Look Around, Set a Goal, and Get There.

I’ve been thinking about optimism a lot lately. Reading about the Kennedys will do that to you.

I’ve also been thinking about lack of optimism a lot lately. Dealing with apathetic and disheartened co-workers will do that to you.

I took a very informal poll last week in which I asked people to name a famous speech and the most important trait in a president. Interestingly, no two answers were alike for the presidential trait question (character, empathy, courage, wisdom…) but everyone polled listed the Gettysburg Address – a speech that ironically includes the phrase “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.”  It’s a very short speech, and somber and measured. A eulogy.

Some people gave me two answers, and the runner-up was Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream.”  It’s a very long speech, and stirring and rabble-rousy. A sermon.

So what makes these speeches so great and memorable? What do they have in common? Forward spin. A concrete goal. Certainty of achieving that goal. Optimism.

When I pointed this out to a couple people, the thoughtful and considered response was, and I quote: Duh.

Their point being, nobody wants a speech that is all about failure or pessimism. Nobody likes a speech that details the many steps required to achieve the goal in question. Nobody wants a speech that says “Hey, the foreseeable future is really gonna suck, but it might be worth it in the end.”  They want a trip to the mountaintop, a better angel of their nature, an end to the twilight struggle.

(At this point, I am tempted to veer into a discussion of why Paul McCartney’s songs tend to make you feel better than John Lennon’s and why kids, who are more tuned in to vibe than us old folks, respond more to “Hope of Deliverance” than they do to “Imagine,” but I’ll save that for some other day.)

A long time ago, I helped a friend of mine learn to ski.  He said my advice was much better than his instructor's, which I found funny because skiing for me has always been second nature. My advice: Don't watch your feet, look out at the landscape. Train your vision on where you want to go, aim your body in that direction, and make a complete commitment to getting there.

Well, that's skiing. But that's also optimism.

I read an interview with James Piereson this week where he suggests “It might be said that Ronald Reagan picked up the torch of national optimism that was dropped by the liberals when Kennedy was killed.” A close friend agrees with this, and likes to say the difference in political parties is where the “but” clause applies. For Democrats these days, it is “America has this problem, and that problem, and everybody hates us, but it’s a great country.”  For the GOP, it is “America is a great country, but there are problems and we can always be better about reaching out to others.”

I think he might be right about the current state of the parties, though I’m sure many would disagree. I do find it interesting that the Kennedys espoused the “shining city on a hill” view and were labeled idealists, optimists, all sort of positive-connotation labels for men who were going to reinvigorate America. Ronald Reagan eventually came to be connected with these labels, but he pretty much had to die for it to happen. When he was actually espousing the idea, he was called hokey, cornball, lame, old-fashioned. 

And then we had Bill Clinton, who came from a town called Hope, and was young and energetic and going to reinvigorate America.  And he did, to an extent. Maybe if he hadn’t fumbled that second term. (Maybe if he had been shot in his first term and died a martyr? No, I probably shouldn’t go there.)

So obviously, it’s not enough to have a really great speech. That speech needs to be delivered by a charismatic leader, one who believes in what he’s selling, or at least has his audience believing that he believes.  I think it’s safe to say that with people like Kennedy and Reagan, they really believed in what they said.  The difference being, people went for the Kennedy thing. Youth, vigor, energy, I guess it was like watching a schoolroom full of high-achiever kids working hard and having fun at it. When Reagan did it, people still believed in the sentiment, but hearing it from him was more akin to seeing your granny decked out in red-white-and-blue sequins on July Fourth. It was sweet and heartfelt and made you smile, but at the same time it was vaguely disquieting and a little embarrassing.

Still, I think Kennedy and Reagan were both earnest in their approach. Clinton, I’m not as sure. Political calculation plays a much bigger role in campaigns these days, and telling people what they want to hear is more important now than it used to be. Like Jean Giraudoux said, “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made.”

And now we have George Bush, who once had a record high of 90 percent approval and now sits at a record low 26 percent approval according to Newsweek, involved in an unpopular war that people are equating to Vietnam. I guess you could say that, if you equate the War on Terror to the Cold War. Personally, I’m not sure drawing parallels between these wars is a fair comparison, but I will say that popular reaction is trending along the same lines.  Weariness, cynicism, I suppose you could say disillusionment – though I will unsympathetically say that anyone who really believed we’d be in and out of Iraq in a pat little two-year program and the War on Terror would be all sewn up before the 2008 election was pretty much deceiving themselves, not being preyed upon by outside influences.

Optimism, it would seem, is a pretty fragile thing. It doesn’t do well against apathy, anxiety, uncertainty, or endless days of doing the hard thing, even when the hard thing is the right thing.

(For an amusing diversion, go Google “enemy of optimism.” Go ahead. I’ll wait. Apparently optimism has many enemies.)

It is difficult to keep a positive vision in your heart when all you hear is bad news day in and day out. It is difficult to believe the best of people when all you see are the hundred tiny things they do that seem to point up how little they care.  This is true of presidents who seem disconnected from their constituency, regardless of what they are or are not doing in terms of actual war progress. It is true of business executives who seem oblivious to morale problems in a company, regardless of how what they are or are not doing in terms of improving work conditions. It is true of people who can have Christmas, their birthday, wedding and Halloween all rolled into one and still complain the ice cream didn’t have the good kind of sprinkles. 

Where, then, do we derive optismism? Traditionally, optimism comes with clean slates. Fresh starts. Sea changes.  New leadership. And yet Bush, with his 26 percent approval rating, is still one point above the Democratic Congress that only came to power in November.  So we aren’t going to find it there.

I would submit the reason for this is that, unlike the two speeches noted above, there isn’t any clear direction, either from the current leadership or from its detractors.  What is the plan for Iraq? What are we doing there? Are we being kept abreast of clear signs of progress, or are we being shielded from lack of same? Do you know? I don’t. What separates the optimists from the others in this case is faith – faith that even though we don’t know what’s happening, we are pretty sure the People Responsible for Doing Stuff are, in fact, paying attention and getting things done, in Washington, in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, in Dubuque. 

On the other side of the coin, there isn’t any clear direction or strong voice of opposition.  You hear plenty of critics saying, “Oh, what we’re doing is wrong. The war is wrong. The approach is wrong. The U.S. is wrong.”  What you don’t hear is the obvious second sentence: “And here is what we should be doing to fix it.”  The optimistic take on this side is that things will get better when we have a change of leadership -- and no matter what, there will be new leadership in 2008, even if it's another Republican.

But traditionally, shifting position requires a foundation of action and direction. “Anything would be better” might be an effective campaign slogan, but it’s a sucktacular strategy.  “Bring the troops home” is a concrete idea, but does it really take into account the resulting instability in Iraq, the escalation of action in Iran, the commitments we have made to other parties in the region? I submit it does not.  There is no RFK “face of the alternative” in our current scenario. (I mean, I guess you could say Kucinich is the opposition ringleader, but please. Let's talk rational alternatives.) There is no clear leader who has submitted to the American people their long-range vision resulting from extensive consideration of the future. Maybe it’s too early in the campaign cycle. Maybe the alternative candidate is out there and I just don’t see them yet.  But I don’t think so.

So maybe this time we need to look to a more local solution. Federal issues, state issues, local issues – individuals can make a difference at all these levels, but maybe that’s too much to ask. Maybe the place to start is even more fundamental. Maybe we need to start with ourselves. Wake up in the morning and get excited about your day. Lead by example, and get your spouses, kids, pets excited about their day.  Don’t be the guy at the water cooler bitching about TPS reports, be the guy who understands why the TPS reports are important, or be the guy who gets the TPS reports revamped for better efficiency. At the very least, be the guy who gets the TPS reports out of the damn way so he can blow off work early and go fishing.

Is that really the answer? I don’t know. I think it is for me. I suppose it sounds all rah-rah Kelly "I Choose Me" Taylorish, but I think it’s time for me to stop being part of the sighing, eye-rolling problem, to stop being one of the good men who remain silent, and to start trying harder to embody the ideals I hold most dear – to bring energy to what I do and diplomacy to what I say. To smile when people approach me on the street instead of instantly being annoyed that I am being hit up for spare change. (Of course, another ideal I hold dear is the idea that every human life should be a useful one, so I will doubtless still make that person earn his buck-twenty-five one way or anther.) To rally those around me to sharing a positive attitude and caring about performance, even if they feel like they are the only ones who do, and to make sure they know that at least I am appreciative and cognizant of when their efforts are valiant. To make sure NYAB knows I am watching in wonder and admiration when he slogs through a 15-hour day and still comes home and sings cheesy songs while he cooks dinner. To make sure the Young Prince grows up to view his life, his citizenship, his contributions as paramount.

“And all that fighting for freedom, defending democracy, shining stuff ... which as you know, I really buy.” I don't know if Whit Stillman really did, but I guess I do.

Comments

[lane]

And I'll say it again. Duh! ;)

That blog was worth the wait.

[nabbalicious]

Hahaha, you're an enemy of optimism. I love it. New tagline!