We are living through a teachable moment courtesy of President Bush and President Obama. Through political correctness, America has lost its ability to lose. If ever there was a time to learn anew the importance of losing, it is now. It is only through losing that we learn to win. Nothing motivates the desire to win than a good shellacking. Losing causes us to work harder and work smarter. Losing teaches us how to correct what we have done wrong.
In this age of bailout, and “too big to fail” politics, one wonders how we got to this point? It is not the function of government to determine winners and losers. It is the function of government to provide the rules under which the game is played, and to provide for an orderly exit for the loser. Government is not the mommy and daddy telling their children to start the game over in hopes of a different result.
But why should we be surprised when that is exactly what we have been teaching our children in our schools these past twenty years. Teachers can’t fail anybody because it will hurt the student’s self esteem. Children are prohibited from keeping score in intramural athletic events because “they all should be winners.” Communal thinking has permeated our education system, and it is getting worse instead of better.
Rather than teach children that there are no winners and losers, wouldn’t it be better to teach our kids that in life, there are winners and losers. More importantly teach these kids how to win and how to lose. There is no shame in losing. There is only shame in not trying.
This is important to society on a number of different levels. Allowing winners to succeed provides for efficiency in our economic system, and allows the best and the brightest to rise to the top. From winning on the sports field to winning in business, within reason, is the driver behind our economy from which our entire society benefits. You can’t do all of those social programs without someone making the money to pay for them.
But teaching kids to lose is even more important to our society. It teaches kids perseverance. It also helps to steer kids back into the right direction. For example, if a kid does not do well in football, you don’t keep beating him over the head to do well in football. Maybe he/she belongs in baseball, or golf, or choir, or music. One will naturally gravitate to where one does well and succeeds.
It does no one good to be allowed to coast. Why should I work for an A when I know teacher will give me a C if I do nothing? Why should I work to overcome whatever deficiency is in my background when doing nothing will provide the same result? That attitude translates into real life, and society is producing more and more people who enter adulthood with a sense of entitlement. We can only afford so many of those folks.
That doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t provide a safety net. But the definition of the safety net needs to be radically revised. A safety net does not mean the government should be providing breakfast, lunch and dinner to the offspring of irresponsible parents. A safety net does not mean that the government should be paying for clothing and shelter for people when their money is being spent on cell phones and electronic gadgetry. That isn’t a safety net. That is a lifestyle.
Likewise, the government should not reward companies who have acted badly with massive amounts bailouts. It should, instead, be rewarding those companies that acted prudently.
The gravity of America’s financial crisis in September, 2008, was obvious. But do you really think that AIG or Citigroup will change their ways? Yes, they are paying the government back. But I will guarantee you their company culture and method of operations will not change. It is even worse with GM and Chrysler. We, as a society, need to learn what happened here and the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the response. No company should be too big to fail. Those companies should have been broken up or allowed to sink.
America needs to change its culture. From pre-school to Wall Street board rooms, the motivation to win and the importance of losing should be re-introduced into our approach to life. If things keep going the way they are now, we will be increasingly called on to continue to morph our social safety net into a society of social entitlements that is unsustainable.
In this age of bailout, and “too big to fail” politics, one wonders how we got to this point? It is not the function of government to determine winners and losers. It is the function of government to provide the rules under which the game is played, and to provide for an orderly exit for the loser. Government is not the mommy and daddy telling their children to start the game over in hopes of a different result.
But why should we be surprised when that is exactly what we have been teaching our children in our schools these past twenty years. Teachers can’t fail anybody because it will hurt the student’s self esteem. Children are prohibited from keeping score in intramural athletic events because “they all should be winners.” Communal thinking has permeated our education system, and it is getting worse instead of better.
Rather than teach children that there are no winners and losers, wouldn’t it be better to teach our kids that in life, there are winners and losers. More importantly teach these kids how to win and how to lose. There is no shame in losing. There is only shame in not trying.
This is important to society on a number of different levels. Allowing winners to succeed provides for efficiency in our economic system, and allows the best and the brightest to rise to the top. From winning on the sports field to winning in business, within reason, is the driver behind our economy from which our entire society benefits. You can’t do all of those social programs without someone making the money to pay for them.
But teaching kids to lose is even more important to our society. It teaches kids perseverance. It also helps to steer kids back into the right direction. For example, if a kid does not do well in football, you don’t keep beating him over the head to do well in football. Maybe he/she belongs in baseball, or golf, or choir, or music. One will naturally gravitate to where one does well and succeeds.
It does no one good to be allowed to coast. Why should I work for an A when I know teacher will give me a C if I do nothing? Why should I work to overcome whatever deficiency is in my background when doing nothing will provide the same result? That attitude translates into real life, and society is producing more and more people who enter adulthood with a sense of entitlement. We can only afford so many of those folks.
That doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t provide a safety net. But the definition of the safety net needs to be radically revised. A safety net does not mean the government should be providing breakfast, lunch and dinner to the offspring of irresponsible parents. A safety net does not mean that the government should be paying for clothing and shelter for people when their money is being spent on cell phones and electronic gadgetry. That isn’t a safety net. That is a lifestyle.
Likewise, the government should not reward companies who have acted badly with massive amounts bailouts. It should, instead, be rewarding those companies that acted prudently.
The gravity of America’s financial crisis in September, 2008, was obvious. But do you really think that AIG or Citigroup will change their ways? Yes, they are paying the government back. But I will guarantee you their company culture and method of operations will not change. It is even worse with GM and Chrysler. We, as a society, need to learn what happened here and the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the response. No company should be too big to fail. Those companies should have been broken up or allowed to sink.
America needs to change its culture. From pre-school to Wall Street board rooms, the motivation to win and the importance of losing should be re-introduced into our approach to life. If things keep going the way they are now, we will be increasingly called on to continue to morph our social safety net into a society of social entitlements that is unsustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment