Beer For Breakfast


David "BoBo" Brooks is to thoughtful analysis what Charlie Sheen is to lucidity.

To-wit, in pondering the fate of college graduates:

College grads are often sent out into the world amid rapturous talk of limitless possibilities. But this talk is of no help to the central business of adulthood, finding serious things to tie yourself down to. The successful young adult is beginning to make sacred commitments — to a spouse, a community and calling — yet mostly hears about freedom and autonomy.

Today’s graduates are also told to find their passion and then pursue their dreams. The implication is that they should find themselves first and then go off and live their quest. But, of course, very few people at age 22 or 24 can take an inward journey and come out having discovered a developed self.

Most successful young people don’t look inside and then plan a life. They look outside and find a problem, which summons their life. A relative suffers from Alzheimer’s and a young woman feels called to help cure that disease. A young man works under a miserable boss and must develop management skills so his department can function. Another young woman finds herself confronted by an opportunity she never thought of in a job category she never imagined. This wasn’t in her plans, but this is where she can make her contribution.

Two observations immediately spring to mind. First, the ten most popular college majors seem to indicate that Brooks' concerns are ill-advised. You need to get down to number nine on the list, psychology, before you hit a soft, non-material target. College students today get it, David. The world requires money, it demands a genuflection to authority (note where criminal justice lands on the list), it inspires...conformity.

Second, as should be obvious from that list of popular college majors, students have taken that inner journey and decided that a good salary is the most important plan for their lives.

(An aside: number three on that list, communications, concerned me at first, until I realized they are also lumping in media like web-design, advertising and even marketing into the mix. But I digress...)

But soft, what is Brooks' issue with asking our young people to aspire to greatness? Life is about limitless possibilities, and while the vast majority of us will work forty, fifty, maybe sixty years making someone else richer, what's the problem with reminding people that there are alternatives? Or reinforcing in the minds of the small minority that they should have the courage to strike out on their own?

"Ah, a man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for?"

Even if you do end up working as an office drone, a cubicle gopher, a desk jockey...and there will always be jobs for people willing to spend eternity in front of a computer screen monitoring someone else's wealth...what's wrong with applying that same advice to the rest of your life? What's wrong with running that extra mile, or painting a landscape, or collecting that stamp that you've always wanted to own? Is life our job? Is our job our life?

Brooks, being the quasifascistic little capitalist drone that he is, by his very nature has denied the existence of a morale value to life that cannot be measured in dollar terms. He hacks away at a keyboard, then presuambly goes off to cocktails and whatever pathetic little existence he squanders his precious time on planet earth with.

No one lives to work, except for those idiots who somehow believe that, with hard work and perserverance at a job, they can themselves become fabulously wealthy and make other people drone for them. To those who still believe THAT fantasy, buy lottery tickets because your odds are better. You might make a comfortable living, but you will never get that rich slowly, and you will never have a life.

Adults make compromises with life, even as they've decided that there are no compromises to be had. Ask any artist who has made it big on the back of their own work, and they will tell you of the countless friendships they've lost, the money they've forgone working in an office, the opportunities they've missed. In choice, there is always a compromise to be had. Sacrifices are made by both sides.

"Progress has never been a bargain. You have to pay for it. Sometimes I think there's a man who sits behind a counter and says, 'All right, you can have a telephone but you lose privacy and the charm of distance. Madam, you may vote but at a price. You lose the right to retreat behind the powder puff or your petticoat. Mister, you may conquer the air but the birds will lose their wonder and the clouds will smell of gasoline.' "

Brooks would rather that this small percentage of American adults, this 20% of college age Americans who actually graduate each year (scary thought, that), should be like the rest of us, as if giving them the tools to build the wings to fly their own lives as high as they want is a bad thing, that they might crash and burn. No, they should be like the vast majority of us, and hunker down for our next paycheck and live life as though we will always have a safety net under us, as pathetic as that net may be.

If the past thirty years in America have taught us anything it's that the social contract between a company and its employees is not sacred. My job can go away in the blink of an eye, through no fault of my own. So can yours. So can hers.

Now, I will say this in defense of Brooks' piece: in my experience, very few people at 20 or 25 know themselves well enough to know what they want, but here's the thing. It's not that they can't. It's that we've given them so many conflicting images and opinions about how to shape their own world that we've imposed expectations and "should haves" on the most fragile of beings. These fawns are barely standing on their hooves and we ask them to sprint and compete.
If that's so and if the contract with citizens and corporations is nulled, then perhaps counseling our graduates to caution is a bad idea. We should encourage them to exceed their expectations. We should demand that they take five years off and walk the world. (I've always had this fantasy of a draft for the Peace Corps, sorry.) We should tell them that it doesn't get any better than they have it right now, and they ought to enjoy it because most of them will fail and they will end up in the corporatocracy. But they should try first, so that when the alarm clock rings on the cold winter mornings that sees them get dressed and jump on a commuter train, bleary eyed, they can smile back on the effort and know they gave it their best shot and can move on now.

As opposed to people of Brooks' age who never even tried and now try to rationalize their failures by warning people behind them how scary the world is. I'm Brooks' age. I know of where I speak. For it is only now, as I turn the corner of my middle years and face the yawning descent that I see how much time I must make up and how little energy I have left to do it in.

Many of my readers are recent college graduates, certainly more recent than I, and are at cusps and cross-roads of their lives. I tip my hat to you, and offer this small consolation.

You can't have screwed things up that badly that you can't tear it all down and start from the beginning. It will be difficult, it will be fraught with psychic peril and yes, sometimes it might be painful, but there is no pain worse than looking back across decades and seeing yourself stagnate.

Do it. Just do it.


Actor 212 May 31, 2011 - 9:42am

Happiness per se is over-rated and downright terrible as a goal.

"There are three things a man must learn:
  Who he is.
  Where he comes from.
  Why he's here."
       - a wise old Indian


Listen to everyone, including yourself, with skepticism. Everyone has feet of clay.


Never forget you are only part of something bigger.
We are all our brothers' keeper.


Pursue what challenges you - that's how you grow.
Pursue what interests you - that turns work into play.


Retiring Mainframe maven, active curmudgeon, poet, writer.

steeleweed May 31, 2011 - 2:05pm

nt

Actor 212 June 1, 2011 - 9:06am

We knew this already.

xfrosch May 31, 2011 - 8:04pm

As my spouse and I joke when we see brewski commercials on TV, "Beer - it's not just for breakfast anymore!" Why does anybody pay attention to BoBo? He just exemplifies the uselessness of the inside the Beltway media. Ignore their touted ignorance of what's really happening.

VizierVic May 31, 2011 - 8:39pm

I know several older Democrats who think BoBo is awesomely smart and insightful and think he scores good points against liberals. And if you bring up all his bullshit they ask, where do you find all this stuff? Once you mention the internet, they make a derisive comment about blogs and that's that. The fact that this guy and Friedman and a bunch of others are given prominent positions at respected institutions like the NYT or McNeil Lehrer or NPR or whereever means a lot to older generations, and probably a lot to younger less media-literate people as well. The idea that these institutions are being or have been captured by the hard right is tinfoil hat talk to them.

maqmigh May 31, 2011 - 10:34pm

a lot to younger people? I would guess that younger people could, relatively speaking, not care less about the NYT and NPR vs. other sources of information. That is, they do still care, but not as much as those older than them and certainly not as much as the "older Democrats" you describe here.

Remember, the younger generation (say, age 15 - 30) grew up entirely in the era of hundreds of cable channels, millions of blogs, facebook, myspace, Google, news aggregators, etc. The number of avenues to acquire information has always been immense for them and, I would argue, this means that any given avenue holds less sway or respect over the entire age cohort. I do worry about the content and intelligence of the news/opinions/etc. that they acquire though, as the proliferation of cheap, quick alternatives doesn't necessarily mean an increase in quality of discourse but likely means an increase in its velocity and confusion.

Bolo May 31, 2011 - 11:33pm

For internet savvy and politically aware young people, no, the institutional value of NYT etc don't matter as much. And I doubt many young people would even read Bobo or any of the rest. Also, most young people are from poorer backgrounds than in previous generations, they are not as educated, their public schools classrooms were likely overcrowded "temporary" buildings, etc. So I probably should have been more careful not to make it seem I was lumping them together with the oldy olsens of my parent's generation

But of the younger generations are not that politically aware and are content with the mindless shallow reporting and analysis on CNN. So if they ever did read a Bobo column, I imagine they might read a paragraph or two and decide Bobo is talking over their heads, but he must be someone whose opinion matters. I think the common theme with the older folks is that most people want to believe the people in charge are competent and wise and "grown up", and people like me are just cynical doomsayers. Because it's really scary if you contemplate how clueless and wrongheaded Obama and the Dems are (to say nothing of the implacable and unspeakable freaks to their right).

maqmigh June 1, 2011 - 2:20am

I think he's a fucking idiot.

Actor 212 June 1, 2011 - 9:07am

and that will be that.

Before then, they'll no longer be relevant.

I worry much more about the vapid materialism and nihilism inculcated in the generations coming up behind. The poor little bastards are being brought up in schools with paranoid Stasi-style security, where the threat of "other" is everpresent but actual education is incidental or even overlooked. They are being taught to want and to buy and to obey, but not to make or reinvent or understand.

I hope that the thriving, branching tree of counterculture made global by the Internet is a stronger influence upon them than TV and school are, or we're all fucked.

chalo June 3, 2011 - 2:19am

"Rigorous theology helps people avoid mindless conformity."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/opinion/22brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks

“We forfeit three-fourths of ourselves in order to be like other people.” - Arthur Schopenhauer

GFunk June 1, 2011 - 10:55pm

I had to go read it for myself to be sure it was for real.

Here's another side-splitter from the same diatribe:

That’s because people are not gods. No matter how special some individuals may think they are, they don’t have the ability to understand the world on their own, establish rules of good conduct on their own, impose the highest standards of conduct on their own, or avoid the temptations of laziness on their own.

Project much? Please let's not let Mr. Brooks attain any real influence...


One owes respect to the living. To the dead, one owes only the truth.

Raja June 1, 2011 - 11:14pm

A study links life-changing religious experiences, like being born again, with atrophy in the hippocamp

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=religious-experiences-shrink-part-of-brain


feminazi extraordinare :D

Tina June 1, 2011 - 11:27pm

which some would consider religious. To me they were interesting explorations of the way the mind can work. I haven't noticed any degradation of my mental processes, but then, who am I to judge? - maybe we should ask my wife? :-D

Maybe it's a chicken/egg thing - an atrophied hippocampus predisposes one to interpret experiences as being religious. Maybe lack of stimulation (re education) leads to an atrophied & poorly-functioning brain, which forces people to let others (political/religious authoritarians) do their thinking for them. Just an theory, but it would explain a lot, wouldn't it?


Retiring Mainframe maven, active curmudgeon, poet, writer.

steeleweed June 2, 2011 - 9:01am

nt

Actor 212 June 2, 2011 - 10:39am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.