America Discovers its Youthful Fervor. And that’s Not a Good Thing

I believe the consistent quality that marks members of older generations is a wizened pragmatism. With years, our elders seem to become more patient, harder to ruffle, better judges of people, and surprisingly more tolerant. So it’s striking to me how extreme our politics has become as America’s irrational exuberance has turned from stocks to statesmen.

Young people are remarkably more dramatic in their everyday lives than their elders. For instance, the passion displayed by my five year old daughter knows no bounds when it comes to Barbie’s hairstyle or the seasoning on her vegetables. In their later years, our youth have a history of taking ideas and ideals to extremes, as they did during the turbulent 1960’s when the country cried out for social change. Fast forward, and the last twenty years have seen the rise of the religious right as a truly young and potent force in national policy debate. Likewise, politically immature countries also tend toward extremes (these may be newly formed, or simply have undergone dramatic socio-economic shift). Politically maturing countries exhibit wild uncertainty in policy direction and cultural norms, such as the myriad Middle Eastern nations which abruptly reversed their trends toward westernization during the 1970’s, installing religious leaders as heads of state, and whose populations now live under the tight thumb of thought police and economic oppression.

Here at home, recent election results from the nation’s capital and Delaware, in particular, expose an ominous immaturity and irrationality. The unseating of a moderate conservative in Mike Castle (R – DE) by a novice candidate with vague slogans and questionable personal dealings, and the ousting of a mayor widely acknowledged as effective in a city clamoring for progress demonstrates a profound eschewing of realism among voters. It’s difficult to understand the mindset of the two-thirds of Democratic constituents who agree that Mayor Adrian Fenty “brought needed change to the District”, and who thought he’d improved schools by 2:1 (Washington Post poll), yet booted him from office for a councilman of the Barry era whose campaign platform was basically that he’s a nicer guy than the mayor. It’s difficult unless you consider that many constituents are teachers who bristle at the possibility they could ever be fired from a job (like the rest of us) or taxi drivers who decry the honest fares they must now charge using regulated meters. Anyone who’s ever been driven through three zones in four blocks knows what I mean. We like to talk about turning Washington around, but it turns out that it’s just too painful once someone actually does it.

While we might expect otherwise questionable choices from the city that once elected a mayor straight out of prison, the conservative voting block of Delaware has possibly bested Washingtonians by nominating a youthful candidate with no discernible job, no sources of personal income, no home, no short history of litigation, and finally no real policy specifics on which to run. Mike Castle was known to be honest, moderate, and more concerned with getting legislation right than keeping his day job. With last week’s primary, that became clear. Voters wanted rhetoric, not realism. They allowed themselves to be whipped into a populist fervor, tossing out incumbents who were actually doing a good job, simply because they were… incumbents.

The youth can be light on details, but heavy on gut and emotion, and it is displayed at these “Tea Party” rallies everywhere; the detail and fact that gets lost at them is astonishing. From the “birthers”, to the hammer-and-sickle emblazoned signs that disparage the socialist Obama’s bailout of big business (do I need to even explain this one?), we seem to be awash in vitriolic assertions that don’t make any sense. How did it get so easy to overcome reality? Isn’t anyone aware that the bailout began under a Republican administration? One literally staffed by many of the same officials retained by the current administration? Are any of these people aware that they may have the jobs they have now in part because an auto parts factory or coatings plant did not close? How would the shut down and liquidation of more car companies and banks have reduced the current unemployment rate? And finally, if you believe at all that Keynes had a point or two, how does one propose to stimulate without direct spending? The banks and large corporations, left on their own, have demonstrated that they will not do it by themselves as they aggressively hoard cash to rebuild their balance sheets.

The United States must, and must soon, open itself up to the idea that it is not being taken over by Kenyan anti-colonial big business socialists, that family values means policies that support people that want to be families, that the private sector which brought us the financial crisis, left completely to its own devices, will not fix health care, and finally that while excessive public debt is indeed a bad thing, it cannot simply be wished away or absolved by politicians who cry that it can be erased without either a decrease in expectations of public services or an increase in tax revenues. These people are not telling us the truth, and in at least one case, they are shown to be in serious need of a job.

DC Metro System's Culture War

I can only wish the executive team charged with improving Washington, DC's beleaguered Metro transit system the best of luck - they will need it.

It's been quite a few years since I rode Metro regularly to work and back. And it's no secret that commuters on Metro have had much to contend with over the last several years - breakdowns, escalator outages, horrific accidents and safety issues, etc. Saturday, I took Metro downtown to meet some good friends. Here is how my re-introduction went:

I arrived at the station, which appeared to be in mid-renovation, but had no signs of immediate work being done. I approached the card machine; the posted fare schedule indicated my trip would be $1.35. I put that amount of money in the machine - but no card came out. Nothing indicated how I was supposed to retrieve my card, nor why it wasn't giving me one. Other riders came and went, purchasing their cards successfully. I hit cancel, and tried another machine. And another. A kind gal tried to help, but couldn't figure out what was wrong, either. The train came and went - I could hear it, see people rushing - still I had no card. Finally, alone, I looked around to see a Metro employee sauntering along aimlessly. I asked for help, and he gruffly replied that the fare was $1.45. OK, I said, but why won't the machine allow me to get a card? Visibly annoyed, he told me to put in another dime, and hit the button by the light that magically appeared this time saying "Take Card". I asked, why does the fare schedule read $1.35? I got a curt reply as he turned to leave, "Fares go up tomorrow".

Ha. Really.

Where do I begin to point out the things that were wrong with this exchange? I don't mind the ten cents. I am really annoyed about the total lack of customer service, politeness, empathy, and the fact that I missed my train (and was late). And I find it very poor that there was no signage indicating fare changes, a posted fee schedule that was apparently incorrect, and silliest of all - that I was somehow supposed to know that fares went up the next day, so therefore I had to pay a different rate than was posted... today.

The charming fellow that clued me in to the fare hike was perhaps only bested by the alternately sleeping/staring slovenly, disheveled young Metro employee on the train, slouching in a handicapped seat, shirt untucked, feet spilling into the aisle such that one was forced to physically go around him to walk to the seats farther back.

So the new folks at Metro have their work cut out for them. Good luck. You can't fire all your employees and maintain a working system, but changing such attitudes and work habits is a herculean task. Improvements will be slow, hard fought, and like so much of the DC government, require a gradual turnover of employees to new ones who somehow manage not to be infected with the lack of work ethic or inattentiveness that's brought us to where we are now.

Long Live the Happy Meal

There appears to be a genuine movement – gaining traction – to ban the Happy Meal at my favorite restaurant, McDonald’s. I am incredulous. What’s so happy about a Happy Meal without a race car? Or a plastic princess? Apparently Santa Clara County in California is nixing the little toys that come with the Happy Meal. Says Supervisor Ken Yeager, who sponsored the measure, "This ordinance prevents restaurants from preying on children's' love of toys" to sell high-calorie, unhealthful food.

Personally, I am not with Ken on this. I’m a big fan of the golden arches. Every month or two, I go big – big sandwich, big fries, a massive drink, and even an apple pie (filling HOT!). Now that I have a five year old daughter, it’s a fun treat every now and then for us to hit McDonald’s together, and she really gets a kick out of it. And what’s the harm? She eats fresh, local, healthy food every day at home and school, no desserts, no daily sugary snacks in the house. So is an order of fries going to do us all in? Every now and then I also have a big cigar, and seriously tie one on. I’m not alone in this pattern of destructive and unacceptable behavior, according to the folks in California. Apparently, McDonald’s is pulling people off the streets in Santa Clara County and forcing Happy Meals down the throats of unsuspecting vegans, causing them and their children to balloon to the size of small manatees. For shame.

Must we, as a nation, suck the fun out of everything?

I have a better idea. Let’s just all agree that we are a country whose collective IQ nearly achieves room temperature on a good day, and re-sign with the Queen. We can no longer control ourselves, much less our children. Adult supervision is required, again.

Good grief, America. Get a hold of yourself.

(NOT moving to Santa Clara County any time soon)

Save us from the Primordial Ooze

The opportunity to achieve a moment of clarity for an aging, well-to-do father was sadly lost on a ski lift during our winter vacation. My wife overheard the sexagenarian chatting with another skier, and it went something like this: “I’m so proud of my daughter; she’s just doing so well. The guy she’s living with is still selling a lot of pot, but she’s out of rehab now, they’ve been in the same apartment for a while, and I’m only sending them $1200 a month. She’s even looking for a job!”

Remarkable gal. Truly.

So I’m not sure that’s an adequate definition of success. How is it that a well-educated, affluent, salt-and-pepper grey professional brags about a child in such circumstances? For most of my life, such information would not have been volunteered, and the exasperated father would likely be either taking strong measures to change the situation, or would already have cut the kid off altogether. In any case, it certainly wouldn’t have been a topic of casual conversation. I offer this one example – but similar incidents are not infrequent over the past several years that I’ve been paying attention.

How did we get here? My wife and I have spent many evenings ruminating over this topic, primarily in an effort to identify and avoid similar outcomes for our own offspring. I believe we have cause to worry. The impression of many of our peers – and indeed of the popular media – is that the generation behind Gen X, that is, Gen Y or the Millennial Generation – is seemingly bereft of personal responsibility, motivation, and even morality in comparison to generations before it. Is this as trite as it sounds? I’m reminded of the stereotypical old guys shaking their canes saying, “When I was your age…”etc. Sure, the older generations have always vilified the younger to some degree; though the gap between this newest crop and the rest appears unusually wide.

I struggle to identify precisely what is to blame, as the implications for our future in the hands of these people grows increasingly ominous.

Two factors strike me as having the most negative impact upon the younger generation of today: first, they are the kids of Boomers. The Baby Boom generation is widely recognized as placing a premium on divergence from established norms; if it’s new, it’s got to be better. Boomers loosened the rules with regard to behavior toward parents and other children, and allowed something more akin to a “Lord of the Flies” environment at home, which has effectively become a padded room, while protecting children to a nearly absurd and hysterical degree outside the home, fixating on nightmarish possibilities so remote that they are less than the proverbial getting hit by a bus or struck by lightning. Children of this generation have famously been coddled in ways that older generations were not. From the oft-cited practice of giving a trophy to every child who participates in a game, to the extreme and unprecedented measures we take to protect our children from the most statistically unlikely eventualities – car seats that will stop a fully grown rhinoceros until the kid is the size of my grandmother, a leash for walking the child in public places, putting padding on the coffee table and corners of the house – these things insulate a child from life’s little realities, for which the children are subsequently (and woefully) unprepared once they leave the nest… which many, resultantly, do not.

A second factor is more subtle: the guilty parent syndrome. A product of the modern dual income family, the comparative absence of parents from the child’s waking time precludes the quintessential dinner table conversation and solid hours of family togetherness we enjoyed a couple of decades ago. Children have become overscheduled, constantly stimulated by media devices and group activities, and have comparatively little space to “just be kids”, using their time and imaginations to dream up new ways to play and explore. Parents arrive home late, and keep their kids up and awake longer than they should in an understandable effort to spend time with them… but kids need their sleep, and I submit most of them today are sleep-deprived. Tired kids are irritable kids, and because we’re not good at reprimands or discipline, this becomes a vicious cycle.

Indeed, a 2010 Pew Research study found that, “Millennials report having had fewer spats with mom or dad than older adults say they had with their own parents when they were growing up.” Well of course – if parents don’t discipline their kids, there will probably be fewer arguments (early in life, at least). Further, “A majority say that the older generation is superior to the younger generation when it comes to moral values and work ethic.” Well at least they’re self aware.

What we’ve seen in recent years are kids who know no boundaries – simply put, they do things we could never get away with thirty years ago. They mouth off to their parents with impunity. They’re sassy to adults they don’t even know (inconceivable!). They destroy things, willfully and in full view. Corporal punishment is no longer accepted (or probably even legal), so why shouldn’t they? The words please and thank you are nearly out the window, while yes ma’am and no sir are anachronisms – completely gone. At get-togethers, kids won’t leave you alone. They continually badger the adults to entertain them, whereas… wait for it… in my day, we couldn’t wait to get down to the playroom or outside and away from our parents. This is the reason the older generations don’t get Gen Y: they continually make the opposite choices from what we once considered natural.

If we raised our kids the way our parents did, child services would show up at the door and we would be thrown in jail. Literally. But here we are now. Didn’t we survive? And, by comparison to these kids, haven’t we thrived? Most of us in prior generations recognized that we had challenges ahead: all Gen X ever heard was that the Soviets would bomb us, or the next ice age was coming & the world was going to run out of food, and that regardless, we would be the first generation to enjoy a lower standard of living than our parents. Those who fought the Second World War were just glad to be alive and free, and wanted to make the most of the opportunities they’d earned. It isn’t the same today. An article in the Small Business Review advises us to change our expectations: “Don’t look for a Gen Y worker to approach work as you did—eager to please your boss and willing to do scut work or put in extra hours to get ahead. The stereotypical Gen Y employees “seem to feel entitled to a raise and promotion in a week, that corner office in six,” says Dr. Carolyn Martin, co-author of Managing the Generation Mix (HRD Press, 2002).”

So if we cannot correct this course, we can look forward to some tough years ahead, and to the increasingly dependent, over-entitled brats who contribute relatively little yet continue to expect much from us. That is, unless we have a collective epiphany, that our parents and grandparents actually knew a few things, and that kids need rules, need firm guidance, and responsibility. We have to yank our kids out of the sluggishly low level of personal expectations of behavior, achievement, and conduct that threaten to drag us all backwards in the evolution of our society and culture. We have given our children too much in the last twenty years; they don’t know their place and have emerged into our society and work environments with a bizarrely skewed vision of reality and what they are “due”.

From those to whom much is given, much is expected – it’s an old sentiment, attributed to Jesus Christ, who was by all accounts a pretty good kid.

Health Care or the Economy?

These are not separate issues, and I am frustrated every morning when I check the Post or the news outlets online and see the same mischaracterizations repeated again and again. CNN’s Ed Henry says, for example, “The president is facing competing pressures from liberal Democrats who are demanding that he not abandon the push for a major overhaul of health care in favor of a scaled-back bill and conservative Democrats who have said the Massachusetts special election was a wake-up call that should force Obama to put a much heavier focus on job creation.” But in my view, health care and the economy simply are not mutually exclusive issues, and any eventual improvements to either cannot be approached independently with any real hope of success.

James Carville said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that President Obama hasn't done a good enough job explaining to the American people "a coherent strategy" for fixing the economy and creating jobs. He’s right. Americans think of health care and job creation as two competing focal points for the administration, and it’s time the president made it clear to everyone that we won’t really fix the economy, in the long term, if we can’t get control of our health care costs. Does this mean a government-run national health care system? Not necessarily. I don’t think there is only one solution, and I am no proponent of some overnight nationalization program. But let’s face it, this looming problem has been with us for years and no one has done a thing about it. In fact, the 2003 prescription drug bill made the problem much worse – much more acute, yet many in congress simply wish to derail the whole process of reform. I find it very difficult to put confidence in those who shout criticisms from their pinnacles of inaction.

David Walker, former comptroller general of the United States, has been making the rounds in Washington delivering a sobering message on health care and our bleak economic future for years. Insiders have indicated to me, however, that this president is one of the first who’s really listening. Walker says "It's the number one fiscal challenge for the federal government, it's the number one fiscal challenge for state governments and it's the number one competitive challenge for American business. We're gonna have to dramatically and fundamentally reform our health care system in installments over the next 20 years.” What would happen in 2040 if nothing changes? "If nothing changes, the federal government's not gonna be able to do much more than pay interest on the mounting debt and some entitlement benefits. It won't have money left for anything else - national defense, homeland security, education, you name it," warns Walker.

Now let me be clear (I love this phrase): we must approach health care reform in this country with a vigilant eye toward greater efficiencies and more cost reductions, not just expanding access. I believe we as a nation, given our disproportionate spending versus other developed nations, can cover more people, more effectively, and at a lower cost. Today, the way we care for patients is simply wrong. They are just transactions, reimbursed by the drink, and administered in an archaic and expensive manner. Once out of bed, they’re off the radar screen. But institutionalized follow-up care, phone check-ins by an RN after hospital discharge, old fashioned doctor home-visits and local clinics… these can all reduce emergency room admissions and re-admissions once patient problems become acute, which are enormous cost-drivers of our current system. Further, many of our health care companies have been around for generations, and anyone who has worked in corporate America for the last twenty years can tell you that such massive companies are slow to modernize, have large clerical staffs that do outdated and unnecessary jobs, don’t share information well internally as silos have become iron-clad, and retain entrenched employees & managers who refuse to abandon practices that are maddeningly inefficient. My wife and I get a piece of mail that is an “explanation of benefits”, which is practically in another language, and then a second piece of snail mail that is an “explanation of benefits” plus a paper check. First, why isn’t this email? Second, why send it twice? And third, why a check – why not an electronic transfer? How much are they spending to annoy us with all that unnecessary paper? I’d think seriously about firing anyone who proposed such an arcane methodology today. Little start-ups would never put in place a process like that… but then again, they can’t afford to!

So how does health care reform impact the economy? We’ll count the ways:
1) Controlling health care costs reduces our unfunded national liabilities, allowing us to spend our money on all the other things we need.
2) More effective coverage programs and methodologies lead to healthier people. And healthier people will cost less, work longer, and produce more.
3) Companies that spend less on health care are able to spend more on improving plant, equipment, and human capital. This all means better products and services, which results in increasing market share and rising exports.
4) I could go on and on but you get the picture.

So why hasn’t anyone done anything about health care? Kent Conrad of North Dakota is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and he lays it out pretty well. "Because it's always easier not to. 'Cause it's always easier to defer, to kick the can down the road to avoid making choices. You know, you get in trouble in politics when you make choices," says Senator Conrad. But isn’t delaying the tough choices what Americans seem to do best these days? We’ve done it with our personal finances, our infrastructure, our childrens' health problems, and their vapid culture (I feel another rant coming on).

I’ll end with this: we Americans need to quit yelling about the fact that jobs didn’t just reappear five minutes after we had a global financial train wreck, and we need to quit being so myopic about our fiscal and health care problems, and instead think about how much more painful and destructive these issues will be in 10 or 20 years if we do not make the choices we know we must eventually make, and just go ahead make them now. It’s only going to get worse.

p.s. thank you Baby Boomers. I liked the music, but you could have just stopped there…

What Tiger Gave Us

My wife said something over dinner recently that struck me as probably one of the more insightful things I’ve heard in quite a while. She said, “Without Tiger, do you really think we’d have Obama?” She’s on to something there. Since the late 1990s, Tiger has been exerting a profoundly positive influence on sports, popular culture, and the way we view race and place in America.

Tiger did something on a grand and unprecedented scale (aside from being the first billionaire athlete). Tiger burst into the spotlight like a company of U.S. Marines on an unsuspecting beach. He brought with him qualities that are quintessentially old-school American, and universally admired: strength, effectiveness, humility, sportsmanship, and grace under pressure. He took the sport of golf to a new level in both competition and public reach, and generally did it with a matter-of-fact, down-to-business attitude. Golf, an old and reputable game known for its genteel nature and the ladies & gentlemen who have played it, welcomed Tiger happily and graciously, reaffirming its aforementioned character and demonstrating to an often skeptical world that America truly is the meritocracy it professes to be. Tiger, in turn, played on, steadily winning and always accepting his accolades with a slightly embarrassed smile, a nod to luck & the game, and kind words for his fellow players. He stayed out of the off-course limelight, and away from controversy. Tiger’s tearful embrace of his father after his 1997 Masters victory is one of the most memorable images of the decade. As a model for us in our sporting lives and daily personal conduct, what more could we ask?

I believe Tiger’s pervasive presence in golf, our most prestigious of sports, made America – already on well its way to being less rigidly stratified in race and class – even more comfortable with the idea of someone of diverse parentage being at the very pinnacle of achievement where an “old guard” had reigned longer than anyone’s memory. The fact that he mixed a natural excellence with a usually easy & gentlemanly conduct undoubtedly bolstered the better parts of us that eschewed the more unfortunate preconceptions of race. Personally, as I reflect back upon my own attitudes during the fall of 2008, I suppose it wasn’t any longer such a stretch to envision a black man as president. After all, if he can wear the green jacket, and moreover can graciously help another into his own green jacket from the comfortable chairs of the club’s champions, why can’t he move effectively within and among any other of our most elite circles?

All the more distressing, therefore, is the revelation of Tiger’s long list of dubious pursuits, for this simple truth: he seemed to be the best of us. Tiger possessed that rare and estimable ability to lead the sporting field, and to inspire with few words but skillful actions; he has been a steady hand at the game in an unsteady decade in our country’s history. He was someone we could count on – an ideal to be held up in front of young athletes everywhere, as well as us old guys who occasionally want to snap a five iron in half.

It would be disingenuous and wrong to expect Tiger to be wholly without personal failings – we all have them – but being Tiger, and occupying the Olympian pedestals of sports and fame that he does, I expect most of us had hoped he would heed his added responsibility to maintain a doubly high standard of personal behavior and ethics. Sadly, history will likely remember him as yet another extremely talented but flawed man, leaving us to resume our search for the modern day Clark Kent… incorruptible, unwavering, and unstoppable. Perhaps Tiger will resume his own pursuit. We should all wish him well in that.

Living on the Edge

I’m struck by the public outcry at all those who are deemed responsible for the current financial mess. The banks and investment banks on Wall Street, the federal government, mortgage brokers, rating agencies… they are all in the cross hairs of public resentment. And they should be. All contributed bringing us to the precipice on which the economy now rests. It’s a little disingenuous, though, and perhaps hypocritical is a better word for it. After all, they haven’t done anything we didn’t do ourselves.

Look at the trappings of the typical American lifestyle. How many people don’t have a flat screen TV? Yet what is our savings rate? I’d bet more people have a flat screen TV than contribute to their 401(k). We didn’t sock it away, and neither did corporate America. In the best of times, we let our savings fall, companies operated at the edge, wasted precious capital, and ultimately failed to make the changes to plant, product, and personnel necessary to weather a storm that we all knew would eventually come.

Banks didn’t help the situation. They did what we did – they leveraged to the hilt. We bought houses our grandparents would never have purchased; did we really believe grandma was wrong? After all, she’s bailing many of us out now that we’ve blown it. Banks bought securities that were garbage, knowing that the ratings agencies were complicit, and turning a blind eye to the shady practices of mortgage brokers that encouraged people to spend well beyond their means. But it’s not all their fault. Someone on the other side of the table had to be dumb enough, or greedy enough, or both, to sign on the dotted line.

There are some basic principles that we Americans ignored, and these are things that had been established fact when “the Greatest Generation” was in charge:
1) Save your money for a rainy day. It will always come.
2) Don’t take undue risk with investments. Be the tortoise, stick to a formula, plod along, and you’ll win in the end.
3) Don’t live beyond your means. Don’t buy a house you can’t afford, don’t blow your money on things that lose value. You’re lying to yourself, and everyone else.

Somewhere along in the 1980’s, we seem to have veered off course from those three maxims that our grandparents espoused. We began to live in the moment, believing that either the rainy day would never come or that if it did, someone else would pull our rear ends out of the fire. We have now had two bubbles burst within a single decade, and I still do not get the sense we’ve learned our lessons. It occurred to me back around 2004 or 2005 that if consumers were pulling money out of their homes as they’d already depleted any savings they had, and their fantastic stock portfolios of the late 1990’s were already gone, then what would hold things together when real estate corrected? The answer? Nothing.

When the financial crisis hit in the fall of 2008, there just weren’t any good tools left with which to fix things. Consumers had nothing to fall back upon. Homeowners had nothing. The federal government had nothing, and has now created something from nothing in order to correct our course, and we will pay for that many fold down the road.

The situation is not unrecoverable, and I think the answer is pretty damn simple: consumers need to start saving again. Growth rates may suffer for a while, but take some pain economically, though it will be politically unpopular. Get deficit spending under control and begin to reverse the debt levels of the United States, both individually and as a country. We can return to the more simplistic and realistic lifestyles of our grandparents, and I think they’d be proud of us for doing it.