Free Market Education?

Milton Friedman became a conservative rock star by espousing the idea that every societal function could be dramatically improved by making it part of the ‘free market’.  In the religious pantheon of true-believer capitalists, Milton is right up there with Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, William Buckley, Friedrich Hayek and a few others.

One of Milton’s most famous assertions is that education needs to be privatized.  Parents should be given a ‘voucher’ for education and they should have freedom of choice.  This, in Milton’s opinion, would create a competitive industry for schools that would ensure high quality education and provide a means for low-income students to escape the poor educational environment that currently exists.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable.  Why not have schools compete for students?  Wouldn’t this result in better run schools with great results?  Wouldn’t the competition be the crucible out of which an excellent education would emerge?

But is education close enough to traditional capitalist endeavors to work in this model?  How is the success of education measured?  If schools become commodities that parents choose based on effectiveness, how will the logistics work?  Will ten first-graders in a neighborhood be going to ten different schools all over the city as the parents attempt to find the best school for their child?  How would transportation work in such a scenario?  What kind of sociological nightmare would that engender?

The first question that needs to be answered is whether schools are indeed broken today.  From a public perception perspective, it is not entirely clear what people think.  About 75% of parents are happy with their oldest child’s education, while only 50% of the general public is happy with education in general.   This is similar to the fact that only 16% of people have faith in the government yet 75% like their own representatives!!

 And in the last 5 years the partisan divide has worked its way into these polls.   Republicans are more likely to be unhappy with public education than democrats.  There is some suspicion that the Common Core plays a big role in this divide, as more conservative parents regard this as a governmental way to control and impact the culture through education.

What is clearly broken is education for the poor.   Schools in poor neighborhoods are typically dramatically different and inferior to those in middle-class or wealthy neighborhoods.  The charter school movement, a publicly funded, privately-run option, has become increasingly popular in poor neighborhoods and 50% of charter school students are either black or Hispanic.  There appears to be some success in these programs, though it is not clear that it is really helping those students who most need help.

Another option, floated more often by conservatives, hearkens back to Friedman’s ‘voucher’ concept.  In this case, a voucher is given to a certain number of applicants who can then use it to pay for private school.  Critics argue that these vouchers simply siphon money away from hard-pressed public schools and gift it to religious and other private schools to help them make ends meet.  They also skim off the best of the minority students, who are not really the disadvantaged or under-performing population in the public education system.

One does not have to be a liberal or even a cynic to believe that the current school voucher system is simply a way for middle or upper middle class parents to get their private and religious schools funded so that their own tuition bills are either reduced or eliminated.

For the sake of analysis, let us imagine two different future public education options.  One is where every family is given a voucher for education and their children can go to whatever school they choose, and all schools are privately run.  The second would also have privately run schools, but otherwise it would be similar to the current public school situation in that children would go to the schools in their neighborhoods.  There would be no vouchers – everyone would attend a for-profit, privately-run school.

In both cases the schools would have to be certified and evaluated on a regular basis.  In the first case, it seems likely that every competing school would want to minimize the attendance of weak or problem children because those children would drag down the metrics and make the school less competitive.   It would introduce two interwoven but problematic competitions – the one to maximize metrics and educational benefit, and the other to attract the best students.  The natural evolution of such a system would be for the best students to aggregate at certain schools and the poorest (and probably underprivileged) to collect at schools that are struggling.  Sound familiar?

Additionally, unless there were rules to prohibit parents from sending their children to schools outside their geographical area, a true voucher system would create havoc in terms of neighborhoods, busing, and many other aspects of family life.  Parents would very likely hop from school to school, seeking out the best program for their children.

The second scenario, where the schools are for-profit, but structured in the same way that they are now, might be an interesting experiment.  The big challenge would be to effectively measure how successful schools are.  Comparing one school to another to determine whether each privately run school should continue to get funding would be a tremendously complicated process. 

Schools would focus entirely on whatever criteria allowed them to stay in business and would cut back any expense that did not contribute to that goal, because cutting back expenses means more profit.  For all their inefficiencies, public schools and their staff have the mostly intangible, overall welfare of the child at heart.  A for-profit school would not be motivated in a similar way.

School populations that are resistant to improvement because of a variety of issues – absenteeism, lack of parental support, behavioral issues, pre-school preparation, etc. – would be unattractive targets for the for-profit corporations.  It is not hard to imagine a revolving door of companies attempting to work their magic in these low-income, traumatized neighborhoods with no more success than the public schools that preceded them.  It is not clear at all that education in these environments will ever improve substantially until the basic problems of poverty, broken homes, unemployment and drug abuse are addressed.  To believe that some clever entrepreneur is going to come up with the silver bullet is a kind of naïve fantasy.

In general, I am highly skeptical of claims that the invisible hand of the free market is the solution to such thorny issues as education and healthcare.  These are complex systems that are quite different than the basic consumer/product model that works so well in basic capitalism.  We need to accept the fact that some aspects of our society truly need to be analyzed and planned, rather than blithely consigned to the whims of the free market.

The Growth Paradox

“Whatever is not growing is dying”

Really?  This provocative statement, attributed to various famous people, is accepted by many as an axiom of life and business.  If a business is not increasing in revenue and size, then it is stagnant and on the path to eventual decline and disaster.

We expect our country to grow in economic output.  We expect our population to expand.  We expect our productivity to increase.  Europe and Japan are considered to be in jeopardy because their populations are not increasing, but rather are slowly decreasing.

Every business measures itself by growth - revenue and profit year over year.  And when a business seems to have reached a saturation stage in its current product, then it embarks upon new products or services.  Starbucks, not content to be the ubiquitous coffee shop, begins serving wine.  Uber expands into public transportation.  Amazon becomes a web services and cloud provider.

This mantra of growth may seem logical on one level.  Growth is change and we human beings seem to be addicted to change.   When things stay the same, we get bored and depressed.  We need new challenges and new vistas to inspire us.

But does change always have to equate to growth?  If one accepts that personal growth really means change then that opens up multiple avenues that do not necessarily imply something becoming larger or increasing.  One can vastly alter one’s world without being part of something that is ‘growing’.

The problem with growth is that it ultimately impinges on something or reaches some limiting point.  Growth can eventually begin to damage both the thing that is growing and its environment.  Moreover, the growth of one thing can harm or even destroy the existence of another thing.  There is certainly a balance in nature that can be damaged by growth, and there is often also a balance in the affairs of humans that can be similarly destructive.

The growth of Walmart is a good example.  Walmart brought endless availability of goods and cheap prices to communities throughout America.  But its growth destroyed the small stores that previously thrived and may have been a contributing factor in the demise of small town America.  Amazon did the same to bookstores and is now leading the Internet’s general annihilation of brick and mortar establishments.

This growth is fueled by the societal imperative to acquire more material things, i.e. to consume, and to live ever more exotic lives.  This is why the Consumer Confidence Index is one of the most important statistics of our economy.

On one level all of this growth is the ‘march of progress’.   But on another level it can be deeply disruptive and perhaps ultimately harmful to society and the world at large.

The growth in population in many countries is a major threat to survival.  The growth in energy demand is the major contributor to global warming.  The growth in disposable items (plastic bottles, bags, etc.) is accelerating the pollution of oceans, animal habitats and human living spaces.  The growth in social media is contributing to the radicalization of society.  The growth in mega-corporations is contributing to social and political turmoil.  The growth in automation is causing a loss of middle-class jobs and increasing the disparity in wealth.

Why is growth such a prized attribute?  I suppose it is somewhat natural to want to grow things, to seek expansion.  Growth is a sign of success in most ventures.  Our oldest myths and religions extoll the virtues of growth.  “And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.” (Genesis).  But like many of the long-prized assumptions of our civilization, this exhortation may have outlasted its relevance.

Is a business truly doomed to failure if it is content to stay a certain size?  Is a land necessarily in decline if its population decreases rather than increases? I suspect that the growth axiom is not nearly as axiomatic as one might imagine!

We cannot control or even really discourage the allegiance to change.  We have learned that any dictatorial or centralized planning and directives are unlikely to be successful.  But perhaps we can slowly impact the extent to which change is interpreted as growth.  On a personal level, we can certainly ‘grow’ in many ways without acquiring more or demanding more of the earth’s resources.  Learning new things, experiencing the fullness of the existing natural world, interacting with one another in innovative ways, and creating new non-material activities can slowly take the place of our acquisitive habits.

And in the business world, perhaps an investor consciousness can be cultivated that prioritizes long term sustainability and societal harmony as goals over short term profitability.

If we human beings are going to survive into the next century then our ‘growth’ will certainly have to be curtailed in some respects.  It will require changes in lifestyle, in our daily routine, and in our mindset.  But with our minds, bodies and souls freed from the need to constantly get bigger and acquire more possessions, perhaps we will find that we are actually ‘growing’ in a more sustainable and pleasant manner.

Our Racial Divide

The divisive nature of our current President and the long history of racial tension in our country have converged to create an unstable and potentially explosive atmosphere. 

Trump is a master of race-baiting and dog-whistle racial tactics.  He entered the political stage with his absurd and transparently racist support of the birther movement, questioning our first non-white President’s legitimacy.  He has continued to utter, incite and provide cover for the type of racist and xenophobic outbursts that only a few years ago would have doomed any public figure associated with them.  Somehow, under the guise of defying ‘political correctness’, Trump is able to emerge unscathed after even the most scurrilous comments.

Some of his closest associates voice their absolute confidence that Trump is not personally a racist, but this beggars belief.  And ultimately his own personal feelings are moot if he is using racial animus as a political weapon.

There is a substantial and apparently rapidly growing segment of US society that feels empowered to give full throat to racist and xenophobic tropes.  Under Trump’s watch this type of behavior has crawled out from under the rocks and crevices and spread its disease with only tepid disapproval from conservatives.  This is a shameful display of political self-interest.

But there is also a troubling chasm over race between the much larger, moderate segments of society that would characterize themselves as liberals or conservatives.  Many liberals are convinced that both institutional and individual racism are at the core of many of our current national challenges and that our racial problems have never been adequately addressed.  They believe that aggressive measures to lift the status of blacks, whether in the form of reparations or other affirmative action style policies, are the only way to reach a more positive and egalitarian status quo.

Conservatives, on the other hand, feel that the ‘race card’ is overplayed and that the woes of African-Americans and Hispanics are a mix of self-destructive cultural traits (drugs, crime, single parent families, etc.) and the historical cultivation of dependency through liberal, welfare-style programs.  They believe that reparations or other affirmative action programs will simply exacerbate the problem.

Most conservatives sincerely believe that they are not racist, that they judge people individually on their merits.  The notion of ‘implicit bias’ is viewed as a form of guilt-shaming.  They point to the rise of South Asians and other non-white immigrant groups as evidence that American economic life still rewards hard work and diligence, and that Americans will embrace and accept anyone who has ‘American’ values.

Liberals point to the enduring legacy of slavery and the ubiquitous signs of ‘white privilege’ as proof that a more dramatic effort must be made to solve the race problem.  They see under-funded schools, housing bias, excessive incarceration and a host of other indications that people of color struggle under a much more onerous burden than either whites or recent immigrants. 

The fervent call to ‘address’ the race issue resonates in liberal circles but results in conservatives rolling their eyes.  The question is:  How can any kind of meaningful progress be made on this incredibly divisive issue?

The first thing that must be done is, in my view, clear beyond any reasonable doubt.  All Americans should unequivocally condemn, and demand the eradication of, racist and xenophobic speech, including the type of ‘racist whispering’ speech that Trump and some members of congress use.  

Addressing the problem of immigration through negative stereotypes of gangs, rapists and job-stealers appeals to the worst in ourselves and is a quick path to hate speech and violence.  Soft-pedaling or rationalizing groups who promote hate speech and allowing rallies to erupt in outbursts of ‘Send Her Back’ are simply unacceptable flirtations with racist and xenophobic hysteria.  They are shameful for any political figure, but especially pathetic for the President.  The full congress needs to hold Trump accountable for such abominations.

Addressing the broader and more complex problems of people of color, including police relationships, jobs, crime, healthcare, breakdown of the family, drugs and economic progress must be done on a less emotional and more data-driven basis.  Both sides must learn to avoid the demonization that is at the heart of our current political discord.  Conservatives who don’t believe in affirmative action or reparations should not be dismissed out-of-hand as racists protecting white privilege.  Liberals who call for more aggressive policies to bridge racial divides should not be labelled naïve, welfare-state socialists. 

The issues are complex and deserve thoughtful analysis and consensus-building.  We now have capabilities to analyze such problems through big data and modeling techniques that can give us insights that were unobtainable before.  It is time to start using technology to help counter some of the hysteria and acrimony that social media has engendered.  We need to study problems such as these rather than simply spit out sound bites and platitudes.  Cooler and more compassionate heads must prevail, or we are doomed to an ever-increasing level of conflict and distrust. 

We are already seeing the rotten fruit of Trump’s cynical racist strategy in recent violence.  If we do not take measures to renounce this despicable practice and thoughtfully address the core issues, then we can only expect things to get worse, and perhaps much worse.

Who is the Patriot?

The women’s World Cup and Megan Rapinoe’s silent protest during the national anthem elicited once again indignant cries of outrage, led by the super-patriot President Bone Spurs.  Now one might ask where Trump’s patriotism was in the 60’s when his fellow countrymen were fighting in the jungles of Vietnam and he maneuvered himself out of the draft with the absurd disability of ‘bone spurs’.  But it has famously been said that ‘patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels’, and Trump is the poster child for that aphorism.

What is a patriot?  Who qualifies?  A patriot is someone who loves his or her country.  But what is a country?  A country is an abstraction – a collection of human beings who have a common interest because they are geographically co-located, have a shared government, military and economy, and may have a similar culture and language.  Why does this abstraction have such a powerful effect on so many people?

Allegiance to a country or nation is a relatively recent phenomenon – the modern nation-state has only been in existence for a few hundred years and its more fervent loyalties only since the American and French revolutions.  For most of history, peoples’ allegiances were more likely to focus on their tribe or religious group.  As empires rose and fell, they cultivated loyalty from those who sought or benefitted from power and wealth, but the masses were generally indifferent to the allure of an abstract entity like an empire that included multiple lands, peoples, religions and cultures.

As more homogeneous and well-defined nations emerged – France, England, Spain and later Germany, Italy and others – the concepts of nationalism and its attendant emotional ally, patriotism, began to inspire poets, songwriters and pamphleteers. 

The USA, initially a similarly homogeneous nation of mostly English culture and language (apart from a sizable slave and native population that was officially exempt from membership!) seemed to be uniquely endowed with patriotic ardor.   It was able to leverage the new idealistic fervor around liberty and freedom as well as traditional nationalistic themes to create a fever pitch of patriotism.  One of the first historical facts I learned as a child was the famous speech of Nathan Hale – ‘I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country!’

The passion that attends patriotism is odd.  Unlike communism, socialism, capitalism and other idealistic constructs, patriotism does not have a single unifying concept other than self-interest.  John F. Kennedy’s famous exhortation to ‘Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country’ turns the basic motivating factor of patriotism on its head.  Indeed, there are all sorts of contradictions in patriotism when one looks closely.

One could argue that patriotism is a love of our fellow citizens and a noble dedication to their well-being.  But this argument falls apart quickly when the patriot is asked to share some of his worldly goods with those same fellow citizens.  Patriotism seems to be more about the individual than the group, even though it is defined in terms of a group.  One might say that patriotism is really a love of a country that benefits that person by creating a rewarding environment. 

It seems that patriotism actually defies any rational definition.  Like all forms of tribalism, patriotism is a reflection of the need that most human beings have to identify with a group (see my blog on Tribes: https://rvgeiger.blogspot.com/2016/01/tribes.html ).  And this identification is often bound to an individual’s concept of honor - honor associated with a strict code of loyalty and unwavering devotion.  My country, right or wrong.  Love it or leave it!

But such blind devotion is clearly a contradiction and an impediment to progress.  In any practical scenario, a patriot should be seeking continuous improvement of his or her country, both for the patriot’s benefit as well as his or her fellow citizens.  Healthy and constructive criticism, of which peaceful protest is an important part, should be encouraged.  If a country is indeed ‘wrong’, then it is incumbent on its citizens to correct it.

It may feel good to embrace a mythical version of the USA and glorify it in uncritical terms, but that is not true patriotism.  The true patriot loves a country and its people enough to go through the difficult process of assessing its strengths and weaknesses and working tirelessly to make it better. 

We may not all agree on how to make it better, but honest and sincere efforts to identify areas for improvement like Megan Rapinoe’s and Colin Kaepernick’s deserve to be encouraged rather than vilified.  These are the truly courageous patriots.  The blind patriot is really no patriot at all.

The Free Press

The concept of a free press is increasingly difficult to describe or define.  Is the free press the traditional journalism of newspaper, magazine and television?  Does it expand to include online journalism, cable news, talk shows, comedy shows and other revenue-earning media that report and comment on current events?  Does it expand further to include blogs, and all social media – facebook, twitter, Instagram, snapchat - and any other form of social intercourse that allows people to freely express opinions?  If one describes the free press as anything that reports and comments on current events, then the free press is totally amorphous and impossible to define or corral in this age of the Internet.

In days of yore, the growth and reach of the free press was limited by the requirement that enough resources be available to print and distribute its output or that it had access to radio or television airtime.  This made for a more reasonable number of outlets so that one could generally be aware of the alternatives and make educated choices about what to read, listen to or watch. 

In this smaller universe of media there was a concept of journalistic integrity that, though certainly not perfect, inspired most journalists to report events responsibly and try to separate fact from opinion.  This line between fact and opinion is always blurry, and journalism has always been challenged in its reporting.

 

The power of the free press has been extraordinary and growing ever since the creation of the printing press. Its influence has helped launch wars, promote various charitable or philanthropic causes, alert people to dangers, epidemics or natural disasters, and create or destroy the careers of politicians, military leaders and entertainers of all types.  Every revolution that has occurred in the past three hundred years has been reliant on the press to rally people around its cause.

As revenue-earning enterprises, much of the free press necessarily emphasized entertainment over education, which tended to create sensationalism. The yellow journalism of the Hearst and Pulitzer eras are prime examples, but there is always a temptation in media to create dramatic effect. The public is fickle and easily bored or distracted.   Other challenges were imposed by the owners of these profit-making businesses, who often had strong opinions and influenced the tone and even the substance of their papers or programs.

The advent of the Internet and social media has partially destroyed the old model of the free press and put in its place a wild west of infinite and uncontrollable sources.  Many citizens are seduced by media that echo their own opinions and may read endlessly through unsubstantiated nonsense and never know what is truth and what is fiction.

In a world where powerful forces control much of society and where wealth and influence are concentrated in an ever-smaller group of business tycoons and politicians, the free press is in theory an independent bastion of free thought and a spotlight on the actions of those in control – in effect, the classic fourth estate after our executive, legislative and judicial branches (and of course now the business elite should also be recognized as equally or more powerful than those governmental branches!).  The free press should be the voice of the common man, the conscience of society, the honest marketplace of ideas and issues.

There has often been a perception in conservative circles that the free press is blatantly liberal in its reporting.  It is true that journalists have often felt a kinship to the working person and the powerless.  Indeed, many journalists go into the profession with a crusading spirit, embracing their role as a voice for those who have neither wealth nor power.  But I believe the great majority of true journalists embrace the ethical responsibility they have to report factually and to verify their contacts and sources.  If they are guilty of being liberal in their reporting, then it is only in the lens they use to interpret the facts they are reporting. 

This bias can, of course, be significant, but I am not troubled by it.  I see it as a much-needed counterweight to the overwhelming influence that the wealthy, the corporations, the military and other powerbrokers in our society wield.  These powerful forces are by and large conservative, as dictated by their own self-interest.  They may protest indignantly at the ‘liberal bias’ of the media, but the irony is that the balancing effect of the media is probably all that has stood between them and violent revolution for these many years of our republic.

Now, with some clever machinations of the conservative power elite – the Murdoch empire being a prime example - and the unleashing of dark, reactionary social media, the free press is a shadow of its former self.  Chaos prevails in our media, and there appears to be no means to rein it in.

When a balanced system is disturbed or broken, then the resultant behavior is unpredictable and possibly catastrophic.  With the free press now increasingly overshadowed by fabrications, distortions and hate speech from unknown and unchecked sources that are not held responsible for their content, it may be that the future looks rather bleak.

On Trump, False Equivalencies and Faustian Bargains

People who support Trump seem to be in two camps – (1) those that give him full-throated support and defend him on all levels and (2) those that like his policies but are uncomfortable with his personality and behavior in varying degrees.

Both groups engage to some extent in defending Trump based on the premise that his antics and character flaws are not significantly different than those of other politicians from both parties – the notion of ‘equivalency’.  For example, his sexual predation is seen as equivalent to Bill Clinton’s or JFK’s.  His lying is seen as a typical characteristic of politicians and is compared to the perceived lies of Hillary Clinton and even Barack Obama.

I believe these are false equivalencies and that a careful evaluation of the number and nature of Trump’s lies and sexual predations puts him in a different and much more troubling category than other politicians or public figures.

Some of his most alarming character traits are unique to Trump and it is difficult to argue that equivalent or even similar traits exist in other politicians.  His incessant, almost comic bragging is one of these.  What kind of person does this?  Confidence is often seen as an American attribute, but I have never heard a public figure boast with such a complete lack of humility and in such juvenile language.  There can be no doubt that Trump’s constant crowing about his accomplishments is an indication of a deep and pathological insecurity or some other disconcerting psychological disorder.

A second trait that is similarly disturbing is his confrontational, thin-skinned style of interacting with political adversaries.  It is clear that Trump has brought a level of incivility to the political life of this nation that is deeply corrosive.  The mirror reflection of this bellicose posture to his adversaries is the sycophantic, servile pandering that he requires and receives from his underlings and supporters.  One asks again, what kind of person is this who feels compelled to lash out so viciously at every perceived slight or criticism?

A third characteristic that is perhaps the most chilling is Trump’s willingness to tap and even inflame the worst prejudices in American society – racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, religious fundamentalism – and enlist these dark forces in support of his agenda.  Is it not almost incomprehensible that the man who popularized and weaponized the ‘Birther’ movement, a transparently racist effort to de-legitimize Barack Obama's presidency, is now the President of the United States?!

The group of Trump supporters that support his policies but voice some misgivings about his style bemoan these more egregious examples of his character flaws but are willing to overlook them or to rationalize them as necessary evils on the road to more productive policies that they believe he has initiated.  They theorize that liberals would be similarly willing to overlook personality aberrations in their leaders if liberal policies would result.

It is true that partisanship is a very powerful drug and can easily blind one.  But I would argue that Trump’s behavior is so far beyond the pale that to brush it aside as inconsequential or manageable is a very dangerous and reckless act – the very essence of a Faustian bargain.  We are trading unknown but potentially catastrophic future consequences – diplomatic crises, trade war effects, civil unrest, general degradation of the political process – for short term policy results.

I know that many Trump supporters of the first group believe that our society is locked in an apocalyptic battle of the Godless versus the God-fearing, the moral versus the immoral, the capitalists versus the socialists, the grateful patriots versus the ungrateful America-haters.  They see Trump as an epic figure that is finally speaking the truth and willing to play hard ball if necessary to save the nation.

This is a sad and thankfully small percentage of America, but it has an outsized influence because of its kingmaker political clout and its zealous and energetic advocacy.  They will do everything possible to ensure that Trump remains in office.  If the good citizens and better Angels in our society do not recognize the nature of the Faustian bargain that we have struck then these hard-liners will have their way and will push us ever closer to the brink of their apocalyptic fantasies.

The Dangerous Allure of the Self-Help Genre

I love reading.  But as I age I find fewer works of fiction that capture my imagination.  I’m not sure why, but I find many of the characters in books one-dimensional and more caricature than character.  And the plots often seem contrived and wearily predictable to me.  Perhaps it is because I have read so many stories over the course of my life and am a bit jaded.  But I can tell pretty quickly whether a book of fiction is going to appeal to me and there are still many that do.

I read a lot of non-fiction, mostly history, science, and other observations of human civilization.  I have enjoyed some of the big picture, trans-discipline books like Guns, Germs and Steel, and Sapiens, though I understand their limitations in terms of accuracy and rigor.  It is very tempting to generalize and draw over-arching conclusions about trends in humankind. 

Even if these constructs are not totally accurate I believe they are instructive and help organize one’s thoughts.  One should never to be too certain about anything.  I believe the ability to accept and live with ambiguity is one of the most important attributes a person can have.

The one area of published works that I assiduously avoid is the self-help genre.  There is something about the shocking presumption of people telling other people how to live their lives that totally alienates me.  I find the great majority of these highly suspect, self-congratulatory tomes to be completely worthless (though admittedly I only briefly skim their contents on occasion).

Human beings are needy creatures and who among us is not beset by various problems or challenges that he or she would like to address?  And thus, we are easy prey for the slick merchandising of the self-help guru, the author who knows just how we feel and is ready to offer his years of experience to rescue us from our sorry state.   

Overweight?  Buy the latest diet fad book!  Want to be wealthier?  Read this book about playing the stock market or investing in real estate!  Stuck in a job you hate?  Grab this book about successful people and their character traits!  Can’t find a mate?   Learn how to be more attractive and desirable in 200 pages!

We are easily seduced by the quick fix, the clever advice from somebody who seems to have it all and is now sharing the secret with less fortunate or astute souls.  No doubt these authors believe they are somehow contributing to society, doing their part for the good of mankind.  And of course, they love to see their names in print and the royalty checks rolling in.

I am suspicious of anyone who really believes they can dispense wisdom or advise others about how to live.  I am ready and willing to listen to a friend’s problems and talk through options, but I would never be so arrogant as to promote my own life experiences and opinions as something that others should mimic.

Every life is a unique journey.  There is no roadmap for happiness, success, love or friendship.  No secret formula for fulfillment.  Those who say they know the answers are charlatans.  Each of us must seek out the information we need to understand ourselves and our desires.  And then we must put into practice those things that will hopefully lead to us being our best and happiest selves.  

But I highly doubt that this will occur through imbibing the much-vaunted elixir of self-help potions or the embrace of other people’s hubris.  It is self-discovery that we seek and that will lead us home, not constructing our life as a disciple of someone else’s fantasy.