I like to read David Brooks (NY Times). An excellent writer to begin with, he writes on timely, relevant ideas and issues that affect everyone. He researches, separates fact from fiction and makes the distinction. I don’t always like what he has to say but I trust him to be thorough, open ended and fair. He wrote a piece back in 2012, another election year. Both candidates had given (not taken) credit for their success as well as their potential to lead the nation - essentially; If not for many others I wouldn’t-couldn’t be here. It prompted a letter from a disgruntled reader who believed the wannabe wisdom; “All of your successes and failures are the direct result of the decisions you make.” He challenged Brooks to take up a position.
I think it common for critics and disputers to ask questions calling for an (either-or) answer and feel cheated when they get a (this-and) response. Brooks acknowledged, we need to believe and proceed as if the premise is true; our decisions are the catalysts for whatever happens to us. But later, down the road when hindsight and backstory are credible and compelling, we realize we got more & better than we deserved and that we don’t live in a vacuum. Much if not most of our struggles and outcomes are shaped by forces and people beyond our control.
I have gone back and reread the article several times. Perhaps the critic had a crystal ball that sorts out the good decisions from the bad. If you have enough reliable information and can interpret complex data sets you can come up with a fairly strong probability. But random chance is a fickle mistress and sometimes the sure thing goes belly up. I knew a man who advised me; There are neither good nor bad decisions. There are only decisions. In other words, to know for sure, good or bad, revisit the question in 20 years and reflect on the outcome. Even then, there will be those who disagree.
Recently, David Brooks wrote an article titled, “I Was Wrong About Capitalism.” His message wasn’t as much about capitalism as it was about how people (himself) trust attitudes and principles that seemed appropriate at the time, but times change and we (himself) are slow to get the message. The world changes and its best interests change along with it. So it is a 1 - 2 punch: If things change enough or too fast, that new world calls for different, better policy and practice. But we (himself) remain entrenched in an old (if it was good then . . .) no longer effective or equitable process. Add to that, we are slow to see the new need and even slower to adapt.
Capitalism had been on a long running hot streak where profits and employment were setting records. It couldn’t be better. But then it became evident (too much to ignore) that the wonderful “Ism” had produced a society that was not only inequitable but more and more wealth is controlled by fewer and fewer people. The question is, what is so good about what we’ve got if it only prospers a minuscule fragment of the population. Brooks thinks he was stuck in the zone between the world changing and him noticing.
I think people (myself) do a pretty damn good job at economics and government for self aware, high functioning monkeys. The idea that humans are more special than humming birds or monkeys is a form of self medicating Hubris (my opinion). I suspect David Brooks wouldn’t judge the species so harshly but I bet it has crossed his mind. But then I don’t have millions of regular readers (high functioning monkeys) to satisfy.
I think it common for critics and disputers to ask questions calling for an (either-or) answer and feel cheated when they get a (this-and) response. Brooks acknowledged, we need to believe and proceed as if the premise is true; our decisions are the catalysts for whatever happens to us. But later, down the road when hindsight and backstory are credible and compelling, we realize we got more & better than we deserved and that we don’t live in a vacuum. Much if not most of our struggles and outcomes are shaped by forces and people beyond our control.
I have gone back and reread the article several times. Perhaps the critic had a crystal ball that sorts out the good decisions from the bad. If you have enough reliable information and can interpret complex data sets you can come up with a fairly strong probability. But random chance is a fickle mistress and sometimes the sure thing goes belly up. I knew a man who advised me; There are neither good nor bad decisions. There are only decisions. In other words, to know for sure, good or bad, revisit the question in 20 years and reflect on the outcome. Even then, there will be those who disagree.
Recently, David Brooks wrote an article titled, “I Was Wrong About Capitalism.” His message wasn’t as much about capitalism as it was about how people (himself) trust attitudes and principles that seemed appropriate at the time, but times change and we (himself) are slow to get the message. The world changes and its best interests change along with it. So it is a 1 - 2 punch: If things change enough or too fast, that new world calls for different, better policy and practice. But we (himself) remain entrenched in an old (if it was good then . . .) no longer effective or equitable process. Add to that, we are slow to see the new need and even slower to adapt.
Capitalism had been on a long running hot streak where profits and employment were setting records. It couldn’t be better. But then it became evident (too much to ignore) that the wonderful “Ism” had produced a society that was not only inequitable but more and more wealth is controlled by fewer and fewer people. The question is, what is so good about what we’ve got if it only prospers a minuscule fragment of the population. Brooks thinks he was stuck in the zone between the world changing and him noticing.
I think people (myself) do a pretty damn good job at economics and government for self aware, high functioning monkeys. The idea that humans are more special than humming birds or monkeys is a form of self medicating Hubris (my opinion). I suspect David Brooks wouldn’t judge the species so harshly but I bet it has crossed his mind. But then I don’t have millions of regular readers (high functioning monkeys) to satisfy.
No comments:
Post a Comment