AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > November
November 2008
Are today’s young people suffering from overconfidence?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Rebuttal
When preschools teach the song, “I am special, I am special, look at me” to the tune of “Frere Jacques,” American society is drinking too much self-confidence juice. The self-esteem movement began almost four decades ago, and experts such as Professor Twenge worry that what we are producing as a result is not “self-confidence” (which can be healthy) but narcissism.
Andy may not realize that Twenge studied far more than just two points in time. According to an Associated Press interview, Twenge’s workshops include data from more than 16,000 students who filled out a standardized Narcissistic Personality Inventory over 24 years (1982 to 2006). The NPI asks questions like, “If I ruled the world, it would be a better place,” and “I can live my life any way I want to.” NPI scores rose steadily since 1982, with two-thirds of students racking up above-average scores by 2006.
Dr. Carol Dweck, author of “Mindset” and psychology professor at Stanford has also studied self-esteem and academic performance. She found that students praised for their effort do far better and feel more confident in their abilities than those praised for “how smart you are!” By phone, she explained that, “Praising kids for intelligence backfired. Once they hit difficulties, they did not feel they were smart — because if success meant they were smart then failure mean they were not. It made them unwilling to take a different path or tackle anything difficult — and more likely to lie about their results. By contrast, children praised for effort almost universally wanted more and different tasks they could learn from. When we gave those kids harder problems, they thrived on them and performed better.”
We’re not helping our young people in the real world if we foster the illusion that it revolves around them. A COO friend of mine was once approached by his HR director about hiring a consultant who wanted to train the firm on what young hires under 25 expect today: different work styles, different concessions to work-life balance, and so on. My friend shocked his HR director by responding, “Wow! Thank you! So now I know: I just won’t hire anyone under 25, until they grow up and understand that they are here to work for us and not the other way around!”
Should the government bail out automakers, too?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
About five seconds after the $700-billion financial bailout passed, politicians asked about saving automakers, too. And then there were the “underwater” mortgage-holders. And really, would it be fair to let Circuit City die?
The “where-does-it-stop” roulette is complicated when it comes to our important domestic auto industry — but not that complicated. For years, the Big Three automakers have known this day would come. For years, they rushed shoddy-quality cars to dealerships, trading away brand value for immediate cash. They eventually resolved quality problems but repeated the same pattern of grasping the quick-cash fix with SUV gas guzzlers and trading off development of increasingly popular hybrids. They also entered into insanely pricey labor contracts loaded with “future” costs (like pensions) that would have to be paid eventually. Well, the day of reckoning is now here, and the U.S. taxpayer is in a pickle.
I realize the ripple effect a Big Three failure would cause further pain for our economy — and would personally hurt many close friends in my husband’s hometown near Flint. However, I’m appalled that the Democratic leadership and President-elect Obama are even considering extending the financial-sector bailout to carmakers. It would be one thing to try to help the industry retool, manage a painful process of drastic expense reduction, and become competitive: that would be reasonable, if still anti-free market. But most current proposals would simply bail out automakers dying due to inability to meet demand, as well as excess capacity and unsustainable expenses.
In 2005, for example, GM produced three times the cars as Toyota in North America — but had five times the number of production workers. GM had 77 plants (all unionized) to Toyota’s 12 — only three of which were unionized. And unionization makes a huge cost difference. Once benefits, pensions and such are factored in, GM’s average hourly labor cost is an eye-popping $73 versus Toyota’s $48.
As Dr. Russ Roberts, professor of economics at George Mason University put it in an interview, “Historically, many companies are driven by bad decisions. If GM dies it will be painful, but it may die anyway and with a bailout, it will die with my money. Let the resources and energy and creativity flow into companies that can actually do something with them.”
Rebuttal
As we slide into the holiday season, several industries have their hands out like a bunch of Salvation Army bell ringers. Like many, I’m disinclined to toss coins into the auto industry pot. Why throw good money after bad decisions?
Here’s why: an additional loan right now could save the industry and its millions of jobs until 2010, and that timing is key. If we only think in the short-term, helping Detroit seems like a waste of money. Yet think of 2010, and you’ll see something else: opportunity.
According to Chris Isidore at CNNMoney.com, “billions of dollars in annual savings won in the 2007 labor agreement with the United Auto Workers union kick in that year, including shifting the responsibility for retirees’ health care costs to union-controlled trust funds.” Moreover, 2010 is the year most experts predict that the plug-in hybrid technology will be ready for market. Do we really want to let GM, Chrysler and Ford collapse right when they can be part of this vanguard? In addition, Gen. Wesley Clark, former supreme allied commander of NATO, points out that, like the improvements in armored fighting vehicles in Iraq, future automotive innovations will have crucial military applications. It’s essential to our national security, he explains, that a “vibrant car industry” remains in the USA.
Don’t get me wrong — right now Detroit is like an annoying relative I’m seldom pleased to hear from, in dire need of rehab. Yet I’m not ready to kick the Big Three out of the family just yet, with so many factors to consider. Sure, part of me would rather see them go bankrupt than hit up Uncle Sam for a loan, but the likelihood of the Big Three rising from those ashes is slim. Meanwhile, the government—that would be you and me — will wind up with retirees’ pension and health care obligations anyway.
There’s clearly no perfect solution here, but perilous times call for taking the long view and finding opportunities in chaos. Through a contingency-laden loan, we buy Detroit two more years, one last opportunity to join the technological and environmental leaders in this industry. If Motown manages to succeed after an extreme makeover, we all benefit. And if not? Then let it be just another Circuit City.
Will Republicans give President Obama a fair shake?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
“I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” There’s a line that came back to haunt President Bush after his win in 2004.
Barack Obama wisely refrains from crowing about his political capital, despite an even larger win. Still, no one should expect Republicans to abandon principled disagreement, crucial to a true democracy. Yet when does patriotic dissent turn into obstruction? I fear that certain campaign tactics and the current state of the GOP might cloud any chance for an open-minded electorate.
Consider the view many mainstream conservatives have of Obama: a Muslim masquerading as a Christian, hiding possible ties to terrorism. President Bush has been roundly criticized for behavior many consider rash, even dangerous, yet no one ever accused him of being in bed with al-Qaida. Conservatives continue to share these alarming rumors, yet just what are their shared principles? A cohesive philosophy of governance would enable them to focus on distinguishing between policies that deserve support and those that deserve a battle. Right now, however, the only bond among Republicans is a mutual fear of Democrats in power.
Many saw the 2000 campaign as a “stolen” election, a poisonous stew of vote tampering and a highly partisan Supreme Court. Nonetheless, Democrats were comforted by Bush’s solidarity with Mayor Giuliani at Ground Zero; plenty even rooted for the direction of the war at one point. In 2003, a Los Angeles Times poll found that more than seven out of 10 independents and Democrats said that they supported our actions in Iraq.
Have the Democrats returned to grave distrust of their Republican president? Sure, along with many others who voted him into office. So let’s forget about who deserves “political capital”; with a troubled economy and two wars, there are bigger issues at stake. Instead let’s look back on a call for bipartisanship that we all found compelling.
In a tremendous concession speech, Sen. McCain graciously urged all his fellow citizens to offer President-elect Obama “our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity…”
Is that too much to ask? Only if you love winning more than you love your country.
Rebuttal
I’m utterly perplexed by Andy’s belief that those bitter, angry Republicans will try to undercut our new president instead of healing wounds and moving forward. Wait a second: For the last eight years, hasn’t it been the liberal ideologues who have been daily trashing our current president, practically seeming to hope he messed up the country just to prove how wrong we were to elect him?
The pre-election press proves the difference. Google “If Obama loses” and countless articles come up about possible riots, “liberal rage” demonstrations, petitions saying John McCain stole the election, how to become a Canadian citizen and so on. You’ll find David Swanson of Democrats.com encouraging a huge protest on Washington, or Jesse Jackson signing a “Pledge of Action” on www.nomorestolenelections.org. When one looks up “If McCain loses,” you see no advance talk of riots. Instead you see pre-election articles focused on the philosophical “direction of the Republican Party” questions that are, in fact, currently being debated.
Democrats may not believe this, but most conservatives are proud of the cultural step forward that Obama’s election represents, even as we disagree with his likely policy priorities. And most prominent conservative and party leaders have publicly issued calls to work with and, above all, pray for our president-elect. Indiana congressman Mike Pence recently told the Associated Press that Republican leaders would certainly work to counter the positions held by the overwhelming Democrat majority, but that, “It’s going to be a cheerful opposition.” And South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford penned an eloquent op-ed for CNN about looking honestly at the conservative failures, such as abandoning principles of spending and borrowing obscene amounts of money.
By contrast, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid publicly threatened to strip Sen. Joe Lieberman of leadership for supporting McCain. Not the best way to reject partisan politics as usual.
Going forward, conservative lawmakers will diligently work to oppose sweeping changes such as “redistribution-of-wealth” taxes, greater unionization, universal health care, and bailing out whatever industry asks for it. Yet all Americans hope that partisans on both sides will take the high road to act in the best interest of the country; which means avoiding the bitter rhetoric of the last decade. Of course, that may take a lot more prayer.
What is the single most important ramification of the election?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Before I tackle this week’s topic, I must first congratulate Barack Obama. Even the election of a man with whom I deeply disagree makes me proud to be an American. I will probably object to his policy priorities, but the ascendance of our first African- American president - someone who worked hard for the quintessential American dream — is something we can all applaud.
But I also respect him enough to have no reservations about pointing out a critical ramification of his election. Obama’s presidency looks likely to push the Supreme Court and our entire court system in a direction that fundamentally changes our balance of power and how our Constitution is viewed.
As envisioned by the framers of America’s government, judges must dispassionately interpret the law or the Constitution - in other words, regardless of how they personally feel. Impartial judges with lifetime appointments were a balance of power to elected legislators and chief executives whose creation of law based on personal preferences had to answer to “we the people.” But in recent decades we’ve seen activist judges ascribe to the “Living Constitution” theory and essentially create policy based on how they feel the world should be - something supposedly reserved for elected representatives. Further, because activist judges are by definition less conservative, they are activist in only one direction, creating a purely ideological, not judicial, liberal check on the will of the people.
In a 2007 Planned Parenthood speech, Obama said judges should have “the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.” There it is: judges with empathy, not dispassionate impartiality.
Dozens of vacancies exist on federal appeals and district courts and we’ll see many more in coming years. Not to mention multiple retirements of activist Supreme Court justices who would have been replaced by strict constructionists had McCain won.
Obama’s election is history-making, and I sincerely congratulate him and those jubilant at his election. At the same time, I hope he - as a former constitutional law professor - will be willing to put personal preferences aside and do the right thing for our Constitution.
Rebuttal
My favorite election night photo? The cheering crowds in front of the White House, our nation’s house, forever immune to foreclosure. It reminded me of a recent family trip to the capital, when I had the pleasure of showing my 6-year-old around D.C. Katie was particularly excited to see 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet instead of being thrilled, she was initially disappointed — with the guards, the gate and my explanation that we couldn’t just walk inside anytime we felt like it.
Barack Obama’s long, hard walk to that house has been elevated not just by his history-making status but by the overwhelming numbers walking alongside him. More people voted than ever before in our history, and a Democrat hasn’t reached this percentage since the Lyndon Johnson/Barry Goldwater landslide in 1964.
Indeed, the level and intensity of turnout in this election has brought all of us to an enthusiasm for democratic participation unprecedented in my lifetime. And just who has most inspired this development? A liberal who will govern from the center when he should, a former constitutional law professor who treasures that document too much to tamper with its timeless foundation.
Now is hardly the time to suddenly be concerned with leadership that “fundamentally changes our balance of power.” After eight years of Dick Cheney, most Americans are looking forward to a restoration of civil liberties, not further erosion. And despite partisan efforts at demonization through rhetoric, “activism” swings both ways. Recent appointments to the Supreme Court have brought us Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas—all far more ideological and passionate in their views than, say, Stephen Breyer — a Bill Clinton appointee.
Shaunti and I agree on one important thing this week: Obama’s election makes us proud to be Americans. The morning after, my youngest daughter Katie grinned upon hearing the results. Then a frown crossed over her face. “But how will Barack Obama get into the White House?” she asked me, clearly remembering our visit last summer. “He doesn’t have the keys and the gate is locked.”
I reached down and gave her a squeeze. I thought about the huge volunteer party I had witnessed the night before. Complete strangers, black and white, gazed at a television screen in disbelief before falling, crying, into one another’s arms.
“Not anymore” I told her.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Commentary
By Andrea Cornell Sarvady
When a study comes out faulting young people for their worldview, I’m inclined to rejoice. Steeped as I am in midlife grumpiness, it’s life-affirming to find any proof that those with endless prospects and perfect muscle tone are actually inferior beings.
So I should be cheered by a recent, well-publicized report that implicates parents and teachers for producing narcissistic adolescents. Explains San Diego State University Professor Jean Twenge of today’s teens, “They don’t set the right goals for themselves because they are overconfident, and that’s when it blows up in their face.”
Hmm. Rather than enjoy the explosion, I question the conclusion. Twenge’s findings were garnered from self-evaluations from 1975 and again in 2006. That’s like comparing Depression-era teens with hippies. In particular, 1975 is an odd year to create a benchmark for teen perspectives; high schoolers in that malaise-filled era viewed everything from Nixon’s resignation to Mom’s liberation with skepticism. I should know.
Today’s teens rate themselves higher as future mates, parents and workers than did their ’70s counterparts; the study seems to attribute this to a rise in teen narcissism. Yet what of the societal changes that might also have influenced 2006 respondents? There have been seismic shifts in gender roles since 1975, easily influencing attitudes about parenting and work.
Equally puzzling are the “increasingly unrealistic” expectations researchers are fretting about. Over 50 percent of high school seniors plan to earn a graduate degree, “although less than 10 percent will likely reach that goal.” So? Won’t that ambition at least create more college graduates?
Twenge acknowledges that in measures of “self-competency” teens rate themselves no better than they did in the ’70s. In other words, they rate themselves highly as people, while still realistically measuring themselves against their peers. That sounds — dare I say it? — mature.
Sure, there’s been some compliment inflation from indulgent adults, but it’s hardly taken away all teenage insecurity. Who knows? Maybe their confidence in the future will get them through the trials of adolescence. Listen, I may begrudge the young their toned muscles, yet I don’t doubt their ability to recover should the college admissions gauntlet or tough employers thwart their plans to rule the world.
Lastly, consider the world that our young people will soon inherit. A surplus of confidence? They’re gonna need it.