Friday's Big Question
Elsewhere, they're sometimes known as open threads. Here at Ricochet, I'd like to start throwing out a Big Question every day -- something timely but deep, focused but far reaching. Something...like this:
Should we be more pessimistic?
Americans have always been known, especially in their better moments, for their indefatigable optimism. In our politics and our social life, optimism is like that perfect renewable energy resource at the end of the rainbow guarded by sparkly unicorns. Not only does it keep us going when times are tough. It makes us bounce higher when we hit bottom. And it makes us reach higher when we're already flying high.
But optimism can have its pathologies -- blindness to problems that need solving, or a distorted view of human nature, or an unreasonably high estimate of professional expertise. Pessimism, which isn't the same as grumpiness or defeatism, might educate or curb excesses and errors like those.
Thoughts?
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: Friday's Big Question
Wonderful question for a Friday, James - and relates to Peter's post as well. I lived in New York during the Summer of Sam. We thought that's what New York was: crime, filth, danger. Then Giuliani, Bratton, some good ideas... it all turned around. Whoever thought the Berlin Wall would fall? One guy: Reagan (or, as we like to call him, Peter Robinson's glove puppet). But fall it did. Of course, blind optimism can be a pathology. But joy in life and faith that God will put his thumb on the scale for love and freedom can take you a long way against seemingly impossible odds.
Also, the-end-is-nigh school of conservatism is an intolerable bore.
Re: Friday's Big Question
Optimism, James. Optimism.
Why? I gave a lot of thought to the question you pose back in the old days, when I was a speechwriter in the Reagan White House. Was Reagan, I wondered, too optimistic? His optimism, I began to realize, probably grew out of the difficulties he had encountered early in life, particularly his father's alcoholism. Was it a mere defense mechanism? Did it separate him from reality as it was? I discussed all this with a priest friend, Rev. Lorenzo Albacete. As I put it in my book about Reagan:
I told Father Albacete Reagan's favorite joke, the pony joke. A little boy, the joke goes, was so optimistic that his parents, worried, took him to see a psychiatrist. To dampen the boy's outlook, the psychiatrist took him to a room piled to the ceiling with horse manure. Instead of appearing disgusted, the little boy clambered to the top of the pile, dropped to his knees, and began gleefully digging out scoop after scoop with his hands. "What do you think you're doing?" the psychiatrist asked, baffled. "With all this manure," the little boy replied, beaming, "there must be a pony in here somewhere."
Edited on Jun 4, 2010 at 11:40amMay '10
Re: Friday's Big Question
Optimism is an inclination toward hopefulness. Pessimism is the expectation of the worst outcome. Optimism does not mean being Alfred E. Newman affecting either mindless froth or seeing the world as it is not.
Hopefulness still allows a realistic view. Sometimes things really are lousy- for a conservative, the Presidency, fifty-nine senators, and a large opposing House majority may be about as lousy as things can be. But that doesn't mean we believe that the current state of affairs is permanent- and as soon as that is acknowledged, we are to some degree hopeful.
When has a person anticipating the worst outcome been motivated to apply her or his best effort toward a worthy goal? Aren't rational humans more inclined toward apathy if we view the situation as irredeemable? Why try at all, let alone harder, if our energy is inevitably wasted? Why come here and converse when it is more rational to give up and embrace victimhood?
If I were not a basically optimistic person, I would want to find a hypnotist to help me adjust my view- because tasting the world through a perpetually sour filter is worse than death.
WFB interviewed: "I know that my Redeemer liveth."
May '10
Re: Friday's Big Question
I believe hope, like love, has proper ways of being directed and expressed. Just as one spends a lifetime learning how to love, it's a lifetime journey learning how to hope and what to hope for.
There's a difference between predicting good circumstances and believing the future will always hold opportunities for happiness and goodness. I share Steyn's sour outlook on the imminent future of our nation and the world. I believe some parts of that dark future are inevitable -- not because things can't change... only because too many people will choose not to change. But I have faith in the human spirit to endure those hardships. I have faith that God will bring good out of it.
Fighting for good is worthwhile even when the battle is sure to be lost. Christians and Jews believe the war has already been won, so that was never our cause. Our responsibility is to face the truth and act nobly regardless of what comes or what our enemies do, like Job. Our hope should be the opportunity to live well and be happy regardless of circumstances (ala Steyn's mirthful pessimism), rather than to experience peace and justice on Earth.
Re: Friday's Big Question
I second Peter Robinson's case for optimism! When you look at the empirical evidence, it is hard to escape the conclusion that, despite everything, human beings are wealthier, healthier, and freer than they've ever been. The global trading system, upheld by American power, has been a force for prosperity and peace and has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians out of poverty. In the United States, crime, divorce, and abortion are in decline. Read Gregg Easterbrook's Sonic Boom and Matt Ridley's The Rational Optimist for more good news.
America suffers from a surfeit of pessimism and cynicism. What we need instead is realism--realism about the challenges ahead, and about the establishment's inclinations and capacities to reform a troubled system from which they benefit the most.
May '10
Re: Friday's Big Question
Incidentally, my favorite philosophy professor once taught a "Philosophy of Happiness" course. One thing we discussed was the reports from psychologists that optimists and pessimists tend to be realists about different subjects. Optimistic people tend to be less realistic about health issues, for example.
If you're wondering, the course material included the following books: The Consolations of Philosophy, Happiness: Lessons From a New Science, A Brief History of Happiness, and Authentic Happiness. The psychological studies I refer to are discussed in the last. The author is a former president of the American Psychological Assocation and leader of the Positive Psychology movement of practice.
Re: Friday's Big Question
Embrace optimism. Out here in Silicon Valley we innovate. Okay, sure the Obama administration is working overtime to curtail private capital formation, increase hiring costs and regulate the bejeebers out of every existing industry it can find.
So, invent a new one.
I can't do anything about economic illiteracy in Washington, not until November at least, but I can ferret about in the nooks and crannies for relatively unfettered pockets of business opportunity. Success generally keeps the family fed for a while. Sometimes, an unexpected industry grows like kudzu for a good long while before the statists manage to tie it down. Remember when the Internet and personal computer burst unexpected on the scene not so long ago. More such will surprise us, hopefully soon.
May '10
Re: Friday's Big Question
I can't help but feel that America came as close to turning into a European style social democracy as it has ever (or at least since the Great Depression), and still could fall that way. Not to disrespect its intellectual branch, but I think the Tea Party has bailed the conservative movement out on this one. We're not out of the woods yet, but that a popular movement stood up in support of conservative values and pulled the movement back as it teetered on the precipice is reason for optimism.
May '10
Re: Friday's Big Question
I'd like to disagree just to keep things interesting, but I side with optimism too -- and I think that Matt Continetti puts it best: "What we need instead is realism--realism about the challenges ahead, and about the establishment's inclinations and capacities to reform a troubled system from which they benefit the most."
The problem with pessimism is that, even if problems are realistically assessed, the ability to address them is underestimated. And as a political matter, no one ever elects a pessimist, perhaps wisely, since any significant change in public policy is so difficult to enact that it may require an optimist's temperament.
Of course, every rule has an exception, and I think the exception here is Abraham Lincoln, pessimist and exceptional leader.
Re: Friday's Big Question
Here's another totally non-political reason to remain optimistic. According to research quoted in Barbara Strauch's recent book, "The Secret life of the Grown-Up Brain," optimistic people tend to ward off the ravages of dementia better than those who are pessimistic and in fact live longer. And we have to outlive the current pinheads running things! (Okay, that got political.)
May '10
Re: Friday's Big Question
In Orthodoxy G.K. Chesterton advocates a synthesis of optimism and pessimism he calls...patriotism :)