David Brooks' Anxiety

I can always count on the NYTimes columnist to come up with something provactive, and yesterday's piece was no exception. He was worried that American culture is moving toward the kind of "individualism" that reduces the sense of one's obligation to society - in this case its "institutions" - in favor of personal satisfaction. He cited a report from a Harvard faculty committee as evidence of this shift. The report advocated the value of challenging pre-existing "arrangements" from the institutions of society because they stand in the way of one's personal fulfillment.

Brooks feels that the primary commitment towards personal satisfaction, or, in other words, defining yourself by what you ask of life, is inferior to the life defined by what life asks of you. He mentions Hugh Heclo, a political scientist who promotes one's personal commitment to the values of institutions, such as the family, the school or community, as being the true source of America's strength.

Putting aside the question of which of these alleged opposites is better, the more intriguing question is why he thinks institutionalized thinking is losing ground. He mentions a recent decline in faith in society's institutions, not only in this country but worldwide. A cynicism has taken over that rests on the revelation of fraud and corruption by the power elites, and this undermines one's trust in established codes of conduct.

But even if this were true, where is the evidence that Americans are seeking refuge in a more individualistic philosophy? It is just as likely that the various institutions are in upheaval, and that this forebodes a conflict within the power hierarchies. When it's settled, we may find that Americans are continuing to find their identities in group affiliation, but that the institutions have been rearranged. This is a far cry from redefining oneself according to a personal code of values, as in a truly individualistic philosophy. Such movements have been around for decades - such as Ayn Rand's libertarianism, the Beatniks' revolt in the fifties, even the "do your own thing" gurus of the sixties - but they never for a moment challenged the dominance of mainstream American culture.

Finally, I must add that Brooks' use of the Harvard report as evidence of the "new individualism" is risible. The report sounds just like the blather that's come out of faculty committees everywhere for a hundred years. I don't think he can find a single Harvard student who pays any attention to it. The student is too busy hustling his or her Harvard degree for all it's worth in the career marketplace. Getting the best price for it demands institutionalized thinking of an Olympian discipline and dazzling nuance, and I see no signs that America has lost its appetite for its rewards.

Watching TV News is S-O-O-O Last Century

Tonight I turned on the news, but I turned off the set almost immediately. It was ABC evening news - but that's not important. What's important is that they'd just finished a story about Bill Richardson, who'd been nominated as Commerce Secretary, and the screen only read: "He's out!"

I wanted to know more, but they'd already moved on to the next story. There was a crawl on the bottom of the screen, but it was on yet another story. I turned to CNN, then MSNBC, but they didn't have the Richardson story either. It was frustrating. It seems that six P.M. is standardized time for TV news, and this was the lead story. I would have to keep flipping to other news programs, or else wait for CNN headline news to start the loop again.

But I went a different route, one that was not available before. I went online to CNN and the full story was waiting for me. I learned that Richardson pulled out because there's a federal grand jury investigating his campaign finances. An indictment was possible. No doubt he was pressured to withdraw so as not to taint Obama's new cabinet.

I don't know if I'll ever catch up to the pace of the internet today, but I have learned that the old ways are disappearing fast. I'm a baby boomer. Most internet users today are way ahead of me. They're not dragging the old media, like TV anchored news programs, behind them like iron chains. I'm used to the time when you sat on the couch and watched the news drip, drip, drip out of the anchor's lips. If you missed part of a story, too bad. You'll catch it on the next news show. But you'd probably have forgotten it by then.

This internet generation may never have that experience. You can find the latest news in seconds from any number of sites. No waiting period. The news is already there, and it's waiting for you.

So what's the next step? Will our computers start to think? Will they become frustrated that we're too slow for them? Maybe my next one will haul my body in front of the screen and hold me hostage until it's finished telling me the news.

I think we're headed in that direction.