No resolution is better than an unrealistic one
The past few years, I have pointedly not made New Year's resolutions. It is not that I don't want to make any changes in my life. It is because there are not enough years for all the changes to get their own year, even should I live to a ripe old age. Unless, of course, I made the resolutions very general and therefore virtually meaningless. (Be healthy. Yeah.) So for me to work on all these changes, I will have to integrate them all into my daily life throughout each year.
But there is another, even more important, reason for my not making New Year's resolutions. The idea of a New Year's resolution implies a sudden, dramatic change in a person's habits. Such changes can rarely be maintained. "I am going to start exercising every day." Sure you are. Then, after about a month, you will be back on the couch, playing Minecraft with your son while the two of you should be outside playing ball or riding bikes.
Actually, I do exercise often. But I didn't make this habit as part of a New Year's resolution--at least, not one resolution. I made it as part of a series of resolutions made day-by-day, every day I came home from work wanting desperately to indulge in a nice high-carb snack and take a long nap, and instead made myself get out there for a walk or run, each time coming home feeling less tired and less hungry. I took many steps back during the process, many times opting for the carby snack and long nap instead. Lost a lot of weight, gained much of it back, lost it again, gained again, lost again.
That is to say, change is a process that takes place in small steps over a long period of time. There is nothing new here. It is a truth widely understood--and widely ignored, as people continue to attempt to make big changes in the short term, wanting (understandably) quick results.
Part of the problem is that people sometimes do get quick results, which can give them unreasonable expectations. They lose 10 pounds in two weeks. They feel much more energy. But sooner or later, the dramatic, impressive results begin to plateau. The weight loss stops; the initial excitement of a new lifestyle ebbs; you begin to get bored; you lapse back into your old habits.
This is where you have to get more sophisticated about your lifestyle change. Expect this ebbing of initial big results to occur. If you continued to lose 10 pounds every two weeks, you'd soon be nothing. And of course you're going to get bored doing the same exercise routine, or eating the same healthy dishes, every day for months.
Becoming sophisticated about personal change means accepting that the most important consequences of change are not the immediate ones that give you great excitement in the beginning, but the long-term ones that give you better health and satisfaction over many years (and, in all likelihood, more years than you would otherwise have). It also means accepting that if you want to continue to get excitement, you are going to have to change it up. Look for different healthy foods. Try different modes of exercise. Challenge yourself to run a faster mile or a longer distance. If you don't get down to your ideal weight, you will still be far healthier than if you continued to eat poorly and not exercise.
The same principle of small change applies to other common resolutions. A big one for me is to stop procrastinating. I am going to make this my resolution this year, and then follow it the year after that, the year after that at the latest. Seriously, it will take that long to really make a dent in my procrastination habit. In the time that passes from December 31 to January 1, you are not going to go from someone who puts off every project until the last minute to someone who gets every project done promptly, with weeks to spare.
What is going to happen is that, by setting challenging but achievable goals, like forcing yourself to work on a project for 15 minutes at a time when you really, really don't feel like it, you will, over time, reduce your procrastination by 50 or 60 percent. You will put in your 15 minutes, take a break, put in another 15 minutes, procrastinate for two days, then finish the project 30 minutes before you otherwise would have. Next project, 60 minutes. Next project, you'll wait until the last minute again. Next project, you'll finish it with two days to spare. Back to procrastination again. And maybe some day, you'll be the person who gets stuff done without putting it off--most of the time. And good for you. But you're not going to make this change in a month or a year.
It is important to understand this because understanding it will affect your attitude when you find yourself slipping back into your old habits. Instead of thinking, "I failed; I might as well give up", you will think, "I had some success at first, but of course I ran into problems, because I tried to do too much to soon. Disappointing, but oh well. Let me set some smaller goals and work my way toward the larger goal step-by-step."
You might want to try not making a New Year's resolution this year. Or, if you must make one, let it be a resolution to make changes gradually, through small steps, perhaps starting with easier goals and working your way up to more challenging ones.
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Republicans Do Nothing; Democrats Do It Wrong
Amnesia and wishful thinking in those who think Republicans would govern better
It has become a pattern: Republicans do nothing, then Democrats do something but do it wrong. It happened on the economy, when Republicans did essentially nothing to address a severe recession; Democrats passed a stimulus bill--and not a very good one--when they came in. It happened on health care, where Republicans did nothing to address the rising number of uninsured people during the eight years that the GOP controlled the White House (six of them with a Republican Congress). Then President Obama and the Democrats came in and implemented a flawed health care law. The Republicans said it was a terrible law, that they had better ideas for reforming health care. If they were such good ideas, they might have tried implementing them during the years when they controlled the government.
Now the same thing is happening on immigration. Republicans did not pass comprehensive immigration reform when they were in power. Nor would House Republicans allow the Senate bill passed last year to come to a vote. So again the Democrats--led by Obama--come up with a solution, albeit a flawed one: via executive order, temporarily immunize some immigrants from deportation. Republicans protest that the president has no business going it alone. But as with health care, if the Republicans really cared about doing it right, they would have done it right when they had the chance.
Of course, each party wants to say it would have done it right but the other party did not cooperate. We can go back and forth and back and forth about who refused to cooperate with whom to get things done. But time after time, it is the Republicans who refuse to act on the things they purport to care about. The Democrats take action, but do it ineptly. Perhaps Republicans have solutions that could make for more competent policy as part of a compromise. But with few exceptions, they are not serious about governing. If they were, they would have sent a comprehensive immigration reform bill and dared the president to veto it. Had he done so, they would have the moral authority to attack him for acting without their cooperation.
This is what makes Republicans' attacks on Obama and the Democrats so frustrating. Even when their criticisms have merit, their leadership does not. They so despise the Democrats that they will shut down the government rather than work with them. They actually praise gridlock, arguing that it keeps Congress from implementing intrusive laws. (It also prevents Congress from implementing good laws, like real reforms on health care and immigration.)
Why is it that the Republicans don't match their actions to their words?
They talk a good game about enforcing immigration laws, then don't do it because the business interests they represent want to continue to exploit the cheap labor that illegal immigrants provide. Money trumps principle.
Obama's critics accuse the president of acting unilaterally and illegally, or at least unconstitutionally. They may have a point. But Republicans in Congress haven't helped the matter by refusing to vote on immigration reform. If they want Congress to be included in immigration policy, they have to propose a law. The critics have said that Obama wouldn't sign their law, so that his demanding congressional action is another way of saying he will only cooperate if he gets everything he wants. How about passing a bill and proving that claim?
It's inexcusable that the president's address mentioned nothing about holding employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. But the Republicans didn't do it when they were in power, and when they come back to power in Congress in January--and perhaps in the White House in 2017--they probably still won't do it, because an outraged business constituency (and Tea Party-type conservatives) would withdraw their financial and electoral support from any Republican who got serious about this issue.
Obama makes one good point in this speech. It is impractical to expect the government to deport illegal immigrants en masse. Given this, some kind of amnesty seems inevitable and necessary. Republicans are right to call it amnesty, just as Democrats are wrong to deny that that's what it is, but Republicans are wrong to insist that it mustn't happen. By legalizing immigrants, we could at least begin collecting taxes and fines.
So I am as disappointed as anyone that President Obama has resorted to unilateral action. But in a two-party system, it takes two parties to govern, and while one does so poorly, the other refuses to do so at all. So when casting blame for what has happened, be sure to apportion it fairly.
It has become a pattern: Republicans do nothing, then Democrats do something but do it wrong. It happened on the economy, when Republicans did essentially nothing to address a severe recession; Democrats passed a stimulus bill--and not a very good one--when they came in. It happened on health care, where Republicans did nothing to address the rising number of uninsured people during the eight years that the GOP controlled the White House (six of them with a Republican Congress). Then President Obama and the Democrats came in and implemented a flawed health care law. The Republicans said it was a terrible law, that they had better ideas for reforming health care. If they were such good ideas, they might have tried implementing them during the years when they controlled the government.
Now the same thing is happening on immigration. Republicans did not pass comprehensive immigration reform when they were in power. Nor would House Republicans allow the Senate bill passed last year to come to a vote. So again the Democrats--led by Obama--come up with a solution, albeit a flawed one: via executive order, temporarily immunize some immigrants from deportation. Republicans protest that the president has no business going it alone. But as with health care, if the Republicans really cared about doing it right, they would have done it right when they had the chance.
Of course, each party wants to say it would have done it right but the other party did not cooperate. We can go back and forth and back and forth about who refused to cooperate with whom to get things done. But time after time, it is the Republicans who refuse to act on the things they purport to care about. The Democrats take action, but do it ineptly. Perhaps Republicans have solutions that could make for more competent policy as part of a compromise. But with few exceptions, they are not serious about governing. If they were, they would have sent a comprehensive immigration reform bill and dared the president to veto it. Had he done so, they would have the moral authority to attack him for acting without their cooperation.
This is what makes Republicans' attacks on Obama and the Democrats so frustrating. Even when their criticisms have merit, their leadership does not. They so despise the Democrats that they will shut down the government rather than work with them. They actually praise gridlock, arguing that it keeps Congress from implementing intrusive laws. (It also prevents Congress from implementing good laws, like real reforms on health care and immigration.)
Why is it that the Republicans don't match their actions to their words?
They talk a good game about enforcing immigration laws, then don't do it because the business interests they represent want to continue to exploit the cheap labor that illegal immigrants provide. Money trumps principle.
Obama's critics accuse the president of acting unilaterally and illegally, or at least unconstitutionally. They may have a point. But Republicans in Congress haven't helped the matter by refusing to vote on immigration reform. If they want Congress to be included in immigration policy, they have to propose a law. The critics have said that Obama wouldn't sign their law, so that his demanding congressional action is another way of saying he will only cooperate if he gets everything he wants. How about passing a bill and proving that claim?
It's inexcusable that the president's address mentioned nothing about holding employers accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. But the Republicans didn't do it when they were in power, and when they come back to power in Congress in January--and perhaps in the White House in 2017--they probably still won't do it, because an outraged business constituency (and Tea Party-type conservatives) would withdraw their financial and electoral support from any Republican who got serious about this issue.
Obama makes one good point in this speech. It is impractical to expect the government to deport illegal immigrants en masse. Given this, some kind of amnesty seems inevitable and necessary. Republicans are right to call it amnesty, just as Democrats are wrong to deny that that's what it is, but Republicans are wrong to insist that it mustn't happen. By legalizing immigrants, we could at least begin collecting taxes and fines.
So I am as disappointed as anyone that President Obama has resorted to unilateral action. But in a two-party system, it takes two parties to govern, and while one does so poorly, the other refuses to do so at all. So when casting blame for what has happened, be sure to apportion it fairly.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
What does this Republican wave mean?
What conclusions can we draw from this election? That the Republicans now have a huge mandate for tax cuts? To repeal Obamacare? To drill every last square inch of Earth to support our fossil fuel addiction?
I'm not sure about these things. I am sure about this, though: When most people don't vote, Republicans win. The GOP rode a wave created by a dismal 36.6% of registered voters.
Which makes a nice critique of the conservative narrative that says elections are driven by poor and low-income people voting themselves benefits. It is actually Republican-leaning voters who vote consistently and in large numbers. Democratic-leaning people vote less. They came out for Obama's elections but stayed home yesterday. Which left room for relatively well-off white voters to elect the Republicans even in Democratic states like Maryland.
It is important not to make too much of these results. In 2008, when Barack Obama won states like Virginia and North Carolina, there was talk of a fundamental shift toward the Democrats; many people felt the same way after the president's reelection in 2012. But there was also 2010 and now 2014, when things went the other way. That is to say, these elections don't indicate permanent changes in Americans' preferences. They rather signal reactions to current events--when people are dissatisfied with how things are going, they take it out on those in power. This does not mean that they're in love with the people they're putting in office.
Of course, these results also reflect voter turnout: when more people vote, Democrats fare better. But if the people were thrilled with the Democrats they elected, they should have showed up to keep them in office. So however you look at it, the election did show people's dissatisfaction with Democrats.
But there is nothing new here. Presidents' parties tend to do horribly in the president's sixth year in office. This hasn't meant permanent change in Americans' political philosophy before and probably doesn't mean it now. What it does mean now is that the president and Congress will spend the next two years getting nothing important done.
I'm not sure about these things. I am sure about this, though: When most people don't vote, Republicans win. The GOP rode a wave created by a dismal 36.6% of registered voters.
Which makes a nice critique of the conservative narrative that says elections are driven by poor and low-income people voting themselves benefits. It is actually Republican-leaning voters who vote consistently and in large numbers. Democratic-leaning people vote less. They came out for Obama's elections but stayed home yesterday. Which left room for relatively well-off white voters to elect the Republicans even in Democratic states like Maryland.
It is important not to make too much of these results. In 2008, when Barack Obama won states like Virginia and North Carolina, there was talk of a fundamental shift toward the Democrats; many people felt the same way after the president's reelection in 2012. But there was also 2010 and now 2014, when things went the other way. That is to say, these elections don't indicate permanent changes in Americans' preferences. They rather signal reactions to current events--when people are dissatisfied with how things are going, they take it out on those in power. This does not mean that they're in love with the people they're putting in office.
Of course, these results also reflect voter turnout: when more people vote, Democrats fare better. But if the people were thrilled with the Democrats they elected, they should have showed up to keep them in office. So however you look at it, the election did show people's dissatisfaction with Democrats.
But there is nothing new here. Presidents' parties tend to do horribly in the president's sixth year in office. This hasn't meant permanent change in Americans' political philosophy before and probably doesn't mean it now. What it does mean now is that the president and Congress will spend the next two years getting nothing important done.