American Exceptionalism, Bullying and Mean Girls – An Excess of Self-Esteem Or Just the Opposite

As much as I respect and admire David Brooks, he got it wrong this time.  In his March 10 op-ed piece, “The Modesty Manifesto,” he notes how we have turned into a culture of self-aggrandizement.  How we have become a society of individuals who think they are special and that they are entitled to things, rather than having to earn it.

While I would agree with Brooks’ observation, he is mistaken when he equates this common bravado for an increase in Americans’ self-esteem.  On the contrary, it is yet further evidence of how insecure and hollow Americans’ lives have become.

It is a well-known psychological fact that having a huge ego is typically a façade, a coping mechanism for deep feelings of insecurity and anxiety.  And the size of the ego and extent of aggression is directly related to the amount of insecurity.

Brooks sites several writers who point out that the generation of people now in their 20s grew up bathed in praise and messages that they are special.  While it may well be that such action on the part of parents was meant to increase self-esteem, in fact it increases insecurity.  When a child is told he is special, but knows deep down that he is not and that the praise is not grounded on anything specific, he feels he is being told that he is expected to be special and thus feels under pressure to indeed be special, creating huge insecurities.

If we were to search for a poster child for this American feeling of exceptionalism, we would have to look no further than George W. Bush.  While I have no idea how he was raised, he certainly would have had the burden of feeling that he was supposed to be special because of his family’s history. 

Instead, he knew he was a nothing and failed at one thing after another.   But he did find the gift of gab; of giving the impression that he was very sure of himself.  As President, he certainly displayed great bravado and certainty … he was “the Decider” … but it was such a pathetic façade.  One just had to look into his eyes, and watch his facial expressions to know that here was a man who felt totally insecure and out of his element.

Brooks is correct when he wonders whether this phenomenon is connected to the “social and political problems we have observed over the past few years.”   But the cause is our increased insecurity, not an increase in our self-esteem.

Which brings me to an article that I had just completed yesterday before I read David Brooks’ piece:

"The Societal Cost of Low Self-Esteem"

If you look at all the suffering in the world, at the people who do bad things to their fellow man and environment as well as to themselves, you will find a person who has low self-esteem. 

Whether it’s the bully on the school playground, the mean girls in the classroom, the drug addict, the father who verbally abuses or just isn’t there for his children, the business manager who is a tyrant in the office, the politician or commentator who is a demagogue, spewing hatred against those who do not think as he does and not believing in the American social contract, or even the terrorist … all of these people suffer from low self-esteem.

“Now wait a minute,” you might be thinking, “these are people who often exhibit huge egos.  Where does he get off saying that these people have low self-esteem?” 

Having a huge ego is typically a façade, a coping mechanism for deep feelings of insecurity and anxiety.  This is a well-known psychological fact, with the size of the ego and extent of aggression being directly related to the amount of insecurity.

I make this point because we live in a world with so much suffering at so many levels … not just now but throughout history.  These problems seem overwhelming and not susceptible to easy or even hard and costly solutions.  Certainly force, whether military or societal, is not an answer.

Is there a way to apply our knowledge regarding the effect of low self-esteem to address this large societal issue?  As a Buddhist, I believe that there is.

First let me state, briefly, the Buddhist perspective on suffering.   We are all born essentially perfect with the true Buddha nature inside us.  What happens after birth is that we are exposed to numerous environmental factors, first from our immediate family and then our peers and the broader society, that cause us to put labels on both ourselves and everything in our lives. 

These labels create conflict and stress, they are the causes of our neuroses.  Over the years, these layers of learned experience form an almost impenetrable barrier between us and our true Buddha nature … and between us and the world around us.  They are the clouds that keep us from seeing the blue sky that is always there.  We come to think of ourselves as being our ego.

The Buddha taught that the way to end suffering is to first be aware that we suffer, then understand the causes of suffering, realize that there is a path to stop our suffering, and finally follow that path.  Central to this process is understanding the impermanence of all things and the illusory nature of all perceptions, because they are all dependent on our learned experience. 

When we experience something, we see and feel it as filtered through our mind.  A key part of Buddhist training is to become able to experience things directly as they really are without the intervention of thought.

I need to note here that while Buddhist philosophy is not inconsistent with Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, it is at odds with the concept of original sin in Christianity, under which man is seen as being born into a general condition of sinfulness.

But regardless of that doctrinal difference, all would agree that no child anywhere in the world, no matter what culture they are born into, are born with low self-esteem.  For that curse we have to thank the impact of their families, their peers, and their culture on their development.

Now don’t misunderstand me.  I am fully aware that people are born subject to all sorts of things … their socio-economic status, IQ, physical or mental condition, etc.   But none of these is inherently a source of low self-esteem.   It is how either the family, peers, or culture react to those conditions and what the child learns from that experience that cause low self-esteem.

So if our families, peers, and culture cause low self-esteem, then those same forces have the ability to not cause low self-esteem.   The question, however, is, since one is not starting with a clean slate where to begin to break the vicious cycle that we are in?

Because the older we are, the more invested our psyches are in our ego-driven low self-esteem, creating more of a challenge both to be aware of our suffering and to free ourselves of it, it makes sense starting to break the cycle with the newly born and young children.

The key to self-esteem for the newly- born and toddlers lies with parents.  Unfortunately, parents receive no training in being a parent, other than their own experience as a child, which rarely provides a good role model. And they are usually not well equipped to deal with the stresses of child rearing because of their own self-esteem and psychological stresses.  This is true even for those parents who read child-rearing books assiduously, because the implementation of any recommendations depends on their own mental state.

So the first step is to educate parents, both regarding the importance of childhood self-esteem, but also to boost their own self-esteem.  This can happen at various junctures.  One is when they apply for a marriage license.  All prospective parents should be required to undergo a course in parenting skills.  Another juncture is secondary education.  All seniors should take a course regarding functioning in an adult world, part of which would include lessons on parenting skills.  In both these instances, the process should include building up the individual’s own self-esteem.

Regarding young children, the forum for improving self-esteem needs to shift primarily to the school system because that is where the greatest chance for affecting change lies.  There is no shortage of stories about teachers who expect nothing of their students, berate them, and treat them like they were stupid.  But, there are also models of schools that have no tolerance for that type of teacher behavior and that foster positive self-esteem among their pupils.  To date, this has primarily been looked at from the perspective of how to improve student performance.  Equally important is how good self-esteem will impact their interaction within their future families, with colleagues, and with the world at large.

To the extent possible, parents of these children need to be brought into the self-esteem program through parent-teacher conferences and other mechanisms. This will increase the likelihood that the children will benefit meaningfully from the program.

Some conservative critics may say that this is an example of government stepping in where it has no business.   I would strongly disagree and say that government has few tasks more urgent than ensuring that children grow up to become good productive citizens.  And increasing self-esteem is an essential part of that process.

It will take generations to affect such a change in our psychological health across all age groups.  But if we want to achieve anything even approximating peace in the family, peace in schools, peace in the workplace, peace among citizens, and peace in the world, then we have no choice.  If we continue as we have for generations, nothing will change.  The path is clear.  We have but to embrace it whole-heartedly and with dedication.

Make Proposed Budget Cuts Transparent for the American People

Believe it or not, but the American people have not been told the impact of the proposed $61 billion budget cuts recently passed by the House of Representatives.  Yes, they’ve been told that health, education, and safety will be impacted, and that some jobs will be lost, but they’ve been given very few specifics to react to.

So today I tried to find out what that impact would be.  To my shock and dismay, I found that there was no … I repeat … no source that answered that question.   No newspaper, no magazine, no government report, no Democratic Party position paper … nothing.   I searched the Internet in vain.  All I could find were the same vague statements being repeated over and over again.

And so I went digging for specifics.  Here’s what I could find:

Veterans:

            $75 million      Would deprive 11,000 homeless veterans of vouchers for housing

Children:

            In total, programs benefiting children are cut 21%

            $330 million    Health

            $2.6  billion     Education … for example, significant cuts are made in Head Start

                                        and other early education efforts that would cause 368,000 children

                                        to lose early education slots.  These cuts will also cause many

                                        Head Start programs to close and many teachers to lose their jobs.

            $139 million    Youth Training

            $3.5  billion     Housing subsidies

            $30   million    Safety

            $782 million    Nutrition, mostly from the successful WIC (Women with Infant

                                        Children) program

Food and Health Safety:

            $1.3  billion     cuts from FDA, FSIS, and CDC budgets.  These cuts will iimpact

                                        everything from the number of federal meat inspectors ($53

                                        million) to dollars spent to control the spread of HIV.

Border and Immigration

            $600 million

The bill would also completely eliminate federal funding for a host of programs including Americorps, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting  (NPR and PBS), and Planned Parenthood. 

The number of jobs .. both government (federal, state, and local) and private … that would be lost as a result of the $61 billion in budget cuts has been estimated as high as 700,000.  Needless to say, any sizeable increase in unemployment will hurt the economy and hurt families.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.  WHY hasn’t the Democratic Party or any news organization put together this vital information, preferably in a comprehensible form, so that the people can see what is happening and voice their opposition … if indeed they are opposed … to their representatives in Congress?

Remember that 2-years extension of the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 that the Republicans insisted on and the Democrats opposed.  That tax cut added $100 billion to the deficit for just that 2-year period.  But the Republicans won’t consider the impact of tax cuts on the deficit.  This is a clear example how they give to the rich and take from the poor and workers.  For them, there is no shared sacrifice.

If ever there is a need for effective communication, that time is now!

Hate Speech Has No Redeeming Social Value and Should Be Prohibited

Chief Justice Roberts was right when he wrote in yesterday’s opinion protecting the speech of protestors at a military funeral that “debate on public issues should be robust, uninhibited and wide-open.”   However, the particular speech in this case that he and the seven concurring justices ruled was protected by the 1st Amendment consisted of, “God Hates Fags,”  “God Hates Your Tears,” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.”

As Justice Alito said in his lone dissent, these words are more like fighting words … a “vicious, verbal assault … brutalizing innocent victims.”  For once I agree with Justice Alito.

The United States has a long history of upholding the most heinous forms of speech, so long as that speech does not directly incite violence or otherwise endanger people.  Most of the countries of Europe and Canada, on the other hand, have laws that criminalize hate speech.

Why the difference?  Part of the difference stems from Europe’s experience with the Holocaust.   They understand more clearly the evil that hate speech can bring about.

But mostly the reason lies with the interpretation of our 1^st Amendment, which prohibits any laws that infringe on the freedom of speech.  Absent a “clear and present danger,” the courts have generally held that even the most vile and hateful speech is protected.

So the result, for example, is that while it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, religion, etc., it is not against the law to encourage hatred against African-Americans, Jews, or any other group.

The question that must be asked is, why is discrimination prohibited but hate speech allowed?  There is no rational answer.   The answer is historical … the right of free speech has long been a sacred cow of American constitutional jurisprudence. 

But hate speech does not foster reasoned debate on issues of national import.  Rather it fosters just the opposite.  It fosters at a minimum highly emotional positions that actually hinder reasoned debate, and at worst it fosters an atmosphere of fear that can lead to violence.  Additionally, it tears apart our social fabric.  Thus, even absent a “clear and present danger,” there is no reason to protect such speech.

The argument against prohibiting such speech is that it presents a “slippery slope.”  Once you allow for one type of speech to be prohibited, where do you draw the line? 

But the right already is deemed not to be absolute.  Thus the question becomes whether such speech has value … “redeeming social value” in the context of the obscenity cases … to America’s marketplace of ideas, to the furtherance of rational discourse.

The answer is, “no.”  We prohibit discrimination, we prohibit hate crimes, we should prohibit hate speech.  

Why Public Sector Workers Are Not the "New Welfare Queens"

Contrary to the outrageous charge by Governor Christie, neither teachers nor any other public sector workers are the “new welfare queens.”  Teachers, firemen, agency personnel … all of these people provide a valuable service to the state and to the community. 

Anyone who says that they are overpaid has not looked recently at salaries in the private sector where many, not just the top dogs, earn substantially more while providing questionable benefit to the community, other than shareholders.  And that brings me to a point totally forgotten in both the Republican attacks and the workers’ defense. 

The reason why workers in the public sector generally have better benefits than those in the private sector is not because their unions have a cozy relationship with government.  It’s because government executives felt that in order to attract good people to government employment, strong benefits were needed to offset the fact that they could never hope to achieve the type of salaries and bonuses that were available in the private sector if you were a strong performer.

Granted, not everyone is a strong performer.  But benefits, as opposed to wages and promotions, have never been tied to performance either in government or private settings.

As a secondary reason, many public sector employees work under very difficult conditions … think about teachers, firemen, and policemen.  The better benefits can be thought of as equivalent to combat pay.

There are without question many valid issues to be raised with teachers’ unions and others.  One can also make a strong argument that in difficult economic times, public sector workers must make some sacrifice along with everyone else … taking a pay cut, paying a higher percentage of medical insurance costs, etc.

And indeed, the unions in Wisconsin agreed almost immediately to such changes.  They understand the need. 

But to take away their collective bargaining rights and eliminate dues check offs, among other things, turns this from a valid state effort to cut costs to an invalid state effort to bust the unions.  And that is basically what Governor Walker is trying to do.

The Republicans are constantly talking about the need for sacrifice in these difficult times.  But why is it that the sacrifice they suggest always comes solely or mostly from the workers and the poor?  If the well-off were asked to sacrifice by giving up their Bush tax cuts, then the Republicans could make a moral argument that everyone must sacrifice, each according to his ability.

Instead they are just playing their usual game.  Take from the poor and workers; give to the rich.  They have no concern for the common good.  They are hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people.  They have no shame.

What If Ethics Is Antithetical to the American Ethos?

Why is the lack of ethics so prevalent in American life at all levels?  The recent financial crisis and the Deep Horizon oil spill have revealed once again an all-too-familiar pattern in American business and government.  Corporations take actions, even risky ones, without regard for the potential negative impact on the public, and government regulators who are supposed to police such activity choose instead to give business a free pass to do pretty much as they choose.  Even individuals have little concern with how their actions impact others, even family members.  And when called to task, lying – a refusal to take responsibility – is endemic.

These habitual behaviors pose grave risks to the common good on a daily basis.  Normally, the reaction of most is that this is "business as usual."  Only when a disaster occurs is there talk about cleaning house in government agencies and promulgating new regulations.  Of individuals needing to take responsibility.

But it seems to me that all this talk misses an important point … the proverbial elephant in the room … these problems at their core reflect a lack of ethics in American business and government and in individual lives.   Which raises the question, what role does ethics play in the American ethos?  

What is the American ethos?  It has been defined in various ways.   It is said to have capitalism and democracy at its core; it is said to be competitive; it is said to be a land of opportunity for all.  These are all interrelated and none mplies or even necessarily encourages ethical behavior.

Let's look at our history.  Regarding American politics, from the very beginning, politics has been rife with dirty tricks.  Even founding stalwarts Jefferson and Adams resorted to underhanded tactics in their battles against each other.

Then there are the ethical questions raised by a country founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, and yet slavery was accepted and women did not have the right to vote.  Yes, these conditions were prevalent everywhere at the time, but nowhere else was a country founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence.  The ethical conflict cannot be denied. The Founding Fathers, however, were ultimately pragmatic souls who did what was necessary to achieve the birth of the new country.  

During the country's expansion and the early stages of the industrial revolution, the government’s embrace of the capitalist system left business enterprise more or less free of any government oversight.   And as they became larger, corporations lost community contact and with that loss, any sense of responsibility; they became impersonal anonymous enterprises that were concerned only about acquiring wealth and power.  The result was a rapacious system in which the powerful exploited the weak … owners exploited workers, powerful companies devoured weaker ones ... and the impact on the common good was of no concern.  The concept of ethical behavior was absent.

But by the dawn of the 20^th Century, progressive ideas founded on the words of the Declaration of  Independence began to take hold in government.  As a result, a series of laws were passed that both limited the power of business and provided a structure that gave workers the power to negotiate with employers.  Thus ethical behavior was imposed on the capitalist system by government.  During the Depression, more laws were passed that both regulated business and provided a safety net for the poor and the elderly.

America may have been looking more and more like an ethical society, but that was mostly an illusion.  Where government or the courts did not impose ethics, the people, business, and government, especially at the local level, continued to exhibit a lack of ethical standards.   The business world was all about competition and getting away with what one could.  Local government corruption was commonplace.  In the larger society, prejudice and discrimination was prevalent, not just against blacks and women, but against Jews as well.  And in general, people were only concerned with what was best for them.

From this historical perspective, ethics was never part of the American ethos.   To the extent it broadly existed, it was because it was imposed from above, not because it was part of the very fiber of the people.  Yes, there was a façade of ethics, but that's all it was.

The Vietnam War and Watergate laid bare just how lacking in ethics our leaders were.  And while the Watergate hearings may have been a great display of American ethics and showed the potential of government and people, it was a mere burp in the otherwise constant display of a lack of ethics.

It was our then President, Richard Nixon, who opened the window for an unethical operative like Lee Atwater to begin his rise in Republican politics.  Almost single-handedly Atwater brought about the nasty, unethical, political culture we have today … at least on the part of Republican.  

And so today, American politics has reached its nadir in its display of a lack of civility, let alone ethics.  Business, freed of much regulation, whether through deregulation or through malfeasance of the regulators, once again has acted as one would expect, having little concern for the public impact of their actions and only concerned with increasing profits to keep investors happy.  And the famous “me” generation of Ronald Reagan, as well as those following, has lost any feeling of responsibility for their fellow man. A cynicism about government and authority arose among the people.   America thus seen has merely reverted to its underlying ethos, free of the constraints of a progressive mindset that had brought order to the unruly world of capitalist democracy.  

If we truly wish to be a great nation, we must be true to our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and do justice to all of the people – as President Lincoln stated, we must restore "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."  The progressive moment in our history must be restored among Republicans and Democrats, corporations, and the people.

Obama’s Budget – Where Is the Leader We Elected?

Everyone … well almost everyone … agrees that the United States’ budget deficit is something that must be addressed now if we want to maintain the financial stability of this country.  And everyone also agrees that given the size of the projected deficits, the net reduction on a yearly basis needs to be huge.

Three different nonpartisan/bipartisan groups came out with reports several months ago about how to reduce the deficit.   While they differed in their details, they were all consistent in that any serious effort must combine cuts in all areas, including especially defense, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as selective tax increases.  

Without that breadth of cuts combined with tax increases, there would be no way of cutting the deficit sufficiently while apportioning the resulting sacrifice in a just way.  The pain of austerity needs to be shared by all while limiting its impact on the weakest in our society.

The Republicans, who are serious about cutting the deficit, have put entitlements and defense cuts off the table, they have put tax increases off the table, and they have declared that the impact of tax cuts on the deficit would not be considered.  Given the size of their proposed cuts, this is a prescription for massive pain primarily for workers and the poor.  The sacrifice would not be a shared one.

And what has President Obama proposed in his 2012 budget?  A timid approach to cuts combined with increased investments in various areas resulting in an admittedly insufficient attack on the deficit.  What he said was that any moves to tackle cuts to the entitlements would have to be bipartisan.  Defense seems to be pretty much off the table for him too.

Where is the leader that we elected?  Where is the change that we want?  With the backing of the three studies on how to reduce the deficit, the President would have had good cover to put forward a bold budget that incorporated many of their suggestions.

Had he done so, he then could have said to the Republicans, “Your way is not the American way …it is not the fair and just way to reduce the deficit.  My proposal is a proposal for shared sacrifice across the entire spectrum of America’s populace and business community, incorporating a “means” test:  those that can most afford it sacrifice the most; those that can least afford it sacrifice the least.”

That is what I would have expected from the President.  That is what needs to happen to move the debate forward in a constructive fashion.  Are there people left in the halls of power who will rise to the occasion?

Robin Hoods in Reverse – Republicans Take From the Poor and Give to the Rich

 I don’t know how the Republicans get away with it.  In the budget cutting debates, they keep saying that people must sacrifice because the situation is so serious.   That statement is fine in the abstract.

But why is it that all the sacrifice that they are proposing is going to come from workers and the poor.  Whether its as beneficiaries of the domestic programs and services that are being gutted or public service workers whose collective bargaining rights they want to end, the sacrifice is coming from those who can least afford it.  And since these cuts will hurt state and local economies and increase unemployment, they will receive a double whammy.

Meanwhile, the rich and near rich … who have done very nicely during the financial crisis … aren’t being asked to sacrifice anything.  Instead, they get tax cuts!  Whatever happened to the concept of "shared sacrifice?"

When are the people in this country, including those in the Republican base who are not well off, going to rise up and tell these jokers, “Enough! You do not have a mandate to do us harm.  If there must be sacrifice, it must be apportioned justly.”  They need to hear from the people.