TWO STORIES

 I was probably around 11 years old the first time I went to a birthday party where I received a prize without winning any of the games.  This was a new experience for someone in the late 1950s/early 1960s.  It was the first time everyone got a prize whether they did anything or not.  On the way home with my mother I tried to explain that the prize I had received was not because I had won, but just something for taking part in the game.  She didn’t understand. I remember my overwhelming emotion was one of shame for getting something for nothing.

Recently I heard a successful minority artist being interviewed on the radio.  The interviewer kept stressing the fact that he had worked several jobs during his time at college in order to pay his tuition.  My thinking was “so what – a lot of people I know as well as my own self did the same, some were minorities, some were not.  All were both thankful for and proud of their work and what it had allowed them to accomplish.”   But the interviewer, and to some extent the artist himself, seemed to stress the victim factor of having to work to attend college.  This was such a contrast to the view that such work to improve oneself and/or achieve a goal is something to be proud of.  It does not make someone a victim, but rather a success.

What do these two stories have in common and what do they tell us about society both in years past and today?

To what is one entitled?

Both stories consider a relationship between some personal effort and a reward.  The first story reflects a principle that one does not get something for nothing – one must “win” it by their own hard work.

The second story reflects the idea that if you have to work for something then you are experiencing some sort of victimhood/disentitlement and that the focus of your eventual success should be on the victim experience rather than the personal initiative that led to your success or even the ultimate success itself.

If we consider that these two core principles reflect a more general societal view far beyond the specifics of each story, then one has to wonder: 1) how has such a core value changed so greatly in little over 50 years; and (2) is the change a good one?

A change in message

It was in the 1960s that our society began to seriously question competition, especially for children.  We began to be concerned that hurt feelings of losing were unhealthy and must be eliminated.  Hence the emergence of the “participation trophy” for everyone.

The hidden message of such “trophies” is that really all one has to do is show up.  No effort required beyond mere presence.  A second message is that one has a right to always feel good – no hurt feelings due to losing a competition or otherwise.

The “entitlement” to always feeling good broadened beyond childhood games.  Parents hesitated to say “no” to children for fear of hurt feelings.  Grade inflation was in part motivated by a similar goal.  “Safe spaces” began to appear on college campuses and in the workplace as the children who learned that they had a right to demand happiness grew up and became adults.

This change in attitude continued to explode.  Not only were you entitled to never have a hurt feeling – everyone was entitled to have it all.  Personal choices that may have led to a negative personal consequence became no longer relevant as well as personal characteristics and talents that make each of us the individual we are.  Scientific advances helped in this regard, doing such things as outfitting physically limited bodies with artificial replacements.  Yes, people began to believe that they can and that they are entitled to any and everything they want, including the current idea that they can change their sex at will and that men can be pregnant and give birth to a child.  Questioning any personal desire or gratification is met with an accusation of insensitivity if not bigotry.

Is the new message a good one?

A message of entitlement growing out of a desire to protect from pain at first may sound harmless or perhaps even laudable, but once one reflects on it one can see the broad and changeful effect that it can have. 

It creates a major change in societal values.  Where personal responsibility and pride in one’s work were once lauded, now the responsibility falls upon society as a whole to create a happy environment for all.  (We will save for another time how and who defines “happiness” for all the people.)  A recent television ad advertising a free housing program announced that people should have time to play and do what they want rather than have to work hard to pay for housing; the visuals showed happy individuals riding bikes, playing in parks, etc.

For many today, the concept of “equity” for all as opposed to “equality of opportunity” has become paramount.  If one will have the same result regardless of how much or little effort one puts in, the work ethic becomes meaningless and with it pride in one’s work becomes an archaic concept.

A path to Socialism

With the loss of those concepts a path is cleared toward socialism.  This country has been testing that path for some time, and now it seems that a good half of the country would choose Socialism over Capitalism.

Both systems can be enticing, and neither is perfect.  I will be the first to admit that in America today it is much harder to achieve one’s dreams simply through one’s own hard work and that the promise of utopia that Socialism presents (though ultimately never delivers) sounds lovely.  But at the same time I believe that to give up that individual fulfillment that comes from the sometimes difficult burdens of personal responsibility and hard work would be a hugely wrong step for our society. 

If you only had fun, do you really win?

It is only through the struggles that one faces when allowed to experience hardships and sadness that one can feel the true joys of success.  And it is often those hard times that provide one with the motivation to strive to become truly the best they can be and not just one of the many swimming in the mediocre sea of equity. 

Nowadays of course, everyone expects to get the prize/trophy/reward whether they worked for it or not.  If not provided, they become victims with a claim for an even bigger and better prize.  I think our society was in a better place in the first story - when one felt a bit ashamed of getting something for nothing.

 

The Power of WHY

 We all know that Biden repeatedly tells the country that we must vote Democratic as he repeatedly vilifies all Republicans.  Down the ballot most Democrats do the same.

But it is not only Democrats who demand unwavering and indeed unthinking party loyalty.  In my state the voters can vote to retain or not retain state judges who are already sitting on the bench.  The state judges are identified by party affiliation.   The Republican party recently posted an ad telling voters to vote no on every single judge who is up for retention simply because they are Democrats. 

It is not just political parties that demand unthinking decision making.  My state’s major newspaper apparently based its endorsements on the answer to one question – whether the candidate agreed with Trump that the 2020 election was stolen.  A clear No got you the endorsement but a Yes or even an answer that tried to explain the complexities of that question meant you would not be endorsed.  The paper itself noted that despite the Republican governor candidate coming out on top on nearly all the issues, he would not have received the endorsement had he not answered a clear No to that one question, while it failed to endorse a Republican candidate for House because that candidate failed to give an unexplained yes or no  (that was the only negative noted in the paper’s discussion of that candidate and her opponent who answered no and whom they endorsed).   

These demands that one decide a vote simply on one question or merely a party label are wrong on so many levels.  Let me suggest three.

First, candidates are individuals.  Voters need to look at each candidate as a full person, not as simply a cardboard cutout representing one label or one yes or no answer.  For example, in the judicial retention elections in my state voters have access to in-depth studies done by our Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission.  These include surveys of litigants, attorneys, and others appearing in that judge’s courtroom as well as surveys of the judge’s staff, and the Commission’s evaluation of each judge.  That is a starting point for voters to understand whether or not they believe a particular judge should be retained.  There are judges belonging to both parties that deserve to be retained, and some of each party that do not.  The total picture of each individual judge includes far more than just their party affiliation.

Second: it’s identity politics.  Using a party label to paint a broad and unvarying picture of everyone belonging to that party is simply the game of identity politics, something that we know the Democrats are very good at.  It is the Democrats who paint all opponents as “deplorables” or “terrorists” or “destroyers of democracy.”  The Democrats have given us excellent examples of how to pit one identity group against another as they do such things as paint all whites as racist or all Christians as intolerant or all Trump supporters as violent.

When the Republicans paint all Democrats as bad judges or when the newspaper paints all people with one answer to a question as not endorsable, they too are playing the identity politics game which is simply taking one characteristic of an individual’s many facets and painting all who have that characteristic with the same broad brush.

Group-think or don’t think.  The third and most troubling aspect of these party or single-question-based directives is that they are essentially orders to the voting public not to think.  Because if one thinks, they will go beyond the narrowness that creates cardboard cutouts rather than individuals:  they will think for themselves.

The danger of labeling based on one characteristic or identity factor out of the many that we all carry goes far beyond voting.  It destroys us by dehumanizing each and every one of us.

Humanity requires thinking and debate

Interestingly, in the SCOTUS arguments about affirmative action earlier this week, the justices sincerely grappled with the need for a diverse classroom environment while prohibiting race-based (essentially group identity based) decision making.

Diverse environments are essential to open all our eyes as we learn about, debate, and understand the diverse views of our pluralist democracy.  Labeling any one view as definitive of all who may hold that view is disingenuous and destructive of every positive aspect of pluralism. 

Questioning and debating is essential to human growth, but that debate needs to be based upon reality, not cardboard cutouts based on identity factors.  The debate needs to be individualized if the debaters are to learn and grow.  But the necessary partner with debate is the ability to think as an individual about other individuals.  Demanding thought and action based on group identity defeats the entire purpose.

Yeshiva schools understand how important true debate (debate and questioning in order to grow and learn) is to education.  In such schools the students, along with their rabbis, question the Torah, debating, often quite passionately, about its meaning and its application to their lives.  They are taught not to accept, but to question.  And with questioning comes not only thinking, but an evolution in one’s thinking as they grow deeper and deeper understanding of that which they are studying.

WHY – An act of love

The idea of questioning, even questioning God Himself, goes back to the story of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis.  We are told that Eve’s mission is to be a helper against Adam.  The rabbinic commentators on this passage explain that this “teaches us a model of friendly antagonism, one in which, in order to support you, I challenge you.” (Prof. Elie Wiesel, quoted in Witness by Ariel Burger).  Such challenging refines the thinking of those involved, allowing them to refine and develop their ideas about the subject being debated. 

Learning about the beliefs of others allows one to challenge one’s own deeply held beliefs, something which is vitally important for one to grow in both spirit and intellect.  Disagreement and debate for the sake of learning, understanding, and growing and not simply to defeat or silence the other’s view is an act of love – for oneself and for the other.  It allows us to see one another for the complex individuals we each are.

Excluding debate, even when done with the misguided motive of protecting delicate feelings, is not an act of kindness but rather an act that serves to stifle individuality.  Demanding that someone vote or base any other activity solely on a group identity classification stifles the individual capacity to think.

Not only in voting, but in the world at large, we need to see people for the complex individuals that they are.  We need to question our candidates and the information that we have about them, not simply base an important decision on one alleged identity characteristic that may or may not be true for that individual candidate, whether based on party affiliation or single question answer. 

If we open our hearts and our minds to question and debate we can reach deeper levels of understanding about ourselves, those we interact with and society at large.  But those questions must not be in the nature of HOW CAN YOU disagree with me/say that? 

Rather, we must learn to ask WHY?  In the context of elections:  WHY are you a member of that party?  WHY do you support that?  In the broader context:  WHY do you say/believe that – help me to understand WHY you hold that view.

That simple word WHY used with curiosity and openness rather than with a closed-minded intent to shut unfamiliar or opposing views down, can go far.  Not only will it likely do more to elect the best candidates, it will also do much to heal our world.