, not stirred, and in the best way possible. Election night, throngs of people in multiple American cities including San Francisco erupted in spontaneous street parties. My wife and I celebrated with champagne, leaning out our window to join in the cries of “woo hoo”, “yeah!” and a more primal “HAHHHH!”
Those yells weren’t just about relief, joy and silliness. On some level we were restating a serious resolve. We were shouting “Yes We Can.”
***
It’s tempting to call that phrase an empty slogan. A recent profile of leftist author Naomi Klein in the New Yorker quotes Klein along these lines, as she points to more conservative Obama stances on issues including war in Afghanistan.
But to minimize the motto ignores how powerful it is to highlight the social over the individual for a change. Talk about the change we need--virtually all the ills wrought by the Bush Administration stem from prizing the individual at the expense of the group. The cowboy foreign policy in Iraq. The you’re-on-your-own economic policies that widened the wealth gap and ignored the perils of unfettered markets. The disregard for future generations or the global community when it comes to the environment.
In fact, reconnecting with the basic idea of collective action is the only way we will get out of the economic crisis upon us. Consumers and businesses are reining in spending and retrenching in ways that may make sense for them individually, but are sending us as a whole into a self-perpetuating spiral of reduced demand and layoffs. It’s the recipe for another Depression.
Thankfully, though, we went through one of those already. And Americans appear to be remembering that people can solve problems together. A study published last year by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found “increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies.”
In other words, there seems to be a yes-we-can spirit in the air.
That spirit was reinforced for me recently in the realm of religion. I have been attending Old First Presbyterian Church in San Francisco for the past few months, and a sermon two Sundays ago by pastor Maggi Henderson reminded me of the spiritual, moral component of community. Henderson spoke about the prophet Isaiah’s words, “’Comfort, O comfort My people,’ says your God.” We often think of comfort as a lack of pain, as in comfortable shoes, Henderson said. But, she said, there’s a more active, communal meaning: the idea that collectively we fortify each other.
Henderson’s sermon was another gift of the season. Her call for a kind of solidarity to transcend tough times gave me a greater appreciation of the well-worn holiday phrase: tidings of comfort and joy. The good news is that we’re stronger together.
***
But there’s more to the comfort-and-joy story. Part of what makes us happy is a little discomfort. I was reminded of this wisdom by a Dec. 7 New York Times essay by psychologist Dacher Keltner titled, “In Defense of Teasing.” It highlighted the way teasing—as opposed to bullying or humiliating—is a key component of pleasure and even human connection.
“Teasing is the stage for the drama of flirtation, where suitors provoke in order to look for the sure signs of enduring commitment.,’ Keltner wrote. “…Studies find that married couples with a rich vocabulary of teasing nicknames and formulaic insults are happier and more satisfied.”
The essay struck me partly because it reminded me of some delightful give-and-take from an old romance. My old girlfriend Marlene once called me “scrawny”, and I think I responded by calling her “skinny” and a chase ensued. The jabs had points—I am a slender dude and she had rail-thin legs. But given the affectionate way we spoke those words, the put-downs acted as cupid arrows. The thrill of that exchange is partly why I still get nostalgic about her.
My first wife Kay called me “scrappy” based on the way I played basketball. It was an affirming description, but it symbolized the way our relationship could err on the side of seriousness. Kay has a clever, dry sense of humor. And we did poke fun of each other a fair amount. But there was a way in which we pulled our playful punches. Our preoccupation with taking care of each other limited the teasing, and that helped crimp the joy I felt with her.
I recaptured a sense of delight with my wife Rowena. When I met her nearly nine years ago, she struck me as a perfect balance of Marlene’s extreme romanticism and Kay’s anti-romantic realism. We also share a playfulness around movement, a hungry curiosity about the world and a sense of wonder about our two kids.
But we haven’t found a groove when it comes to romantic teasing. Often we feel sensitive to each other’s digs. Or maybe we haven’t found a way to deliver them in the right way. Rowena’s got a sarcastic, sometimes raunchy sense of humor. She shared this style with her first husband, though the common ground didn’t ultimately keep them close.
Rowena thinks our senses of humor may never click exactly. She may be right, but I’m not willing to give up yet. I at least can thicken my skin and lighten up more. I’ve long had a “safety first” mantra which can drive my kids batty during rough-housing and get in my own way of having fun. My buddy Joel once called me his “earnest” friend. I cringe a little at the description, which was spot on. Too much safety and seriousness veers into the dull and somber.
***
So I’m grateful to Keltner for refreshing my memory that relationships can be deepened by both heartfelt hugs and light-hearted zingers. But his words offer a still larger contribution. As a society, we should be concerned about going too far when it comes to comforting our brothers and sisters. By seeking a pain-free society, we may create a sterile one.
Economically speaking, I think you can see risk-taking as roughly analogous to a kind of societal teasing. A new business venture amounts to a challenge to established firms. During the past decade, such economic “teasing” was taken to the level of “tricks”. Unscrupulous lenders pushed mortgages on consumers with payments destined to mushroom to unaffordable levels. Largely unregulated financial services firms peddled new, little understood investment products that depended on a housing market bubble.
All the dubious activity enriched a few, but led to an unstable financial system that has required billions in public bail outs and helped send the economy into a deepening recession.
To go to far in the other direction though—to banish risk altogether—would result in an economic system that’s likely to be not only less prosperous but even dull. Through entrepreneurial or investment risk, an individual sticks his neck out from the group, in a sense mocking the more powerful or status quo as inadequate. My friend Art recently observed that the U.S. is the most fascinating country to watch with its booms and busts—we should retain something of that dynamic story.
Preserving a degree of public playfulness is about more than just the economy. There’s been concern that jokes cannot be told about Obama, who can come across as a serious dude. Even amid our crises, we ought not to take ourselves too seriously. It may be more important than ever to be able to laugh. In the hard road ahead, laughter will be a rare luxury.
***
It’s fitting that the economic crisis is coming to a head of sorts in winter. The season of darkness, when we lose light, lose the life of plants, lose the comfort of warmer weather. The holiday rituals are an elaborate effort—not always successful—to pick up our spirits with lights and social gatherings. The best of the holiday music nods to the downerness of the days. “A Charlie Brown Christmas” by the Vince Guaraldi Trio is a case in point, with the bittersweet “Christmas Time is Here” offsetting more upbeat songs like “Hark, the Herald Angles Sing” and the classic piano rave-up “Linus and Lucy.”
Maybe the truism is right—we need some bad times to bring out our best. We have to face loss to experience the gifts of brotherhood and communal cheer.
In “Christmas Time is Here,” the kids on the recording sing: “Oh that we could always see such spirit through the year.”
That oft-repeated sentiment has a larger significance amid today’s recession. We can’t afford to lose the holiday spirit this year. We need collective hope and compassion and playfulness.
Can we do it, as Jean Robertson might ask? Can we create tidings of comfort and joy out of the current gloom? Even a Grattan kindergartener knows the answer: Yes we can.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Yes we can create tidings of comfort and joy
There’s a lot of losing going on this holiday season. Loss of wealth. Loss of jobs. Loss of life. I have little stories that go with those big ones. My retirement savings has cratered with everyone else’s. One of my best friends lost his job and I’m worried about losing mine as a business journalist. My grandmother-in-law died just before Thanksgiving, a relatively peaceful death but still a painful one.
Amid these losses, though, I’m finding myself gaining. Or perhaps better said, regaining. In recent weeks, hope and idealism that had quietly ebbed in me over the years washed back. I am feeling once again a fundamental faith that we can and must comfort each other. And an essay I read about the importance of teasing jolted me back to the deliciousness of romantic ribbing and led to a wiser take on playfulness.
These positive personal tales also fit into some bigger, public ones. For many of us, it seems, tis’ the season to be both melancholy and jolly.
***
My gift of newfound optimism has to do with the big O. The big win of the big O, really. Because if Barack Obama had lost Nov. 4, I would probably be feeling pessimistic big-time right about now.
Like some other liberals, in the days before the election, I was paranoid Obama’s lead in the polls would somehow disappear and our team would fail. This fear of faltering in the fourth quarter, in the clutch, runs deep in me. Not only have I failed to decisively win any organized sports championships in my life, but I hail from Buffalo. The city where the Buffalo Bills hold the dubious honor of being the only professional football team to make it to the Super Bowl championship four straight years only to lose each time.
I tried to compensate during this year’s election with effort. I made more than 500 phone calls from my home for Obama. I spent a Saturday with my friend Monique in Nevada, amid llama farms and lots of angry dogs, asking voters in the swing state to back Barack. The last days before Nov. 4, I campaigned for Obama at his downtown San Francisco headquarters. Many of my 11th-hour calls were to voters in Florida. The state I’d spent hours calling for the doomed Kerry campaign. Where the Dems came up short in 2000.
I secretly worried I was cursing Obama’s chances even as I dialed for voters.
But he won. And that win suddenly made concepts like hope and community and sacrifice real again, grippable—like the way Oprah Winfrey apparently just grabbed and held onto a stranger at the victory celebration in Chicago’s Grant Park. Obama really won. By a lot. Americans not only were willing to put a legacy of racism aside, but cast their lot for the man and the party saying “yes we can.”
A night or two after the election, I suddenly made the connection that Obama’s mantra is the same as the morning chant at my son’s elementary school. Grattan Principal Jean Robertson starts each day by assembling all the students on the playground, sharing announcements and then asking the kids, “What’d you come to school for today?” Students, teachers and parents answer, “To Learn.” And Jean shouts back, “Can you do it?” And about 350 voices belt out: “Yes we can!”
In the weeks since school began for my kindergartener, I’d appreciated the morning call and response as a nice, motivating ritual. But now I saw the richness of this every-day articulation of hope and determination, its elevation of a collective, ambitious philosophy. It dawned on me that the kids could have said “Yes I can.” The Grattan go-get-‘em pep talk was not just sweet but bordering on sacred.
Of course, Grattan isn’t perfect. My wife and I have already butted up against bureaucracy and questioned some of the school decisions. But something democratic and deeply hopeful is alive at this little school, which has attracted growing numbers of families in recent years. Grattan prides itself in part on the Grattan Way, a four-part code of respectfulness, responsibility, safety and kindness.
I now find myself having more faith in the good stuff going on at Grattan, and wanting to get more involved in it. The Grattan Way, after all, is my way too—ideals I’ve held since childhood and eventually shaped a political philosophy around.
***
That philosophy—pretty much a traditional liberalism—has taken a beating over the years. Like other liberals, I was stunned that the country could reelect George W. in 2004, even though he’d misled us into the Iraq war and botched that mission terribly.
Not only did I worry that Rove’s “permanent Republican majority” was a real possibility, but my own professional choices over the past two decades have distanced me from my college-era activist bent. Yes, I taught public high school in New York City for four years and interned at both The Nation and The Village Voice. But for the last 13 years I’ve been a journalist writing for the mainstream media or the business press.
That can be a noble pursuit, and I’m proud of a number of investigative articles that I’ve written—stories that may have reached a wider audience than if they’d appeared in a lefty publication.
Still, there’s been a cost to where I’ve hung my byline. It has to do with the “objectivity” demanded by the mainstream media. Despite writing probably upwards of 2,000 articles over the years, I can feel that my voice and--my passions--have been silenced some.
The sense of having been gradually quieted politically and professionally is partly why Obama’s win was such a satisfying present, such a poignant payoff. I kept crying in the wake of the victory. Tuesday night, I pumped my first and hissed out from clenched teeth “We fucking won Florida!”—but did it with my voice breaking. I teared up during the acceptance speech. I wept in the following days at stories of Obama breaking barriers. I choked up as I thought about my mother voting for Obama despite her pro-life position.
There was some serious grief being released here. A store of sadness I was barely conscious of, that I believe came from hope dying to some degree over the years.
The same surprisingly intense crying overtook me when I began dating my wife, and I recognized that I’d settled for a less-than-full level of happiness in my first marriage.
You see this overwhelm turn athletes to mush when they reach the top after a long journey. Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics was a seven foot-tall baby after winning the National Basketball Championship earlier this year, rocking and crying and shouting, “anything’s possible!”
Maybe it takes tears to clean off dusty but dearly help dreams—whether they be of a basketball title or a big love or a better world.
Because apart from making weepy, Obama’s win has awakened my political passions. I feel inspired to take on projects like creating a more just economy, tackling the violence and poverty of my own neighborhood, and staving off climate disaster.
I don’t think I’m alone. I’m sure most McCain voters aren’t nearly as pumped up as I am, but I suspect many agreed with McCain himself who said in his concession speech that Obama’s election says something great about America. And many McCain-Palin people may have been stirred when Obama called on all of us to get ready to pitch in during his acceptance speech.
In fact, even though Obama got less than 55 percent of the popular vote, a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll indicates that 79 percent of the public thinks he will do a good job as president.
Those who voted for Obama, meanwhile, feel shaken, not stirred, and in the best way possible. Election night, throngs of people in multiple American cities including San Francisco erupted in spontaneous street parties. My wife and I celebrated with champagne, leaning out our window to join in the cries of “woo hoo”, “yeah!” and a more primal “HAHHHH!”
Those yells weren’t just about relief, joy and silliness. On some level we were restating a serious resolve. We were shouting “Yes We Can.”
***
It’s tempting to call that phrase an empty slogan. A recent profile of leftist author Naomi Klein in the New Yorker quotes Klein along these lines, as she points to more conservative Obama stances on issues including war in Afghanistan.
But to minimize the motto ignores how powerful it is to highlight the social over the individual for a change. Talk about the change we need--virtually all the ills wrought by the Bush Administration stem from prizing the individual at the expense of the group. The cowboy foreign policy in Iraq. The you’re-on-your-own economic policies that widened the wealth gap and ignored the perils of unfettered markets. The disregard for future generations or the global community when it comes to the environment.
In fact, reconnecting with the basic idea of collective action is the only way we will get out of the economic crisis upon us. Consumers and businesses are reining in spending and retrenching in ways that may make sense for them individually, but are sending us as a whole into a self-perpetuating spiral of reduced demand and layoffs. It’s the recipe for another Depression.
Thankfully, though, we went through one of those already. And Americans appear to be remembering that people can solve problems together. A study published last year by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found “increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies.”
In other words, there seems to be a yes-we-can spirit in the air.
That spirit was reinforced for me recently in the realm of religion. I have been attending Old First Presbyterian Church in San Francisco for the past few months, and a sermon two Sundays ago by pastor Maggi Henderson reminded me of the spiritual, moral component of community. Henderson spoke about the prophet Isaiah’s words, “’Comfort, O comfort My people,’ says your God.” We often think of comfort as a lack of pain, as in comfortable shoes, Henderson said. But, she said, there’s a more active, communal meaning: the idea that collectively we fortify each other.
Henderson’s sermon was another gift of the season. Her call for a kind of solidarity to transcend tough times gave me a greater appreciation of the well-worn holiday phrase: tidings of comfort and joy. The good news is that we’re stronger together.
***
But there’s more to the comfort-and-joy story. Part of what makes us happy is a little discomfort. I was reminded of this wisdom by a Dec. 7 New York Times essay by psychologist Dacher Keltner titled, “In Defense of Teasing.” It highlighted the way teasing—as opposed to bullying or humiliating—is a key component of pleasure and even human connection.
“Teasing is the stage for the drama of flirtation, where suitors provoke in order to look for the sure signs of enduring commitment.,’ Keltner wrote. “…Studies find that married couples with a rich vocabulary of teasing nicknames and formulaic insults are happier and more satisfied.”
The essay struck me partly because it reminded me of some delightful give-and-take from an old romance. My old girlfriend Marlene once called me “scrawny”, and I think I responded by calling her “skinny” and a chase ensued. The jabs had points—I am a slender dude and she had rail-thin legs. But given the affectionate way we spoke those words, the put-downs acted as cupid arrows. The thrill of that exchange is partly why I still get nostalgic about her.
My first wife Kay called me “scrappy” based on the way I played basketball. It was an affirming description, but it symbolized the way our relationship could err on the side of seriousness. Kay has a clever, dry sense of humor. But our preoccupation with taking care of each other meant mischievousness often went missing.
I recaptured a sense of delight with my wife Rowena. When I met her nearly nine years ago, she struck me as a perfect balance of Marlene’s extreme romanticism and Kay’s anti-romantic realism. We also share a playfulness around movement, a hungry curiosity about the world and a sense of wonder about our two kids.
But we haven’t found a groove when it comes to romantic teasing. Often we feel sensitive to each other’s digs. Or maybe we haven’t found a way to deliver them in the right way. Rowena’s got a sarcastic, sometimes raunchy sense of humor. She shared this style with her first husband, though the common ground didn’t ultimately keep them close.
Rowena thinks our senses of humor may never click exactly. She may be right, but I’m not willing to give up yet. I at least can thicken my skin and lighten up more. I’ve long had a “safety first” mantra which can drive my kids batty during rough-housing and get in my own way of having fun. My buddy Joel once called me his “earnest” friend. I cringe a little at the description, which was spot on. Too much safety and seriousness veers into the dull and somber.
***
So I’m grateful to Keltner for refreshing my memory that relationships can be deepened by both heartfelt hugs and light-hearted zingers. But his words offer a still larger contribution. As a society, we should be concerned about going too far when it comes to comforting our brothers and sisters. By seeking a pain-free society, we may create a sterile one.
Economically speaking, I think you can see risk-taking as roughly analogous to a kind of societal teasing. A new business venture amounts to a challenge to established firms. During the past decade, such economic “teasing” was taken to the level of “tricks”. Unscrupulous lenders pushed mortgages on consumers with payments destined to mushroom to unaffordable levels. Largely unregulated financial services firms peddled new, little understood investment products that depended on a housing market bubble.
All the dubious activity enriched a few, but led to an unstable financial system that has required billions in public bail outs and helped send the economy into a deepening recession.
To go to far in the other direction though—to banish risk altogether—would result in an economic system that’s likely to be not only less prosperous but even dull. Through entrepreneurial or investment risk, an individual sticks his neck out from the group, in a sense mocking the more powerful or status quo as inadequate. My friend Art recently observed that the U.S. is the most fascinating country to watch with its booms and busts—we should retain something of that dynamic story.
Preserving a degree of public playfulness is about more than just the economy. There’s been concern that jokes cannot be told about Obama, who can come across as a serious dude. Even amid our crises, we ought not to take ourselves too seriously. It may be more important than ever to be able to laugh. In the hard road ahead, laughter will be a rare luxury.
***
It’s fitting that the economic crisis is coming to a head of sorts in winter. The season of darkness, when we lose light, lose the life of plants, lose the comfort of warmer weather. The holiday rituals are an elaborate effort—not always successful—to pick up our spirits with lights and social gatherings. The best of the holiday music nods to the downerness of the days. “A Charlie Brown Christmas” by the Vince Guaraldi Trio is a case in point, with the bittersweet “Christmas Time is Here” offsetting more upbeat songs like “Hark, the Herald Angles Sing” and the classic piano rave-up “Linus and Lucy.”
Maybe the truism is right—we need some bad times to bring out our best. We have to face loss to experience the gifts of brotherhood and communal cheer.
In “Christmas Time is Here,” the kids on the recording sing: “Oh that we could always see such spirit through the year.”
That oft-repeated sentiment has a larger significance amid today’s recession. We can’t afford to lose the holiday spirit this year. We need collective hope and compassion and playfulness.
Can we do it, as Jean Robertson might ask? Can we create tidings of comfort and joy out of the current gloom? Even a Grattan kindergartener knows the answer: Yes we can.
Amid these losses, though, I’m finding myself gaining. Or perhaps better said, regaining. In recent weeks, hope and idealism that had quietly ebbed in me over the years washed back. I am feeling once again a fundamental faith that we can and must comfort each other. And an essay I read about the importance of teasing jolted me back to the deliciousness of romantic ribbing and led to a wiser take on playfulness.
These positive personal tales also fit into some bigger, public ones. For many of us, it seems, tis’ the season to be both melancholy and jolly.
***
My gift of newfound optimism has to do with the big O. The big win of the big O, really. Because if Barack Obama had lost Nov. 4, I would probably be feeling pessimistic big-time right about now.
Like some other liberals, in the days before the election, I was paranoid Obama’s lead in the polls would somehow disappear and our team would fail. This fear of faltering in the fourth quarter, in the clutch, runs deep in me. Not only have I failed to decisively win any organized sports championships in my life, but I hail from Buffalo. The city where the Buffalo Bills hold the dubious honor of being the only professional football team to make it to the Super Bowl championship four straight years only to lose each time.
I tried to compensate during this year’s election with effort. I made more than 500 phone calls from my home for Obama. I spent a Saturday with my friend Monique in Nevada, amid llama farms and lots of angry dogs, asking voters in the swing state to back Barack. The last days before Nov. 4, I campaigned for Obama at his downtown San Francisco headquarters. Many of my 11th-hour calls were to voters in Florida. The state I’d spent hours calling for the doomed Kerry campaign. Where the Dems came up short in 2000.
I secretly worried I was cursing Obama’s chances even as I dialed for voters.
But he won. And that win suddenly made concepts like hope and community and sacrifice real again, grippable—like the way Oprah Winfrey apparently just grabbed and held onto a stranger at the victory celebration in Chicago’s Grant Park. Obama really won. By a lot. Americans not only were willing to put a legacy of racism aside, but cast their lot for the man and the party saying “yes we can.”
A night or two after the election, I suddenly made the connection that Obama’s mantra is the same as the morning chant at my son’s elementary school. Grattan Principal Jean Robertson starts each day by assembling all the students on the playground, sharing announcements and then asking the kids, “What’d you come to school for today?” Students, teachers and parents answer, “To Learn.” And Jean shouts back, “Can you do it?” And about 350 voices belt out: “Yes we can!”
In the weeks since school began for my kindergartener, I’d appreciated the morning call and response as a nice, motivating ritual. But now I saw the richness of this every-day articulation of hope and determination, its elevation of a collective, ambitious philosophy. It dawned on me that the kids could have said “Yes I can.” The Grattan go-get-‘em pep talk was not just sweet but bordering on sacred.
Of course, Grattan isn’t perfect. My wife and I have already butted up against bureaucracy and questioned some of the school decisions. But something democratic and deeply hopeful is alive at this little school, which has attracted growing numbers of families in recent years. Grattan prides itself in part on the Grattan Way, a four-part code of respectfulness, responsibility, safety and kindness.
I now find myself having more faith in the good stuff going on at Grattan, and wanting to get more involved in it. The Grattan Way, after all, is my way too—ideals I’ve held since childhood and eventually shaped a political philosophy around.
***
That philosophy—pretty much a traditional liberalism—has taken a beating over the years. Like other liberals, I was stunned that the country could reelect George W. in 2004, even though he’d misled us into the Iraq war and botched that mission terribly.
Not only did I worry that Rove’s “permanent Republican majority” was a real possibility, but my own professional choices over the past two decades have distanced me from my college-era activist bent. Yes, I taught public high school in New York City for four years and interned at both The Nation and The Village Voice. But for the last 13 years I’ve been a journalist writing for the mainstream media or the business press.
That can be a noble pursuit, and I’m proud of a number of investigative articles that I’ve written—stories that may have reached a wider audience than if they’d appeared in a lefty publication.
Still, there’s been a cost to where I’ve hung my byline. It has to do with the “objectivity” demanded by the mainstream media. Despite writing probably upwards of 2,000 articles over the years, I can feel that my voice and--my passions--have been silenced some.
The sense of having been gradually quieted politically and professionally is partly why Obama’s win was such a satisfying present, such a poignant payoff. I kept crying in the wake of the victory. Tuesday night, I pumped my first and hissed out from clenched teeth “We fucking won Florida!”—but did it with my voice breaking. I teared up during the acceptance speech. I wept in the following days at stories of Obama breaking barriers. I choked up as I thought about my mother voting for Obama despite her pro-life position.
There was some serious grief being released here. A store of sadness I was barely conscious of, that I believe came from hope dying to some degree over the years.
The same surprisingly intense crying overtook me when I began dating my wife, and I recognized that I’d settled for a less-than-full level of happiness in my first marriage.
You see this overwhelm turn athletes to mush when they reach the top after a long journey. Kevin Garnett of the Boston Celtics was a seven foot-tall baby after winning the National Basketball Championship earlier this year, rocking and crying and shouting, “anything’s possible!”
Maybe it takes tears to clean off dusty but dearly help dreams—whether they be of a basketball title or a big love or a better world.
Because apart from making weepy, Obama’s win has awakened my political passions. I feel inspired to take on projects like creating a more just economy, tackling the violence and poverty of my own neighborhood, and staving off climate disaster.
I don’t think I’m alone. I’m sure most McCain voters aren’t nearly as pumped up as I am, but I suspect many agreed with McCain himself who said in his concession speech that Obama’s election says something great about America. And many McCain-Palin people may have been stirred when Obama called on all of us to get ready to pitch in during his acceptance speech.
In fact, even though Obama got less than 55 percent of the popular vote, a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll indicates that 79 percent of the public thinks he will do a good job as president.
Those who voted for Obama, meanwhile, feel shaken, not stirred, and in the best way possible. Election night, throngs of people in multiple American cities including San Francisco erupted in spontaneous street parties. My wife and I celebrated with champagne, leaning out our window to join in the cries of “woo hoo”, “yeah!” and a more primal “HAHHHH!”
Those yells weren’t just about relief, joy and silliness. On some level we were restating a serious resolve. We were shouting “Yes We Can.”
***
It’s tempting to call that phrase an empty slogan. A recent profile of leftist author Naomi Klein in the New Yorker quotes Klein along these lines, as she points to more conservative Obama stances on issues including war in Afghanistan.
But to minimize the motto ignores how powerful it is to highlight the social over the individual for a change. Talk about the change we need--virtually all the ills wrought by the Bush Administration stem from prizing the individual at the expense of the group. The cowboy foreign policy in Iraq. The you’re-on-your-own economic policies that widened the wealth gap and ignored the perils of unfettered markets. The disregard for future generations or the global community when it comes to the environment.
In fact, reconnecting with the basic idea of collective action is the only way we will get out of the economic crisis upon us. Consumers and businesses are reining in spending and retrenching in ways that may make sense for them individually, but are sending us as a whole into a self-perpetuating spiral of reduced demand and layoffs. It’s the recipe for another Depression.
Thankfully, though, we went through one of those already. And Americans appear to be remembering that people can solve problems together. A study published last year by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found “increased public support for the social safety net, signs of growing public concern about income inequality, and a diminished appetite for assertive national security policies.”
In other words, there seems to be a yes-we-can spirit in the air.
That spirit was reinforced for me recently in the realm of religion. I have been attending Old First Presbyterian Church in San Francisco for the past few months, and a sermon two Sundays ago by pastor Maggi Henderson reminded me of the spiritual, moral component of community. Henderson spoke about the prophet Isaiah’s words, “’Comfort, O comfort My people,’ says your God.” We often think of comfort as a lack of pain, as in comfortable shoes, Henderson said. But, she said, there’s a more active, communal meaning: the idea that collectively we fortify each other.
Henderson’s sermon was another gift of the season. Her call for a kind of solidarity to transcend tough times gave me a greater appreciation of the well-worn holiday phrase: tidings of comfort and joy. The good news is that we’re stronger together.
***
But there’s more to the comfort-and-joy story. Part of what makes us happy is a little discomfort. I was reminded of this wisdom by a Dec. 7 New York Times essay by psychologist Dacher Keltner titled, “In Defense of Teasing.” It highlighted the way teasing—as opposed to bullying or humiliating—is a key component of pleasure and even human connection.
“Teasing is the stage for the drama of flirtation, where suitors provoke in order to look for the sure signs of enduring commitment.,’ Keltner wrote. “…Studies find that married couples with a rich vocabulary of teasing nicknames and formulaic insults are happier and more satisfied.”
The essay struck me partly because it reminded me of some delightful give-and-take from an old romance. My old girlfriend Marlene once called me “scrawny”, and I think I responded by calling her “skinny” and a chase ensued. The jabs had points—I am a slender dude and she had rail-thin legs. But given the affectionate way we spoke those words, the put-downs acted as cupid arrows. The thrill of that exchange is partly why I still get nostalgic about her.
My first wife Kay called me “scrappy” based on the way I played basketball. It was an affirming description, but it symbolized the way our relationship could err on the side of seriousness. Kay has a clever, dry sense of humor. But our preoccupation with taking care of each other meant mischievousness often went missing.
I recaptured a sense of delight with my wife Rowena. When I met her nearly nine years ago, she struck me as a perfect balance of Marlene’s extreme romanticism and Kay’s anti-romantic realism. We also share a playfulness around movement, a hungry curiosity about the world and a sense of wonder about our two kids.
But we haven’t found a groove when it comes to romantic teasing. Often we feel sensitive to each other’s digs. Or maybe we haven’t found a way to deliver them in the right way. Rowena’s got a sarcastic, sometimes raunchy sense of humor. She shared this style with her first husband, though the common ground didn’t ultimately keep them close.
Rowena thinks our senses of humor may never click exactly. She may be right, but I’m not willing to give up yet. I at least can thicken my skin and lighten up more. I’ve long had a “safety first” mantra which can drive my kids batty during rough-housing and get in my own way of having fun. My buddy Joel once called me his “earnest” friend. I cringe a little at the description, which was spot on. Too much safety and seriousness veers into the dull and somber.
***
So I’m grateful to Keltner for refreshing my memory that relationships can be deepened by both heartfelt hugs and light-hearted zingers. But his words offer a still larger contribution. As a society, we should be concerned about going too far when it comes to comforting our brothers and sisters. By seeking a pain-free society, we may create a sterile one.
Economically speaking, I think you can see risk-taking as roughly analogous to a kind of societal teasing. A new business venture amounts to a challenge to established firms. During the past decade, such economic “teasing” was taken to the level of “tricks”. Unscrupulous lenders pushed mortgages on consumers with payments destined to mushroom to unaffordable levels. Largely unregulated financial services firms peddled new, little understood investment products that depended on a housing market bubble.
All the dubious activity enriched a few, but led to an unstable financial system that has required billions in public bail outs and helped send the economy into a deepening recession.
To go to far in the other direction though—to banish risk altogether—would result in an economic system that’s likely to be not only less prosperous but even dull. Through entrepreneurial or investment risk, an individual sticks his neck out from the group, in a sense mocking the more powerful or status quo as inadequate. My friend Art recently observed that the U.S. is the most fascinating country to watch with its booms and busts—we should retain something of that dynamic story.
Preserving a degree of public playfulness is about more than just the economy. There’s been concern that jokes cannot be told about Obama, who can come across as a serious dude. Even amid our crises, we ought not to take ourselves too seriously. It may be more important than ever to be able to laugh. In the hard road ahead, laughter will be a rare luxury.
***
It’s fitting that the economic crisis is coming to a head of sorts in winter. The season of darkness, when we lose light, lose the life of plants, lose the comfort of warmer weather. The holiday rituals are an elaborate effort—not always successful—to pick up our spirits with lights and social gatherings. The best of the holiday music nods to the downerness of the days. “A Charlie Brown Christmas” by the Vince Guaraldi Trio is a case in point, with the bittersweet “Christmas Time is Here” offsetting more upbeat songs like “Hark, the Herald Angles Sing” and the classic piano rave-up “Linus and Lucy.”
Maybe the truism is right—we need some bad times to bring out our best. We have to face loss to experience the gifts of brotherhood and communal cheer.
In “Christmas Time is Here,” the kids on the recording sing: “Oh that we could always see such spirit through the year.”
That oft-repeated sentiment has a larger significance amid today’s recession. We can’t afford to lose the holiday spirit this year. We need collective hope and compassion and playfulness.
Can we do it, as Jean Robertson might ask? Can we create tidings of comfort and joy out of the current gloom? Even a Grattan kindergartener knows the answer: Yes we can.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Super Boy
I was struck by the words on a package of underwear I bought the other day for my son Julius: “Super Boy.”
Most papas think their sons are Super Boys to some extent. I’m no exception. I take great pride in the way Julius Randall, 5, syncopates and does double time as a drummer, swings across rings with such grace and power as to regularly elicit compliments from the playground parenting crowd, and grills grown-ups about what they are up to. This last habit may grate on some friends’ nerves at times, but as a journalist I love seeing him demonstrate such curiosity and tenacity.
I also see some amazing things from him when it comes to words. Julius has this striking way of employing phrases beyond his years—often beyond even my years. One example is the way he can announce bad news, as in: “Mama, I’m so sorry, but Skyla (his kid sister) just poured paint on the carpet.” When he was at the beach with other kids making tunnels and pools in the sand, he said: “Guys, this calls for some tools.”
The “this calls for” phrase was straight out of an old superhero cartoon. That’s not a complete surprise, since he loves watching old Superman and Aquaman cartoons on YouTube.
But Julius doesn’t just imitate. He innovates. The boy who made up some of his own sign language signs as an infant now makes up his own words and turns of phrase. Like “Bizday” as a day of the week in addition to the usual seven. A “double push-up” is when one person does a push up while a second person does one on the back of the first person (I don’t think he and I have managed this yet, but we’ll get there). “The Russian flier” refers to the paper airplane design we learned from the Russian immigrant mother of a circus-school classmate.
In this same spirit of naming, he’s given me a moniker. My wife Rowena and I decided to call ourselves “Mama” and “Papa” before we had Julius and Skyla, and that’s how we refer to each other. But Julius has taken to calling his mother “Mom” much of the time. And much of the time he calls me “Dada”—pronounced “dad-ah.”
He may have picked up this term from his dear friends Isa and Felix. In any event, it is about the last name I would have given to myself as a father. It doesn’t have that hipster/retro flair that partly drew me to “Papa.” And it can come across as babyish. Only it doesn’t when Julius uses it to give me precise, elaborate directions, such as “Dada, put the blanket over your head and pretend the piano is me and the TV is Skyla.” And who cares about hipsterhood when Julius says “Dada” and nuzzles me with his wiry-haired head, or reaches out to hold my hand from his loft bed.
Dada is now one of my favorite words in the world.
Some of my others are ones he mispronounces. Like “breakrast” for “breakfast” and “pokskible” for “popsicle.” Part of me hopes he never gets those “right.”
There's also "hostible" instead of "hospital." However you pronounce it, that word was on our minds today, because Julius spent a traumatic few hours in the local emergency room. He had to get three stitches after splitting his forehead open on a stone wall—as he put it to the ER staff, he was “running on full speed” and didn’t look where he was going.
Julius can be shy and fearful at times. But today he showed he also is courageous. While he lay on a gurney, we talked about how courage means going through something even though you are afraid. Despite some tears and his fear of stitches, he held totally still while his half-inch gash was cleaned with saline water, numbed up, and sewn up.
Our wonderful nurse, Teo, called Julius a superhero. I couldn’t agree more.
Julius can be shy and fearful at times. But today he showed he also is courageous. While he lay on a gurney, we talked about how courage means going through something even though you are afraid. Despite some tears and his fear of stitches, he held totally still while his half-inch gash was cleaned with saline water, numbed up, and sewn up.
Our wonderful nurse, Teo, called Julius a superhero. I couldn’t agree more.
Friday, April 11, 2008
From Tough Luck to Tough Love--the updated version
Below is an updated version of my essay introduction—one that tries to address any confusion over the phrase “tough love” from the get-go.
Usually in America, when someone loses their job or has their fledgling business go belly up, we respond with a collective, “tough luck.”
What we ought to be giving is tough love.
The tough luck approach contains a smidgeon of empathy. But mostly it means the individual is on their own. Society doesn’t feel much responsibility, nor does it offer much help in terms of handling the resulting unemployment and related risks of home loss and deteriorating personal relations.
Saying “tough luck” borders on cruel in today’s global economy, which is ever-more turbulent and in which corporations frequently layoff workers even in good times.
When I call for “tough love,” I mean equal parts care and accountability. Conservatives can define this term to mean that virtually any help given to someone undermines self-reliance. For that reason, I think, liberals who focus on the connectedness of individuals can find the phrase distasteful. I aim to reframe “tough love” as a term that succinctly captures the importance of both personal responsibility and collective aid.
Tough love, in this sense, would mean showing enough compassion to truly help an economically displaced person get back on their feet—even giving them a job if they couldn’t find another. It would mean recognizing that we as a whole share some responsibility for the person’s problem, because society created conditions in which they failed or found themselves without a job. But we’d set limits on how much we would shelter or aid them, to avoid coddling people into dependence or passivity.
Tough love also might mean a different attitude about people before they get into an economic pickle. It might mean doing more to nurture their creativity or talents, such as a universal system of sabbaticals.
Tough love might seem soft-headed or sentimental. And there is a moral component to a social safety net that better protects fellow human beings when they’re blown off the economic ladder. Over the past few decades, economic risk has shifted from companies and government to individuals. The result is increasingly volatile incomes for American families and a kind of mass callousness toward the “losers.”
But a kinder, more proactive safety net also can serve as a springy catalyst for hard-headed economic growth. A degree of economic security can lead to inspired work by employees and individuals. At the very least, it would temper calls to close off global trade in ways that are short-sighted and selfish as a nation. And fostering people’s innovations, including artistic ones, has become vital in an economy where “human capital” is rising in importance and right-brained, conceptual thinking is seen as the future.
Denmark offers a case study in the promise of economic tough love. The country has combined generous unemployment benefits with restrictions on public aid and the ability of businesses to hire and fire with ease. The results of Denmark’s “flexicurity” are stellar economic growth and a highly egalitarian society.
To be sure, there are pitfalls to putting tough love into practice. Taxing the populace too high to pay for the safety net threatens to repel entrepreneurs or others keen on growing wealthy. Denmark is currently wrestling with this issue.
America, though, has a long ways to go before it creates a safety net so expensive that it pushes key talent abroad. By far our bigger hurdle is helping our existing workforce both avoid devastating economic setbacks and reach its highest potential—in part by reducing the fear of such setbacks.
Focusing on Americans’ economic confidence and seeing a significant societal role in their development isn’t easy to do, though, because of some powerful myths at the center of our national culture. Horatio Alger and the story of pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps has long steered us to view Americans as solo heroes on very individual paths.
There’s also an American penchant for the all-or-nothing, for betting everything on a dream. These narratives contain kernels of truth about the importance of the individual and the thrill of the extreme. But they romanticize risk and hide the help people get from those around them.
As the United States has become more of a winner-take-all, tough-luck economy over the past few decades, Americans have responded in some dysfunctional ways. We’ve literally turned to luck, spending money on gambling as never before. And we have gravitated to the mean-spirited, fantastical theory of “The Secret,” which claims individual success comes to those who wish hard enough—and implies the unsuccessful are to blame for their misfortune.
But there are signs we’re ready for a new, more social story. That we are starting to remember America’s communal heritage, with its barn-raisings and civic traditions. That we’re more open to learning from other cultures that put more emphasis on the collective than we do. Natural disasters and the potential for them are bringing us together as a country and a globe. Social networking sites are highlighting the fact that other people are not just consumers to be sold to or job competition, but critical supports in one’s career. The populace is shifting leftward politically, even if policies aren’t yet.
Marketers are ahead of our political and economic policies. They seem to sense the greater openness to brotherly- and sisterly love welling up in the country. An Adidas storefront recently had this written on its window: “Every team needs a hero. Every hero needs a team.”
Usually in America, when someone loses their job or has their fledgling business go belly up, we respond with a collective, “tough luck.”
What we ought to be giving is tough love.
The tough luck approach contains a smidgeon of empathy. But mostly it means the individual is on their own. Society doesn’t feel much responsibility, nor does it offer much help in terms of handling the resulting unemployment and related risks of home loss and deteriorating personal relations.
Saying “tough luck” borders on cruel in today’s global economy, which is ever-more turbulent and in which corporations frequently layoff workers even in good times.
When I call for “tough love,” I mean equal parts care and accountability. Conservatives can define this term to mean that virtually any help given to someone undermines self-reliance. For that reason, I think, liberals who focus on the connectedness of individuals can find the phrase distasteful. I aim to reframe “tough love” as a term that succinctly captures the importance of both personal responsibility and collective aid.
Tough love, in this sense, would mean showing enough compassion to truly help an economically displaced person get back on their feet—even giving them a job if they couldn’t find another. It would mean recognizing that we as a whole share some responsibility for the person’s problem, because society created conditions in which they failed or found themselves without a job. But we’d set limits on how much we would shelter or aid them, to avoid coddling people into dependence or passivity.
Tough love also might mean a different attitude about people before they get into an economic pickle. It might mean doing more to nurture their creativity or talents, such as a universal system of sabbaticals.
Tough love might seem soft-headed or sentimental. And there is a moral component to a social safety net that better protects fellow human beings when they’re blown off the economic ladder. Over the past few decades, economic risk has shifted from companies and government to individuals. The result is increasingly volatile incomes for American families and a kind of mass callousness toward the “losers.”
But a kinder, more proactive safety net also can serve as a springy catalyst for hard-headed economic growth. A degree of economic security can lead to inspired work by employees and individuals. At the very least, it would temper calls to close off global trade in ways that are short-sighted and selfish as a nation. And fostering people’s innovations, including artistic ones, has become vital in an economy where “human capital” is rising in importance and right-brained, conceptual thinking is seen as the future.
Denmark offers a case study in the promise of economic tough love. The country has combined generous unemployment benefits with restrictions on public aid and the ability of businesses to hire and fire with ease. The results of Denmark’s “flexicurity” are stellar economic growth and a highly egalitarian society.
To be sure, there are pitfalls to putting tough love into practice. Taxing the populace too high to pay for the safety net threatens to repel entrepreneurs or others keen on growing wealthy. Denmark is currently wrestling with this issue.
America, though, has a long ways to go before it creates a safety net so expensive that it pushes key talent abroad. By far our bigger hurdle is helping our existing workforce both avoid devastating economic setbacks and reach its highest potential—in part by reducing the fear of such setbacks.
Focusing on Americans’ economic confidence and seeing a significant societal role in their development isn’t easy to do, though, because of some powerful myths at the center of our national culture. Horatio Alger and the story of pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps has long steered us to view Americans as solo heroes on very individual paths.
There’s also an American penchant for the all-or-nothing, for betting everything on a dream. These narratives contain kernels of truth about the importance of the individual and the thrill of the extreme. But they romanticize risk and hide the help people get from those around them.
As the United States has become more of a winner-take-all, tough-luck economy over the past few decades, Americans have responded in some dysfunctional ways. We’ve literally turned to luck, spending money on gambling as never before. And we have gravitated to the mean-spirited, fantastical theory of “The Secret,” which claims individual success comes to those who wish hard enough—and implies the unsuccessful are to blame for their misfortune.
But there are signs we’re ready for a new, more social story. That we are starting to remember America’s communal heritage, with its barn-raisings and civic traditions. That we’re more open to learning from other cultures that put more emphasis on the collective than we do. Natural disasters and the potential for them are bringing us together as a country and a globe. Social networking sites are highlighting the fact that other people are not just consumers to be sold to or job competition, but critical supports in one’s career. The populace is shifting leftward politically, even if policies aren’t yet.
Marketers are ahead of our political and economic policies. They seem to sense the greater openness to brotherly- and sisterly love welling up in the country. An Adidas storefront recently had this written on its window: “Every team needs a hero. Every hero needs a team.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)