FOR MANY OF US, MEDIOCRITY BEATS PERFECTIONISM

 

I have decided in my post-retirement years that I will be more than satisfied with living a life of meaningful mediocrity. Moreover, l will kick to the curb any thoughts of achieving perfection in any of my pursuits.

While I have the time and better resources to seek a more perfect existence, where nothing is out of place and projects are improved until flawless, I now choose the opposite. My attitude will be “it’s ok” if my office is untidy, weeds are taking over the front yard, painting the porch comes out uneven, or my commentaries are not of a quality to win journalism awards. I will try to fill my days with messy, unpolished contentment not perfectionist anxiety and self-doubt.

The noun mediocrity means “the quality of being average or ordinary.” Perfectionism is a personality characteristic, which is defined as “striving for flawlessness and setting exceedingly high standards for performance, accompanied by tendencies for overly critical evaluations.”

 A review of the offerings in the self-help section of any bookstore will find dozens of titles discussing mediocrity, perfectionism and similar character traits. The business books tend to stress the importance of focused ambition and high achievement. The psychology books lean the other way, emphasizing the value of being content with an average, mundane existence.

For years, many health care professionals thought that striving for flawlessness and critical self-evaluation, the hallmarks of perfectionism, could yield positive results. Recently, this thinking has changed. A current edition of New Yorker magazine features journalist Leslie Jamison reviewing the contemporary thinking on the subject.  In The Pain of Perfectionism Jamison relies heavily on the career and published works of Gordon Flett, a psychology professor from York University who specializes in understanding perfectionism and its pitfalls.

The article begins with a personal anecdote related by Flett to Jamison that explains how sneaky perfectionism can be. The professor was convinced that one of his two daughters exhibited the hallmarks of a perfectionist, and he developed a questionnaire to identify the trait in children. The child tested normal. Years later when there was no question that his daughter was a perfectionist, she explained to her father that she had internalized the message that perfectionism was to be avoided.  She then decided to relate the “perfect” answers that any ordinary child would give.

Early in his career, Flett found it difficult to find support for the proposition that perfectionism was a source of suffering. However, as his research progressed, his testing and treatment of patients revealed it was anything but positive. Flett now believes that “Perfectionism can be personally terrorizing for people, a debilitating state. It’s driven not by aspiration but by fear, and by the conviction that perfectionism is the only way of being secure and safe in the world.”

Flett has an extensive collection of autobiographies of famous people who have battled perfectionism. High achievers in sports, music, and the arts are well represented. They include golfer Ben Hogan and tennis star Andre Agassi. (He wanted to hit a winner on every shot.) In music, Bruce Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Lang Lang, and Brian Wilson are prime examples. In each case, the memoirs reflect how the condition has adversely affected their lives. Flett points out that recent films like “Black Swan” and “Phantom Thread” have “interrogated the downside of perfectionism while bestowing on it a fatal glamour.”

What has the research found that distinguishes perfectionism from a mere attempt to do your best? First, reaching a goal is never enough, whether it is a top grade, a target weight, or a professional milestone. Second, achievement doesn’t cure the feeling of being unacceptable. Third, perfectionism perpetuates an endless circle of striving, where getting better gives no satisfaction.

Flett and his collaborator, Paul Hewitt have been credited with developing a framework and vocabulary for discussing and understanding perfectionism.  It provides therapists with a means to explain anorexic patients and their “relentless self-destructive drive.”

After adjusting for other variables like depression, perfectionism is now considered a powerful predictor of suicide. Unfortunately, Flett and Hewitt have found that, “Perfectionists may construe an unsuccessful suicide attempt as the ultimate failure.”

While perfectionism continues to receive bad reviews from the psychology community, mediocrity is gaining support. Rejection can destroy the life of a perfectionist. Mediocre people often use rejection as a learning experience and make choices they can both afford and enjoy. Commentators now label this trend “meaningful mediocrity.” Beyond the world of celebrities, sports stars, internet influencers, and wall street financiers, most of us can live satisfying lives of meaningful mediocrity.

Since the pandemic, it is common to find books, articles, blogs, and podcasts of individuals who want to discuss their dramatic change in attitude after living a life dedicated to high achievement. They have all reevaluated their relationship with ambition and other perfectionist tendencies. The recurrent conclusion is that mediocrity is a far better fate than misery.

Jamie Ducharme, the health correspondent at Time magazine, writes “Embracing mediocrity goes against everything Americans are taught to believe. For a long time, I bought into this mindset.  It was only once it tanked my mental health that I realized what this mindset had cost me.”

In my own case, striving to accomplish big things perfectly, while working 70 hours a week, contributed to my becoming an alcoholic. Today, I am content with being “good enough.”

 

 

 

 

 

COUNTY GOVERNMENT MATTERS MOST

  

The transformation of Washington County into a jurisdiction where only Republicans win county elections is now complete. Since January of 2020, when Republican Nick Sherman replaced Democrat Harlon Shober in the Commissioner’s office, only the minority Democratic Commissioner, Larry Maggi, has been assured of winning an election with a “D” before his name. Several lifelong Democrats have actually switched party affiliation in an attempt to run for or remain in office.

This trend is not unique to Washington County. WESA Voting Matters, an initiative to provide nonpartisan, independent elections journalism for southwestern Pennsylvania, has published studies showing that the Democrats’ registration advantage over Republicans has rapidly declined following the presidential campaigns that elected Barack Obama. In March 2021, there were 630,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania. In October 2024, this difference was cut in half to around 300,000.

The story in Western Pennsylvania has featured white working-class voters becoming Republicans in droves. As in Washington County, Beaver, Fayette, and Westmoreland Republican registrations have pulled ahead of Democrats. 

Republican leaders would argue that they have been successful because of Trump’s message that his party represents “the people” with his policies to close the borders and bring back domestic manufacturing. However, in county elections, unlike national and state campaigns, there are no position papers, party platforms, candidate debates, or media reporting to disclose the intentions of the candidates. Often, voters are only bombarded with the same overused campaign slogans like “low taxes” and “transparency.”  

It is too convenient to vote for a local candidate based only on party affiliation.

Many voters have registered as Republicans based on national issues. We have witnessed that national/state elections have almost identical results as our county election, even though the candidate qualifications and local issues are widely disparate. Voters need to do their due diligence before voting “straight party” in county elections.

This commentary will not present a plan for Washington Democrats to win back county government. In the coming election cycles, such a strategy would not succeed. However, regardless of a voter’s registration, it is important that competent officials be elected to address the fundamental tasks of local government.

In my view in recent election cycles, local Republican voters have made ill- informed decisions in primary elections on who should represent them. With local party dominance comes voter responsibility. It is irresponsible to simply vote for anyone supported by the local Republican party. For example, when voting for the controller or the sheriff, the voter inquiry should center on financial experience or on law enforcement background, not on Republican party connections.

How is local governance different from what occurs on the state or national level? It is decision making closest to home. It affects the everyday immediate surroundings and well-being of the community. In many ways, it is the engine that keeps the community running.

What do well-informed residents need to know? First, voters should review county publications, attend public meetings, and be familiar with job descriptions to gain an understanding of the key areas of local governance. Local finance, public safety, parks and recreation, zoning and land use are topics that affect us all. Understanding each function and who is responsible is critical.

Second, voters need to review the qualifications of local candidates. Normally, this critical decision-making would occur during the Republican primary. This year’s November general election for county controller is an exception. To provide some background, on October 2, 2024, Heather Sheatler, a Republican, was appointed by the Republican Commissioners and sworn in as Washington County’s acting controller. Sheatler had worked in the county controller’s office for 22 years and most recently served as deputy controller. Prior to the recent primary, Sheatler invoked the ire of the Republican Commissioners by doing her job and challenging their movement of federal grant funds into an unauthorized checking account.

The Republican Commissioners supported an alternative candidate, Pat Philips, who won the primary. Sheatler came in second place in the Republican primary but a write-in campaign gave her the Democratic nomination. There will be no better opportunity for Republicans to set aside party designation on the November ballot and to study the credentials of two registered Republicans. Voters are being asked to cast ballots for the most qualified “Republican” controller candidate to be the guardian of local public funds.

What are the responsibilities of local officials regarding citizen input, transparency and the status of public projects? County officials are the closest elected representatives to the voters. Whenever possible, citizens should be afforded an opportunity to weigh in on decision making. Voters should be well informed so they can hold their elected officials accountable.

 

In a commentary several weeks ago, I pointed out that Washington County was awarded an unprecedented, once-in-a-lifetime, $98 million in federal pandemic funds. Our Republican Commissioners did not seek input from the public on how the money should be utilized. There were no updates or briefings on projects and expenditures. There has been no final accounting.

Every voter and taxpayer, regardless of party affiliation, should be offended by this lack of transparency and unwillingness to seek out the public’s suggestions.

High quality, local officials and citizen engagement combine to make county government run effectively. I urge local Republicans to elect officials based on merit, values, concrete articulated policies, and their willingness to interact with the public. In our everyday lives, county government is what matters most.

 

 

OUR UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION CONTINUES TO EVOLVE

 

On a recent summer evening, my wife was busy page-turning our copy of the weekly New Yorker magazine. Like many of us, the cartoons were the main attraction with occasional stops at articles that grabbed her attention.

She was reading a piece reprinted and reviewed to commemorate the 1925 Scopes trial, first written one hundred years ago by the magazine’s reporter who was in attendance. This well-publicized Tennessee criminal trial focused on the illegality of teaching evolution in public schools.

As we discussed the article, it suddenly occurred to me how divisive the subject of evolution has been in the American cultural wars. I also learned that new scientific studies highlight how our understanding of evolution continues to “evolve” as new discoveries are made.

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were both English naturalists who independently developed the theory of evolution. Darwin’s publication of The Origin of Species in 1859 turned all of biology and theology upside down. Previously, geologists and paleontologists made a compelling case that life had been on Earth for millions of years, that life had changed over time, and that many species had become extinct. It was the genius of both Darwin and Wallace to show how all this evidence favored the evolution of a species from a common ancestor. They offered a plausible mechanism by which life might evolve. This process Darwin called natural selection.

Darwin and Wallace each deduced that if a species had some trait that helped it to withstand the elements or to reproduce more successfully, it might leave more and stronger offspring behind. These traits seemed to become more common in subsequent generations.

According to the Berkley University, History of Evolutionary Thought, The Origin of Species was one of the most influential scientific books of all time. The authors go on to explain, “Yet it took years for its full argument to take hold. Within a few decades, most scientists accepted that evolution and the descent of species from common ancestors were real. But natural selection had a harder time finding acceptance. In the late 1800s many scientists who called themselves Darwinists actually preferred different explanations for the way life changed over time. Not until the discovery of genes and mutations in the twentieth century was natural selection not just attractive as an explanation, but unavoidable.”

Theologians initially believed that Darwin’s theories were a serious challenge to traditional religious understanding of the creation of the world. According to the Pew Research Report, in 1925, when the Scopes trial captured the attention of the nation, there was no public polling on how many Americans believed in evolution. However, Pew points out that, “by the early 1920s evolution had become one of the most important wedge issues in the cultural divide because the debate had taken on a pedagogical dimension. Students throughout the nation, now studied Darwin’s ideas in public school biology classes.”

In 1925, the Tennessee Butler Act prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools. The A.C.L.U. published a newspaper ad offering to defend anyone who would test the constitutionality of this new state law. A substitute high-school teacher, John Scopes, agreed to become the defendant in order to stage a criminal case. Clarence Darrow represented the defendant and William Jennings Bryant, the state of Tennessee. Scopes was convicted and ordered to pay $100 dollars. (Bryant died five days after the verdict.) All appeals failed. The Tennessee Butler Act prohibiting the teaching of evolution was not repealed until May 17, 1967.

Today, according to Pew Research, roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (81%) believe humans have evolved over time. However, around four in ten white evangelical Protestants continue to maintain that humans have always existed in their present form.

Wikipedia informs us, “As of 2024, all fifty U.S. states and the District of Columbia include the teaching of evolution in their public-school science standards, while none teach intelligent design. Creationism can be discussed in non-science classes, such as philosophy or comparative religion.”

Now that the theory of evolution has been widely accepted, in what respects does it continue to evolve? The Evolution of Imperfection by Laurence Hurst, a professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Bath, provides some fascinating answers. Hurst offers solid science that evolution does not always work for the good of the species. Evolution is not designed to correct all of our faults and imperfections.

Some examples include our inability to synthesize vitamin C because our ancient ancestors had an overabundance of fruit. High blood pressure during pregnancy helps the fetus absorb nutrients but is dangerous to the pregnant mother.

The relatively small population of humans enhances the influence of chance in evolutionary changes. This leads to both the accumulation of unnecessary DNA and unhelpful mutations. Evolution is not a process of good or bad. It is a process of trial and error that does not always produce the best result in modern man.

For those that are seeking a deep dive into the science, Hurst does an excellent job of reviewing modern genomics, the study of an organism’s DNA. He explains how mutations happen, why they persist, and why humans hold a large reservoir of troublesome genetic errors.

Evolution is a process that is always rolling the dice as our species advances.  Humankind did not start out biologically perfect and is far from it now.

 

 

 

EXAMINING TRUMP’S “GOLDEN AGE” OF AMERICA

 

Donald Trump began his inaugural address in January with the promise that, “The golden age of America begins right now.”  At his address to the nation in March, he confidently proclaimed, “The golden age of America has only just begun.” According to POLITICO, Trump has used the term at least once a week since taking office, and “golden age” frequently appears in White House press releases. The Trump profit machine has ensured that “Golden Age of America” merchandise is for sale online. 

Democrats view Trump's golden age claims as misrepresenting his presidency. They argue that his policies have had detrimental effects on many Americans and have been destructive to the nation's political and economic system. They believe that Trump’s actions are instead returning to America’s “Gilded Age” of the 1880s when there was only a thin façade of prosperity enjoyed by wealthy industrialists. Moreover, Democrats believe America is losing its hegemony in international affairs.

There must be more to Trump’s claim of a golden age than his over-the-top love relationship with anything gold.  This color is displayed everywhere in Trump Tower, his resort at Mar-A-Lago, and now in the refurbished White House Oval Office. In the simplest of explanations, Trump knows that public skepticism of his grandiose claims can be overcome through constant repetition of the same phrase. In addition, it is difficult to believe in the Make America Great Again (MAGA) slogan unless you believe America is entering a golden age.

Historians often refer to a golden age to describe the high point of a past empire or civilization. For example, 5^th century BCE Athens was known for its democratic government, philosophers, and flourishing arts community. The reign of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) marked the beginning of the Roman Golden Age. It lasted for almost 200 years. The Renaissance was a period of rebirth in Europe following the Middle Ages. India, China, and Japan each had an historical golden age, marked by political stability and cultural progress.

Open borders have traditionally been an important characteristic of a golden age.  When Pericles praised the Athenian Golden Age in 431 BC, he urged his city-state to “throw open our city to the world and never by alien acts exclude foreigners.” Augustus encouraged the Romanization of conquered people by enlisting them in military service where they could become citizens. The most successful Islamic empires established rights and protections for non-Muslims, who were welcomed within their borders.

Similarly, open trade has helped societies enter and maintain their golden ages. The Romans realized that they could effectively grow their economy if they specialized in producing certain goods and traded them for items that other countries were better able to produce. They built extensive road systems, commercial ports, and other infrastructure to facilitate the foreign movement of goods. The Mongolian Empire controlled most of Asia, and parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe.  To protect its golden age, it implemented a strong currency that was accepted throughout its empire, providing consistency in monetary dealings. They established a free trade zone and tax breaks for essential craftsmen.

During its Industrial Golden Age, Britain traded iron, coal, and clothing, and in return received cotton, spices and other food products. After 1846, Britain embraced free trade principles and reduced tariffs on many goods. 

In 1371, the Ming dynasty in China took the opposite approach. It restricted foreign trade and interaction. These isolationist policies led to economic stagnation, and the empire fell behind in technology, ending its golden age.

What is the plan, if Trump refuses to follow previous examples of golden ages anchored by tolerant immigration and free trade? There appears to be a mixed bag of approaches. Some strategies look backward to an earlier America perceived to be “great.” Other ideas look forward based on the new technologies of the information age.

Embedded in MAGA is a golden age dream of returning the country to a time when industrial barons were in control. White, male workers were employed to work long hours and manufactured domestic products. There were no economic regulations to prevent economic collapse or safety nets for the poor. This MAGA model believes America did best when it was administered by the wealthy, isolated in foreign affairs, anti-immigration and pro-tariff in international trade.

The Trump Golden Age also looks to the future by riding the wave of artificial intelligence, robots, automation, and space travel. In the financial markets unproven and under regulated products like cryptocurrency are marketed to unsophisticated investors.

For those that have concerns that the MAGA Golden Age will turn out as advertised, I highly recommend the best-selling author, Jared Diamond, and his seminal works Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive (2005), and Upheaval: How Nations Cope with Crisis and Change (2019).  Diamond defines collapse based on historical examples as, “a drastic decrease in political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time.”  He found that historical instances of societal collapse included environmental changes, hostile neighbors and hostile trade partners.

My view is that Diamond’s advice to Trump on avoiding collapse and encouraging a golden age would involve two points. Unfortunately, both are in short supply. First, be willing to listen and to adapt to change. Second, do not ignore obvious problems that have caused other societies to fail like inequality, the national debt, climate change, and political discord.

 

 

 

 

LESS WORK, MORE LEISURE

 

When it comes to “doing nothing,” my wife and I are complete opposites. I am never happier than when my calendar reveals that the entire day is my own with no appointments or planned activities. Spending the day finishing a novel, watching a Netflix documentary, and taking a nap are leisure activities not to be taken lightly.

Though rarer for my wife, when her calendar is empty, she seeks to fill it with activities requiring work. To her, the thought of finishing an entire day without a labor-intensive accomplishment to look back on is wasteful and difficult to justify. Better to start a new quilt project, bake a peach pie, or wash the bedding, and turn the mattresses. It is not lost on me that most of her decisions to undertake tasks that require actual labor are to my benefit.

Neither one of us miss our former employment. We both relish being able to sleep in, the opportunity to complete WORDLE late at night, and the ability to plan our activities at our convenience.

However, the timelier topic when it comes to “taking it easy” is not how older retirees spend their idle time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, there has been a vigorous debate on the need for humans to work versus the benefits of time away from their jobs. With the pandemic and onset of artificial intelligence (AI), the debate has been revived with renewed vigor.

Is it possible to work fewer hours and continue to earn similar salaries that increase with inflation? Will more leisure time during our work years help us to gain happiness and unleash our creativity?

For some answers, I decided to first turn to an essay written by Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness. Russell (1872-1970) was a well-respected British philosopher, mathematician, and public intellectual who often commented on the changes that occurred as the world transformed from an agrarian society into an industrial one. The essay first appeared in Harper’s Magazine in 1932 and gained greater circulation in a book of his essays published in 1935.

Russell believed that industrial society had the capacity to liberate itself from excess labor, “I think that there is far too much work done in the world, that immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous.”

He begins his essay by unknowingly making an argument that debunks a MAGA talking point, that immigrants take income away from American workers, “What a man earns he usually spends and in spending he gives employment. As long as a man spends his income, he puts as much bread into peoples’ mouths in spending as he takes out of other peoples’ mouths in earning.”

Russell gives some history illuminating the myths used to demand hard work from the masses, “The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich. In England, in the early nineteenth century fifteen hours was the ordinary days’ work for a man; children sometimes did as much, and very commonly did twelve hours a day. When meddlesome busy-bodies suggested that these hours were rather long, they were told that work kept adults from drink and children from mischief.”

The heart of the essay makes a case that leisure time is important for the intellectual and cultural development of a society. Before the industrial revolution, “Leisure for the few was only rendered possible by the labors of the many.” Russell believed that the wealthy and nobility had the time and resources to develop the advances of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment only because the rest of the population were working themselves to death.

Russell realized that the technology of the industrial age was about to bring about profound change. He concluded by arguing that the benefits of technological progress should be shared by everyone so that there was a more equitable distribution of leisure time. This would allow all citizens to pursue knowledge, arts, and personal enrichment.

Since Russell’s essay, WWII, strong unions, child labor laws, and increases in the minimum wage have improved working conditions and income. However, American workers continue to struggle with work-life balance. According to a recent time management survey, “66% of Americans claim not to have balance, 48% say they are workaholics, and 77% have experienced burnout.”

Artificial Intelligence is about to be as disruptive to work as the industrial revolution. The pandemic began the process by showing younger workers they could accomplish more in less time by working from home. In these early stages of AI, a study by software maker SAP found that on average, workers save an hour a day. As AI productivity keeps improving, employers will need to permit their staff to reallocate the saved time to personal development and leisure activities.

Bestselling author, leading sociologist, and economist Juliet Schor makes the case for a four-day work week in her new book, Four Days a Week. She believes that AI has opened the door to a world in which a four-day work week with a five-day salary is possible. She points out that the added benefits of reduced carbon admissions and improved quality of life make the transition a no-brainer for employers and employees alike.

With AI, workers will do more in less time. Who knows how many poets, painters, and future Bertrand Russells will bloom during the increased leisure hours?