Wednesday, April 25, 2012

The Secret To Big Love's Success Is...?

The Dumbos will run a complete a$$hole in 2012. Lots of luck, Dumbos/Teabaggers! Bottom line: Big Love is a Dork, Big Mama is a Dorkess, and the 5 offspring (Tagg, Ben, Matt, Craig, and Josh Romney) are Dorkettes. Plus, they all wear magical underwear. Michael Kinsley has been absent from this blog too long. If this is (fair & balanced) obloquy, so be it.

[x Bloomberg View]
Mitt Romney’s Failed Definition of Success
By Michael Kinsley

Tag Cloud of the following article

created at
(Click to embiggen)

“I am being sunk by a society that demands success when all I can offer is failure,” says the ruined theater impresario Max Bialystock in Mel Brooks’s “The Producers.”

Mitt Romney sees things differently: He is offering success to a society that seems to actually prefer failure. “If people think there’s something wrong with being successful in America, then they’d better vote for the other guy,” he says. “Because I’ve been extraordinarily successful, and I want to use that success and that know-how to help the American people.”

Among the secrets of success that Romney might wish to share is how you arrange to be born to a rich family. Or, to be less vulgar, an intact and loving family that valued education. Or, for that matter, to be born smart. The neocon controversialist Charles Murray writes books arguing that the second and third factors (family and innate intelligence) are more important than the first (money). You can argue about this all day, but in Romney’s case it doesn’t matter because he had all three factors hard at work, paving his way to success.

Is he even aware of it? Maybe Romney’s not so smart, because he goes on and on about how successful he is in a way that strikes people as obnoxious. “I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success.”

Is there a “resentment of success” in this country? I don’t sense it. Certainly you do not need to resent success in order to believe that successful people are, for the most part, adequately rewarded for their success.

Rewarding Success

Sure. Lovely. Let’s reward success. But the Republicans seem to think that success is self-defining. Anyone who has done well or was born well deserves what he or she has got, and maybe more, because these are society’s “job creators.” Let’s add up just a few of the ways in which this is not necessarily true.

Maybe your success is due to something you got from your parents. This could be money, or good manners. It could even be a quality like determination. Evolutionary psychology is teaching us that huge chunks of personal characteristics, good and bad, derive from our genes. The full implications of this have not sunk in, but one of them surely is that “rewarding success” is more futile and more difficult than previously thought.

Maybe your success is due to something you got from the government, like a broadcast license, or a new freeway through your property, or a special tax break. Maybe it’s due to an education you received at a public university, or financed through federal student loans. Maybe it’s just because you’re an American. The average baker in the U.S. earns more than twice what a baker earns in Poland and five times what a baker earns in China (and I imagine the bread and the working conditions are better, too). What’s true for bakers is true for bankers: operating in a rich country is more lucrative than operating in a poor one. This is for reasons having nothing to do with admirable personal characteristics.

And let’s not forget simple luck. All the factors discussed above boil down to good luck — whom you’re born to, and where, and so on. But the residual, unexplained differences in how people succeed or don’t are also mostly luck.

A society that rewards success is good for the successful, and no doubt good for society as a whole. Romney is right about that. But not everyone can be successful. How many people did Romney have to elbow out of his way on the path to success?

“It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.” That’s Gore Vidal, and it’s unnecessarily vicious. The pleasure of success shouldn’t depend on the prospect of others failing, but the reality of success usually does.

But failures are people, too! If success is mostly luck, then so is failure. When a government policy rewards success in a way that actually does lift all of society, that’s fine. But the policies advocated by Republicans, including Romney — primarily lower taxes on the higher brackets — would only make success more successful. They would do nothing to distinguish success for the few from success that really does benefit us all.

“I’m not ashamed to say I was successful,” Romney says. No one is asking him to be ashamed of his success. What he should be ashamed of is his complacency. It seems absurd to say so, but maybe it will take losing the presidency to teach him a little humility. If he wins, he’ll be really insufferable. Ω

[Michael Kinsley is an editor and columnist at Bloomberg View. His column appears on Fridays. For many years he was the editor of the New Republic and a columnist for the Washington Post. He was the founding Editor of Slate. He also served as Editor of Harper's, as the editorial and opinion Editor of the Los Angeles Times, and as the American editor of The Economist. He has written regular columns for Time Magazine, The Wall Street Journal and the Times of London. His writing has appeared in the New Yorker, Readers Digest, the Daily Beast, Conde Nast Traveler and other publications. For six years he was co-host of the CNN program "Crossfire," appearing five nights a week opposite Pat Buchanan, John Sununu and Robert Novak. He also was William F. Buckley's regular interlocutor on Firing Line and a moderator of the Firing Line debates. Kinsley graduated from Harvard, went to Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship, and came back to study at Harvard Law. While in his third year of law school, Kinsley began working at The New Republic and finished his Juris Doctor degree in the evening program at The George Washington University Law School.]

Copyright © 2012 Bloomberg

Get the Google Reader at no cost from Google. Click on this link to go on a tour of the Google Reader. If you read a lot of blogs, load Reader with your regular sites, then check them all on one page. The Reader's share function lets you publicize your favorite posts.

Creative Commons License
Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves by Neil Sapper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Based on a work at Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.

Copyright © 2012 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

No comments:

Post a Comment

☛ STOP!!! Read the following BEFORE posting a Comment!

Include your e-mail address with your comment or your comment will be deleted by default. Your e-mail address will be DELETED before the comment is posted to this blog. Comments to entries in this blog are moderated by the blogger. Violators of this rule can KMA (Kiss My A-Double-Crooked-Letter) as this blogger's late maternal grandmother would say. No e-mail address (to be verified AND then deleted by the blogger) within the comment, no posting. That is the (fair & balanced) rule for comments to this blog.