The paradox of a life of studying people and policy

You know what the biggest irony of my life is?

For someone who has spent most of his adult life studying people and politics, I hate both.

Aristotle was right, I'm learning. Man is a political animal. And I mean that in all of the worst ways more than the best. We're all cowards, is the truth. We're persistently looking around at each other wondering what each other is thinking and trying, very hard, to track closely with the prevailing political winds. This war in Iraq, both when the war was popular and then when it was not popular, have taught me that lesson of life.

I hate politics. I hate when power overwhelms the merits of the substantive discussion. And I hate how cowardly people are that they will tack so closely with the prevailing political winds, that they will confuse it with something more substantial. I include all people here. I don't care how thoughtful or scholarly they might be. That includes me, too, I suppose. Always trying to keep close to the prevailing political winds. It makes more sustantive discussion of life's most important issues look like a joke since popular political winds always seem to carry the day and cowardice is more common than courage.

It undermines my respect for either politics or people and makes me wonder why I wanted to study or think about either at all, really.

I don't know if I care about anything, at all, right now. I used to. When I had people who cared too to share that with. It's been a long time since I had that. I don't know if I'll ever trust anyone ever again.

I need to walk.

Love,
Ben

Policy and people

I said something today, while checking out for the final time at Eisenhower, that I don't think is true, upon reflection.

I was telling Ms. Toomey - the administrator at Eisenhower that I trusted the most; Dr. Ogburn is the most ambitious administrator, but Ms. Toomey is the one I trust - that most of the most serious problems in special education were at the policy level.

I don't think that's true, actually, when I think about it.

Most of all of our problems in life and in politics are at the people level. They are in the interpersonal dealings we have with one another, the ways we think about one another, and the ways we treat one another.

In special education, the biggest problem amongst both special educators and general educators is that people are not genuinely committed to the kids' interests in a way that opens up as many opportunities for them as possible while being an honest reality check and example for kids' behavior, academic achievement, and aspirations. The biggest problem in special education and in schools, generally, is that teachers and parents don't believe in kids enough. They look too often for what is wrong with kids or what will explain their failures rather than what will support their success. They look at kids through the lens of their weaknesses and failures and not enough through the lens of their strengths and their successes.

Many very good teachers are looking out for kids often much more substantially than likely their own parents do. But better parents and teachers do so more genuinely in ways that both believe in their success and look for every route to get there rather than trying to find an explanation for failure or a area of struggle rather than trying to figure out a way to improve or succeed.

And the truth is that the law and policy could never touch this problem. It could raise awareness, I suppose. It could break down barriers, largely by removing legal barriers and bureaucracy that compete for time and energy needed to create success for students.

But, ultimately, either people believe in the bigger goals and do the thinking and the work and engage the effort to achieve them, or they don't. And there is no law, ever, and never from here on out, that can mandate that kind of effort, thought, work, and ambition. Ever. That was the fundamental mistake of even the best intentioned efforts for the Nazis and the Communists (I know it's strange to talk about the best efforts of totalitarian and mass murdering regimes, but both have their apologists). Neither could come to terms with the fact that freedom and not force was the key to allowing people to reach their highest, best potential, because not everyone chooses to do so, for whatever reasons. They don't believe they can. They have a shitty attitude. They have given up. They have low expectations for themselves. They have been talked down. They only see a future that is like the present they inhabit. For whatever reasons, many, many people do not choose to reach for their highest potential. And many, many people spend far too much of their time and efforts tearing others down. I don't know why people waste their time and the time of others like that. But they do. And there is no way out of that but a world with more freedom and an expecation that if we want to achieve more, then we must take advantage of our freedom and the opportunities and make it so. There is no utopia where the ideal world will be mandated for everyone to follow and achieve their highest potential. There is no utopia where everyone will be mandated to behave well and those who don't will learn because they will face the consequences until they do.

We could have a world where people are given more freedom and support to achieve more of their goals and dreams and where people behave better. But that is a world that we would have to create. It is not a world that could ever be achieved by fiat or mandate.

It's so funny, when I think about it, thinking about so many very smart people, many of whom had to have been debaters at one point in their lives, adopting a governing philosophy that is essentially the same position of those who argued in debate rounds that any of the various problems that a case might have could be resolved by government fiat to just mandate the solution into existence. Everyone who ever debated knew what a cheesy, dishonest way this was to debate because problems in government and society cannot be simply fiated away. Every reasonably intelligent debater knew that if this were true, there would be no reason for debate or discussion or thoughtful engagement at all. We would simply fiat all of our problems away and there would be no need for any more discussion of the matter, at all.

But, of course, that can't happen. As any reaononably intelligent debater knows. Because it is a fairy tale that avoids the real problems and pitfalls that face thoughtful efforts to deal with serious policy and people problems.

The truth is that the most serious problems need thought, commitment, work and energy, engagement, and learning, over time, to get us to more substantial resolution. Everything else is propaganda and bullshit. And it certainly isn't a thoughtful, substantial resolution. In the real world as well as in the debate world.

Policy can help to solve a problem by presenting options that were not present, previously, sometimes in the form of a government effort, that can help find resolution. But, so often, policy can solve a problem by removing so many barriers that we create to more long-term, substantial, and broader solutions in our scurry to pass legislation and create policy to solve a more narrow, too often self-centered, and less thoughtful solution to a more narrow problem.

But real solutions, whether they involve law or government or policy or not, occur with what people choose to do to create them. And that will never be alleviated by any law ever. I don't care how much we pretend otherwise. The most genuine solutions to people problems happen with genuine efforts by genuine people. Other than that, you have a world of people doing their minimum to help out a little and largely look after themselves. If we want that world, it is plenty available to us. But it creates a lot of problems that can only be resolved by the more enlightened among us who are willing to look beyond our more narrow self-interest. That's true no matter where the solutions are coming from. From the market, from government, from liberals, from conservatives, from Americans, from Europeans, and from people all over the world, from educated people, from less educated people, from family and friends and people we identify with or from people who seem more different from us and who we don't identify with. The bottom line to most issues getting resolution is a genuine commitment by people involved to one another and to resolution and to each persons' freedom and self-determination and self-governance to resolve those problems and make those choices independently and with one another.

I need some vegi phad tai, some beer, and to watch some Joe Versus the Volcano, right now. This has been a long year. And I need a little time to reflect.

Love,
Ben

Idealism and happiness

It's all of a sudden dawned on my why so many adults are so cynical and why they are so bound and determined to sap the energy from young people:

They're unhappy.

And all that idealism that some young people - though, by all means, not all young people - carry with them is, at least in my experience, fueled by a life that they are much more generally happy with, and largely because they are freer, I think, than most older folks.

That is the feeling I have been missing, some, lately, facing the prospect of being treated badly and aggressively around whichever corner I happen to turn.

I don't want to be unhappy. And, in that sense, leaving Eisenhower is a unexpected blessing. Because I, too, would have likely learned to live with and accept feeling more and more unhappy just to hang onto a more secure situation, for the moment. I can only hope that I will not repeat that mistake - more than any other mistake I could possibly ever make - ever again in the future.

That is why I am so nostalgic for that summer in D.C. with Brandi. It's not because that time was perfect or that we didn't have a million fights and a million problems.

It's because it's the happiest time I remember in my life.

And that should be a sign that I am not happy and need to find happiness elsewhere, as best as possible.

Love,
Ben

Happiness

It's starting to occur to me the most important advantage to how I've lived my life as I listen to a teacher, next door, who I love very much and think is a very good teacher:

Many, if not most, of the teachers I work with often are very unhappy.

Many of the teachers I work with are burnt out, is the truth. They're scared and they're unhappy, but they're too scared to go find a happier situation. It's very sad. It's one of the most important things I decided when I was in grad school that I am happier about, today, than I was when I first decided to move in this direction: I did not want to spend my life scared. Of losing a job. Of the law. Of peoples' approbation or disapproval. Of poverty or failure. Of anything. I did not want to live my life scared. And, in that respect, I am very, very happy that I have chosen a life that leaves me less scared and learning more and, long term, achieving more, I'm quite sure.

I first encountered how serious burnout can hurt an organization when I worked at B'nai Brith, the summer Brandi and I spent together in D.C. All of the older folks who worked there were seriously burned out, amused and somewhat put off my Brandi's and my idealism and energy, and had just very pessimistic views of the world and their capacities and opportunities within it. I remember we had a fundraising campaign that B'nai Brith was considering and I suggested that someone try to make contact with Stephen Spielberg, who had just reembraced his Jewish heritage with Schindler's List and the Shoa Foundation, and see if he can not only give but perhaps do some publicity for our organization, which was the oldest Jewish organization in the United States. The sign of a dying organization is that noone is interested with ideas that might step up an organization's capacity, and that was the case at B'nai Brith. It was disappointing. But it was also an important lesson in how peoples' attitudes shape an organization and how burnout can suck the life out of an organization as negative attitudes sap the organization of imagination, creativity, ideas to resolve important issues and long-term strength. It is very sad to watch.

Eisenhower is more alive than B'nai Brith was, I think. There are plenty of negative attitudes. And there are too many people unhappy with their jobs and their lives to count. But there's still more energy here than in many places I've worked, likely because of the kids and because of the strong sense of commitment and purpose in the job.

I never could live my life unhappy, I don't care what the payoff is that comes with that.

But I'm pretty sure that the big payoffs come with more thought, vision and imagination, strong and positive attitudes, and otherwise staying focussed on always doing a better job.

I'm sad that people choose to live lives that they don't like or love. But I've accepted that a lot of people would prefer those lives and the illusion of security that it provides than the real happiness and security that comes with a life of freedom and thought and positive commitment.

I couldn't live, long term, with burnout, though I have lived with it more this year than I likely have in the past. Now I just want a life where I either don't have to live it at all, or where I can avoid it as much as possible until I create opportunities that get me away from it, as much as possible.

That's why the money or the power or the influence or the stuff never compensates.

Because people are unhappy. And whether they admit it to themselves or not, what most people really want is to be happy. And when they're unhappy, they have a million excuses for why that's the way things are supposed to be. But what doesn't change is that they are still unhappy.

I have work to do (though work I feel pretty good about, right now, thankfully).

If you have not seen Joe Versus the Volcano, I highly recommend it. It is the best movie on this subject that I have ever seen. I think I've going to go watch it as soon as I get home.

Love,
Ben